[ArtAllm]

To Ixa:

So you believe in the inheritance of acquired traits (namely, victim status)?

It doesn't matter what I believe or disbelieve.

What matters is the experience the post-war generations of Germans makes.

There is a precedent case... why should we apply double standards?

[Captain Hat]

False, there was no unity in the revolution, many Americans wanted to remain under British rule. Some battles were practically civil wars, with hardly any British troops involved.

False. Indeed, many Americans did not want home rule, but certainly not a majority. In 1779, it has been stated, that there were more Americans in the British Army than in the Continental Army. This is, of course, undeniable fact. However, what is not represented in these statistics are the number of Americans fighting in Militias, where most Americans could be found fighting the British. There certainly was unity in the United States, however, certainly not the unity found in the United States today.

Also, there was practically civil war in the South (the Carolinas and Georgia). That, I won't deny you. However, I would like to point out that your statement implies that a minority of Americans supported independence, which is complete malarky.

I don't wish to denegrate the revolution, indeed one of my greatest politcal heroes is Tom Paine, but it long enough ago now to dispense with the propaganda.

I agree. But to say the colonies weren't united against Britain is silly. However, if you were to say that that unity brokedown perilously after 1783, I would agree to that.

[Ixa]

It doesn't matter what I believe or disbelieve.

So you do believe in the inheritance of acquired traits (Black victim status).

[Thunderhawk]

I don't know what books you've been reading about the American Revolution, but a coup d'etat implies a swift seizure of power.

It must be swift?
However, my meaning was more along the revolution part - as I view the "revolutionary" aspect to be limited, and in large part later reversed.

So to make a long story short, Washington's actions in regards to slavery and to put it on the road to destruction (albeit a long road) are highly significant. Congress tabled an outright century-long emancipation plan in favor of placating the deep south.

He gave a plan, and it was rejected.
doesnt sound like an achievement.

His actions were highly significant. As first President he set the tone for the executive branch and how it would operate.

So he was signifigant in setting the tone of the powers and influence of the position of president, but little seems to have been done about emancipation specifically.

[Captain Hat]

It must be swift?
However, my meaning was more along the revolution part - as I view the "revolutionary" aspect to be limited, and in large part later reversed.

By definition, yes. A coup d'etat is typically a swift seizure of power by a small group, like a military junta. A good example of such would be Napoleon's seizure of power in 1799.

Indeed, the "revolutionary" aspect was limited, especially through a modern lense, but one has to keep in mind that the rights (removal of property and religious requirements for offices, the abolition of slavery north of the Mason-Dixon, etc) created by the American Revolution between 1775 and 1789 were revolutionary for the day and age.

However, I see the angle you're coming from, and I've heard the argument before. Although, if I were you, I'd change my opinion from "The American Revolution was a coup d'etat" to "the American Revolution was just a War of Independence."

He gave a plan, and it was rejected.
doesnt sound like an achievement.

Again, you're missing the big picture. In 1789, Washington was The Man. He very well could have used force of character or just plain force. Instead, he put forth a rather radical idea (abolition in 1790 was such), but, low and behold, the Democratic system unfortunately rejected it. It doesn't necessarily take immediate success to get an idea rolling, the important thing is, especially in a democratic society, to get people to start thinking and discussing.

So he was signifigant in setting the tone of the powers and influence of the position of president, but little seems to have been done about emancipation specifically.

Precisely. The important thing is, however, is that he put the idea into people's heads and made slavery, for the first time in American History, a subject of (sometimes violent) debate. You must keep in mind that slavery was very rarely ever a subject of discussion, even during the war.

[ArtAllm]

Ixa:

So you do believe in the inheritance of acquired traits...

No, I do not believe in this crap...

But, as a German, I have experience with it.

I didn't inherit the traits of Nazis, but I have to pay for their sins.

We already have a precedent case... and double standards?

[Ixa]

I didn't inherit the traits of Nazis, but I have to pay for their sins.

Because you have been bombarded with humiliating anti-German post-war political propaganda. You have been conquered. The conquerors always write history.
African-Americans are bombarded with humiliating propaganda about how 'victimised' they all are because their ancestors were slaves, as if victimhood were an inherited characteristic. Victimhood has as a result become more of a badge of honour than anything else.

