A holiday to honor someone who owned hundreds of slaves for over 50 years,

[Nye Bevan]

and never freed any in his lifetime?

At the time of George Washington’s death, the Mount Vernon estate’s enslaved population consisted of 318 people. Washington himself had been a slave owner for fifty-six years, beginning at eleven years of age when he inherited ten slaves from his deceased father.

http://www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/

Perhaps we should be honoring John Adams (who had no truck with slavery) instead?

[ann---]

1. Oh, please

The good that he did in his life as a general and as president far outweighs his owning slaves
which was common for EVERYONE at the time. I'm sure he treated them well and had he been
alive at the time, would have been securely behind Lincoln in ending slavery in America.

And, I believe now the purpose of "Presidents Day" instead of one each for any individual,
is to honor all presidents - Adams included.

[Nye Bevan]

3. Nope, it's not "Presidents Day", it is officially "Washington's Birthday".

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/presidents/presidentsday.asp

And every Columbus Day on DU Columbus is roundly condemned for his failings. Should we not similarly condemn Washington for being a slaveholder?

[Orrex]

11. Wow--I was sure that it had been changed to "Presidents' Day."

Never too old to learn something new.

For what it's worth, there's no value in deifying our "founding fathers." Washington (and all the rest) should certainly be criticized for their failings.

[WillowTree]

158. It was.

Back in the day, Lincoln's birthday was a more-or-less-recognized holiday (not a legal, no-mail-&-don't-feed-the-parking-meters holiday, but it was recognized) on the 12th and then Washington's , too, on the 22nd. At some point, as I recall in the early 70s, they were combined as one holiday into President's day.

[Major Nikon]

18. It's also officially "Presidents Day"

More than half the states designate the day as either "President's Day" or some form of Washington/Lincoln birthday.

You can certainly condemn Washington for whatever you want. While you're at it you can also condemn Aristotle for the same thing along with Plato and Socrates for pederasty. However, judging people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago by today's standards is not without fallacy.

[whathehell]

33. "Judging people who lived hundreds or thousands of years ago by today's standards..

is not without fallacy". I agree, but I sense a witch hunt afoot.

[Drahthaardogs]

51. No we should not. Because slavery is a common theme in human history.

The great empires of the world had slaves. The Macedonians under Alexander. The Romans. The Phoenicians. The Egyptians. Even feudal England had slaves. Even the native americans practiced some kind of slavery before Europeans. It was the natural order of things at the time. It is one thing to contemplate the errors of mankind and note the mistakes and rejoice that we have left those ways behind us. It is quite another to try to forget our entire past and diminish every deed someone did because social norms have now changed (and thank God they did).

[zazen]

58. & some freed blacks owned slaves--human imperfection crosses all races, genders, creeds….

Good post.

[Jamastiene]

126. Slavery still exists today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Sudan#Modern-day_slavery

In many places, slavery never stopped. They should be criticized for it.

Also, it is never "the natural order" to place another person in chains and buy and sell them as property, then work them to death and never let them be free. Never.

[Solomon]

152. Actually what you don't realize is that the american

brand of slavery was far different than the other versions of slavery, that's why it was called the "Peculiar Institution". If you study the history of Roman slavery, for example, you will discover that slaves had many many rights - in other words, they were regarded as human beings, could own property, etc., could even become members of their owner's family.

No form of slavery has ever been as brutal and deadly as the American version. And that's a fact.

[Liberty Belle]

161. ISIS enslaving and raping little girls is every bit as bad.

And murdering their families, sometimes hacking them into bits, before marrying girls as young as 9 off to ISIS fighters.

[KingCharlemagne]

164. The Nazis' enslavement of large numbers of eastern Europeans and Jews was

far more brutal and deadly than the American version. Although, technically speaking, what the Nazis did was not 'slavery' per se, i.e., slaves were not bought and sold as property on public exchanges. To the victims of the Nazi work camps, though, such a distinction would seem a distinction without a difference.

[Solomon]

174. That's ridiculous!

First, as you say, what the Nazis did, horrible as it was, did not create a 400 year system of slavery. Second, the number killed by the nazis pales in comparison to the hundred million Africans who died on the way over here.

Nothing has been as brutal as the American version of slavery. You should honestly come to terms with that.

[Richardo]

86. No. Next Question.

[pnwmom]

100. That's not what your Snopes link actually says.

"As a result, we now have a hodgepodge of state holiday schedules in the USA: some states still observe Lincoln's and Washington's birthdays as separate holidays, some states observe only Washington's Birthday, some states commemorate both with a single Presidents' Day (or Lincoln-Washington Day), and some states celebrate neither."

http://www.snopes.com/holidays/presidents/presidentsday.asp#BERzb7PgHG6lxK1e.99

So we are left with different states calling it different things, but the majority of states call it "President's Day" or "Lincoln - Washington" day.

And since Lincoln was born on the 12th and Washington on the 22th, the 16th is neither President's actual birthday.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington%27s_Birthday

[uppityperson]

118. "nearly half of the state governments have officially renamed their Washington's Birthday...."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington's_Birthday

Although Lincoln's birthday, February 12, was never a federal holiday, nearly half of the state governments have officially renamed their Washington's Birthday observances as "Presidents' Day", "Washington and Lincoln Day", or other such designations. However, "Presidents' Day" is not always an all-inclusive term and might refer to only a selection of presidents.

In the following states and possessions, Washington's Birthday is an official state holiday and known as:[4]

Using "president"
Presidents' Day in Hawaii, New Mexico, North Dakota,[5] Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Texas, Vermont, and Washington[6]
President's Day in Alaska, Idaho, Maryland, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Tennessee, West Virginia, and Wyoming
Presidents Day in Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, and Oregon
Washington's Birthday/President's Day in Maine
Lincoln/Washington/Presidents' Day in Arizona

Washington alone
Washington's Birthday in Massachusetts
George Washington Day in Virginia

Washington and Lincoln
Washington and Lincoln Day in Utah
Washington–Lincoln Day in Colorado,[7] Ohio [8]
Lincoln's and Washington's Birthday in Montana
Washington's and Lincoln's Birthday in Minnesota [1]

Washington and another person
George Washington/Thomas Jefferson Birthday in Alabama[9]
George Washington's Birthday and Daisy Gatson Bates Day in Arkansas
Unspecified
"The third Monday in February" in California.[10]

[ann---]

127. No

There is no comparison. Washington was an American who fought for our independence and led a country's government as its first president.

[bigwillq]

175. My calendar says "Presidents' Day"

I believe my calendar.

[11 Bravo]

180. I'm convinced. I'll never vote for him again!

[WhiteTara]

4. He also killed hundreds/thousands

in the "Indian Wars" I have a friend who swears he was a genocidal monster.

[GP6971]

133. And what is your source?

Not doubting there is one......just have never seen the term genocide linked to Washington.

