A question for people in the South.

[Glassunion]

116. I do not think my analogy falls apart.

George Washington was a slavery fanatic. Not all of his slaves were inherited.

Let's say that I inherited 10 pairs of shoes when I was 10 years old.
Now lets further speculate the by the time I turned 27 I had acquired an additional another 113 pairs of shoes on my own.
But that was not enough, so when I got married, my new wife brought to me an additional 153 pairs of shoes.
But I still need more shoes... So I rent another 40 pairs from my neighbor.
Then, by the time I died, there was a total of 316 pairs of shoes in my closet.

I think by any account, no matter what the "Shoes" are, be it Slaves, Shoes, Knives, Guns, Cars, Computers, iPhones, Cats, etc... The object is immaterial. If one person owns that many, they are a fanatic of one sort or another. Some fanatic collections are harmless, be it shoes, stamps, or coins. Other collections... Not so much.

To say George Washington was not a fanatic is lying to yourself. He had hundreds of slaves and that was still not enough, to the point where he had to rent more.

The reason I'm pissed is the way folks are diluting the fact that George Washington was a slave owner. I get it. We all love George Washington, father of our nation and stuff. He is a role model, he is an inspiration to folks, and when other folks start talking shit about him, it is really hard to not want to defend him. I get that. But you are only lying to yourself.

To say that "Washington inherited a couple hundred slaves, that much is true. But (here is where you are trying to downplay Washington's role in slavery) he was no pro-slavery fanatic, unlike (here is where you are elevating the role of others in slavery over that of Washington) the vast majority of the C.S.'s founding elite of the following century, and neither were Jefferson or any of the other (major, at least) Southern founders. Men like Robert Rhett certainly were. And very much so."

and

In any case, there's no doubt that there were those (here is where you are elevating the role of others in slavery over that of Washington again) Southerners who were indeed quite fanatical about supporting slavery in the Antebellum era: just look at Robert Rhett for example! But (here is where you are trying to downplay Washington's role in slavery again) Washington wasn't one of these. Neither was Jefferson(and in fact, the latter fellow once supported a 1784 law which not only forbade slavery in the Northwest Territory but would have halted slavery's expansion beyond the Mississippi, period! It failed by just one vote: a congressman from N.J. who *had* supported the law had been out sick that day, and so he couldn't vote.) - You are right, however you omit the fact that Jefferson owned a few hundred slaves himself. So don't try to elude that he was somehow fighting for civil rights or anything. You fail to mention that the White House was packed full of his slaves at the same time he was supporting that law.

To me it would seem that what you are doing is downplaying Washington's role in slavery and elevating it in others in order to dilute the fact that Washington somehow deserves less scorn than those you are comparing him to. Washington, Lee, Davis, Forrest, Jackson, Hancock, Jefferson, etc... They are all equal. And all deserve the exact same respect.