[Thunderhawk]

By definition, yes. A coup d'etat is typically a swift seizure of power by a small group, like a military junta. A good example of such would be Napoleon's seizure of power in 1799.

Ac oup can be regional, no?

If the Coup is succesfull, but later opposed by forces from areas unaffected/targeted by the coup, and the new government must fight to protect itself, it was still a coup was it not?
With the following war to maintain their independent authority, rather then to aquire the authority in the first place.

Splitting hairs definately.. and I admit I might be wrong. Generally, if old positions/status/groups are transfered from the old government to the new government en mass and whole, I consider it a coup, as only people in power have changed while the positions, institutions and to some extent policy and culutre are left largely intact.

Again, you're missing the big picture. In 1789, Washington was The Man. He very well could have used force of character or just plain force. Instead, he put forth a rather radical idea (abolition in 1790 was such), but, low and behold, the Democratic system unfortunately rejected it. It doesn't necessarily take immediate success to get an idea rolling, the important thing is, especially in a democratic society, to get people to start thinking and discussing.

And yee ball pushed away time and time again untill it rolled into a civil war.

.. do you think Washington was as influenctial specifically in emancipation as Lincoln was?

[Captain Hat]

If the Coup is succesfull, but later opposed by forces from areas unaffected/targeted by the coup, and the new government must fight to protect itself, it was still a coup was it not?
With the following war to maintain their independent authority, rather then to aquire the authority in the first place.

In the lense of the American War, this really doesn't make any sense. Granted, a coup can be regional, but, the key word is that a coup is swift, usually with the support of a military group. In response, I would say to you, compare the American Revolution to actual coups. There really is not much to compare.

do you think Washington was as influenctial specifically in emancipation as Lincoln was?

This is a rather difficult question to answer. Again, you have to remember that America during both administrations is very regional. However, Lincoln was much more adept at bringing disparate groups together and was very practical. Washington, however, did have personal influence (ie. "Father of his Country" and such) to push certain measures through Congress and to cement the authority of the Federal government.

I think it would be safe to say that Lincoln didn't develop such personal clout until late in his presidency in the months leading to his re-election in 1864. But that would be a different discussion.

[FAB0L0US]

Why does George Washingtons take on slavery affect his status as a hugely important figure in the creation of America and discredit the incredible military feat he accomplished and orchestrated? I mean, should we stop, forever, reading Candide because Voltaire hated Jews and thought blacks were sub-human? Is Martin Luther King Jr.'s accomplishments any less because he fucked around outside of marriage some?

No. They are all important men who deserve their place in history for what they did that was IMPORTANT. Some of their opinions or actions that may seem barbaric or indecent to us do not diminsh their importance in history. Anything outside this discssion of what made them important is just an attempt to discredit them.

Some battles were practically civil wars, with hardly any British troops involved.

Battle of Kings Mountain is the only significant battle I can recall that is such. And I cant think of any in the Northern theatre where the bulk of the significant battles took place. You discredit the amount of resources the British poured into supressing the rebellion. I believe the fleet and troops they sent out to crush the Revolution at the Battle of Brooklyn, at the time, was the largest ever assembled outside of Europe.

[ArtAllm]

FAB0L0US:

I mean, should we stop, forever, reading Candide because Voltaire hated Jews and thought blacks were sub-human? Is Martin Luther King Jr.'s accomplishments any less because he fucked around outside of marriage some?

No. They are all important men who deserve their place in history for what they did that was IMPORTANT.

Yes, I fully agree with you.

Almost all great men of the past were racists and antisemits and almost all great politicians and statesmen were butchers (Tamerlane, Chingizkhan, Napoleon, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao ... ).

I think that we should regard them as human beings. They are no angels and no devils, just human beings who played a big role in human history... and sometimes a very negative role.

[| I, CWAS |]

Why does George Washingtons take on slavery affect his status as a hugely important figure in the creation of America and discredit the incredible military feat he accomplished and orchestrated?

Because he was a president of the United States, that had policies that affected the future and exposes him as a hypocrite who took the easiest way out.

I mean, should we stop, forever, reading Candide because Voltaire hated Jews and thought blacks were sub-human? Is Martin Luther King Jr.'s accomplishments any less because he fucked around outside of marriage some

How many poets have exterminate millions? What affect did Voltarie's worldview have? Are you comparing the hatred Hitler had for Jews and the affects, to A poet who was loathed by the french monarchy and was esentially a lone voice?