[WhiteTara]

137. American history 101 -French and Indian Wars

In 1778, 30 Stockbridge (a Christian Indian community) soldiers died fighting for the American revolutionaries against the British at White Plains, New York. Among those killed were chief Daniel Nimham. As a result of bravery in this battle, General George Washington promoted Hendrick Aupaumut to the rank of captain.

While many Indians aided the Americans in their struggle for independence, in 1779 George Washington sent 5,000 American troops under the command of General John Sullivan to destroy the villages of the Onondaga, Cayuga, and Seneca as punishment for aid which they had supposedly given to the British. Washington’s orders are for

“the total destruction and devastation of [the Indian] settlements and capture as many prisoners as possible.”

The American forces made no distinction between those who had been American allies and those who had aided the British. The Americans destroyed 40 villages and 160,000 bushels of corn.

http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1077

[Telcontar]

138. Far cry from genocide

Tossing that word about with abandon simply means it.loses its meaning

[Lancero]

160. Compared to modern instances of it, yes...

But remember, population has drastically, drastically, increased since then.

By modern standards, this isn't genocide. But at that time, it was.

[WhiteTara]

168. And I cited only one instance

that wasn't his whole career.

[GP6971]

141. Thank you. I thought that's what you were referring to

Brutality and war go hand in hand.....not an excuse, just saying. One of the most storied units in the US Army, the 7th Cavalry (Custer, Little Big Horn) has some nasty allegations lodged against it and has numerous petitions to rescind their battle streamers.......Wounded Knee and of lately, No Gun Ri in Korea.

Do things happen in war? Yes, they do. Is it genocide? Probably, by today's definition. It's difficult for us to judge the actions of the earlier centuries when so little was written down / recorded.

I actually think the actual genocide took place outside of a war or conflict.....a more passive action......like giving Native Americans blankets laced with small pox to reduce their numbers.

[hfojvt]

173. according to Thornton

most of it had nothing to do with blankets.

In his book "American Indian, Holocaust and Survival: a population history since 1492" he shows on page xvii a chart showing population of native Americans. It shows

1. about 5 million in 1492
2. down below 3 million by 1600
3. down to about 1.5 million by 1700

I would note that, according to that, over 70% of the population had died off by 1700. 40% of the loss happened before there was significant European settlement. Over the next 200 years the population dropped down to about 200,000 before rising to over 5 million today (including those with SOME native american ancestry). There was a fair amount of warfare between 1600 and 1700, but European population of the US was only about 250,000 by 1700.

I would say that disease was doing its work without any help from blankets.

[phil89]

9. I'm not sure you

Get to decide if the good outweighed the bad. Apologizing for slave owners is unbecoming.

[whathehell]

27. I'm not sure if you

get to decide either -- If you want to start trashing all the slave

owning presidents, you won't be able to stop at Washington, but

knock yourself out.

[merrily]

10. I strongly recommend you self-delete.

The only way to treat slaves well is never to imagine you have some right to own another human and control everything about their lives, to work them without a penny in pay--except to those who kidnapped them from another continent.

And to do whatever you humanly can to end the "institution" of slavery, as did a number of people in Washington's time.

I also don't know how you think you know how Washington treated his slaves or that he would have changed his mind about slavery had he been alive when Lincoln was President. Seems a bit delusional to me to think you know all that, but what do I know? In any event, all we know about Washington and slaves is that he exploited them for his own gain.

[jwirr]

52. I tend to agree with what you are saying. However, if I am not mistaken the issue of slavery was

brought up in the original Constitutional Convention in the City of Brotherly Love. The problem was that the supporters and those who wanted it abolished were about equally divided and it was decided that the issue would be dropped because if it was not they would not be able to pass the Constitution.

I do not have a link but it was in a book that published the papers from that Convention.

It is too bad that they could not settle the issue back then - think of all the things that could have been avoided: the slave trade, slavery itself, the civil war and a lot of other issues. And just think the plantations would have had to hire workers just like any other business in the USA.

[merrily]

59. Actually, it was a bone of contention in getting support for the Revolution itself, not only the

Constitution. And at both critical junctures, John Adams did his best to get consensus without having to agree to slavery. But neither of those things has a thing to do with Reply 1 or my response to it.

Something heinous may be legal. That does not mean, I should get a pass for doing it, even as I claim to be appalled by the thing I was doing myself. IMO, Reply #1 was heinous in trying to excuse owning slaves on the ground they were treated well (if only in the imagination of the poster who wrote Reply 1).

[jwirr]

69. I agree that the slaves were not treated well. I mentioned the book not to defend slavery but I

think that the thoughts on what the various founding fathers thought of it is in that book. I don't remember because I read it in the 70s. Also there are many books that document the treatment of slaves. One I read and again do not remember the title was a log of the slaves escaping and coming through Philadelphia on their way to freedom. I talks about the scares on their backs from beating, etc. A very good read.

[merrily]

71. Being in Massachusetts, I've had coffee in a home that was part of the Underground Railroad

between the South and Canada.

The parents of my son's classmate own it. It was fun hearing my son, as a first grader, all excited and trying to explain it to me after he came home from his first visit there.

[jwirr]

76. I hope we preserve those homes. They are a part of our history and we need to remember our

history the way it was.

[merrily]

77. "We" are doing nothing to preserve that particular one as it is a private home.

[jwirr]

91. Yeah, I hear you. The historical society that should be taking care of it have other priorities. On

the other hand the owner sounds like she/he is proud of it so it will survive.

[merrily]

93. It will probably survive this owner as they seem to have the money to maintain it and heaven knows,

it seems to have been well-built. It is not wood or brick, but looks like cement or stucco. (It's probably neither of those things. I am clueless about building materials once we pass wood, brick and siding, but maybe you can picture it.)

I did not get the 25 cent tour (kidding, there is no tour), but the runaways stayed in the basement, so that would have been the most historically important part. For all I know, that's been a pine paneled "rumpus room" since 1942.

[Scuba]

56. You need to go to Mount Vernon and see the slave quarters.

[GP6971]

67. Or any plantation for that matter

I saw some in Louisiana and their quarters were disgusting to say the least

[benz380]

2. Also from your link:

Despite having been an active slave holder for 56 years, George Washington struggled with the institution of slavery and spoke frequently of his desire to end the practice. At the end of this life Washington made the bold step to free his slaves in his 1799 will - the only slave-holding Founding Father to do so.

[Nye Bevan]

5. Or, like Adams, he could have simply not owned slaves.

But I guess free black labor for 50+ years was irresistable to him.

[merrily]

15. +1 I always enjoy agreeing with people, most esp those with whom I rarely agree.

[Nye Bevan]

20. One reason why I never use "Ignore" (nt)

[earthside]

42. The Pres. Adams of the Alien and Sedition Acts

Yeah, he was an angel.

[merrily]

65. Wouldn't that have been Congress? Granted he did not veto, but did he write that legislation?

Were those laws different from the laws we have today?

