So I teach a class called American Heroes in Image/Text, and the first thing I do is show students this painting, Emmanuel Leutz's "Washington Crossing the Delaware," to show students how art doesn't have to be historically accurate to be culturally significant.
(A THREAD.)
1/

Washington's posed with one leg up, standing up into the wind while others are crouched around him rowing, showing his leadership and bravery. Washington and the flag bearer are in uniform, while the others aren't, implying that Washington is leading the common man.
2/

The American flag, clearly recognizable by the stars and stripes, billows romantically in the wind, a reminder of American freedom and majesty. The sunlight shines through the clouds onto the boats, suggesting the God/nature is on the side of the founding father.
3/

But the thing is: the painting was finished in 1851, about 80 years after the actual event and 50 years after Washington's death. While Washington did cross the Delaware in 1776 in a surprise attack, the painting is super historically inaccurate.
4/

For starters, the soldiers crossed the Delaware at night to avoid detection. That was the whole point of the sneak attack. If they rolled up in mid daylight, they'd have been immediately slaughtered by the British, and now I'd be teaching a class on British Colonial Heroes.
5/

Second, that flag didn't exist until later. Washington would likely have carried this here flag into battle, but the "Betsy Ross" flag with the circle of stars is immediately recognizable as a symbol of the founding of America. A union jack would be confusing, obvs.
6/

Third, the painter Leutz wouldn't have met Washington in his lifetime, so the General's face would have been modeled after other portraits of him. The most recognizable one now is this 1796 Landsdowne portrait by Gilbert Stuart, featuring nice old George.
7/

But also, this is a 1779 portrait of Washington by Charles Wilson Peale. Who is this dude with his squishy round face??? (Side note: can we also talk about that big phallic cannon at crotch height, representing both his power as a military leader and a virile father figure?)
8/

So, the painting is straight up wrong. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't appreciate it! It's beautiful because it's a representation of 1850s feelings about America: a strong patriarch leading the people to victory and freedom.
9/

So what I'm really getting at is that #Hamilton being ahistorical is beside the point. It's not an 18th century document, any more than Leutz's painting is.
10/

It's about the power of immigrants, how men's egos can destroy them, our need to see BIPOC Americans reflected in art, how this picture is just as much George Washington, because Washington, like all heroes, is a symbol that changes over time to fit our needs as a nation.
11/11

Shoutout to @DrBryanZygmont who also did a similar analysis for Smart History (thanks for directing me to it!): https://smarthistory.org/leutze-washington-crossing-the-delaware/