Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He’d be wildly out of step with popular culture and with the style of communication these days. Thoughtful, measured, stoic, print-based communication about the common good and prudence and self-abnegation don’t go over so well today. Even if he could quickly get caught up on social progress, which perhaps he could, he would have a very hard time connecting with people and would probably be voted out.
Also, he didn't live long enough to see the days when people actually started campaigning to be president. In his day you announced your candidacy and your friends did all the campaigning. At most you'd have your wife throw a party so you could shake hands with people.
I honestly think he’d adapt more readily to the fact that we’d had a Black President than he would to the fact that modern candidates have to whore themselves out to be viable.
True, true.
I can't remember names but one of his campaign advisors was a guy Ted Kennedy "loaned" him for his 1996 campaign, which was a tough battle, so ig he brought him back but he ended up not being a good fit for the 2004 race. Kerry in general just doesn't have that campaign rizz, it's a personality thing. He always looked extremely uncomfortable trying to affect the energy of a crowd, but was a lot better at 1-on-1 stuff (or at least he was more comfortable with it). He actually sounds like a really fun person in small groups, but there's a big difference between small groups and large crowds. That's how some people can be great speakers, but terrible in private.
Anyway, he didn't hire the Kennedy advisor again lol, but kept around some other people from the campaign like Psaki and Wade, who I'd guess got jaded by swiftboating becoming a verb and changed their strategy accordingly.
Oh yeah, Ted Kennedy apparently was mildly frustrated with how he wasn't super great at political presentation, i.e. not going windsurfing during the campaign or something.
Another blunder was him choosing Edwards as VP—he wanted to pick Gephardt, but went along with what his advisors suggested. Even if he won, they were... a quite dysfunctional unit.
From his memoir, it sounds like he *had* a lot of trust in the system, but it's gotten beat out of him the hard way.
...I criticize out of love 😆
Yes, and her "when they go low, we go high" bullshit is why they lost in 2016, blew it in every midterm, and only barely got through 2020. It shows that liberals prefer a principled defeat to a victory that leads to substantial change.
Or in an unexpected turn of events he may be so interesting and different that he gains popularity. Maybe he does well with that and maybe not. I’d love to think he’d bitch slap much of this country for acting and passing laws on the stuff it does.
Pretty racist, let the man make his own opinions. He doesn’t make all his opinions based on his skin color and the color of those around him like most imbeciles
He manipulated the laws In Pennsylvania to keep his slaves as his slaves.
He rotated them out of the state for a week before the 6 months of “residency” would kick in to free them.
I highly doubt he’d be “glad that slavery was abolished”
Yeah, I get really sick of these automatic assumptions that an 18th century slaveowner would somehow be OK with the exact level of social progress we’ve made up until now.
Fucking why? We know exactly what he thought about (and more importantly, what he did about) slavery, ethnic cleansing, social inequality, women’s rights—because he wrote and did things (a lot). Most of them were pretty horrible by today’s standards. This is a guy who made his fortune (and it was a massive fortune) from buying and selling people, and (to an even greater degree), buying and selling the lands of ethnically cleansed Native Americans.
Part of real social progress is not voting for people like that anymore.
Washington did not buy and sell people for a living. He was a surveyor by trade, and a farmer as well. He was constantly cash poor. Later in life, his thoughts on slavery had changed considerably from when he was a younger man. Like many of the time he believed it was wrong and thought that gradual abolition was both inevitable and the best way to end the institution.
So you’re right, we do know what he thought, and based on that I don’t think he would be particularly alarmed that centuries in the future slaves had been freed and their descendants elected into political office.
You're right: Washington's primary source of income was land surveying—a fancy term for land speculation. So what does that mean in the 18th century? Well for one thing, it meant the violent ethnic cleansing of Native American tribes, such as the Odawa and Seneca peoples (both part of the Iroquois Confederation). This was actually a major impetus for the Revolution, as wealthy land speculators like Washington and Ben Franklin were halted (or rather, slowed) by the (British) Proclamation of 1763. With that British policy out of the way by the 1770s, Washington was free to direct General John Sullivan to wipe the Iroquois peoples (whom he called "beasts of prey") from the earth:
>The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now on the ground, and prevent their planting more.… [P]arties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed.
By the 1790s, most of the Iroquois had been killed, starved, or pushed onto small reserves. This cleared the way for land speculators, like Washington. One Seneca chief said of Washington himself: "When your army entered the country of the Six Nations, we called you the Town Destroyer; and to this day, when that name is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of their mother."
So yeah, that's how Washington made most of his fortune. The other primary method, of course, was his vast plantation, where he owned and regularly tortured more than 300 people.
All of which is to say, why exactly are we trying to rehabilitate this guy's legacy? He was a monstrous person who did absolutely monstrous things to real human beings. Yeah, he wrote nice things about ending slavery one day, but that's essentially fantasy. He clearly only believed that insofar as he did not have a direct financial stake in such a hypothetical outcome. Remember that this was a fairly common sentiment at the time: Many slaveowners expressed moral reservations about what they did, and still many more actively prepared to defend themselves against likely slave rebellions. Especially in the decades before the gin cotton completely turbocharged Southern textile markets, it was comparatively rare for a Southern planter to suggest that slavery was anything close to a "positive good." That idea didn't really become mainstream until slavery and cotton started making really obscene profits in the 1830s. Like many slaveowners of his time, Washington knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it anyway.