[GP6971]

75. At least one of them

The Alien Enemies Act was still on the books and was used to intern Japanese Americans during WWII. My guess is that it's still on the books, but I don't know that for sure

[merrily]

78. Maybe, but that is a very different issue from Adams's culpablity.

Weren't we at war at the time Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts? (See, Patriot Act.)

[GP6971]

87. I'll have to check when I get back

I seem to remember an undeclared war with France when the Acts were passed into law.

[merrily]

89. No, if you don't know off the top of your head, you don't have a responsiblity to check

because of my curiosity. That's on me. Thank you anyway for offering.

[GP6971]

116. But now I'm curious

so I'll check it out and let you know.

[GP6971]

122. OK....it was a quick check via

Wiki. Wiki is good for one thing......it points you in the right direction.

The Alien & Sedition Act was passed in 1798 during an undeclared naval war with France. It consisted of four acts;

Naturalization Act
Alien Friends Act
Alien Enemies Act
Sedition Act.

The Alien Friends Act and the Sedition Act were allowed to expire in 1800 and the Alien Enemies Act was in effect at the outbreak of WWII. I remembered that as a former co-workers parents and grand parents, both US citizens and of Japanese decent, were interned in Southern CA.

I really don't know much about John Adams so I downloaded the book in prep for my long flights next month.

[whathehell]

44. Or like a Deity, he could simply have been without fault altogether..

Give us a break.

[merrily]

68. Between perfection and owning slaves, fully realizing that is wrong, is a lot of ground.

[bravenak]

73. + i'm shocked that not more agree with you.

[ND-Dem]

85. which is likely why he was the richest president ever.

http://247wallst.com/banking-finance/2010/05/17/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-washington-to-obama/2/

[Glassunion]

129. Adams was worse than Washington.

If heard tales that he had a dog named...


I shit you not...


No, really...


SATAN!!!!!1!!1!1!!!!

How could such a man be trusted.

[merrily]

14. Hogwash. He exploited human beings to support his lifestyle throughout his life. And, when he

personally had no further use for them, he freed them. That's clear from the facts.

Speaking out against slavery while you purport to own slaves is wanting to have it both ways, or as the French say, wanting both "the flag and the money."

[brush]

24. Hah! He sure struggled hard, some 50 years while he got rich.

And it was so kind of him to free the people he enslaved, but only after he died and had benefited all his life from their unpaid labor.

[Chathamization]

32. Washington twice attempted to have Oney Judge kidnapped and returned to slavery

He wrote that abolition might be OK in theory, but there was no reason to reward "unfaithfulness" (the term he used to describe running away from your slave captors). He also worked hard to avoid having to be subject to Pennsylvania's anti-slavery laws, rotating his slaves there every six months so that they couldn't get their freedom.

[merrily]

99. He didn't reward his "faithful" slaves who did not run away, either.

And there is a bit of ground between abolishing slavery throughout the US and kidnapping a runaway to return him to slavery.

[Romeo.lima333]

6. should we discount mlk jr's contribution cause he had extra-marital affairs?

that's a no in case anyone was wondering

[brush]

7. False equivalency at it's finest

You're equating owning slaves for 50 some years with having an affair?

Amazing!

[Romeo.lima333]

12. no im comparing people who did great things but have problems with their pasts

you can deflect by interjercting the severity of the problems but the question's still valid, imho, of course youre free to disagree

[merrily]

19. No, your comparison was invalid, a wholly false equivalency, just as brush posted.

Also a straw man, since no one was suggesting we discount achievements of Washington.

Two major failures of logic in one brief post should give you pause.

[Romeo.lima333]

38. you are free to disagree

since no one was suggesting we discount achievements of Washington? i believe the op was suggesting we not honor him anymore, what are we honoring him for if not acheivements, like being a president.

[merrily]

50. It not about disagreeing. It's about pointing out your errors in logic.

The OP's suggesting we stop having a day to honor Washington is is very different from the Op's claiming that Washington never accomplished anything.

So, you are engaging in another false equivalency.

[TM99]

57. Then I suggest we not have a MLK Day,

after all he had affairs and that is bad.

Let's not stop there. I put forth that anyone who is not completely blameless of any human failing or foible not be on stamps, coins, have holidays associated with them, etc.

[merrily]

60. Please take that up with Nye, who wrote the OP.

I am not against honoring Washington for the good things he did for the nation. I just think we should include all Presidents in that honor, by calling it Presidents' Day.

[TM99]

61. You are attempting to defend the OP.

[merrily]

62. You are mistaken. Please quote words from a post of mine saying Washington should

not be honored for the good things he did.

Not to get that when you first read the thread is one thing. Doubling down after having it pointed out to you is worse.

[TM99]

81. You attempt to defend the OP

with logic but are failing because you, like the OP (regardless of whether you say he should or should not be honored) are guilty of judging the past with modern sensibilities.

That is what I am addressing as you stated that the MLK & Washington examples are false equivalences, and they are not.

Read my post again and recognize the sarcasm being used to point out your flaws in logic in support of the OP.

[merrily]

88. No. I have been arguing against posters who defend slaveowners, minimize the evil of slavery, etc.

I don't especially care if Washington is honored for being the first President or not. Though, since we now have had over 40 Presidents, it might be nice to honor the others who served, too. However, whether President's Day honors only Washington or all Presidents is not what my posts have been focusing on. It is not a big issue for me, one way or the other. Slavery is.

If you can't see the difference between arguing to abolish this holiday because it honors Washington and my rejecting a statement that assumes that Washington treated his slaves well, then it's very unfortunate you can't, but I don't know how to help you see it.

[TM99]

107. Then you are doing so circuitously.

There are reasons beyond his support or not of slavery as to why Washington was our first President, our capital is named after him, and we continue to this day to honor him. He is worthy of respect despite his foibles and flaws.

Recognizing context historically is not exactly something that is taught in our modern educational system.

I have not seen a single post minimizing slavery or defending slave owners.

Slavery is thankfully over in our culture and has been for well over a century and half. We have other issues of modern racism and bigotry to now deal with as well as the 'slavery' of financial usury brought about by our current two-parties-equals-one corporate political reality.

But if you can't see that because you are busy focusing on the past through modern eyes, then I can not help you.

[Glassunion]

113. Foibles and Flaws?

I've never in my entire life wanted to falcon punch someone in the testicles because they had foibles and flaws.

[TM99]

117. I am not totally up to snuff on my internet memes

so are you saying you want to punch Washington in his balls?

[Glassunion]

119. Pretty much anyone who ever owned slaves deserves a good hit.

A falcon punch is pretty much any running-start flying-punch that hits you so hard it will instantly erase algebra from your brain.

Yes, Washington is on that list.

[TM99]

131. I just don't feel that way.

I know too much about human psychology and human history. We are never as enlightened as we believe ourselves to be. And if it was not for men like Washington, America would not be as it is today. It is not perfect by any means. Our representative democracy is in dire straits in many ways, and yet it is the best political model that humans have devised thus far. I think the same about capitalism.

Additionally, the past is the past. It is not even the recent past. I am more concerned with the here and now.

