Yes, Even George Washington

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
On the issue of American slavery, I am an absolutist: enslavers were amoral monsters.
The very idea that one group of people believed that they had the right to own another human being is abhorrent and depraved. The fact that their control was enforced by violence was barbaric.
People often try to explain this away by saying that the people who enslaved Africans in this country were simply men and women of their age, abiding by the mores of the time.
But, that explanation falters. There were also men and women of the time who found slavery morally reprehensible. The enslavers ignored all this and used anti-black dehumanization to justify the holding of slaves and the profiting from slave labor.
People say that some slave owners were kinder than others.
That explanation too is problematic. The withholding of another person’s freedom is itself violent. And the enslaved people who were shipped to America via the Middle Passage had already endured unspeakably horrific treatment.
Advertisement
Continue reading the main story


One of the few written accounts of the atrocious conditions on these ships comes from a man named the Rev. Robert Walsh. The British government outlawed the international slave trade in 1807, followed by the United States in 1808. The two nations patrolled the seas to prevent people from continuing to kidnap Africans and bringing them to those countries illegally. In 1829, one of the patrols spotted such a ship, and what Walsh saw when he boarded the ship is beyond belief.
The ship had been at sea for 17 days. There were over 500 kidnapped Africans onboard. Fifty-five had already been thrown overboard.

  • Thanks for reading The Times.
Subscribe to The Times

The Africans were crowded below the main deck. Each deck was only 3 feet 3 inches high. They were packed so tight that they were sitting up between one another’s legs, everyone completely nude. As Walsh recounted, “there was no possibility of their lying down or at all changing their position by night or day.”
Each had been branded, “burnt with the red-hot iron,” on their breast or arm. Many were children, little girls and little boys.
Not only could light not reach down into the bowels of those ships, neither could fresh air. As Walsh recounted, “The heat of these horrid places was so great and the odor so offensive that it was quite impossible to enter them, even had there been room.”


These people, these human beings, sat in their own vomit, urine and feces, and that of others. If another person sat between your legs, their bowels emptied out on you.
These voyages regularly lasted over a month, meaning many women onboard experienced menstruation in these conditions.
Many of the enslaved, sick or driven mad, were thrown overboard. Others simply jumped. In fact, there was so much human flesh going over the side of those ships that sharks learned to trail them.
This voyage was so horrific that I can only surmise that the men, women and children who survived it were superhuman, the toughest and the most resilient our species has to offer.
But of the people who showed up to greet these reeking vessels of human torture, to bid on its cargo, or to in any way benefit from the trade and industry that provided the demand for such a supply, I have absolute contempt.
Some people who are opposed to taking down monuments ask, “If we start, where will we stop?” It might begin with Confederate generals, but all slave owners could easily become targets. Even George Washington himself.
To that I say, “abso-fricking-lutely!”
George Washington enslaved more than 100 human beings, and he signed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, authorizing slavers to stalk runaways even in free states and criminalizing the helping of escaped slaves. When one of the African people he himself had enslaved escaped, a woman named Ona Maria Judge, he pursued her relentlessly, sometimes illegally.

Washington would free his slaves in his will, when he no longer had use for them.

Let me be clear: Those black people enslaved by George Washington and others, including other founders, were just as much human as I am today. They love, laugh, cry and hurt just like I do.

When I hear people excuse their enslavement and torture as an artifact of the times, I’m forced to consider that if slavery were the prevailing normalcy of this time, my own enslavement would also be a shrug of the shoulders.

I say that we need to reconsider public monuments in public spaces. No person’s honorifics can erase the horror he or she has inflicted on others.

Slave owners should not be honored with monuments in public spaces. We have museums for that, which also provide better context. This is not an erasure of history, but rather a better appreciation of the horrible truth of it.
 
Thing is, it's not like Washington is being honored for his contribution as a slaver owner. That's the difference between him and the Confederate monuments, and I'm sick of these idiots making the comparison. Was slavery disgusting? Yes. But that's not what why people are memorializing the dude.

If you have to be an absolute saint to get a statue, people are going to be sadly disappointed.
 