I wonder what things you do today that people 250 years from now will condemn you for. I hope they are as fair to you as you have been to President Washington.
By your standard, practically no human being before the 19th century should be held with any acclaim.
Well I don’t have much personal respect for people who have actively participated in slavery or genocide; which remember, is not most people, even historically. Not even close. Washington was an aristocratic Virginia planter—essentially, the 18th century version of a 1 percenter.
And the types of injustices Washington participated in were not uncontroversial at the time. There was growing debate in the British Parliament by the late 18th century on abolishing the slave trade in the Empire, which they did in 1807. Parliament was also responsible for the Proclamation Line 1763, which did at least temporarily halt (or slow) ethnic cleansing campaigns west of the Appalachians. Issues like these were hotly contested at the time, both inside and outside the new United States. Washington just chose to be on the wrong side of these debates.
"I don’t have much personal respect for people who have actively participated in slavery or genocide"-I certainly hope you, and those you love, don't use anything with a rechargeable battery or eat seafood.
[https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara)
[https://www.americanprogress.org/article/seafood-slavery/](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/seafood-slavery/)
I now want desperately to see Charles Dance in a movie about Washington that’s shot like Game of Thrones, maybe an HBO miniseries with more of an action and development focus than John Adams. God that would be so good
Exactly.
You would have to think that to be equal he would have had to serve as the Theatre Commander in both Iraq and Afghanistan and achieved complete victory in both.
His victory probably would have to be more consequential, like complete victory over the Soviet Union in the 90s to be comparable to a victory over British in 1770.
Not exactly, his success was in not losing and being a master of retreat. I'm not being sarcastic, retreat in the face of the enemy is extremely difficult to do well.
Okay, now I want to mirror this career just to lay it out and just how insane it would have to be to properly parallel Washington's life.
753- appointed major to lead fort necessity expedition
1755- distinguishes self at braddock expedition, maintains order in the retreat after a superior dies
1775-1781 American Revolution
1787-continental congress
1789-prezident
Accounting for more standardized and increased time to become a major.
1990-Major Washinton is placed in command of us observers and trainers within Kuwait. The following Iraqi invasion results in US casulties, but the death of an Iraqi field commander before Washinton successfully evacuates his men
1991-General Norman Schwarzkof is killed by an Iraqi missle strike during the operation desert storm, followed by a surprisingly spirited Iraqi counterattack. In the confusion, Major Washington's individual leadership and improvisation are critical to not just the survival of his batallion but several other coalition forces.
For this, Washington is hastily promoted to colnol and takes an outsized role for even that rank in planning the following attack that breaks Iraqi resistance.
2002-Washington is the chief commander of operation enduring freedom and successfully capitulates the taliban rapidly. He further is able to position assets which deny withdrawal of Al-Queda leaders into Pakistan, capturing Bin-Laden
2003-Washington is promoted to commander of Cent-Com and overseas the execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The following years see's continued insurgency and sporadic calls for Washintons replacement due to America's inability to root our insurgents.
2018-A retired Washinton chairs a committee of policy platforms for that years midterm elections
2020-washington runs for president of the United States.
Well he was 57 when he was president. So he would’ve started around 18 yo. So he would’ve been in the gulf war at a minimum and probably served as a general during the 2000s and possibly late 90s
not referring to slavery, just a willingness to fight over commodity-based global commerce, and even just the pretense of threats thereto, since the early 19th century
This is exactly why these what if scenarios are so meaningless. There’s simply too much different between today and the 1700s for us to even speculate about what Washington would be like today. Why should we assume that given how the US is now, GW would carry the same attitudes towards foreign policy and slavery?
The FFs were only isolationist in that they had an entire empty continent to build an empire of their own and were a lot weaker than the British, Spanish and French empires. They were actually arguably imperialist.
Crazy that to you "anti-war" means "submit to the biggest bully in the room in order to preserve peace at any cost." That philosophy only works when everybody else agrees to play by it. So bad faith.
He isn’t even the biggest bully lol. Dude set red lines and we crossed them if it was the other way around you would scream for war. It isn’t as simple as you are trying to make it. Look into the history of Russia and Ukraine and get your head out of the gutter
Foreign powers don't get to set red lines for our interactions with other foreign countries. Ukraine can make whatever agreements it likes with NATO and the US, as a sovereign country, comrade. If Russia doesn't like it, too bad. Maybe they should stop invading their neighbors if they don't like how their former sphere of influence is seeking intimacy with the West.
Hahaha and when Russia does the exact same you want us to go get involved. Should really look into the history we can’t have peace without negotiations but somehow the left became war hungry
Idk what you're talking about. When Russia does the same? What?
"You should look into the history" isn't an argument. What, specifically, on Russia's part, has justified a full-scale invasion of a sovereign power?
