I've always found it odd that some people don't consider tough decisions like those admirable. To me, the point is George Washington was able to make tough decisions---which unarguably harmed many people---in order that the nation succeed in the future.

I think reasoning along the lines of "this decision negatively affects X group in an immediately unjust way, therefore it shouldn't be done" is naïve and conceited. People who use this type of reasoning are either knowingly playing the "I'm more moral than you" card and incidentally causing a net worse situation in the future, or they are just naïve and don't understand that local immorality can lead to net positives in the future.

Or they've seen too many times when "it's for the greater good" is used to justify something that turns out to be more evil than the good that comes from it.

I'm not arguing that hard decisions aren't necessary. I'm saying that aren't as necessary as sometimes claimed, and should be viewed with some skepticism.

What's the hardest decision you've ever made?

Presumably, the decision whether to set up a new cryptic-hexadecimal greenbean account in order to ask a silly question on HN...

I don't think the ends of splitting from Britain in any way justified the decision of allowing slavery to occur.

It wasn't an a or b proposition, and the notion that it was is revisionist bunk.

Slavery was more important to the southern economy, but slavery existed in New York as fully legal until phaseout began in 1799. It wasn't eliminated until the 1820s.

Monied interests in most states/colonies would have have permitted the loss of their property without compensation.

Slavery was already occurring, so NOT splitting from Britain was ALSO a decision to allow it to occur.

Many wanted the split from Britain to cause slavery to end. Nobody was proposing that it begin. Southern colonies insisted that they were going to continue slavery. If the north agreed to leave slavery unchanged, they would go along with the split, allowing other changes, and they would keep slavery. If not, they would not cooperate, there would be no split, no other changes, and they would keep slavery. Either way, slavery would remain unchanged.

The decision to leave slavery unchanged did not "allow slavery to occur".

> the decision of allowing slavery to occur

There was no such decision to be made (or at least no such decision on the table).

The decision was whether to have slavery-permitting states in the US, or slavery-permitting states outside the US.

I don't either, he saw the writing on the wall of how those people rationalized their practice of dehumanizing individuals with religion and abstractions and the enterprisers that would take advantage of it