Yeah yeah keep whining about white people of the past owning slaves while you try and pretend your form of slavery over the people of today is apples and oranges in comparison.
 
Imperial Citizen said:
Washington had slaves and he ruled a new republic with restraint.

and that in itself is never acknowledged by anybody pushing this stuff. Washington ruled a republic, as a democratically elected president. He was offered and flat out refused the option of becoming a literal king and starting a royal dynasty where americans would be subjects not citizens. He refused that kind of power over people because he believed in what the constitution and declaration of independence stood for

The way they talk about washington at times you'd swear they thought it was this version of him

 
George Washington also set precedence for squashing lawless uprisings. Trump should take note.

Refusing to pay a tax is a Federal Crime, Washington had the jurisdiction to enforce the tax by , well, force.

Trump can't act on statue destruction if it's not a Federal one, I'd like to see the looters and rioters get what's coming to them, but, realistically, you need to pressure yellow-bellied Mayors and Governors to do their job, not Trump to overstep his boundaries no matter how good it'd feel to see the commie kids get run over by a Humvee.

In 90% of the riot cases, he can't do anything until and unless Federal property is at risk or the states ask for assistance.
 
Last edited:
...I am an absolutist: enslavers were amoral monsters...
I hate this.
The term is immoral, immoral monsters.

Amoral means without morals. Animals are amoral. To amoral beings there is no right and wrong, only winning and losing.
Immoral is evil. Immoral means either warped morals ("rape is good") or knowingly doing wrong ("rape is bad but I do it anyways").

Quit conflating the two you damn feel-good thunk-brains.
 
Refusing to pay a tax is a Federal Crime, Washington had the jurisdiction to enforce the tax by force.

Trump can't act on statue destruction if it's not a Federal one, I'd like to see the looters and rioters get what's coming to them, but, realistically, you need to pressure yellow-bellied Mayors and Governors to do their job, not Trump to overstep his boundaries no matter how good it'd feel to see the commie kids get run over by a Humvee.

In 90% of the riot cases, he can't do anything until and unless Federal property is at risk or the states ask for assistance.
Believe it or not there are federal laws against insurrection. Shocking, I know, but if Trump had any balls between his legs he could act.
 
If people aren't allowed to forgive Washington for owning slaves then why are they supposed to forgive George Floyd for robbing a pregnant woman at gunpoint?
All I'm saying is armed thieves are "amoral" monsters.
 
Believe it or not there are federal laws against insurrection. Shocking, I know, but if Trump had any balls between his legs he could act.
I'm not cool with the precedent that would set. It would be too easily flipped and used whenever the pendulum swings the other way.

We already had people shitting themselves and calling it an "overthrow of the government" when guys were armed in Michigan during the lockdown protests. Now imagine a Democrat president sicing the NG on them for "insurrection". Hard pass.

Not my circus, not my monkeys. Let the blue cities burn by their own political enabling and incompetence. This is their problem to solve on their own.
 
I'm not cool with the precedent that would set. It would be too easily flipped and used whenever the pendulum swings the other way.

We already had people shitting themselves and calling it an "overthrow of the government" when guys were armed in Michigan during the lockdown protests. Now imagine a Democrat president sicing the NG on them for "insurrection". Hard pass.

Not my circus, not my monkeys. Let the blue cities burn by their own political enabling and incompetence. This is their problem to solve on their own.
Insurrection laws are specifically for violent rebellions, not for milquetoast larpers who are all bark bark and no bang bang. If your argument is that the left would now have an excuse to do what they've been doing anyway for years, I can't help you.
 
Insurrection laws are specifically for violent rebellions, not for milquetoast larpers who are all bark bark and no bang bang. If your argument is that the left would now have an excuse to do what they've been doing anyway for years, I can't help you.
The left used the insurrection act to put down riots?

I get it, they are shitty and you don't like them. But going in there with the military under Federal authority doesn't fix anything. It just goes back to what it was before once they leave. With the added bonus that they get to vilify whoever sent them as the bad guy and it is all justified or whatever. Not to mention if things go wrong... what a shitshow that would be.

