Would George Washington have supported the Confederacy?

Would George Washington have supported the Confederacy?

  • Yes

    Votes: 30 18.1%
  • No

    Votes: 136 81.9%

  • Total voters
    166

TFSmith121

Banned
If he was "born later" he wouldn't have been the man he was

As it says, would the first POTUS, a symbol of liberty, freedom and humility have supported the Confederacy if he was born later?

If you think so, should we re-examine how we look at him historically?

If he was "born later" he wouldn't have been the man he was; one thing to keep in mind, the sectional crisis was very much a generational issue.

The southern founders were, by definition, strongly in favor of the union; their sons were the ones who created sectionalism because of the wealth inherent in slavery, and their grandsons were the ones who fought and died to try and preserve it. The Tylers of Virginia are the obvious examples.

So, sins of the fathers? Yes.

Sins of the grandfathers? Not so much.

Best,
 

It's

Banned
Jefferson was explicitly an abolitionist and the excised sentences from the Declaration of Independence are a testament to that. He correctly saw slavery as a potential threat to the future stability of the United States and he turned out to be right.

Re Jefferson, Washington, and all the other slave-owning freedom fighters: actions speak louder than words.

What is it with Americans and their worship of their founding fathers?
 
If he was born later? Who knows, quite possibly. Most early 19th century-born Virginian males (aside from the slaves, of course) supported slavery, and I don't see why Washington, were he born in, say, the 1820s (which was around the time slavery was started to be seen as good instead of bad), and became rich on slave labor, would have not.

But, the OTL Washington certainly would not have supported those who tried to destroy the country he had fought for years in a war to create, to preserve an institution he viewed as evil and morally wrong.

This is the man who resigned his command after the war. He certainly would not favor those who advocated violent insurrection simply because they did not like the candidate that got fairly elected. As Abe Lincoln said in his July 4, 1861 address, if a violent minority of the discontented are permitted to go around and start killing people because their party had lost the election, would violate the very spirit of free governance and prevent republicanism from being carried out, as the principle of republicanism is to accept the result of a free election, even if you don't like it.
That was at the time of independence. He grew much more ambivalent about slavery as he got older.

Though he did call the Missouri Compromise a "Firebell in the night".
Re Jefferson, Washington, and all the other slave-owning freedom fighters: actions speak louder than words.
Like freeing slaves in a will? Like abolishing the slave trade? Like the Northwest Ordinance? Like limiting the slave power's use of bondsmen for apportionment?
What is it with Americans and their worship of their founding fathers?

What is it with Britons and their worship of their Queen? Is there something wrong with admiring a dead historical figure? Or should admiration be limited to the living? Are people not allowed to admire somebody from the past?
 
Last edited:
What is it with Britons and their worship of their Queen? Is there something wrong with admiring a dead historical figure? Or should admiration be limited to the living? Are people not allowed to admire somebody from the past?

The two situations are not remotely similar. For one thing, no one, and I mean no one, worships the queen, not even her children. You would certainly never hear a self-respecting or even sane British person refer to "the Queen's intent". Admiration is fine, but when it gets to the point that ordinary men are seen as some fount of uncommon and nigh-divine wisdom, it becomes a bit odd. And to say that such a tendency doesn't exist in modern American culture is at best disingenuous and at worst outright dishonest.

As to the OP, the fire eaters were a special kind of crazy that didn't really exist at the time of the country's founding. It's like asking if Julius Caesar would have been a Republican or a Democrat.

On the one hand, they did own slaves, and giving them up after you die is akin to willfully sinning your whole life in full anticipation of a deathbed confession. It may technically get you off the hook but is about as far from moral as you can get. They were slavery supporters for all intents and purposes.

On the other hand, as said, the fire eaters were a special kind of crazy so it'd be hard to see Jefferson or Washington as part of that group.
 

shiftygiant

Gone Fishin'
What is it with Britons and their worship of their Queen? Is there something wrong with admiring a dead historical figure? Or should admiration be limited to the living? Are people not allowed to admire somebody from the past?

We don't live in Thailand; only the most dedicated worship the monarchy, and to find those people you really have to be digging deep. You are allowed to admire people from the past, but the point is that trying to base what the founding fathers would have thought of the Confederacy is null point- they would have opposed it as it was tearing apart the very nation they founded.

However, if they were born later, then you end up in a Alexander Stephens issue of seeing it as a 'it happens' to moderation to support. But if they were born later, they are no longer the same people as they were at the signing of the Declaration or the Constitution, and most certainly more southern Founding Fathers would have supported the Confederacy as the threat against Slavery was a Threat against their livelihood. But they would have been fundamentally different. We're not, after all, talking about what George Washington would have thought had he lived in the eighty years leading up to the revolution. We could easily have him take the Robert E Lee route of 'I'm doing it for Virginia'.
 
Top