A question for people in the South.

[AverageJoe90]

117. The problem is, is that this isn't nearly as simplistic as you're making it out to be.

To say George Washington was not a fanatic is lying to yourself.

You have a rather simplistic & broad definition of "fanatic", Glass, and that is kind of problematic.

(here is where you are trying to downplay Washington's role in slavery)

Not at all. Simply relaying the facts, that's all.

here is where you are elevating the role of others in slavery over that of Washington

Again, merely relaying the facts: Washington & Jefferson both were against the expansion of slavery westward. Those aren't

You are right, however you omit the fact that Jefferson owned a few hundred slaves himself. You fail to mention that the White House was packed full of his slaves at the same time he was supporting that law.

It's kind of common knowledge at this point, so I didn't feel it was necessary.

So don't try to elude that he was somehow fighting for civil rights or anything.

I wasn't.

To me it would seem that what you are doing is downplaying Washington's role in slavery and elevating it in others

Again, there's no downplaying involved. He really didn't have that large of a role compared to others.....

They are all equal.

And this is where the problem lies; this, I'm afraid, belies your lack of understanding of the complexities of American history. Yes, Washington Jefferson and Madison ALL owned slaves that they inherited. Okay? That remains a fact. But to put them on an equal level with men such as Jefferson Davis, Nathan Forrest, Robert Rhett, etc., not only speaks to what I have said above but frankly smacks of historical revisionism as well, even if not intentionally.