Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Image

George Washington Racks Up 220 Years of Late Fees At Library 146

Everyone knows that George Washington couldn't tell a lie. What you probably didn't know is that he couldn't return a library book on time. From the article: "New York City's oldest library says one of its ledgers shows that the president has racked up 220 years' worth of late fees on two books he borrowed, but never returned. One of the books was the 'Law of Nations,' which deals with international relations. The other was a volume of debates from Britain's House of Commons. Both books were due on Nov. 2, 1789."

*

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

George Washington Racks Up 220 Years of Late Fees At Library

Comments Filter:
  • So... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheSpoom ( 715771 ) <{ten.00mrebu} {ta} {todhsals}> on Monday April 19, 2010 @01:18PM (#31898550) Homepage Journal

    Where are the books now?

  • Re:White Guilt (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Shakrai ( 717556 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @01:34PM (#31898864) Journal

    White guilt means guilt over doing what the other people would have done if they were in our forefathers shoes.

    Of course every non-white superpower throughout history (the Mongols, the Persians, the Arabs, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Indians) was a beacon of human rights and good will towards men. It's only the evil European powers that exploited their position in the world towards their own ends.....

  • by eleuthero ( 812560 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @01:42PM (#31899026)
    Mount Vernon isn't the Washington estate - it is owned by a private company (they manage several historic properties - similar to the Patrimonio Nacional company in Spain and various others that own most of the royal palaces in Europe). Finding heirs to pay the "lost book fee" (I'm sure there is a maximum late fee clause somewhere) will be next to impossible and this was done only for publicity (if it came to it because of some weird public concern, the library would 'forgive' the fine... gaining more publicity).
  • Re:case (Score:5, Insightful)

    by eleuthero ( 812560 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @01:47PM (#31899144)
    If you've read any of his writings, he was a slave owner because of a period understanding of necessity - he also freed his slaves at his wife's death (something Jefferson was unable to do because of a million dollar - modern conversion - debt).

    Privately, however, Washington could -- and did -- lead by example. In his will, he arranged for all of the slaves he owned to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He also left instructions for the continued care and education of some of his former slaves, support and training for all of the children until they came of age, and continuing support for the elderly.

    Washington on slavery [mountvernon.org]

    It is sometimes helpful not to bash people who were stuck in a system that they sought to improve with as little violence as possible (This didn't end up happening in the US, but in Britain and other European countries slavery was outlawed over time without violence).

  • Re:case (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gandhi_2 ( 1108023 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @02:03PM (#31899364) Homepage

    "But, as it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

  • Weak Evidence (Score:5, Insightful)

    by lee1 ( 219161 ) <lee@lee-phi l l i p s.org> on Monday April 19, 2010 @02:09PM (#31899422) Homepage
    The evidence that it was G. Washington is 'An aide simply scrawled "president" next to the title to show who had taken them out'. [bbc.co.uk] This seems pretty weak to me. How do we know this means the President of the U.S.? Maybe it was the president of the library, or someone else entirely. The entry was intended to make sense to the library staff, not random other people 200 years later.
  • Re:case (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Neoprofin ( 871029 ) <neoprofin AT hotmail DOT com> on Monday April 19, 2010 @02:35PM (#31899820)

    Never spoke out publicly against slavery. Signed an act that allowed hunters to enter free states to recover runaway slaves. Supported only whites to become citizens of the United States.

    On this point he and the rest of the founding fathers had the choice between the ugly reality of slavery and half of the colonies not signing on to the constitution or agreeing to the fight for independence.

    The result of the revolutions failure could have been Canada and they could have all been freed 20 years early, or it could have been apartheid South Africa. If you're going to Monday morning quarterback at least consider that this world of black and white you live in is often complicated by circumstance and in this case not even hindsight really clears things up.

    Slavery is wrong, everyone gets that, but before before you lash a man for not trying hard enough to solve the injustices of the world consider the limitations to their power. He never had the authority or the support to rid America of slavery and any attempt to do so would have undermined the few things he could enact.

  • Re:So... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Manfre ( 631065 ) on Monday April 19, 2010 @03:57PM (#31901252) Homepage Journal

    And what happened to privacy? What would Washington think about the library publishing what books he borrowed and how much he owes in fees?

    Nothing, he's dead.

The key elements in human thinking are not numbers but labels of fuzzy sets. -- L. Zadeh

Working...