Washington and His Men Knew How To Party 40%

By Peter Suderman48%

7/3/2026, 10:00:36 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Biased Writer Voice, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 32.3% saturation with 310 hits. Analysis detected 2,583 faulty-reasoning hits from 961 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.3% and a BS Rank of 40% (12,709 of 21,164 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.00% of the article peer group.

In a special America 250 issue, Reason takes a look back at our country's founding people and ideas. 
Read more here. 
There are a lot of words you could use to describe America's Founding Fathers: geniuses, visionaries, ideologues, perhaps even bros. 
Here's another word you could use to describe them: drunks. 
America was founded by drinkers, distillers, and maltmen whose consumption would be labeled problematic or worse by today's public health authorities. 
In a recent Supreme Court argument about marijuana and gun rights, Justice Neil Gorsuch noted the Founders' penchant for heavy boozing. 
"John Adams took a tankard of hard cider with his breakfast every day," he said. 
"James Madison reportedly drank a pint of whiskey every day. 
Thomas Jefferson said he wasn't much of a user of alcohol—he only had three or four glasses of wine a night." 
Gorsuch's point was that drinking norms were different, and so were standards for excess. 
"The American Temperance Society, back in the day, said eight shots of whiskey a day only made you an occasional drunkard." 
To be a habitual drunkard in the old days, he noted, one had to double that. 
Certainly, by today's doctor-approved standards, the Founders' drinking would have called for treatment or intervention. 
So were the Founders habitual drunkards? 
Whatever your answer to that question, it's clear they knew how to party. 
On September 14, 1787, George Washington stepped into the City Tavern in Philadelphia with his pals and began a night of drinking that would make today's wildest frat parties look like afternoon tea. 
It was a Friday night, and the Constitutional Convention that would produce America's foundational document was all but concluded; the signing would take place just three days later. 
So Washington, then in his mid-50s, and his companions did what the moment called for. 
They got rip-roaring drunk. 
Washington and a party consisting of "55 gentlemans" consumed 45 gallons of booze that night. 
The beverages served included seven bowls of punch, eight bottles of cider, a dozen bottles of unspecified beer, 22 bottles of porter, 60 bottles of claret, 54 bottles of the fortified wine Madeira, and eight bottles of whiskey, according to an itemized receipt that was reconstructed and later published in The Washington Post in 2018. 
It was, as the Post put it, a "bender that began America." 
Washington went on to become a spirits entrepreneur, opening a distillery at his home in Mount Vernon, a revitalized version of which is open today. 
His distillery made whiskey and apple brandy, an aged, whiskeylike spirit distilled directly from apples. 
By the end of the 1700s, he was reportedly selling nearly 11,000 gallons annually. 
His customers consisted mostly of his local circle—neighbors, traveling merchants, family, and staff from the estate, according to the Mount Vernon library website. 
Much of the whiskey was sold for cash, but he sometimes traded it directly for services from his family physician, James Craik, meaning he literally kept his doctor in good spirits. 
Drinking was a way of life for Washington, who mixed politics and spirits long before he got into the business himself. 
In 1758, before the American Revolution, he was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses as a representative from Frederick County. 
His campaign plied voters with booze, according to Mount Vernon, distributing 28 gallons of rum, 50 gallons of rum punch, and 82 gallons of wine, beer, and cider to Virginia's thirsty colonial ballot casters. 
Not all of America's Founders were fans of whiskey. 
Jefferson was well-known for his opposition to the spirit. 
In an 1818 letter, he complained that whiskey was "destroying" the middle and lower ranks of American society and "ruining their families." 
But Jefferson wasn't an anti-alcohol crusader. 
He was another familiar type: a wine snob. 
In that same letter, Jefferson complained about the era's tariff on wines, which he called "a tax on the health of our citizens" and "a legislative declaration that none but the richest of them shall be permitted to drink wine." 
Tariffs, Jefferson understood, were functionally taxes that raised the price of goods, with predictable economic consequences. 
A tax on wine meant that more Americans were consigned to what he called the "poison of whisky." 
John Adams was a fan of good wine as well, and his surviving diary entries are dotted with descriptions of booze. 
In September 1774, he described a party featuring the "most excellent and admirable" wines. 
"I drank Madeira at a great Rate," he wrote, "and found no Inconvenience in it." 
Samuel Adams, the namesake of one of America's great craft beers, may or may not have brewed the stuff himself. 
But according to a 1751 advertisement in theBoston Evening-Post, he sold it, offering "strong beer, or malt for those who incline to brew it themselves; to be sold by Samuel Adams, at a very reasonable rate." 
Reasonable is not a word that today's health authorities would have used to describe the Founders' relationship with alcohol. 
In recent years, the consensus among the global public health community has shifted toward abstention. 
The latest guidelines from the World Health Organization, Canada, and the United Kingdom say no amount of alcohol is safe for consumption. 