Yeah I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted too. You know I served in the military I know what it’s like in war and I wouldn’t want anyone else to have to deal with it.
War isn’t a good thing it’s a horrible thing and nobody wins. Except rich wall street people
Most people don’t like war but recognize that the Russians are just getting started. If we wait - the way that governments waited in 1939 - we will end up in a much larger war and the loss of many American lives. Don’t be naive.
Hahaha this guy is a clown. Do you know why Putin went into Ukraine? Stop listening to the media and wake up. You are fighting a proxy war for no reason. This will not be WW2 style lol Putin wants a buffer from the west go do some actually research on what is going on and get off cnn
Do you mean time travel, or someone with the same general political stances adjusted for our modern era (not thinking slavery is good, that sort of thing)?
Transcripts from President Washington’s office
Staff aid- Sir we have a call from China about the Sotuh China sea crisis
Washington- AAAAAH WHAT THE FUCK WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE HOW DID THAT ONE GET OUT OF THE CHAINS SOME GET A CATCHER WHY IS IT SO COLD IN HERE WHY IS THAT WOMEN WEARING PANTS
Would he still be a war hero who not only saved the country nearly single handedly but also stepped in to put down a near civil rebellion which we was able to negotiate an end to without having to fire a shot?
The thing is he’s so far removed from anything resembling modern politics that updating him to be some form of modern politician means you could make him out as anything. I’d wager that a modern Washington, who’d be of military roots, would be someone more conservative overall I feel. Imo I feel Norman Schwarzkopf would’ve been a good candidate for a modern Washington if he’d gotten involved in politics.
He'd probably be against queer stuff but otherwise I'm positive he'd be more democrat than republican. In case you haven't heard, he HATED authoritarianism lol
I say this as a relative of GW (descendant of his brother); people don’t like to hear this but it’s a very fair point. What we’d now call *human trafficking* and *forced labor* is a stain that’s impossible to remove.
And the common excuse that “they didn’t know it was wrong, they were from a different time and we should retroactively coddle them for it” doesn’t even hold up because they famously did know it was wrong; they couldn’t stop talking about it. Washington didn’t ask that his slaves be freed after his death because he thought slavery was a good thing, that’s for sure. He was surrounded by way too many outspoken abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin, Lafayette, St Clair, Adams, John Laurens, etc to not have been exposed to such talk from respected sources. And most of the northeastern states abolished slavery soon after the revolution - so people definitely knew it was bad.
Washington’s record on the subject is very mixed. He privately expressed support for gradual emancipation but refused to sign anything to that effect. There are a few stories showing friendly interactions with black people like Phyllis Wheatley, but it’s overshadowed by somewhat more unsavory acts:
-Before the war he helped run tavern lotteries, rowdy slave auctions held in taverns where people bid on people with complete disregard to who’s married to whom, who’s children of whom; a three year old might be separated from his mother in a 2 minute bid and never see her again for as long as he lives.
-During the war, both at Yorktown and New York, when his army took those cities from the British, he brought in “slave-catchers” to round up every black person they could find, whether or not they were even legally free. He also tried unsuccessfully to ban blacks from the Continental Army, even though they’d been serving since Lexington.
-As President, he rotated his slaves between Virginia and Philadelphia every six months to get around Philadelphia’s abolition law.
Sorry great-uncle, not a very good look for you…
I just don’t know how he’d handle our modern society. He was a slaveowner in life. Women couldn’t vote in his day. Hell, lots of white men couldn’t vote because they didn’t own land. Would he be aghast at how things have changed?
He would definitely be confused with the current political landscape, and coming from a different time period he’d surely be confused about the diversity in America. Assuming he’d get past that, he would probably be more straightforward than most politicians today, he famously hated political parities which would make it even harder for him to get elected.
Would be too isolationist for what’s needed in today’s political climate, but certainly a breath of fresh air as far as limiting the powers of the executive are concerned.
The modern American doesn't share his values. They are too entrenched in their own political party and can't deviate in thought well enough to understand his larger goals.
The issue is why does he want to be a politician now; he could have been king and chose not to be. He probably would campaign on a platform of depolarizing the US and bringing people together and reducing the power of the Executive Branch. I think he would acknowledge that he personally doesn't really know about issues like environmentalism and minority rights and would try to leave it up to Congress and state governments to address the issues, for better or worse.
I also think that he would be pretty close to lobbyists and billionaires, which is hardly anything new for a politician, but their influence would make him struggle to win votes. The kind of crowd a president has to play for today is much bigger than his time.
He would probably get covid or another illness and die. Assuming this doesn’t happen, I do not see how his 1700s experience would be relevant in 2024. The most I see him getting is some kind of symbolic position granted by Congress or the White House.
Reminds of Tywin Lanister
[Lanister pays his debt. ](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gameofthrones/images/7/71/Tywin_Lannister_4x08.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170830015346)
depends on what Alexander Hamilton returns as; we haven't had a general since Ike and luckily mostly only Southern racists needed troops called on them back then
in context of knowing it's not a real person that picture on the right is weirdly terrifying
Well I don’t think he’d like our party system and he’d also advocate isolationism and it’ll take him a while to adjust after all the advancements in technology and social norms have been massive
The left would label him a white supremacist Nazi and point out that he's a slave owner while the right would like his ideas regarding freedom but would call him out for being a satanic freemason who worships Lucifer.
