I don't think it's fair to condemn historical figures outright by isolated facts in their biographies, while dismissing all the good they may have done or how they may have evolved in their thinking over time. Nor do I think it's fair to judge them out of historical context and accordiing to contemporary sensibilities. In some ways we may be more enlightened than those who came before us, in some ways perhaps less so, but there's no getting away from the fact we stand on their shoulders. Hopefully humanity will be even more enlightened in centuries to come (if it survives) and will not judge us as harshly by their more progressive standards, as you would judge those who came before us.
No, I'm not going to give a man a pass for engaging in chattel slavery for his own personal profit. You'll remember, Washington was one of the richest men in the country at the time of the Revolution.
Nor do I dismiss the good he did. That doesn't make him not awful for owning slaves. And yes, I know he freed them at the end of his life, which shows that he definitely knew he was wrong.
Interestingly enough, he was the only slave owning president who did this.
I worship no man, and all of us are flawed and imperfect, from the founders to the present day. That said, Washington was arguably the indispensble man during the revolution and the founding of this nation. Without him it's doubtful we would exist as we do. Likewise, Lincoln wrestled the Union back together with great political skill and against all odds. Without him both the abolition of slavery and the eventual inclusion of African Americans into society would most likely have been delayed by many decades.
In a peculiar way, the south actually a major reason that Lincoln freed the slaves. He did it as a political move during the war, not prior. He certainly was no stranger to the abolitionist movement, but he certainly was not chomping at the bit to free them.
Freeing them was a good thing, but he mad sure to tell people that they weren't as good as whites, even during his debates with Douglas.
Saying every American president for the past 220+ years was "shit" is ridiculously snide, rash, and ignorant. One has only to look to current events with despots currently being toppled from their autocratic thrones in the Middle East and North Africa for a few contemporary examples and comparisons.
You mean the despots that we've supported, by and large? Sure, not Gaddafi, but we definitely supported Mubarak and his pet torturer Suleiman. Shit, we've supported kidnapping and torture ourselves, often using these same despots to do it.
We have a long history of supporting despots and dictators.
For all our faults, the very modern notion of power being in the hands of the people was born in this country. You were lucky enough to be born in this country too where you are free to call all the presidents "shit", though obviously you take that very much for granted.
The modern notion of democracy certainly wasn't born in this country.
That's a hugely ahistorical statement. Ignoring the fact that the native Americans had democracy here before whites ever showed up, you should probably do some reading on Montesquieu and Locke.
Frankly, your statement calling all US presidents "shit" says nothing about them, but it says a great deal about you and your immature understanding of history. I have said all I have to say and have no intention of pursuing this further, as there is clearly no meaningful discussion to be had.
Ah yes...tell me I don't know anything about history and then peace out.
Clearly you want to have an honest debate, as long as you can say your piece and then not have to defend it. Right.
If we're going to shit and run, allow me to say that it's should be clear to you now that I certainly am not ignorant of history, and I'm guessing it's your own ignorance that has caused you to come to such a weak and superficial defense of these men.