[Glassunion]

134. We all have our prejudices. Yours are just different from mine.

You were raised in the belief system that George Washington was a man of upright, steadfast, and honest character. He was a virtuous statesman, who viewed that service as a charge by God himself, to act in self sacrifice, and service to a nation.

I was raised in the belief that he owned humans just like my great, great, great grandma. Who's good fortune, wealth and success was borne on the backs of kidnapped, tortured, and oppressed human beings who were looked at with no more thought than that of a biting insect. With those same feelings, on those very same insects, carried forward through generations, to my own mother's, where the insect was not allowed a seat, or a drink at the fountain, or a table, or a classroom.

So you are correct. If it were not for men like Washington, if we instead had more men who actually stood up for liberty, and freedom (for all), we may never of had the great Atlantic Slave trade, the Black Codes, Jim Crow laws, a need for the NAACP, the Great Migration, lynchings, segregation, Pigford v. Glickman, Internment, the National Origins Act, the Yellow Peril, native displacement, the Indian Removal, etc, etc, etc... If we had those of high moral fiber, who believed in liberty, and freedom for all, who were not afraid of what their neighbors might whisper behind their backs, afraid of killing their political careers, or alienating their fellow sociopaths, then yes. You are correct, America would not be as it is today.

[TM99]

136. Funny, I never said you had any prejudices.

And please spare me the speech. I am bi-racial. I have heard this shit from members of my father's side of the family too damned many times. So many of them hated and still hate my white mother and that side of the family.

My parents marched for civil rights in the 1960's. They taught several generations of young men and women not just literature, poetry, and linguistics but also that love, peace, and justice were only possible when fought for here and now building on both the good and the bad that came before it.

Therefore, I am well aware of the good and the bad in American history. Besides what I learned from them I actually double majored in history and philosophy in college.

You are still pining away for a 'what if'. MLK was mentioned several times in this thread. Why? Because he was hardly a man of 'high moral fiber'. He was a great man and moved us so far forward, AND he had numerous affairs and slept with prostitutes. He was not all good nor all bad.

I deal in the here and now with 'what is' as my beautiful parents and adult life have taught me.

So please check your own damned prejudices before you start projecting them on others.

[Glassunion]

139. You exposed your own prejudices. Not me.

"And if it was not for men like Washington, America would not be as it is today."

So he was a great man, that is what you believe.

I believe differently.

I'm not denying he was a great leader, general and a courageous individual who stood in the face of overwhelming power against tyranny. My only issue is that he was a tyrant himself. Folks are so damn set in their prejudices to believe that the "I cannot tell a lie" bullshit, was the heart of a sociopath and tyrant.

[TM99]

140. Look,

I see in another thread that you and I have more in common that not being bi-racial.

I simply choose not to vilify white men and women from history as much as some, perhaps you, do.

Washington was not a sociopath or a tyrant. I don't know anyone who still believes in the "I can not tell a lie" myth. I certainly don't.

I have treated sociopaths and my S.O.'s father is an actual criminal sociopath. Washington was a flawed man living in a time of our history where slavery was all too acceptable and prevalent. I find any kind of slavery abhorrent. Having studied history and psychology, I am not going to ever agree with you that he was as you describe. Sorry.

[Glassunion]

142. So a modern day slave trader is simply a "flawed" person who partakes in "abhorrent" behavior?

[TM99]

144. Give it up.

You are so damned literalistic and black & white in your thinking.

The act of slavery is abhorrent. Not all men and women involved are evil, sociopathic, tyrants. Cultures that still deal in slavery often suffer from extremes of poverty and wealth, have extremist religious views as part of their culture, etc.

I judge individual men and women on the totality of their being-ness - the good with the bad, the bad with the good. I do not make blanket condemnations of individuals as you are obviously prone to do. You know what that is called? Bigotry.

I get it. You hate Washington. You want to 'falcon punch' him in the balls.

[Glassunion]

157. Well... To me (and this is just my bat-shit insane idology), slavery is rather black and white.

Owning slaves = bad.
Not owning slaves = good.

I cannot fathom, in any way, or by any stretch of my imagination, how slavery can not be bad. Not yesterday, today or tomorrow. I don't care if you're talking Ancient Egypt, Rome, or Greece... Medieval Europe... Or the more modern era, like colonial United States, WWII Germany, Soviet Gulags. Or current day Africa, North Korea, South America... Fuck it, there is human trafficking on every continent but Antarctica (as far as I'm aware). I cannot see anything but evil in any of it.

No matter what era you live in, slavery is a deprivation of all an individual's natural rights. They have ceased to exist of their own accord, but to live all of their life and die, not by nature, but at the hand of their master.

"all men are born equally free," and hold "certain inherent natural rights, of which they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity."

George Washington owned more than twice the people than I share office space with. He owned them. They lived and died under his rule. If they broke free, he had them hunted down. They went where he commanded, they ate what he commanded, they dressed in what he commanded, and they labored under his command until they died. Sure as hell sounds like tyranny to me.

[brush]

22. IMO it's still false equivalency

And what are you saying, that owning hundreds of slaves for 50 some years was a ok?

NOT!

There were many men of that time who knew slavery was an abhorrence and wanted no part of it.

The OP sheds unflattering light on Washington. Most people didn't know the extend of his slave holdings and the length of time that he held them and built wealth from their unpaid labor. Now that we know it's kind of horrible when you thing about it.

But so is much of the history of this country which, like it's first president, got rich off unpaid labor of enslaved people — hundreds of years or free, dawn-to-dusk labor of hundreds of thousands of people in the case of the country, 50 some years in the case of Washington so I guess it's fitting that he was the first president of the country — they had so much in common.

I'll add this: If you run a business and don't have to pay the people that work for you, you're well on your way to getting rich as the cost of labor is usually around 50% of overhead. That works for countries as well as plantations like Mount Vernon btw.

[merrily]

23. It's not an opinion. It is a false equivalency. No question. With a straw man thrown in for good

measure.

[merrily]

21. This thread is a nauseating, heart wrenchin mess already. I have a feeling it will only go downhill.

[whathehell]

36. Not at all..

It's the same principal, and, btw, it wasn't one"affair", it was a number, and his

dalliances including paying women for sex, a la prostitution.

Please let us all know when you've found PERFECTION in a human being.

[Major Nikon]

40. Probably not in the way you might think

Slavery was more acceptable during Washington's time than adultery was during MLK's.

It's was a false equivalency to begin with.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presentism_(literary_and_historical_analysis)

[merrily]

16. Having extra marital affairs has nothing to do with civil rights.

Owning slaves, however, does negate that you oppose slavery--at least not if it means giving up your own slaves during your lifetime.

[Romeo.lima333]

43. i never said it did - youre discounting what i said and focusing on something i didnt say ... eom

[merrily]

48. You miss the point. I was explaining why your equivalency was so false.

I was not discounting anything you said or focusing what you didn't say. I was simply trying to explain why what you did say was a false equivalency.