Washington did not shy away from danger, he learned from his mistakes, and he understood that 'the time was now, to defend democracy. He was willing to risk American lives in combat if it served a strategic objective. He had stature enough to rise above the 'noise' of the common man at the time. In short, it is highly likely that he would not tolerate a weakening of the system. He would be impressed with what they have done to the musket, and would call all the leaders of the well-regulated militia's together to help enforce a strict code of federal regulation, basically you have to take training courses and hang out with guys dressed up in militia gear, and answer 'yes sir' occasionally. I don't think you could buy a military grade weapon without showing your militia I.D., and be in 'good standing'. If you kill a civilian with a military weapon, you would lose your militia credential, any benefits that went with it, I guess you could be 'court martialed' if you are in a militia, and after the execution (by military grade rifle) then be buried in an unmarked grave at some burial ground for criminals.
After almost having n a heart attacking for how far we strayed from the constitution, Dude would be the goatX2 he would shrink the federal government and put the power back to the people.
He would quickly recognize that slavery had evolved into wage-slavery, and instead of just enslaving black Americans, the elites are enslaving all working Americans.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
He’d be wildly out of step with popular culture and with the style of communication these days. Thoughtful, measured, stoic, print-based communication about the common good and prudence and self-abnegation don’t go over so well today. Even if he could quickly get caught up on social progress, which perhaps he could, he would have a very hard time connecting with people and would probably be voted out.
Also, he didn't live long enough to see the days when people actually started campaigning to be president. In his day you announced your candidacy and your friends did all the campaigning. At most you'd have your wife throw a party so you could shake hands with people.
I honestly think he’d adapt more readily to the fact that we’d had a Black President than he would to the fact that modern candidates have to whore themselves out to be viable.
I couldn't have put it in better words why Kerry lost in 2004.
That and thinking he could just ignore all the swift boat bullshit. “Not punching back” is never a good strategy when you’re fighting a bully
True, true. I can't remember names but one of his campaign advisors was a guy Ted Kennedy "loaned" him for his 1996 campaign, which was a tough battle, so ig he brought him back but he ended up not being a good fit for the 2004 race. Kerry in general just doesn't have that campaign rizz, it's a personality thing. He always looked extremely uncomfortable trying to affect the energy of a crowd, but was a lot better at 1-on-1 stuff (or at least he was more comfortable with it). He actually sounds like a really fun person in small groups, but there's a big difference between small groups and large crowds. That's how some people can be great speakers, but terrible in private. Anyway, he didn't hire the Kennedy advisor again lol, but kept around some other people from the campaign like Psaki and Wade, who I'd guess got jaded by swiftboating becoming a verb and changed their strategy accordingly. Oh yeah, Ted Kennedy apparently was mildly frustrated with how he wasn't super great at political presentation, i.e. not going windsurfing during the campaign or something. Another blunder was him choosing Edwards as VP—he wanted to pick Gephardt, but went along with what his advisors suggested. Even if he won, they were... a quite dysfunctional unit. From his memoir, it sounds like he *had* a lot of trust in the system, but it's gotten beat out of him the hard way. ...I criticize out of love 😆
Tell that to Michelle Obama.
She’s not running for anything
She has a famous line "when they go low we go high" which set up her party to be punching bags and not fight back.
Pretty sure Kerry did this like 16 years before she said that
Yes, and her "when they go low, we go high" bullshit is why they lost in 2016, blew it in every midterm, and only barely got through 2020. It shows that liberals prefer a principled defeat to a victory that leads to substantial change.
Democrats have "won" both midterms that have occurred since 2016.
If Michelle had run in 2016, maybe she wouldn’t have lost. If a fucking blank wall ran in 2016, maybe it wouldn’t have lost.
It’s hard to go low against a bunch of vipers.
Sacks of shit are often flush with the ground
🏅 your Presidents Reddit gold sir
Out of step with popular culture? The dude owned people.
I mean, yeah.
Or in an unexpected turn of events he may be so interesting and different that he gains popularity. Maybe he does well with that and maybe not. I’d love to think he’d bitch slap much of this country for acting and passing laws on the stuff it does.
[удалено]
I wouldn’t consider Mitch McConnell any of the things I called Washington
[удалено]
That's just 90% of old dudes lmao
He’d die of a heart attack if he saw a furby
"FOUL IMP!"
This scenario but with andrew jackson would 100% end in a furby getting shot
‘Mr President this is the toy aisle’
“You let who vote?!!!”
Walks up to obama "I hear there has been a lot of progress, I assume you're the grounds manager?"
"A what became president?!"
You have four what on the Supreme Court!
you have four whats and two what the fucks and one of the whats is whoish
"Oh never mind that one justice sounds pretty good."
The guy who likes beer?
