Talk:Benjamin Rush
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Philadelphia, a WikiProject interested in improving the encyclopedic coverage and content of articles relating to Philadelphia, its people, history, accomplishments and other topics. If you would like to help out, you are welcome to drop by the project page and/or leave a query at the project's talk page. | ||
 |
This article is also supported by WikiProject Pennsylvania. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. | ||
| Top | This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
|||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Science and academia work group. | ||
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
Contents |
[edit] Wikipedia silliness
Anyone notice that Duke University is not in Georgia? Oh, but wait, in the world of wikipedia, it must be. Yet another reason to keep students away from the misinformation that flourishes on wikipedia-- the encyclopedia written by wannabees. Fix your citations, wikidiots. If you want a rating, here is one: lame. TrinTran 05:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Fever 1793 is a work of fiction and should not be taken as a source.
Anyone else think Rush was an idiot? I read Fever 1793, and it seemed that he had no idea what he was doing.
- Medicine has come a long way since then; to call him an idiot seems a little harsh.
== Medical Freedom in the Constitution of the United States
A Google search for "benjamin rush" medical freedom yields 8140 hits, so this quote is widely known and attributed to Rush, but I was unable to identify the original source.
[edit] Take the religious propaganda elsewhere
Whoa, somebody's got to get off the religion pills here. We want an objective article, not an argument for how great and religious the founding fathers were. If this stuff goes back up I'm tagging the page.
- His religious views are fairly significant to his story and are mentioned even at www.benjaminrush.com. I've tried to clean up that section a bit though as it was overly dependent on quotes and gave little information on his own religious history. I'd intended to never edit here again, but on occasion I get tempted. I hope the change was acceptable.--T. Anthony 06:50, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
Wait a second, why shouldn't his religious views be included? After all, his religious beliefs are important to history, and provide valuable insight to his personal behavior. The fact that the founding fathers had stong religious convictions ought to be included in the article.
[edit] provide a sense of context
The material on his house felt odd to me, in need of introduction. Perhaps it should have its own section? A lot of his biography appears to be taken up discussing his house, without an explanation as to why this was so central to his life. A separate section could allow the author to introduce these ideas (and not give the reader the sense that this house is more important than his medical work.)
I agree that calling him an 'idiot' would not be useful. True, his ideas have been abandoned. But it takes him out of historical context to rate his ideas against ours - almost all ideas held before the 20th century look foolish today.
It might be fair to note just how misguided his ideas appear today... but only if we're going to add a lengthy section (or connections to a careful article) assessing those ideas, and placing them in the context of other ideas at their time. (The 'controversial ideas' section might clarify whether his ideas were controversial at their time - or just are controversial compared to present ideas.)
I take a bit of issue over the following paragraph:
"Rush died in 1813, just as his former pupil, Charles Caldwell, was gaining national recognition for his theories on innate racial differences and the inferiority of Africans and their descendants - a position that Rush had spent much of his life attempting to disprove to a young America, paving the way for the eventual realization for mankind to surrender prejudice to the universal truth that "all men are created equal."
Is "all men are created equal" truly a universal truth? (If so, please prove it.)
[BTW, my first name is Rush]
Rpstrong 05:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] George Washington
Several sites quote Jefferson's diary entry, in which Jefferson relates that Dr. Benjamin Rush told him that Asa Green told Dr. Rush that George Washington was evasive (oddly evasive is the implication) of making statements in favor of Christianity, strongly implying that Washington was not really a Christian. They use this quote to argue that Washington was not a Christian. Something these people never mention, though, is that Dr. Benjamin Rush, for all his great qualities, hated George Washington and ceaselessly tried to destroy Washington's reputation and career through slanderous gossip. This has been documented very well in publications going back to the Founding Era, though it obviously is not common knowledge today. A Google search easily turns up several sources showing this hatred that continued to their graves. Incidentally, Wikipedia's article on Dr. Benjamin Rush currently is incorrect: Dr. Rush never regretted his actions against Washington, but only compounded them until Dr. Rush died. Among other things, he and John Adams were disgusted with Washington's elevation to such an esteemed place in history, and they have some basis for their disgust, though that does not make it entirely Washington's fault. But, the bottom line is, Dr. Rush is not a reliable character witness of George Washington, in stark contrast to what the infidels, atheists and agnostics try to portray. Pooua 01:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Some example material that I have found in the last 24 hours:
"But Doctor Rush hunted higher game than Medical Directors. In the winter and early spring of 1778, when Congress was squabbling at Yorktown and Washington and his wretched soldiers were suffering at Valley Forge, Patrick Henry, then Governor of Virginia, received at Williamsburg an anonymous letter ... He did not throw the letter into the fire but forwarded it at once to Washington with this comment, 'While you face the armed enemies of our liberty in the field, and by the favour of God have been kept unhurt, I trust your country will never harbour in her bosom the miscreant who would ruin her best supporter ... Washington's answer was prompt and decisive. 'The anonymous letter with which you were pleased to favour me was written by Doctor Rush, so far as I can judge from a similitude of hands. This man has been elaborate and studied in his professions of regard for me and long since the letter to you. ... This is not the only insidious attempt that has been made to wound my reputation. There have been others equally base, cruel, and ungenerous.'
"...In 1781, Doctor Rush, with the fluency which his animosities stimulated, wrote to Gates, (also under a cloud and discontented) as to his fears of a monarchy and aristocracy from those whom he describes as 'the Sachems of the Potomac and the Hudson' meaning Washington whom he hated, and, probably, the Livingstons and Schuylers. And so it continued to the bitter end, for we find that Doctor Rush's antipathy to Washington, if not to his friends, long survived the exasperations of war. 'Doctor Rush tells me,' says Mr. Jefferson in his 'Ana' of twenty years later, (the 1st of February 1800,) exactly forty days after Washington died amidst the tears of a whole people with the exception of a few who felt as did Doctor Rush-- 'he (Rush) tells me that he had it from Asa Green that when the Clergy addressed General Washington on his departure from the Government it was observed in their consultation that he had never on any occasion said a word to the public which showed a belief in the Christian religion ...'" Google Books: President Reed of Pennsylvania: A Repy to Mr. George Bancroft and Others ... By William Bradford Reed, Pp 66 - 68.
A modern history book provides more material: Google Books: Red, White, and Blue Letter Days: An American Calendar, Pp 166, 167 Pooua 01:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reconciling John Adams and Thomas Jefferson?
The introduction to the article states:
"Despite his great contributions to early American society, Rush is today most famous as the man who, in 1812, helped reconcile two of the largest minds of the early Republic: Thomas Jefferson and John Adams."
But I couldn't find anything in the article about it. Anyone notice this?
JeffreyGomez (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Rush's son
Did Rush's son, whom he kept in one of his hospitals for 27 years, have a name? Did the hospital have a name? In what sense was it Rush's hospital? How was Rush's son treated there? Is the story as a whole more accurate than, say, the myth about B. F. Skinner's daughter? WillOakland (talk) 08:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, I've pieced together the details of what happened and written it into the article. I moved it out of the contributions section because he wasn't the one treating his son, nor did he publish anything about it. It was a family matter. WillOakland (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