Given your reply, it's apparent that I wasted my time, which is too bad for both of us, but especially for you.

[GP6971]

34. I would say that extra-marital affairs

are generally consensual..........you can't say that about slavery.

[whathehell]

39. Oh, contraire..When the power differential between the sexes

is great, as it has been for MOST of human history, one can't necessarily call

it "consensual.

[stevenleser]

147. That argument isn't valid when the lower power person initiates the affair. Nt

[whathehell]

163. How about when the "lower person" is underage?

Removing that factor makes it valid in at least fifty percent of cases.

[brush]

45. WINNER, WINNER. Best post of the day.

No more arguments please equating enslaving another human being with having consensual sex.

[One_Life_To_Give]

102. Yet so much of history prescribed a death penalty for only one

Morality is what we living in the present make it. It will be different in centuries to come just as it was different in the past. Who knows what egregious acts we do today that our ancestors will cringe and wonder about our depravity. It is a folly to assume that we understand with eternal certainty what is most virtuous and what is reprehensible.

[brush]

146. Yeah, Yeah! But even back then many knew enslaving other human beings was . . .

reprehensible — like Adams, and even Jefferson, who talked and wrote about it but still kept his slaves (even bedded one) while writing the Declaration of Independence.

Hypocrisy reigned among some of the founding fathers, including Washington who only freed his slaves in his will, long after he had lived the life of a man made rich by the UNPAID LABOR of his enslaved human beings.

I know that sounds harsh but it's true so spare me about the morality of that time being different than now.

Many others knew slavery was wrong back then.

[Romeo.lima333]

49. it's true and i wasnt

[whathehell]

35. Thank you..

[Ykcutnek]

120. Only his religious contributions.

For being a goddamn hypocrite.

His contributions to civil rights shall remain unscathed.

[mythology]

8. There's strong historical evidence that slavery had a causal contribution

to the development of American democracy.

Additionally, even if you count the slave owning against Washington, his impact both in terms of winning the Revolutionary War and then being the first President greatly outshines the impact of John Adams as President.

[merrily]

17. "even if you count the slave owning against Washington" WTF?

News flash: you can, and most definitely should, count slave owning against anyone.

That you would even phrase it that way is fucking astounding.

I cannot help but wonder which sources are claiming that slavery caused American democracy. Got a link?


What contributed to the American revolution was the same thing that contributed to slavery. follow the money.

[brush]

30. Yeah, enslaving human beings caused the country to become rich and . . .

be able to become an imperial power with continual war — all the while exporting its racism towards people of color.

Alas! It's harsh but true, and you're absolutely right — a causal contribution

[Borchkins]

13. I choose to celebrate my children, Grant and Carter.

And my friends kids, Madison and Jackson.

B

[Kurska]

25. If you grow up on a society where slave owning is common

It is encouraged and held up as a morally justified thing to do. If you have means you are more than likely to own slaves. People don't understand just how much their morals are shaped by their social context. There wasn't a large abolition movement in the united states when Washington was alive. Is it a moral failing that Washington didn't embrace abolitionism until the very end of his life? Yes. Does that eliminate everything he ever did for this nation (like not assuming absolute dictatorial power when he probably could have). No.

The reason John Adams didn't own slaves was because he grew up in a Northern culture where it wasn't common and wasn't economically viable. I don't think it was just because he was a better man than Washington.

It is really easy to look into the past and hold people in judgment for not measuring up to modern morality. I'm sure just about every president we have ever had was a homophobe for instance. A great deal of them were probably anti-semites or very racist. Thats the social context they grew up in. If you want to damn them for it, well that is your call.

[FSogol]

28. Well said. At some future point in time we will all be criticized for eating meat or driving

pollution-spewing cars.

[brush]

41. Time out!

There were many men at that time who knew enslaving others was wrong — Adams for one, and Jefferson.

The slave holding founding fathers were, let's face it, hypocrites. And the biggest of them all were Washington and Jefferson, he of the Declaration of Independence.

"While considering slavery a moral travesty, hideous evil, and clearly at odds with his
values of the American Revolution and republican virtue, Jefferson owned several hundred
slaves at his home at Monticello and surrounding agricultural farms and businesses. In much of
his correspondence to friends and business associates, Jefferson laments the immoral institution
of slavery and yet describes how it must continue."

(here's the link: http://www.umbc.edu/che/tahlessons/pdf/historylabs/Where_Did_Thomas_Jefferson_Stand_on_the_Issue_of_Slavery.PrinterFriendly.pdf)

That's called being a HYPOCRITE with capital letters.

[Kurska]

54. Yeah and there have always been people who supported gay rights

That doesn't change the fact that for the last forever in western society the injunctive and descriptive norm in western society was for treating homosexuals like dirty. Probably a great many men/women from the past who YOU admire believed awful things about homosexuals. They believed that, because it was the norm at the time. I think it is wonderful to celebrate individuals who saw through the social fog to realize what was right. I can't entirely blame an individual when they can't.

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/16/what-did-mlk-think-about-gay-people/

"Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was writing an advice column in 1958 for Ebony magazine when he received an unusual letter.

“I am a boy,” an anonymous writer told King. “But I feel about boys the way I ought to feel about girls. I don't want my parents to know about me. What can I do?”

In calm, pastoral tones, King told the boy that his problem wasn’t uncommon, but required “careful attention.”

“The type of feeling that you have toward boys is probably not an innate tendency, but something that has been culturally acquired,” King wrote. “You are already on the right road toward a solution, since you honestly recognize the problem and have a desire to solve it.”"

....

Does that make MLK a homophobe? He had a gay adviser, but he never fought for gay rights. When homosexuals needed an ally he wasn't it. Does that mean everything he ever said about civil rights is tainted? Your position on dismissing historical context would mean a yes.

I don't think so. I think he was a great man who grew up in a cultural context where homosexuals were despised. Despite that he seemed to at least have a level of sympathy for them (even if his attitudes would put him alongside the "hate the sin not the sinner" types today).

It is about perspective and context. History isn't as simple as we would like it to be with clear good guys who stand lock step on every issue and bad guys always opposed to them.

[brush]

148. Even then some realized that 5-10% of the population was born gay

So MLK wasn't one of them, please don't hijack this thread.

Start your own OP.

[Kurska]

150. Lol that is really the best you have

You say other people's heroes are flawed and scorn them for it. I point out the same thing about one of yours and you claim I'm hijacking your thread? No, it is called you're holding a double standard and you know it.

Hence your curt reply.

And I'd really like you didn't address the idea of gay rights with a "So". Maybe it isn't important to you because I assume you're not gay, but 10 years ago I could get thrown in jail for being gay in the state I'm in right now. My life and my freedom isn't a "So" issue, anymore than dismissing the fact that George Washington was a slave owner with a "So" would be offensive.

[brush]

154. First of all, it's not my thread.

We're discussing what the OP is about.

If you want to talk about your issue, start another thread. That's the prevailing etiquette here.