No. They are all important men who deserve their place in history for what they did that was IMPORTANT.

So Hitler's name shouldn't be condemned? Should we endorse him and create a holiday in his honor?

If Person B is Serial Murderer, but happens to be a respected Journalist, should he be treated the same as a respected journalist who wasn't a serial murderer?

There is a differerence between honoring a man, and recognizing acts. Saying Hitler was a powerful speaker who managed to get elected, is different from saying lets have Aldolph Hitler day, and put him on the currency since what he did and beleived is not important, as all that matters is he is a historical figure.

Godwin'd

[Irish_Lefty]

All slaverowners should have their name sullied so to say if someone does not speak up against opression and suffering which is clear in front of them then they are not people to be admired.

[Captain Hat]

It is obvious that you have not read this entire thread. Please do so and post something a little more informed.

[Thunderhawk]

I think it would be safe to say that Lincoln didn't develop such personal clout until late in his presidency in the months leading to his re-election in 1864. But that would be a different discussion.

what does this have to do with Lincoln's act and influence of emancipation?
(back story is nice and all, but it doesnt shed much light, and does show anything new or compare)

This is a rather difficult question to answer. Again, you have to remember that America during both administrations is very regional. However, Lincoln was much more adept at bringing disparate groups together and was very practical. Washington, however, did have personal influence (ie. "Father of his Country" and such) to push certain measures through Congress and to cement the authority of the Federal government.

So, lets review?
Lincoln: presided over a country that was regional.
Washington: presided over a country that was regional.

Lincoln's attempt at emancipation: success.
Washington's attempt at emancipation: failure.

Considering the power and clout Washington had (as you pointed out), it seems like he was in as good a position to end slavery as Lincoln was, Washington just couldnt/wouldnt.

Washington did some for emancipation, yes.
But it was insignifigant compared to Lincoln.

[Captain Hat]

what does this have to do with Lincoln's act and influence of emancipation?
(back story is nice and all, but it doesnt shed much light, and does show anything new or compare)

What I am trying to say is that Lincoln was much more of a master of politics and had a knack for timing (ie. the Emancipation Proclamation).

Lincoln: presided over a country that was regional.
Washington: presided over a country that was regional.

Again, you're looking at things in a far too "black and white" perspective.
The nation was by far more regional (by regional, I mean that essentially each state considered itself sovereign) during the Washington Administration than under Lincoln (where the nation was more sectional, ie North, South, West)

Washington did some for emancipation, yes.
But it was insignifigant compared to Lincoln.

Good point, but as I've said, the fact that Washington touched the subject and threw it into national debate is notable. Other than that, I agree.

[Thunderhawk]

Good point, but as I've said, the fact that Washington touched the subject and threw it into national debate is notable. Other than that, I agree.

And how many other politicians pushed that ball around, yet achieved just as little ?





Washington's lack of success could be viewed as a noteworthy failure aswell as a noteworthy effort.



If his attempt is to be mentioned as a noteworthy attempt at emancipation, then he should be equally mentioned as a noteworthy slave owner, and as an owner, a defacto supporter of slavery.

making him a noteworthy supporter of slavery.


So, recaping Washington's "note worthy" actions with regards to slavery:

He attempted emancipation.
His attempt at emancipation failed.
he was a supporter of slavery.


All of these are "note worthy".
If one is mentioned, then they should all be mentioned.
But, what is the point in mentioning all of them?


.. they are all insignifigant.
Not meaningless! but still insignifigant compared to the actions of others, like Lincoln.

[ArtAllm]

thunderhawk:

If his attempt is to be mentioned as a noteworthy attempt at emancipation, then he should be equally mentioned as a noteworthy slave owner, and as an owner, a defacto supporter of slavery.

Yes, people are judged by their deeds, not their words.

[Captain Hat]

He attempted emancipation.
His attempt at emancipation failed.
he was a supporter of slavery.

I don't see your logic. This analysis doesn't make a particular amount of sense.

You obvioulsy don't understand the state of the United States in the 1790s.

But, what is the point in mentioning all of them?

Because its History! History shows the progression of certain ideas and events. I never said that Washington's limited advances to end slavery were of immense importance, I merely pointed out that it was of interest and got the ball rolling.