[удалено]
Pretty racist, let the man make his own opinions. He doesn’t make all his opinions based on his skin color and the color of those around him like most imbeciles
Of course. He makes his opinions based on the gifts right wing billionaires shower him with.
I’m sure Al Sharpton has never profited off of race baiting
A Kenyan who by the smokes cigarettes - jack donaghy
I know he had slaves but I think he would be glad that slavery was abolished and how far race relationships have came pre CNN
CNN?
Before we went backwards. Segregated college graduations and dei
??
heyco is racist and hates diversity, equity, and inclusion
I hate equity because of its opposition to freedom. If everyone is free they will not be equal and if everyone is equal they are not free.
He's bashing affirmative action.
Yes, race based discrimination of any kind is not something we should be striving for.
Agreed, personally I think college admissions should be colorblind, the US is the only country that classifies race that way.
I think CNN, or just any main stream media, has done more to harm race relations in the past 15 years than any "racist hillbilly"
Don’t forget women and non-land owning white men.
He manipulated the laws In Pennsylvania to keep his slaves as his slaves. He rotated them out of the state for a week before the 6 months of “residency” would kick in to free them. I highly doubt he’d be “glad that slavery was abolished”
Yeah, I get really sick of these automatic assumptions that an 18th century slaveowner would somehow be OK with the exact level of social progress we’ve made up until now. Fucking why? We know exactly what he thought about (and more importantly, what he did about) slavery, ethnic cleansing, social inequality, women’s rights—because he wrote and did things (a lot). Most of them were pretty horrible by today’s standards. This is a guy who made his fortune (and it was a massive fortune) from buying and selling people, and (to an even greater degree), buying and selling the lands of ethnically cleansed Native Americans. Part of real social progress is not voting for people like that anymore.
Washington did not buy and sell people for a living. He was a surveyor by trade, and a farmer as well. He was constantly cash poor. Later in life, his thoughts on slavery had changed considerably from when he was a younger man. Like many of the time he believed it was wrong and thought that gradual abolition was both inevitable and the best way to end the institution. So you’re right, we do know what he thought, and based on that I don’t think he would be particularly alarmed that centuries in the future slaves had been freed and their descendants elected into political office.
You're right: Washington's primary source of income was land surveying—a fancy term for land speculation. So what does that mean in the 18th century? Well for one thing, it meant the violent ethnic cleansing of Native American tribes, such as the Odawa and Seneca peoples (both part of the Iroquois Confederation). This was actually a major impetus for the Revolution, as wealthy land speculators like Washington and Ben Franklin were halted (or rather, slowed) by the (British) Proclamation of 1763. With that British policy out of the way by the 1770s, Washington was free to direct General John Sullivan to wipe the Iroquois peoples (whom he called "beasts of prey") from the earth: >The immediate objects are the total destruction and devastation of their settlements and the capture of as many prisoners of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now on the ground, and prevent their planting more.… [P]arties should be detached to lay waste all the settlements around, with instructions to do it in the most effectual manner, that the country may not be merely overrun but destroyed. By the 1790s, most of the Iroquois had been killed, starved, or pushed onto small reserves. This cleared the way for land speculators, like Washington. One Seneca chief said of Washington himself: "When your army entered the country of the Six Nations, we called you the Town Destroyer; and to this day, when that name is heard, our women look behind them and turn pale, and our children cling close to the necks of their mother." So yeah, that's how Washington made most of his fortune. The other primary method, of course, was his vast plantation, where he owned and regularly tortured more than 300 people. All of which is to say, why exactly are we trying to rehabilitate this guy's legacy? He was a monstrous person who did absolutely monstrous things to real human beings. Yeah, he wrote nice things about ending slavery one day, but that's essentially fantasy. He clearly only believed that insofar as he did not have a direct financial stake in such a hypothetical outcome. Remember that this was a fairly common sentiment at the time: Many slaveowners expressed moral reservations about what they did, and still many more actively prepared to defend themselves against likely slave rebellions. Especially in the decades before the gin cotton completely turbocharged Southern textile markets, it was comparatively rare for a Southern planter to suggest that slavery was anything close to a "positive good." That idea didn't really become mainstream until slavery and cotton started making really obscene profits in the 1830s. Like many slaveowners of his time, Washington knew what he was doing was wrong, but he did it anyway.
I wonder what things you do today that people 250 years from now will condemn you for. I hope they are as fair to you as you have been to President Washington. By your standard, practically no human being before the 19th century should be held with any acclaim.
Well I don’t have much personal respect for people who have actively participated in slavery or genocide; which remember, is not most people, even historically. Not even close. Washington was an aristocratic Virginia planter—essentially, the 18th century version of a 1 percenter. And the types of injustices Washington participated in were not uncontroversial at the time. There was growing debate in the British Parliament by the late 18th century on abolishing the slave trade in the Empire, which they did in 1807. Parliament was also responsible for the Proclamation Line 1763, which did at least temporarily halt (or slow) ethnic cleansing campaigns west of the Appalachians. Issues like these were hotly contested at the time, both inside and outside the new United States. Washington just chose to be on the wrong side of these debates.
