The George Washington Chapter, Virginia SAR, was invited to participate and our Past President Richard Rankin had the honor to lead the Pledge of Allegiance (6:30) to these our newest citizens.
Stop spreading feminist misinformation. Women could own property (the fact that the Mount Vernon women's association bought the property proves that) but once married the property went to the husband because he became responsible for paying the taxes and upkeep on it. If he died the property reverted back to the wife/her family. The fact you took a monumental day and started with misinformation is astonishing and made me not even want to continue but out of respect for our new citizens I did
What's astonishing is the misplaced courage that you appear to possess: something otherworldly that drives you to lie with no conception of your many egregious, fallacious statements and without one notion that you've any understanding of that about which you write. To your "proof": "On March 19, 1856, the Virginia state assembly passed a bill establishing the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union with Ann Pamela Cunningham named as the presiding leader. The charter also allowed the association to enter into a contract to hold title to the Mount Vernon estate." To add reading comprehension to this blurb from a two-second wikipedia scan, "women" did not buy Mount Vernon. By an act of the Virginia state assembly (men), a legal Association (i.e.: a non-profit organization, something that could be led by any human being(s)) was given the explicit and unique (see: as an exception to all extant, contemporary state laws) right to purchase the Mount Vernon title. First, you're conflating the property rights of a person and a non-profit organization. The two were and continue to be treated differently by law. Second, you've also grossly oversimplified the significance of the fact that the non-profit was allowed to exist and to own this title by an act of the state's greatest legal body at the time. If the same body that makes property laws then makes a new and unique property law, then we have something new and wholly unrelated even to the general matter or existence of women and their owning property or even non-profits and their owning property. Finally, the speaker's reference to "we" being without fully clarity, I can absolutely say that the speaker's existence as a married woman would - in 1856 - indeed have fully prevented her from purchasing any land in her own name. As another two-second scan of yet another wikipedia page provides: "As of 1887, one-third of the states had not provided statutory protection for a married woman to control her earnings. Three states gave married women no legal status until late in the nineteenth century: Delaware, South Carolina, and Virginia." I'll further stipulate and remind you that neither the Regent nor the whole contingency of Vice-Regent - i.e.: first members of the MVLA - were from Virginia; however, the purchase being made in Virginia, no: they themselves could not have made the purchase in 1856, even by those living in states who may have granted women provisional property rights. This doesn't even begin to engage the even more obvious body of property rights not assigned to women who were not white in 1856. Finally, I thank broadly and wholeheartedly the people who likewise know better and have been "disliking" your comment. As a result, the YT algorithm has - despite your "likes" - thankfully pushed your comment to the bottom of the mostly otherwise well-meaning and genial comments on a video that shouldn't need to devolve into elementary-level fact checking and misogyny and should instead focus on the gravity of this significant event that Mount Vernon has graciously hosted and shared with us.
@@printedwit the Mount Vernon Ladies Association was established in 1853. It was in 1856 the it was recognized as an official association. One that has been made up of exclusively women since it's inception. Single women could absolutely buy and own their own land, married women could not for the same reasons I listeduntil the mid 1800s. Women like to leave that tidbit out. Your mile long essay doesn't disprove anything I said. Does show you rely on quick Google searches to try and make statements though
@@imposter0shadow Reading comprehensions problems I see. printeredwit explained it ALL in that paragrah YOU failed to read. uhh MILE-LONG ESSAY of facts you failed to read. (if I were you ... maybe you might want to delete this comment and say something like "Welcome aboard new citizens." and leave it at that.)
@@HollyMoore-wo2mh writing legibility seems to be an issue for you. They misconstrued every bit of information provided to fit their, and apparently your, narrative. So hard to accept that women weren't as oppressed as y'all think huh?
Congratulations to the newest citizens of America!
Mazel Tov to our new citizens, many blessings to you and your families in our great country.
The George Washington Chapter, Virginia SAR, was invited to participate and our Past President Richard Rankin had the honor to lead the Pledge of Allegiance (6:30) to these our newest citizens.
