Was George Washington a hero?

bodie54 · Jun 20, 2007

Yes sir, quite sure.

Maybe what you're thinking of is that his wife and/or her family owned (or had owned - I can't recall just now I'm about to collapse from lack of sleep lol) slaves. I'm sure somebody else will be along to clarify the extent of Mary Todd's connection to the institution. If I remember right there were members of the extended Todd family in the confederate army as well --- but that kind of thing was not uncommon in that war which at times literally pitted kinfolk against one another.

maildude · Jun 20, 2007

A lot of good things, but a "true" hero? Not in the military sense. GO HERE

bodie54 · Jun 20, 2007

McRocket said:
To me, nothing justifies how those people were treated.

Nothing.

I hope you know I'm not trying to justify it, just to put it in some sort of understandable perspective. Nobody questions human bondage being utterly abhorrent. The fact human beings were ever legally defined as property is all but incomprehensible from our current perspective. But the best historians I know have the ability to time travel, in a sense, such that contemporary perspectives that might create biased and/or overly emotional resonses are unlikely to conflict with the objectivity of their study. Does that make sense? If not I'll try it again when I've actually had some sleep lol

auburn1791 · Jun 20, 2007

When you study his accomplishments during the Revolution, Washington was absolutely a hero - he took a bunch of rag-tag farmers and militiamen and defeated the strongest army in the world. Then as president he did well there too. He tried to stay out of the party divisions (he didn't even belong to a party). Keep in mind, if Washington failed as a president, then the Constitution and our system might have faltered by 1800. That's not to say he was perfect, but give the man credit where it is due.

Jagger69 · Jun 20, 2007

iamforever said:
so i got the timeframe wrong. lincoln was no hero. you do know that lincoln himself owned slaves, right?

I don't quite understand your predisposition against Lincoln

....and, to be blunt, your statements are just plain wrong Iam...

First, Lincoln did not die before the end of the Civil War (generally it is accepted that the war came to an unofficial end when Lee surrendered to Grant at Appomattox on April 9, 1865) and Lincoln was assassinated on April 14, 1865.

Also....Lincoln never owned slaves and his immediate family was opposed to slavery from the time of his childhood:

“His uncle, Mordecai Lincoln, owned a slave. His father's uncle,
Isaac, may have owned more than 40 slaves. The Richard Berry family,
with whom Lincoln's mother, Nancy Hanks, lived before her marriage to
Thomas Lincoln, owned slaves. Thomas and Nancy Lincoln, however, were
members of a Baptist congregation, which had withdrawn from another
church because of their opposition to slavery. Lincoln claimed that
his father left Kentucky for Indiana "…partly on account of slavery."

Link is here:

http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=572728

Lincoln's courage and foresight to have issued the Emancipation Proclamation that went into effect on January 1, 1863 was one of the greatest acts ever initiated by a US president. Until then, the true cause of the war had been an economic and states' rights issue more than a struggle over slavery. Without the proclamation and without the prior military victories in the field by the Union that gave foundation to such a move, it was possible and maybe even likely that the war could have ended without any emancipation whatsoever. This could have especially been true had any of the European powers that were being courted by the Confederacy decided to recognize the CSA or, even worse, joined the struggle as one of their allies.

Do a little research and you will quickly realize that Lincoln was and remains the greatest leader this nation has ever had.

McRocket · Jun 20, 2007

bodie54 said:
I hope you know I'm not trying to justify it, just to put it in some sort of understandable perspective. Nobody questions human bondage being utterly abhorrent. The fact human beings were ever legally defined as property is all but incomprehensible from our current perspective. But the best historians I know have the ability to time travel, in a sense, such that contemporary perspectives that might create biased and/or overly emotional resonses are unlikely to conflict with the objectivity of their study. Does that make sense? If not I'll try it again when I've actually had some sleep lol

I understand what you typed - you did it quite impressively IMO.

But it does not change my belief.