And if you didn't get it from my "curt reply", I'm on your side on that issue.

It's just not what this thread is about.

[Kurska]

155. My reply is directly related to the OP

I'm pointing out how damning a historical figure for not measuring up to modern morality is ridiculous. Especially when they grow up in a social context where modern morality is overwhelmingly a minority view.

I think that is a perfectly valid point to make.

[brush]

159. Two different and consequential issues that are deserving of their own thread . . .

no matter what you keep insisting.

[whathehell]

46. "People do not understand how much their morals are shaped by social context"

Correct. Good post.

[merrily]

90. Please see Replies 14 and 79.

[treestar]

109. For that matter, it was more difficult for them to

condemn slavery, because of that, than it is for us. We have no way of proving we ourselves would have been the abolitionists at that time. We assume we would have been, but that's from our perch in the 21st century.

When it was happening in the society in which he grew up, for Washington, expressing doubts about it would have been braver than it is for us.

The OP even admits he inherited when he was 10. Back then, what your parents did had way more effect on your life. Perhaps he could have rejected his inheritance, land and all, and made another way due to being against slavery. But that's a big demand of someone at that time. And it wouldn't have ended slavery.

[Bluenorthwest]

26. Moses did a few genocides, and every single Biblical author quoted to excuse anti gay bigotry in

the various Christian sects also endorsed slavery and codified the expected behavior of slaves. So those who cite the Bible against gay people are citing pro slavery texts and authors when they do so. That includes Pat Robertson and the Pope.
"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear, trembling, and sincerity, as when you obey the Messiah. Do not do this only while you're being watched in order to please them, but be like slaves of the Messiah, who are determined to obey God's will. Serve willingly, as if you were serving the Lord and not merely people,
because you know that everyone will receive a reward from the Lord for whatever good he has done, whether he is a slave or free."
Ephesians 6: 5-8

People on DU frequently say they love the Pope, who often quotes those pro slavery authors in such a way that he suggests they have divine authority.

[aquart]

29. Oh, good grief.

All your heroes gotta be flawless saints, huh?

Charming of you to throw that first stone.

[dissentient]

31. You don't have to honor Washington if you don't want to. Pick your favorite president, and consider

this day a way to honor them instead.

It's allowed, I promise.

Isn't freedom wonderful?

[LWolf]

37. George Washington on slavery:

Washington never spoke out publically against slavery. But in this private letter to fellow Virginian John Mercer, dated September 9, 1786, and written at a time when he owned 250 slaves, Washington avows his dislike of the institution of slavery, an institution that violates the ideal of freedom and equality: “I never mean . . . to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this Country may be abolished.”

http://www.gilderlehrman.org/history-by-era/creating-new-government/resources/george-washington-abolition-slavery-1786

[merrily]

55. Yet nothing prevented him from freeing his own slaves before he personally had no further use for

them.

Talk is cheap, even if slaves were not. Wanna know all the indicia of someone who should get credit for claiming slavery is wrong? I am sure there are quite a few, but first and foremost, he or she does not own slaves.

Please see Reply 14.

[LWolf]

94. Context. nt

[merrily]

96. No. Hypocrisy, not context. If he seemed oblivious to the evil, context might be an argument.

Since he says it's evil, yet engages in it, I don't think he gets any points just for saying it's evil.

Your results may vary, but that does not equate to "Merrily ignored context."

[LWolf]

97. No.

I don't disagree with your moral imperative. I'm just pointing out that, when looking at historical figures, the context of their times must be taken into account. Your imperative does not do that.

Slavery was a reality, and as much the status quo of the times as capitalism is today. How many elected officials in 2015 want to abolish capitalism?

No, I'm not equating capitalism with slavery, although both are hard on those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. I'm just saying that, FOR HIS TIME, George Washington was more progressive than many of his peers on the topic of slavery.

[merrily]

98. Again, I did not ignore context.

Failing to abolish slavery in what was then the US while railing against its evils, is very different from failing to free one's own slaves while railing against the evils of slavery. The latter is, IMO, hypocrisy, regardless of the context.

Times shmimes.

I say something is a horrible thing while I do it on a large scale, but I get credit for simply saying it's horrible? I don't agree.

I am not a vegan, but let's say hypothetically that I rail against the immorality of eating meat in this mostly meat eating society, while enjoying eating meat myself throughout the day, every day, and maybe even profiting from raising cattle to be sold for food. Am I hypocrite or just a product of my context?

[LWolf]

101. A closer look

at historical context reveals that there were legal obstacles to manumission, and that Washington refused to sell or rent out slaves because that would be further participating in a system he did not support.

It also reveals the work he did to legislate against slavery.

It's easy to cry "hypocrisy!" when you don't look at historical context.

[merrily]

104. Still not ignoring context. Not cherrypicking it, either.

Others freed one or more slaves at that time and Washington granted all his slaves manumission in his will, so whatever legal obstacles to manumission there may have been could not have been insurmountable.

It also reveals the work he did to legislate against slavery.

Commendable, but we are discussing his personal slave ownership. Maybe he was willing to give up the evil practice of owning slaves only if everyone had to and therefore giving up slaves did not put him at a competitive disadvantage.

As far as why he did not rent out his slaves, I don't know his motives for not renting them out. Don't know if anyone does. Could have had a lot of reasons for not renting them out. Saying owning them is one thing, but renting them out is a further contribution to evil doesn't make much sense to me.

What we do know for certain is that he owned slaves while claiming slavery was evil and maybe we also know he did not rent them out, but we have no way of knowing why he didn't.

Please see also Reply 32 and articles like this. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/16/opinion/george-washington-slave-catcher.html?_r=0

[Octafish]

70. Thank you.

The guy could have made himself royalty. Instead he was a president, elected to his office by the People.

Who the "People" are has, thanks to good people, expanded by law to include every U.S. citizen in good standing 18 and over.

[Jamastiene]

128. Don't forget corporations.

Corporations are people too now.

[Glassunion]

105. So from what you posted

Washington never spoke out publicly against slavery. probably because he owned a shit-ton of human beings and that might come off as hypocritical.

But in this private letter - don't want
to publicly be a hypocrite - to fellow Virginian John Mercer, -a slave owner -dated September 9, 1786, and written at a time when he owned 250 slaves, Washington avows his dislike of the institution of slavery, - hypocrite- an institution that violates the ideal of freedom - a right he was currently denying to 250 humans - and equality: "I never mean . . . to possess another slave by purchase; - well, when you own 250 humans, 251 would be so ostentatious- it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this Country may be abolished."

[LWolf]

111. Okay.

You may have missed the parts about continuing to own slaves because of the obstacles to manumission, and his determination not to sell those people to other slave owners...which would have, at that point, been more profitable than keeping them; and that some of them he had no legal right to free, even at his death, because they were part of his wife's first husband's estate.

But that's okay. None of that excuses the existence of slavery, although it does lead us toward an understanding of the context.