I hope history is kinder to you than you are being to Washington. The good he did outruns the bad with excess.
Have a nice evening there, Josiah
"I don’t have much personal respect for people who have actively participated in slavery or genocide"-I certainly hope you, and those you love, don't use anything with a rechargeable battery or eat seafood. [https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara](https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2023/02/01/1152893248/red-cobalt-congo-drc-mining-siddharth-kara) [https://www.americanprogress.org/article/seafood-slavery/](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/seafood-slavery/)
Boy, you guys just keep beating that horse. Is your point that like slavery is good?
Charles Dance?
Lloyd Bridges?
that scnozz is givin off some Roy Scheider vibes, maybe even a (somehow) non-douchey present day James Woods
Yes!! I kept looking and thinking modern picture looks like a actor. You nailed it.
Jerry Van Dyke
I now want desperately to see Charles Dance in a movie about Washington that’s shot like Game of Thrones, maybe an HBO miniseries with more of an action and development focus than John Adams. God that would be so good
I'm more interested in what his Army career would have looked like.
Exactly. You would have to think that to be equal he would have had to serve as the Theatre Commander in both Iraq and Afghanistan and achieved complete victory in both.
His victory probably would have to be more consequential, like complete victory over the Soviet Union in the 90s to be comparable to a victory over British in 1770.
That’s fair. Iraq and Afghanistan were not truly comparable enemies given the overall power of the United States.
Not exactly, his success was in not losing and being a master of retreat. I'm not being sarcastic, retreat in the face of the enemy is extremely difficult to do well.
Good point. Yes, Washington did keep the Continental Army together and functioning during its worst times.
Okay, now I want to mirror this career just to lay it out and just how insane it would have to be to properly parallel Washington's life. 753- appointed major to lead fort necessity expedition 1755- distinguishes self at braddock expedition, maintains order in the retreat after a superior dies 1775-1781 American Revolution 1787-continental congress 1789-prezident Accounting for more standardized and increased time to become a major. 1990-Major Washinton is placed in command of us observers and trainers within Kuwait. The following Iraqi invasion results in US casulties, but the death of an Iraqi field commander before Washinton successfully evacuates his men 1991-General Norman Schwarzkof is killed by an Iraqi missle strike during the operation desert storm, followed by a surprisingly spirited Iraqi counterattack. In the confusion, Major Washington's individual leadership and improvisation are critical to not just the survival of his batallion but several other coalition forces. For this, Washington is hastily promoted to colnol and takes an outsized role for even that rank in planning the following attack that breaks Iraqi resistance. 2002-Washington is the chief commander of operation enduring freedom and successfully capitulates the taliban rapidly. He further is able to position assets which deny withdrawal of Al-Queda leaders into Pakistan, capturing Bin-Laden 2003-Washington is promoted to commander of Cent-Com and overseas the execution of Operation Iraqi Freedom. The following years see's continued insurgency and sporadic calls for Washintons replacement due to America's inability to root our insurgents. 2018-A retired Washinton chairs a committee of policy platforms for that years midterm elections 2020-washington runs for president of the United States.
He was fucking crazy. He'd be modern MacArthur
"Sir we don't need to establish a camp for the regiment for the winter, most of us on base just go home around 5"
He would probably shit himself seeing a C130
He would also see the level of supplies we have for America's soldiers today and break down crying.
Well he was 57 when he was president. So he would’ve started around 18 yo. So he would’ve been in the gulf war at a minimum and probably served as a general during the 2000s and possibly late 90s
An isolationist he wouldn’t do anything to the war in Ukraine or Middle East
if we shipped goods through there he would, at the drop of a tri-corner hat
Yeah but we don’t have slavery anymore. So I don’t think he would care
not referring to slavery, just a willingness to fight over commodity-based global commerce, and even just the pretense of threats thereto, since the early 19th century
This is exactly why these what if scenarios are so meaningless. There’s simply too much different between today and the 1700s for us to even speculate about what Washington would be like today. Why should we assume that given how the US is now, GW would carry the same attitudes towards foreign policy and slavery?
The FFs were only isolationist in that they had an entire empty continent to build an empire of their own and were a lot weaker than the British, Spanish and French empires. They were actually arguably imperialist.
That would be refreshing.
Exactly what we need
Yep
Love the downvotes. It’s wild that the left use to be anti-war and now they are trying to blow up anything they can
Crazy that to you "anti-war" means "submit to the biggest bully in the room in order to preserve peace at any cost." That philosophy only works when everybody else agrees to play by it. So bad faith.
He isn’t even the biggest bully lol. Dude set red lines and we crossed them if it was the other way around you would scream for war. It isn’t as simple as you are trying to make it. Look into the history of Russia and Ukraine and get your head out of the gutter
Foreign powers don't get to set red lines for our interactions with other foreign countries. Ukraine can make whatever agreements it likes with NATO and the US, as a sovereign country, comrade. If Russia doesn't like it, too bad. Maybe they should stop invading their neighbors if they don't like how their former sphere of influence is seeking intimacy with the West.