He did wrong. He appeared to know it (which makes it worse and makes him a hypocrite, IMO). And he did it all not to save his family or save others but to line his own pockets.
Maybe historians justify it - I do not.
And quite frankly, I think that historians out of necessity allow for certain things. It would (and should) be too painful to study otherwise without absolving those people that did bad things. By letting them off of the hook, the historians let themselves off of the guilt or emotional heaviness hook.

Look, I honestly doubt I will change your mind on this. And there is NO way that I can conceive that you will change mine.

To me, hero's don't treat generations of people barbarically for their own profit. I care not the time period or reason, for that matter.

A knowledge of right and wrong are not exclusive to the 20'th/21'st centuries. I believe they are something we are born with. It can be brainwashed out to an extent. But the basic human programming remains.
And I believe that most humans - even back then - knew that slavery was wrong. But since it was all around them and the common man/woman had so much less power then he/she does today, they just went with the flow. And the rich just wanted to get richer and more powerful.
I have personally known allot of millionaire's in my life. Not just met them. Known them. And one thing most of them have in common (but not all of them) is that no matter how much they have - it is never enough. And, like a drug addict, they will sometimes take ever more desperate measures to obtain more wealth/power - even though they may already have more then they could possibly ever need.
And like a drug addict, you can maybe excuse some indiscretions due to their habit.
I can understand why addicts do bad things to get high.
Just as with Washington.

I can understand why he might have done what he did. And I can forgive him for it (though it is not me whom he wronged). But I can never excuse - in any way - what he did.

And to call a man who did such horrible things to fellow human being's a hero surely must be painful for those descendent's of those he enslaved.
For when someone wrongs you, does it not hurt more when others think that person is great and wonderful? And does it not make you feel a little better that others share your dislike of that person and what they are capable of?
I believe it is no owns intent to do so here. But to call a man that did such horrible things to his fellow man a hero, belittle's the pain they went through.

Like it or not, it does.

You don't believe me? Find a descendant of his slaves (if you can) and ask them?

I maybe wrong - but I HIGHLY doubt it.

Robyn_Hood · Jun 20, 2007

bodie54 said:
... the bloodiest war we've ever fought, one in which more americans died than in all our other wars combined.

Yep; and where's the US Civil War Memorial. Where is that wall that has all the names of the people that died. That would be one impressive wall.

sarabellum · Jun 20, 2007

a founding father's neurosis

Originally posted by kungfudude:

He defined the Presidency for generations, and helped to form a nation with a certain set of principles, that still exists to this day.

Indeed, those principles were dehumanization, segregation, the era of lynching blacks after the civil war, and the neurosis of the politics of race that continue to define social policy. The Constitution and its so-called protections did not extend to non-humans: blacks, Asians, people of brown Native descent, Women.

**Do not hotlink pictures. Read the board rules!**

Lynchings were an afternoon form of entertainment. Note all the Anglos enjoying the spectacle. In their daily lives they were seemingly normal people. However, the psycho-social neurosis of racism takes on many forms and deeply permeates this society. Note yesterday's obsession with the Yellow Peril and today's obsession with immigrants. That neurosis continues.

Note that 3/5 of the population during Washington's tenure was considered non-human (i.e. African Slaves). Non-whites did not have the right to vote until 1964 with passage of the Voter Rights Act, forced by non-whites since the dominant culture refused to do so voluntarily.

**Do not hotlink pictures. Read the board rules!**
Exclusion of non-whites from certain higher paid employment was and still is the norm post Civil War.

Recall that restrictive racial covenants barred non-whites from owning property in restricted neighborhoods: http://www.drylongso.com/specialdelivery/articles/racial-covenants.html .

Recall also that while black slaves were giving their labor away, that wealth was being accumulated by a small class of landowners and newly growing merchants- the birth of American industry. This wealth was in turn concentrated, inherited, divised, and re-conveyed since the 1600s. All the while, the slaves and their descendants would inherit 3 centuries of impoverishment. I hope no one is suggesting that capital is merely conjured as if by magic. There is a limited amount and a small class gained it in this manner and continues to hold it today.

He and the other slave masters set in motion American Apartheid, the results of which we continue to live today. George Washington is indeed a founding father of that legacy.

Friday on my mind · Jun 20, 2007