What needs to happen is the locals who aren't bomb-throwing commies get sick of this shit and demand it ends. Internet asspats aren't enough to sustain this long term.
 
The left used the insurrection act to put down riots?
The left has used force to put down people on the right who were standing up for their rights. The Bundy ranch incident comes to mind. Instead of the national guard and rioters they had the FBI and people who lived on that land for years before the federal government displaced them.

I get it, they are shitty and you don't like them. But going in there with the military under Federal authority doesn't fix anything.
It fixes everything. If BLM and antifa are dealt with like the violent terrorists they are then the threat is neutralized and internet speds stop thinking their actions don't have consequences. Problem solved.

It just goes back to what it was before once they leave. With the added bonus that they get to vilify whoever sent them as the bad guy and it is all justified or whatever. Not to mention if things go wrong... what a shitshow that would be.
So burning down towns, destroying historic artifacts and setting up rape tents in the middle of Seattle unchecked isn't a shitshow to you? It qualifies as a violent rebellion and should be dealt with as such under the existing law.

What needs to happen is the locals who aren't bomb-throwing commies get sick of this shit and demand it ends. Internet asspats aren't enough to sustain this long term.
Dead commies would also outweigh internet asspats.
 
Crazy Bitch said:
Let me be clear: Those black people enslaved by George Washington and others, including other founders, were just as much human as I am today. They love, laugh, cry and hurt just like I do.
Just curious. If white people get beaten or their life ruined, or enslaved as revenge, aren't they still human? Do they not love, laugh, cry, and hurt just like you do? Because the current state of things makes it seem like white people should not be allowed to do that, and should be dehumanized until they conform.

Remember, this has nothing to do with racism. It is all about hating America and it's history and white people.
 
Slavery is now famously a thing again in Libya, but blacks are still enslaved, always by other blacks, largely in west Africa. Mauritania only recently banned slavery. The UK spent vast sums in the early 19th century ending the trans Atlantic slave trade, to no gratitude.

Britain deserves very little gratitude for 'ending slavery', considering they were by no means the first European power to abolish it, and were perfectly content to let their allies, the Portuguese, continue trading slaves throughout their African colonies. While there were definitely idealists in the government who pushed for the end of slavery on moral grounds, it only ever became an empire-wide thing because it presented an incredibly handy excuse for the Royal Navy to arbitrarily stop and search any ship in British waters they liked, and those ships just so happened to mostly belong to their immediate colonial rivals.
 
Britain deserves very little gratitude for 'ending slavery', considering they were by no means the first European power to abolish it, and were perfectly content to let their allies, the Portuguese, continue trading slaves throughout their African colonies. While there were definitely idealists in the government who pushed for the end of slavery on moral grounds, it only ever became an empire-wide thing because it presented an incredibly handy excuse for the Royal Navy to arbitrarily stop and search any ship in British waters they liked, and those ships just so happened to mostly belong to their immediate colonial rivals.

They were also okay with buying southern cotton until the Civil War.

Then the Confederacy came to them with hat-in-hand and said "How bout' some diplomatic support? You wanna keep buying our cotton, right?"

Only then did they say "Nah, actually, we can't do business with, uh, slave-owning nations because, it's wrong and we banned it" , and THAT was only because someone talked sense into them about how bad it would be to suddenly be on the shit-list of the industrial NORTH when it came to trade.


Because there were still enough confederate sympathizers in the government that they built a couple warships for the CSA navy anyway... and got sued after the war for all the Union merchantmen and whalers they sank.
 
Last edited:
I'm not cool with the precedent that would set. It would be too easily flipped and used whenever the pendulum swings the other way.

We already had people shitting themselves and calling it an "overthrow of the government" when guys were armed in Michigan during the lockdown protests. Now imagine a Democrat president sicing the NG on them for "insurrection". Hard pass.

Not my circus, not my monkeys. Let the blue cities burn by their own political enabling and incompetence. This is their problem to solve on their own.
Clinton already did it Waco and ruby ridge. No democrat would do that unless they want Timothy McVeigh 2.0 who figures out how to keep his getaway car in mint condition.
 
Back
Top Bottom