[Glassunion]

112. I missed nothing.

You may have missed the parts about continuing to own slaves because of the obstacles to manumission - 4 years before Washington wrote the letter, his home state abolished the old manumission laws, the new laws permitted masters to free their slaves on their own accord... So the only "obstacle" was George and Martha Washington, no one else - and his determination not to sell those people to other slave owners...which would have, at that point, been more profitable than keeping them - because he saw it as such "an institution that violates the ideal of freedom", so of course he would do whatever he had to in order to A. Cut some profit on the lives of human beings, and B. do absolutely nothing to end that institution that violates the very idea of "Freedom" by ensuring that they be sold into that very institution. and that some of them he had no legal right to free, even at his death, because they were part of his wife's first husband's estate. - we all know how hard it would be to ask his wife for that favor... "Hey Marty honey... What do you say that we free our slaves?"

An understanding of true context, would be to realize that any slave at the time he was elected President of the United States, and living in the nation's capitol (Philadelphia), and where commonwealth law would have automatically granted freedom to any slaves who had resided in PA for more than 6 months. Our hero found every loophole to avoid that, by denying residence in the commonwealth and rotating his slaves to ensure they did not stay there longer than six months. He continued this practice for his entire residence in the nation's capitol. And then continued to own human beings until his death.

[LWolf]

165. Those laws were on and off again

for 200 years. And anyone who cares more for accuracy than indignation will look at the whole picture. But please. Stay in that high dungeon.

[bettyellen]

106. yet he made beaucoup bucks off of their blood his whole life.

It is a very sad part of his- and our- history, there is no denying it.

[LanternWaste]

47. I honor the thought-processes and writings of Plato, Homer and Aristotle

I honor the thought-processes and writings of Plato, Homer and Aristotle though each one argued for the existence of slavery in their culture.

Perhaps I should discount them and give validity to those writers who had no dealings with slavery instead...

[merrily]

53. It should be a day to honor all Presidents. Presidents' Day, not President's Day.

Or just a day off since Americans don't get nearly enough of those, compared to other nations.

[merrily]

63. Even on DU, mention slavery, the confederate flag, etc. and you get all kinds of ugly surprises.

Especially proud today to be living in the state where John and Abigail Adams lived and raised John Quincy, who grew up to be President, continued humbly serving his country as Congressman after that and successfully argued the Amistad case before the Supreme Court of the United States.

[bluedigger]

64. Almost every major figure in history has a checkered past by modern ethical standards.

The reason we remember and sometimes honor them is because of their significance in historic events that led us to where we are today, for better or worse. We should learn from their achievements and study their flaws as well, but to judge them by today's standards is a pointless exercise in revisionist morality. We should all be judged by our peers, and the ethical codes of the times and society in which we abide.

[merrily]

79. Inasmuch as Washington railed against the wrongness of slavery, judge him by his own standards.

Every generation of Americans had abolitionists and people who advocated for civil rights, so I don't buy that people are only helpless victims of the calendar. In the cases of Washington and Jefferson in particular, they both wrote and spoke against slavery while owning slaves. So, I don't think it's unfair to condemn them for immorality, as well as hypocrisy.

[VScott]

66. Wut?

[img][/img]

[libdem4life]

72. I think we should have a Mother Jones Day...she saved poor children from slaving 12+ hours a day

and often dying in the Capitalist factories...that would be around the Industrial Revolution. Both white and black children.

[onenote]

74. And let's rename the nation's capital

and take Washington off of the dollar and the quarter. And rename (or tear down?) the Washington Monument and all the schools and towns named for the first president.

And while we're at it, let's tear down the Jefferson Memorial and rename all the schools and towns named for him. Same for Madison and Monroe. And let's get Jackson off of the $20 bill.

And why stop there. Some more contemporary Presidents have not lived up to our standards. Roosevelt -- he essentially locked up thousands of American citizens for nothing more than being of Japanese ancestry. Get him off the dime. And JFK named a cabinet consisting entirely of white males -- not a single African American, woman, or Latino. Let's rename everything that honors his memory.

Then we can rename everything for Ronald Reagan. After all, he never owned slaves, he never incarcerated 1000s American citizens based on nothing more than their ethnicity. And he named one African American and two women to cabinet or cabinet level positions at the beginning of his first term.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

80. Our Corporate Masters have determined that we are to have TEN days a year off. No more.

[Throd]

95. It would be interesting to see how we will be judged in 200 years.

[abelenkpe]

103. Workers who are paid so little they cannot afford to live anywhere

other than in the unsafe factory they labor in make most of the clothing, toys and electronics westerners purchase today. Is it much of an improvement? I don't know. Seems the world still justifies the strong taking advantage of the weak. The justifications have changed, the terms we use to describe our society have changed, but it's still a very cruel and unjust world. Wish it was not so. Don't think we'll be judged kindly, but who knows? Maybe the future will be worse?

[treestar]

110. +1

There are things we think are fine that may be thought wrong then.

[Jenoch]

108. Judging the 18th century by 21st century standards.

By the way, there is still much slavery around the world. I woild worry more about that than what Washington was doing 272 years ago.

[Glassunion]

114. 18th vs. 21st century

Last edited Mon Feb 16, 2015, 10:39 PM - Edit history (1)

In the 18th century if you owned slaves, you were a malevolent, immoral sociopath.
In the 21st century if you own slaves, you are a malevolent, immoral sociopath.

[Jenoch]

123. While I believe slavery is and was wrong,

I don't ne essarily believe Washington was a sociopath. (I don't automatically believe Jefferson was a sociopath either.)

Again, I beleive more concern should be given to those currently held in slavery rather than worring about Washington's actions from 243 years ago.

[Glassunion]

124. The two are not mutually exclusive.

I can hate both. Only one can I act upon.

The reason that you cannot imagine Washington as a sociopath, is there are no photos. You cannot see or imagine the suffering, loss, torment, and pain he was personally responsible for. Just the separation of families alone boils my blood. Just imagine someone showing up at your house and taking your wife, husband, mother, father, or child. You don't know where they are going, or how they will be treated... They are just taken because you are not human. You have no, and deserve no rights. Nothing. Your life is a gift from someone who had enough spare change.

[Jenoch]

169. Of course American slavery was a terrible thing.

Dwelling on it now changes nothing. Why not show some compassion for those enslaved right now?

[Glassunion]

170. You're making terrible assumptions.

I'm not dwelling on it, we are simply discussing it.

But, more importantly...Who says that I have no compassion for those that are enslaved right now? I dare you to find a post of mine where I even so much as implied that, let alone outright stated it.

[kwassa]

115. Robert E. Lee's slaves were descended from Washington's slaves.

Lee married the daughter of Washington's stepson, and inherited the slaves.

Learned this on PBS tonight.

12 of the first 14 presidents owned slaves

[Ykcutnek]

121. This is what happens when people take their copy of "A People's History" wayyy too seriously.

[stevenleser]

125. A very thought provoking OP.

Even considering historical context and his last minute refutation of the practice, I am not sure I will continue to support there being a holiday to honor him.

