Isn’t that the same selective picking and chosing of Washington’s traits as the Confederates were doing? You believe that his(to recycle terms from upthread) Federalist leanings outweigh his status as a rebel leader. Any Confederates would doubtlessly argue the opposite. I think it’s a reasonable point of disagreement, with points to be made on both sides, don’t you?
At this point it seems we are going in circles.However, there is one thing in Doctor Who’s post to which I must respond:
I don’t think this analogy works at all. We have plenty of documentary evidence showing how Washington felt about slavery, the union, secession, and “states’ rights.” We don’t have to speculate.
We do not have similar evidence concerning MLK’s views on gay marriage. Any guess would be just that.
A better MLK analogy would be this:
What if a modern group of young black men decided that the time had come for violent action on the Civil Rights front, and began a terrorist campaign? Suppose they appropriated MLK’s image as their icon. Would they be justified? Of course not! King expressed his view repeatedly that non-violence was the preferred approach.
But would the posters to this thread argue that, well, King died 40 years ago, and there’s no way we can possibly know whether King would still support non-violence? And therefore that a black terrorist group would be entirely “justified” in using his image? After all, he was a black leader standing up to the man and fighting for civil rights, just like them! And their goals are the same! Justice for black Americans!
Well, how about another analogy that I’ve actually seen some conservatives use.
Would JFK support the invasion of Iraq?
Of course! He was a cold warrior! He fought in WWII, he knew we had to stand up to our enemies, he woulda made Saddam pay, he had a hawkish aggressive foreign policy, he played nuclear chicken with the Rooskis. Remember how he tried to have Castro whacked? Yeah, JFK would totally support the war in Iraq.
Or not.
The point isn’t whether JFK would or would not support the Iraq war, but that certain people feel that pretending to have his posthumous support is worthwhile.
And it isn’t quite as far fetched claiming, say, that Martin Luther King would support the war in Iraq. If someone claimed MLK would totally support the war, we’d look at him as if he had two heads. Clearly no one could seriously believe that. But JFK? Even though it’s a stretch, it isn’t that much of a stretch to imagine a cowboy like JFK supporting any old cockamamie war.
Ah. So let’s leave alone the whole justified/unjustified debate for one second (as you say, we are talking in circles). Of course, I’m about to spin my wheels a little more:
You think there is “plenty of documentary evidence” to show how Washington felt in regards to (1) slavery, (2) the union, (3) secession, and (4) “states’ rights.” All of this added up = your belief that Washington would not have supported the CSA.
I disagree with your interpretation of the evidence we have.
I think (1) is basically irrelevant, since (as you’ve stated) lots of people who didn’t support slavery supported/fought for the CSA. Therefore Washington’s views on slavery cannot be taken as proof that he would not have supported the CSA.
As for (2), we know that Washington was a federalist when it came to the formation of the Union. We know that coming off of the Articles of Confederation, he wanted a stronger central government. But we don’t know whether he would have felt the same way in 1860. Different situation. Therefore Washington’s views on the Union cannot be taken as proof that he would not have supported the CSA.
As for (3), we know that Washington supported the “secession” of the colonies from England. Just because he was a Federalist does not mean that in 1860, he might not have felt the same way about the CSA as he did about the Union in 1789. Therefore Washington’s views on secession cannot be taken as proof that he would not have supported the CSA.
As for (4), we know how Washington felt about states’ rights in 1789. We cannot extrapolate that to 1860 - again, different situation. Therefore even Washington’s views on states’ rights cannot be taken as proof that he would not have supported the CSA.
So basically here’s what the argument has come down to. You believe there is ample proof that Washington would not have supported the CSA and therefore they should not have been able to use him as an icon. I believe that there is not conclusive proof that Washington would not have supported the CSA, and therefore I don’t have any problem with them using Washington as a Confederate icon.
Shall we leave it at that?
Re: the examples in this thread. Honestly, I don’t think any have proved illuminating. The KKK example, the MLK example, and now the JFK example. It’s like the worst conspiracy theory you’ve ever heard. Let’s just let them lie for now.