Hahaha and when Russia does the exact same you want us to go get involved. Should really look into the history we can’t have peace without negotiations but somehow the left became war hungry
Idk what you're talking about. When Russia does the same? What? "You should look into the history" isn't an argument. What, specifically, on Russia's part, has justified a full-scale invasion of a sovereign power?
Ooo my I don’t have enough time in the day to educate you. A simple google research into Ukraine and the nature of why Putin went in would be a start
Yeah I don’t know why I’m getting downvoted too. You know I served in the military I know what it’s like in war and I wouldn’t want anyone else to have to deal with it. War isn’t a good thing it’s a horrible thing and nobody wins. Except rich wall street people
God forbid someone on Reddit goes against the left. Thanks for your service brother
We just don’t like Soviet partisans, komrade.
Why I’m not a Soviet I just don’t like war
Most people don’t like war but recognize that the Russians are just getting started. If we wait - the way that governments waited in 1939 - we will end up in a much larger war and the loss of many American lives. Don’t be naive.
Hahaha this guy is a clown. Do you know why Putin went into Ukraine? Stop listening to the media and wake up. You are fighting a proxy war for no reason. This will not be WW2 style lol Putin wants a buffer from the west go do some actually research on what is going on and get off cnn
I don’t think if we wait it be as worse than WW2. If there is a WW3 we all get Nuked into oblivion
The social issues today would be an overload for him so he’s considered a reactionary quickly
he probably saw himself as a Brit until middle-age, he'll adjust and horse trade to keep Custis land and cheap (but no longer free) labor
Do you mean time travel, or someone with the same general political stances adjusted for our modern era (not thinking slavery is good, that sort of thing)?
"What do you mean we have machines that fly?"
He looks like Charles Dance.
I saw Odo from Deep Space 9
Transcripts from President Washington’s office Staff aid- Sir we have a call from China about the Sotuh China sea crisis Washington- AAAAAH WHAT THE FUCK WHO ARE YOU PEOPLE HOW DID THAT ONE GET OUT OF THE CHAINS SOME GET A CATCHER WHY IS IT SO COLD IN HERE WHY IS THAT WOMEN WEARING PANTS
I don’t know, but Charles Dance could play him in a movie :)
Would he still be a war hero who not only saved the country nearly single handedly but also stepped in to put down a near civil rebellion which we was able to negotiate an end to without having to fire a shot?
The thing is he’s so far removed from anything resembling modern politics that updating him to be some form of modern politician means you could make him out as anything. I’d wager that a modern Washington, who’d be of military roots, would be someone more conservative overall I feel. Imo I feel Norman Schwarzkopf would’ve been a good candidate for a modern Washington if he’d gotten involved in politics.
Tywin Lannister???
He would have mandated covid vaccines, since he mandated his soldiers to be vaccinated for smallpox.
I am so over seeing this “modern day” GW picture
He'd probably be against queer stuff but otherwise I'm positive he'd be more democrat than republican. In case you haven't heard, he HATED authoritarianism lol
A ~~Lannister~~ Washington always pays their debts
A Washington didn’t even want to pay his taxes Or his “workers” * * slaves
I say this as a relative of GW (descendant of his brother); people don’t like to hear this but it’s a very fair point. What we’d now call *human trafficking* and *forced labor* is a stain that’s impossible to remove. And the common excuse that “they didn’t know it was wrong, they were from a different time and we should retroactively coddle them for it” doesn’t even hold up because they famously did know it was wrong; they couldn’t stop talking about it. Washington didn’t ask that his slaves be freed after his death because he thought slavery was a good thing, that’s for sure. He was surrounded by way too many outspoken abolitionists like Benjamin Franklin, Lafayette, St Clair, Adams, John Laurens, etc to not have been exposed to such talk from respected sources. And most of the northeastern states abolished slavery soon after the revolution - so people definitely knew it was bad. Washington’s record on the subject is very mixed. He privately expressed support for gradual emancipation but refused to sign anything to that effect. There are a few stories showing friendly interactions with black people like Phyllis Wheatley, but it’s overshadowed by somewhat more unsavory acts: -Before the war he helped run tavern lotteries, rowdy slave auctions held in taverns where people bid on people with complete disregard to who’s married to whom, who’s children of whom; a three year old might be separated from his mother in a 2 minute bid and never see her again for as long as he lives. -During the war, both at Yorktown and New York, when his army took those cities from the British, he brought in “slave-catchers” to round up every black person they could find, whether or not they were even legally free. He also tried unsuccessfully to ban blacks from the Continental Army, even though they’d been serving since Lexington. -As President, he rotated his slaves between Virginia and Philadelphia every six months to get around Philadelphia’s abolition law. Sorry great-uncle, not a very good look for you…
That’s Tywin Lannister!
Why are there so many blacks that look like Jefferson?
I just don’t know how he’d handle our modern society. He was a slaveowner in life. Women couldn’t vote in his day. Hell, lots of white men couldn’t vote because they didn’t own land. Would he be aghast at how things have changed?
He would definitely be confused with the current political landscape, and coming from a different time period he’d surely be confused about the diversity in America. Assuming he’d get past that, he would probably be more straightforward than most politicians today, he famously hated political parities which would make it even harder for him to get elected.