That recommendation contrasts with the updated federal dietary guidelines released early this year in the United States. 
The new guidelines say you should "consume less alcohol for better health." 
But they omit a longstanding recommended limit of two drinks a day for men and one for women, leaving it for individuals to decide. 
Truly, it's the American way. 
Yes, consuming less alcohol might be good for your liver and your longevity. 
But for America's founding drinkers, consuming more was the path to a nation that, after 250 years, is still in good health. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.0%Peter Suderman: 9.8%Reason.com: 4.6%Confirmation Bias2.0%This article: 5.4%Peter Suderman: 1.0%Reason.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias5.4%This article: 13.3%Peter Suderman: 2.4%Reason.com: 2.4%Availability Heuristic13.3%This article: 9.2%Peter Suderman: 2.0%Reason.com: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic9.2%This article: 6.0%Peter Suderman: 0.5%Reason.com: 0.7%Hindsight Bias6.0%This article: 8.8%Peter Suderman: 2.6%Reason.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias8.8%This article: 5.2%Peter Suderman: 6.7%Reason.com: 6.2%Framing Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.2%Reason.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.7%Peter Suderman: 1.6%Reason.com: 0.5%Status Quo Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Peter Suderman: 2.1%Reason.com: 1.1%Optimism Bias1.4%This article: 3.9%Peter Suderman: 1.0%Reason.com: 1.6%Pessimism Bias3.9%This article: 12.7%Peter Suderman: 6.5%Reason.com: 8.0%Negativity Bias12.7%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.3%Reason.com: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Peter Suderman: 2.4%Reason.com: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error1.5%This article: 1.6%Peter Suderman: 0.1%Reason.com: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias1.6%This article: 7.0%Peter Suderman: 1.8%Reason.com: 1.2%In-Group Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 1.8%Reason.com: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Peter Suderman: 0.9%Reason.com: 0.7%Halo Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.1%Reason.com: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Peter Suderman: 1.2%Reason.com: 1.0%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 2.2%Peter Suderman: 0.3%Reason.com: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Peter Suderman: 2.5%Reason.com: 1.6%Ad Hominem1.9%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 2.2%Reason.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 32.3%Peter Suderman: 4.7%Reason.com: 3.9%Appeal to Authority32.3%This article: 3.1%Peter Suderman: 2.9%Reason.com: 1.9%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 2.3%Peter Suderman: 0.8%Reason.com: 1.4%Slippery Slope2.3%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.2%Reason.com: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.1%Peter Suderman: 13.0%Reason.com: 6.5%Hasty Generalization4.1%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.1%Reason.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.1%Peter Suderman: 0.2%Reason.com: 0.3%Bandwagon2.1%This article: 16.9%Peter Suderman: 5.3%Reason.com: 4.3%Appeal to Emotion16.9%This article: 1.4%Peter Suderman: 0.3%Reason.com: 1.4%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 7.3%Peter Suderman: 4.9%Reason.com: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.3%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.2%Reason.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.4%Reason.com: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.3%Peter Suderman: 2.0%Reason.com: 1.8%Anecdotal11.3%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.1%Reason.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.4%Peter Suderman: 1.5%Reason.com: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.4%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.9%Peter Suderman: 0.3%Reason.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.9%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.0%Reason.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.7%Reason.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 30.0%Peter Suderman: 3.1%Reason.com: 1.9%Unattributed Quote30.0%This article: 3.2%Peter Suderman: 1.3%Reason.com: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 27.8%Peter Suderman: 14.2%Reason.com: 10.1%Biased Writer Voice27.8%This article: 7.2%Peter Suderman: 0.8%Reason.com: 1.5%Indoctrination7.2%This article: 0.0%Peter Suderman: 0.0%Reason.com: 1.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.5%Peter Suderman: 3.8%Reason.com: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.5%This article: 4.8%Peter Suderman: 0.7%Reason.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.8%

961 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers18%attributed speech789writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageNeil Gorsuch • 15 words • 100.0% coverageNeil Gorsuch • 10 words • 100.0% coverageNeil Gorsuch • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageNeil Gorsuch • 21 words • 100.0% coverageNeil Gorsuch • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Jefferson • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageThomas Jefferson • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Adams • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Washington Post

100%flagged-word coverage
12 attributed words7.0% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+67.7 ptsWriter: 32.3%The Washington Post: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-16.2 ptsWriter: 16.2%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -0.6 ptsWriter: 0.6%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.