Totally random but I really love the roof of George's house.
May god rest George washington soul in enteral peace
Thank you for doing this legally,and welcome to these new citizens.
This was passive aggressive and inappropriate.
Respect
Loved my recent visit but the house tour was way too crowded and rushed.
Thank you to all new citizens and doing it the correct way.
Stop spreading feminist misinformation. Women could own property (the fact that the Mount Vernon women's association bought the property proves that) but once married the property went to the husband because he became responsible for paying the taxes and upkeep on it. If he died the property reverted back to the wife/her family. The fact you took a monumental day and started with misinformation is astonishing and made me not even want to continue but out of respect for our new citizens I did
What's astonishing is the misplaced courage that you appear to possess: something otherworldly that drives you to lie with no conception of your many egregious, fallacious statements and without one notion that you've any understanding of that about which you write. To your "proof":
"On March 19, 1856, the Virginia state assembly passed a bill establishing the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association of the Union with Ann Pamela Cunningham named as the presiding leader. The charter also allowed the association to enter into a contract to hold title to the Mount Vernon estate."
To add reading comprehension to this blurb from a two-second wikipedia scan, "women" did not buy Mount Vernon. By an act of the Virginia state assembly (men), a legal Association (i.e.: a non-profit organization, something that could be led by any human being(s)) was given the explicit and unique (see: as an exception to all extant, contemporary state laws) right to purchase the Mount Vernon title.
First, you're conflating the property rights of a person and a non-profit organization. The two were and continue to be treated differently by law.
Second, you've also grossly oversimplified the significance of the fact that the non-profit was allowed to exist and to own this title by an act of the state's greatest legal body at the time. If the same body that makes property laws then makes a new and unique property law, then we have something new and wholly unrelated even to the general matter or existence of women and their owning property or even non-profits and their owning property.
Finally, the speaker's reference to "we" being without fully clarity, I can absolutely say that the speaker's existence as a married woman would - in 1856 - indeed have fully prevented her from purchasing any land in her own name. As another two-second scan of yet another wikipedia page provides:
"As of 1887, one-third of the states had not provided statutory protection for a married woman to control her earnings. Three states gave married women no legal status until late in the nineteenth century: Delaware, South Carolina, and Virginia."
I'll further stipulate and remind you that neither the Regent nor the whole contingency of Vice-Regent - i.e.: first members of the MVLA - were from Virginia; however, the purchase being made in Virginia, no: they themselves could not have made the purchase in 1856, even by those living in states who may have granted women provisional property rights. This doesn't even begin to engage the even more obvious body of property rights not assigned to women who were not white in 1856.
Finally, I thank broadly and wholeheartedly the people who likewise know better and have been "disliking" your comment. As a result, the YT algorithm has - despite your "likes" - thankfully pushed your comment to the bottom of the mostly otherwise well-meaning and genial comments on a video that shouldn't need to devolve into elementary-level fact checking and misogyny and should instead focus on the gravity of this significant event that Mount Vernon has graciously hosted and shared with us.
@@printedwit the Mount Vernon Ladies Association was established in 1853. It was in 1856 the it was recognized as an official association. One that has been made up of exclusively women since it's inception. Single women could absolutely buy and own their own land, married women could not for the same reasons I listeduntil the mid 1800s. Women like to leave that tidbit out. Your mile long essay doesn't disprove anything I said. Does show you rely on quick Google searches to try and make statements though
@@imposter0shadow Reading comprehensions problems I see. printeredwit explained it ALL in that paragrah YOU failed to read. uhh MILE-LONG ESSAY of facts you failed to read. (if I were you ... maybe you might want to delete this comment and say something like "Welcome aboard new citizens." and leave it at that.)
@@HollyMoore-wo2mh writing legibility seems to be an issue for you. They misconstrued every bit of information provided to fit their, and apparently your, narrative. So hard to accept that women weren't as oppressed as y'all think huh?
@@imposter0shadowthen - with sources - prove that the speaker herself could purchase Mount Vernon the date that it was purchased.