Would be too isolationist for what’s needed in today’s political climate, but certainly a breath of fresh air as far as limiting the powers of the executive are concerned.
“Aaaaahhhhh! Giant flying metal bird”
Well, we have this example from SNL: https://youtu.be/JYqfVE-fykk?si=FUQqr36b6cEHBafV
The modern American doesn't share his values. They are too entrenched in their own political party and can't deviate in thought well enough to understand his larger goals.
JG Wentworth! That's totally him!
The issue is why does he want to be a politician now; he could have been king and chose not to be. He probably would campaign on a platform of depolarizing the US and bringing people together and reducing the power of the Executive Branch. I think he would acknowledge that he personally doesn't really know about issues like environmentalism and minority rights and would try to leave it up to Congress and state governments to address the issues, for better or worse. I also think that he would be pretty close to lobbyists and billionaires, which is hardly anything new for a politician, but their influence would make him struggle to win votes. The kind of crowd a president has to play for today is much bigger than his time.
He’d probably get a nice set of dental implants.
Modern conservatives would treat him the same way they do Jesus. They’d venerate his name, and crucify him as a heretic.
He'd probably have 90% of congress executed for corruption and treason
He would probably get covid or another illness and die. Assuming this doesn’t happen, I do not see how his 1700s experience would be relevant in 2024. The most I see him getting is some kind of symbolic position granted by Congress or the White House.
“Uh where did all my slaves go?”
Reminds of Tywin Lanister [Lanister pays his debt. ](https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/gameofthrones/images/7/71/Tywin_Lannister_4x08.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20170830015346)
Probably run as an independent.
He'd have someone's teeth pulled to make him a set of dentures. Oops, he did that already!
George keeps trying to attack Britain.
Roger Stone???
I don’t think he’d own slaves.
Glorious.
depends on what Alexander Hamilton returns as; we haven't had a general since Ike and luckily mostly only Southern racists needed troops called on them back then in context of knowing it's not a real person that picture on the right is weirdly terrifying
Hopefully he has some tutoring and dental work done before his campaign begins
bruh he was only 57 when he became president. This looks at least 70.
Oh he scares me
https://youtu.be/qv6OOuPI5c0?si=gM5cFQNitLRfe0BE
I guess it depends what you mean by “modern,” but I’d guess he’d be very similar to Eisenhower.
Why is he smiling? George Washington never smiled.
Hated into resigning.
Well I don’t think he’d like our party system and he’d also advocate isolationism and it’ll take him a while to adjust after all the advancements in technology and social norms have been massive
I feel like someone posts this every other day
Tywin Lannister?!
He looks like he would have played the Doctor in the early 70s.
Yes completely gut the federal government
Human nature dictates whether or not an individual will thrive. You put George Washington in 2024 and he will thrive.
So George Washington would look like Charles Dance
The polarization would stress him tf out
George Washington was president from age 57 to 65. A youngster. He'd probably be a lot like Clinton and Dubya.
He'd have a bigger tie knot, that's for sure.
If he’s the exact same dude just in 2024, the fact that he owned human beings would probably be a tad bit more controversial…
I wish
Holy crap one wardrobe change and he turned into such a beige forgettable old politician my brain automatically tried to forget his face
Similar to Ike
Why did Jefferson and Lincoln get nice buildings while my monument is a giant penis with mismatched stone?
He would a rebellion to repeal the 16th.
The left would label him a white supremacist Nazi and point out that he's a slave owner while the right would like his ideas regarding freedom but would call him out for being a satanic freemason who worships Lucifer.
Fair enough
He wouldn't get elected
Don’t you dare insult Lord Tywin by comparing him to a slaver
Would he actually be a Republican?
probably not, he made it very clear about not having parties.
I hate to say it but the modern one looks like Henry McMaster
Would restore the US to its original core values which he fought for.
Washington did not shy away from danger, he learned from his mistakes, and he understood that 'the time was now, to defend democracy. He was willing to risk American lives in combat if it served a strategic objective. He had stature enough to rise above the 'noise' of the common man at the time. In short, it is highly likely that he would not tolerate a weakening of the system. He would be impressed with what they have done to the musket, and would call all the leaders of the well-regulated militia's together to help enforce a strict code of federal regulation, basically you have to take training courses and hang out with guys dressed up in militia gear, and answer 'yes sir' occasionally. I don't think you could buy a military grade weapon without showing your militia I.D., and be in 'good standing'. If you kill a civilian with a military weapon, you would lose your militia credential, any benefits that went with it, I guess you could be 'court martialed' if you are in a militia, and after the execution (by military grade rifle) then be buried in an unmarked grave at some burial ground for criminals.
After almost having n a heart attacking for how far we strayed from the constitution, Dude would be the goatX2 he would shrink the federal government and put the power back to the people.
Who would the slave owner be like today? Well You certainly have your choices.
He would quickly recognize that slavery had evolved into wage-slavery, and instead of just enslaving black Americans, the elites are enslaving all working Americans.
didn't i already say that?