That is a serious issue.

[onenote]

135. Do you support honoring him with the name of the nation's capital?

With his face on the dollar bill and the quarter? With who knows how many towns and schools named for him? Of the various ways in which he is honored, a holiday seems quite minor.

And what about other slave-owning presidents. Do we take Jackson off the $20. Do we close the Jefferson Memorial and put someone else on the nickel?

Where do you draw the line and what rational justification is there for drawing that line?

And as I've previously pointed out, what about Roosevelt, who didn't own slaves, but who ordered 1000s of Americans incarcerated simply because they were of Japanese ancestry. Should we be honoring his memory? Should we boycott using dimes?

[stevenleser]

145. How many folks have a National Holiday for them in the US? That kind of honor should not be

bestowed on someone who has engaged in the practice of enslaving other human beings in general. And he did it for 50 years.

You're not going to convince me that he should retain the holiday.

the other honors are a significant step down from the national holiday honor we are discussing, although I will say that Coinage and bills should not feature slave owners or those who put people in internment camps based on ethnocentrism.

[onenote]

149. How many folks were the commander of the revolutionary army and first president?

A holiday is an "honor" that lasts one day and is celebrated by shopping or goofing off.

The Washington Monument is open all year long and visited by 800,000 per year. The capital city of the country is named for Washington. You think a holiday, known more commonly as "Presidents Day" is more of an honor than having the capital of the country named for you (as well as dozens of other cities across the country).

You can't seriously believe that the having the capital of the country named for Washington is a "significant step down from a national holiday that isn't commonly known by his name anymore.

What other moral failings should disqualify honoring Presidents. If a President in the latter part of the 20th Century named a cabinet that consisted entirely of white males -- should that be disqualifying?

[stevenleser]

151. I agree the Capital is a similar honor. And I would support it being revisited.

I don't think we need to consider lesser honors so there isn't much to discuss there.

[onenote]

156. 30 counties. 30 cities. At least

Last edited Tue Feb 17, 2015, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)

A dozen or more institutions of higher learning (including George Washington University, Washington and Lee (doubly bad, I suppose), Washington College. I have no idea how many high schools.

And what in heaven's name do we do with that state out west -- you know, Washington. Pretty big honor to have one of only 50 states named for you (the only one named for a former president). And not a little hardly noticeable state. But the 18th largest state by area and 13th largest by population.


And as you suggest, we can't stop at Washington. So I guess we need to dynamite half of Mount Rushmore -- being on that mountain is a pretty big honor to give to two slave owning presidents. And we better get Washington & Jefferson College to just close its doors (or maybe they could rename it Reagan and Bush University -- those guys weren't slave owners, so no reason not to honor them).

We're going to be so busy. After all, how many presidents have a major arena named for them -- buh-bye Madison Square Garden.

[Glassunion]

171. What moral failings?

How about the line in the sand be drawn at those who have deprived the natural and civil rights of anyone?

Still leaves a decent handful of presidential alumni in which to name our cities, put on our currency, and celebrate a day honoring them.

[onenote]

176. So you support renaming the state of Washington.

In the great scheme of things, with everything else that is wrong, do you really think making an issue of the various ways in which Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Jackson and others (including Roosevelt) are honored makes sense politically (keeping in mind that this is a politically themed board and that some of us actually care about getting Democrats elected and pushing forward with a Democratic agenda that counters the dangerous RW agenda more than we care at tilting at windmills).

If you can show me that there is a political benefit -- that the Democratic party would benefit from making the re-naming of the nation's capital, the renaming of the state of Washington, the removal of the first president's image from the dollar bill and quarter, of the closing/renaming/destruction of the Washington monument and Jefferson memorial (all necessary if one is to argue that honors shouldn't be bestowed on past presidents who owned slaves or who deprived people of their natural and civil rights -- and can we include Lincoln in that list for having suspended habeas corpus, an important civil right?), please do.

[Glassunion]

178. There would be no benefit.

But it'd piss off a shit-ton of republicans.

I'm well aware that it would never happen, and I'm not realistically asking that it be done. It never would. The evil of slavery will eventually be swept under the rug, not by malice, but by lack of interest.

We don't like to see our heros cast in an ugly light. Folks just tend to shove their fingers farther into their ears when their hero is spoken of poorly.

Fact: George Washington was personally and intimately responsible for depriving hundreds of people of their human rights. He personally deprived them of any freedom and liberty as he felt they were not equal to him.

Fact: George Washington is an American hero. Idolized because he fought for freedom, liberty and the ideal that all are created equal.

So, America has a state, a Capitol, and countless cities, counties, townships, etc... We erected countless monuments, idolize him on our currency, and consider him the one of the fathers of this nation. A raging hypocrite.

[onenote]

179. You realize it also would piss off a shit-ton of Democrats and independents, too, right?

You think Democrats and independents would cheer the demonization of Jefferson, Madison, Monroe? And Roosevelt? They'd be cheering for the replacement of FDR by Reagan on the dime.

[Jamastiene]

130. Well, you see the general attitude right in this thread.

People of today swearing up and down we should not judge people from that time based on today's supposed standards. Yet, still, some of the comments in this very thread diminish the atrocity of slavery. They are so flippant in their comments. It is truly disgusting to see.

K&R to your point anyhow, though.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

143. Believing that slavery was an abominable institution ...

Believing that slavery was an abominable institution and believing it's unwise to rip one out of his or her milieu and placing him or her in another are not mutually exclusive.

I remember when I did a paper for a History 101 course where I "discovered" that The Great Emancipator views on blacks were complex and not always benign and he wanted to repatriate them back to Africa . I was so proud of myself that I undressed Abraham Lincoln but as I got older and wiser I learned people are three dimensional human beings who can evolve.

[Warren DeMontague]

132. He had wooden teeth

Can you imagine what a pain in the ass, that must have been?

[GP6971]

153. Did you think your post

would get this many responses? Some good discussions going on.

[Liberty Belle]

162. John Adams refused to give women rights in the constituion,

Even after his wife, Abigail, asked him to "remember the ladies" when drafting it for "all men would be tyrants if they could."
Should we hate him because he didn't embrace women's rights?

There is much I would disagree with with most, maybe all of the founding fathers, their policies on slavery and women's rights being two, but i can still admire much they did that was positive for our natoin. They were products of their times, and if they lived today they might well be feminists or civil rights advocates. We can never know. But very few people who are honored throughout history are without flaws and even fewer rose about the beliefs of their time.

[BlueStater]

172. So what do you suggest we do?

Not celebrate his birthday? Take him off Mount Rushmore and the one dollar bill? Bulldoze the Washington Monument?

[Hekate]

177. Apparently we should disavow the Founding Fathers altogether & pretend the US was...

....immaculately conceived.

Or spend the week in sackcloth and ashes beating our breasts in collective guilt, burning copies of the Constitution because it obviously has no worth or redemptive value.