Was he the purest man to ever exist?

Was he the purest man to ever exist?

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    he had slaves which means he was perpetuating the spread of Black folks into America which was a bad thing

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Even his slaves thought he was a great guy, and when he freed them in his will, they lamented the fact that they were free and no longer under his ownership

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Source?

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          http://www.freedmenscemetery.org/resources/families/documents/anderson.shtml

          > I believe the last time I ever saw Uncle Sambo he was complaining of being very "painful," and said he was a much happier man when he was a slave than he had ever been since; "then," said he, "I had a good kind master to look after all my wants, but now I have no one to care for me." It has been my fortune to become acquainted with many of Washington's old slaves, and they all spoke in the highest terms of their master.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            Interesting read thanks. So this guy bought his own slaves after he himself was freed? That's fricked up.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            When slavery was a thing, pretty much everyone who could afford slaves owned slaves. In the West at least, it wasn't as cruel as people today think, considering the living standards of free people at the time. As a businessman it was just like hiring a more reliable worker who wouldn't quit on you but did require a mutual respect and responsibility.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            You don't think that's painting much too rosy a picture? I definitely wouldn't want to be a slave, even if it was a relatively benevolent master like Washington apparently was. I think it's telling that in the article you linked, he said the thing he missed most about being a slave was having someone else manage his life for him. I guess that's what you would call slave mentality.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >You don't think that's painting much too rosy a picture? I definitely wouldn't want to be a slave
            To be fair, you probably wouldn't want to be a free man in the 18th century either. Life was hard back then for everyone. I think when people imagine slavery, they're comparing it to their relatively comfortable 21st century life. There wasn't a mountain of difference between a slave and a free man. Work was comparable, only a slave had the benefit of failure being impossible and a free man had the benefit of in theory being able to ascend to a comfortable position.
            When it came to house slaves rather than field slaves, they objectively were better off than the vast majority of working class people. Again, it's just the fact of the limitation on them that matters, that they may live a decent life, but will never live higher than that. If you weren't an exceptional person by nature, it was a pretty good deal.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I just always go back to a quote from Miguel de Cervantes, the author of Don Quixote. He was captured by Barbary Pirates, and was a slave in north Africa for 5 years until a group of monks were able to raise enough money to ransom him. After his return he said that a single day lived as a free man was better than a long life as a slave. Now why would he say that if things were as rosy as you say? He certainly would have known better than either of us.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I didn't say it was rosy, I said it wasn't as bad as people think, that there are pros and cons. I wouldn't compare being a captive of Barbary pirates to American slavery either, but compare who you're quoting to who I'm quoting. I have no doubt that an intelligent, successful author appreciates freedom. When you're a simple man who has virtually no chance of becoming great and wealthy, there isn't as much of a difference between "work for me all your life on my dime" versus "work for me all your life on your own dime." It mostly boils down to potential, which is reason enough not to have slavery, but it doesn't mean every case of being a slave was some kind of wasted existence where none of them were ever happy or content with the simplicity of their lives.

            Even Frederick Douglass said he was nearly ashamed to speak out against slavery when he saw the conditions of the poor Irish living freely in Dublin.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I think the pirates might have been a little harsher

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            I'm sure it varied completely by master, and that's something you have no control over. If your master is a completely tyrannical taskmaster that has no problem working you to death, or a sadistic bisexual rapist, you have no recourse whatsoever.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            While I agree that slavery in the American south was an evil institution, you are referring to North African slavery. I don’t know to what extent conditions varied between the two, but I would assume there enough differences to be important.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            >As a businessman it was just like hiring a more reliable worker who wouldn't quit on you but did require a mutual respect and responsibility.

            Mutual respect? People don't generally enslave someone they have mutual respect for.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They did when slavery was a casual thing. Good workers were rewarded and praised, house slaves were trusted and loved. Even one of Jefferson Davis' slaves on record talked about how good his master was and how he'd always tip his hat to the workers and gave his slaves education and treated them well.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Most of the slaves at Mount Vernon weren't actually his to do with as he please, they were "dowager slaves" owned by his in-laws. He couldn't free them without their permission, and just freeing his own slaves would have broken up multiple slave families.

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        Sounds like a good reason to get rid of slavery.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          NTA but some of them knew that. It's just that they found it easier to kick that can down the road rather than immediately fracture by starting the ACW a century early.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            To their credit, the Northern states pretty rapidly ended slavery even as they were recovering from the Revolution

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Most of his were Irish.

  2. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No he's incredibly overrated
    Frederick the Great was cooler

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      No, he was.

      He took it up the ass, the opposite of practicing purity.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      fritz was such a legend

  3. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nope, that's me.

  4. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No, that would be Cato - his idol.

  5. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No, that nice guy who called all Gentiles "dogs" was.

  6. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    Nah he was a Freemasonic homosexual and a demon worshiper

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      Masonry was different back then.

  7. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    My favorite trait of George Washington was that he mostly hated being president, largely because the American political system doesn't separate the head of state from the head of government, an innovation which had not yet come. Washington wanted to be the neutral, stoic leader of the nation who kept his hands clean and far away from political knife fighting; instead, (despite being an independent) he increasingly had to become the political leader of the Federalist party and fight constantly against Thomas Jefferson, who was doing everything he could to undermine Washington's administration and the authority of the Federal government. It's also not surprising Washington hated Jefferson by the end, since his former secretary of state was devoting himself to preventing the president from being able to do anything.

    It shouldn't be surprising that the Federalist party collapsed once the (Jeffersonian) Republicans accepted the legitimacy of the federal government, since all they had left was restricting freedom of speech and press, calling for immigration to be minimized, jockeying for war with France, fear mongering about "mob rule," and essentially telling the voters they were too dumb to be allowed to have serious influence in government.

  8. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No. Purity is subjective.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      I think the pirates might have been a little harsher

      No, he was.

      He took it up the ass, the opposite of practicing purity.

      hell no
      jefferson maybe

  9. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    No, he was a traitor and a war criminal. He also broke the revolutions own principles pretty much as soon as he entered office as President.

    • 1 year ago
      Anonymous

      >traitor
      He didn't betray his country, he formed a new one

      • 1 year ago
        Anonymous

        He was a British officer, he had sworn his oath. He was a traitor, he was a war criminal, and an all round piece of shit.

        • 1 year ago
          Anonymous

          c'mon Nigel, it's been over two hundred years. Your ass must've recovered from the whooping we gave it by now.

          • 1 year ago
            Anonymous

            They should be thankful after getting bailed out twice in a row

  10. 1 year ago
    Anonymous

    hell no
    jefferson maybe

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *