When skimming thru the "Genisis" thread I couldnt help but notice a quote that read "George Washington's reputation doesnt impress me". Well, not a lot of people (especially Americans) would agree....to say the least. But the quote for me sparked an epiphany for a new thread that should involve the first President and slavery.....a very touchy subject.
I have copied and pasted a partial reading taken from the text, which I would recommend reading in its entirety for it is extremely informative and interesting. The author takes a very impartial and unbiased approach. The reason I have copied the paragraphs in which I did is to support my view on the subject. I believe George Washington had a very complicated and complex view towards slavery which actually evolved thru the years clearly towards abolishment. There was just one problem, Wahington was busy with another issue....the unification of the union. This was infact far more of an important issue in Washington's eyes, just as it was for the other founding fathers. They all feared that if slavery was to be challenged that the union would be seperated before it was really even unified. It is clear that a unified nation was of top importance. Another view Wahington held was when and if slavery was to be abolished that it should be done in a timely, proggresive process. In other words he didnt believe that slaves should just be set free. He believed in educating them first. There is some great info. on the site, I encourage all to read it.
------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------
In a conversation with British actor, John Bernard, Washington came close to explicitly racist language in justifying fighting for freedom while maintaining slavery: "This may seem a contradiction, but it is neither a crime nor an absurdity. When we profess, as our fundamental principle, that liberty is the inalienable right of every man, we do not include madmen or idiots; liberty in their hands would become a scourge. Till the mind of the slave has been educated to perceive what are the obligations of a state of freedom, the gift would insure its abuse."
There are, however, in the vast record of his correspondence no explicit statements by Washington that blacks were innately inferior to whites. Even in GW's rather negative quote to the actor Bernard, GW did not doubt that the mind of the slave could be educated to receive the gift of freedom - just as he believed whites could lose the gift. Earlier, he had warned that if the Americans did not resist British tyranny they would become "as tame and abject slaves as the blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway." In other words, whites and blacks could both become equally abject slaves or be able to enjoy liberty. As Joseph Ellis notes, GW "tended to regard the condition of the black population as a product of nurture rather than nature - that is he saw slavery as the culprit, preventing the diligence and responsibility that would emerge gradually and naturally after emancipation." Speaking of blacks in general he asserted since they have "no ambition to establish a good name, they are too regardless of a bad one." The point - slaves had no opportunity to win respect and earn good reputation - hence their lack of "ambition" and the inferior quality of their work.
When the black poetess, Phillis Wheatley sent General Washington a flattering poem, Washington responded, thanking her for the "elegant Lines," adding that he was undeserving of such praise. He added he would "be happy to see a person so favourd by the Muses, and to whom nature has been so liberal and beneficent in her dispensations." [She did meet him later at his headquarters]
After some initial hesitation, GW backed the use of black troops in the American army and came to recognize their utility for the American cause and may well have been impressed and moved by their courage and dedication. He used black overseers on his plantation farms, and for a brief time in the 1780's all 5 overseers at his Mount Vernon farms were black. Davy, for instance, a mulatto slave trained as a cooper, managed Washington's Muddy Hole farm for many years. Washington considered him a capable overseer. He wrote, "Davy carries on his business as well as the white overseers, and with more quietness than many." Although he distrusted Davy's honesty regarding livestock, he was willing to overlook that shortcoming because of Davy's other contributions. For his efforts as overseer, Davy was rewarded with special quarters, two or three hogs at killing time, and other privileges.
When he was in need of good workmen, Washington made clear he believed they could be of any race or religion. "I am a good deal in want of a House Joiner and Bricklayer, (who really understand their profession) and you would do me a favor by purchasing one of each, for me. . . If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of an Sect, or they may be Athiests."
In 1768, GW hired 4 whites to assist his 4 black cradlers [wheat mowers] and the following year he considered hiring as few white cradlers as possible & instead confining hired white labor to the task of raking & binding - i.e. he countenanced placing whites in subservient positions to a set of specialized black mowers. [Morgan]
We might wish that GW had been more sympathetic to the plight of his bondsmen and bondswomen, [He seemed to accept the myth that many slaves were happy and content]; that he might have better understood why they were often idle and why they regularly engaged in theft; that he had better understood that no matter how well they were treated, they were justified in running away. Nevertheless, it is still important to remember the times in which he lived and the way that he had been brought up. I think it is noteworthy that he never explicitly argued in favor of innate black inferiority, demonstrated little "Negrophobia," and never succumbed to favoring large-scale colonization of blacks overseas.
Influenced by the rhetoric of the American Revolution and constant contact with anti-slavery men from the northern colonies and states, George Washington became increasingly critical of the institution of slavery. Tracing the details of his changing views and the reasons for it may not be possible, but there can be no denying the change. He became increasingly eager to see slavery put on the path toward ultimate extinction, although he cautioned, "Time, education, and patience were needed" in the struggle.
A careful perusal of his post-war and presidential correspondence produces many such examples. Let me share with you a few of them.
"I never mean (unless some particular circumstance should compel me to it) to possess another slave by purchase; it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted, by which slavery in this country may be abolished by slow, sure, and imperceptible degrees."
After Lafayette purchased in 1786 a plantation in Cayenne to carry out his scheme of emancipating slaves, Washington praised the Frenchman: "Would to God a like spirit would diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of this country," he wrote, "but I dispair of seeing it. . . . To set the slaves afloat at once would, I really believe, be productive of much inconvenience and mischief; but by degrees it certainly might, and assuredly ought to be, effected."
"I wish from my soul that the legislature of this state could see the policy of a gradual abolition of slavery. It would prevent much mischief."
" No man desires more heartily than I do [the end of slavery]. Not only do I pray for it on the score of human dignity, but I can clearly foresee that nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union." [And by the way, GW made clear that if slavery caused a break up of the union, he would cast his lot with the North!]
"The unfortunate condition of the persons whose labour in part I employed, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret. To make the Adults among them as easy & comfortable in their circumstances as their actual state of ignorance and improvidence would admit; and to lay a foundation to prepare the rising generation for a destiny different from that in which they were born, afforded some satisfaction to my mind, and could not I hoped be displeasing to the justice of the Creator."
These quotes, and others that could be given, while heartfelt, must be understood in context or one might reasonably conclude that the first President was an abolitionist. It is important to note that virtually all of GW's anti-slavery quotes were expressed in private correspondence or conversation. During his lifetime, the General never took a public stance against slavery or called for its end. If his growing opposition to slavery was genuine and internalized, why did he not take a more public stand against it and use his unparalleled prestige in the cause of human freedom? This was a calculated decision by the President. It was a matter of priorities. A critic might write, "the only true policy is justice; and he who regards the consequences of an act rather than the justice of it gives no very exalted proof of the greatness of his character," but George Washington knew it was not that simple. In Roger Wilkins words,
He was "politically shackled by the grating chain [racism and slavery] that snaked through the new republic and diminished every life it touched."
The President made the creation and unity of the new nation a more important priority than attacking slavery. To be honest, in his mind there was no contest. While he was convinced slavery must eventually be eradicated, he was convinced that an early attack upon it would undermine and destroy his beloved union before it could be properly established. While we can't run the film through to see what would have happened if a major effort had been mounted against slavery by Washington and other leaders in the early years of the republic, virtually all of the founders - and most historians - agree it would have led to the breakup of the union. Joseph Ellis in his new book, Founding Brothers, makes clear that NO ONE in authority in the new federal government was thinking about doing that and believed an effort to do so seemed diametrically opposed to remaining a united nation. George Washington was a "rock-ribbed realist." The establishment of a permanent union under the new Constitution was extremely challenging and difficult but possible. He well understood the remarkably profound affection his countrymen held for him was crucial to attaining that goal. To dissipate that affection on a quixotic crusade attacking slavery held no appeal for the Master of Mount Vernon. Nevertheless, Washington also recognized his ownership of slaves posed a potential threat to his honor and to his historical reputation, matters of the utmost importance to him.
Washington faced this issue head on in his final statement on slavery in his remarkable last will and testament that he wrote completely by himself during the summer before his death. Very significantly, in what was essentially his last act, he freed all of his personal slaves in his will (by law, he could not free those belonging to his wife and the Custis estate). Additionally, he provided for their education as well as declaring those old slaves and children without parents "be comfortably cloathed and fed by my heirs." [The estate made the last payment in the early 1830's for a coffin]. Pushing education for his former slaves when it was frowned upon sent a strong statement to his countrymen, present and future. To stress the importance he placed on his decision, which he put near the beginning of his long will, immediately after making provisions for his beloved wife, the President particularly enjoined his executors "to see that this clause respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled."
Critics note that Washington only freed his slaves at his death, and even then postponed the emancipation until after his wife's death.
Personally, I think it is true that GW's solution was not really a very good one but his options were severely limited. Since his slaves had intermarried with the Custis slaves, he postponed the date of their emancipation until after Martha died. He did so to avoid what he called "the most painful sensations" - i.e. some family members would be free and others would not. [By law Martha could not free the Custis slaves even if she wished to. They were for her use during her lifetime, but were to be passed on to the Custis heirs upon her death.] Of course, this delay was strictly for Martha's benefit. Those "painful sensations" would happen eventually when the emancipation of GW's slaves was effected. Martha would simply not have to witness them. Nevertheless, Martha, apparently fearful of her own life, freed Washington's slaves before her death. Abigail Adams wrote that Martha told her that "she did not feel as tho her Life were safe in their hands."
It is I think both interesting and revealing that a man as thoughtful and careful as GW came up with a solution about freeing his slaves that his wife ultimately came to believe endangered her life! This once again simply points out slavery's corroding characteristics. The reason GW's solution was not very good is because there simply was no good solution available, try as he might to find it. "For those who are tempted to criticize GW for not initiating an emancipation policy for the entire nation, it is instructive to see that he could not even effectively free 124 men, women, and children on his own plantation in northern Virginia." [John Riley]The institution of slavery was more than a match for any individual, even an individual as capable as GW.
When, Thurgood Marshall, America's first black Supreme Court justice, was asked how he wished to be remembered, he said, "He did the best he could with what he had." One might argue that George Washington did the best he could considering the circumstances in which he found himself. Of all of the founding fathers, only George Washington actually freed his slaves. In the words of one scholar, "it was the last and greatest debt he owed to his honor." Not only did he free them, but he also rejected explicit racist language concerning innate inferiority of blacks and did not dismiss the idea of free blacks living in the United States in harmony with whites. Interestingly, his views were in contrast to Thomas Jefferson on all three points. A fourth point of contrast might be mentioned. "There has never been a credible tale of George Washington taking advantage of a slave sexually."
And if Washington did not use his great prestige to publicly attack the institution of slavery, he used that same prestige to firmly establish a permanent union for the United States based on a government dedicated to human freedom. He was not able to complete everything he might have wished to do, but he left us a united nation and the tools to do so. Given the real world situation he faced and the crippling impact of slavery and racism on individuals as well as nations, George Washington's example of at least partially outgrowing the racist society that produced him can still inspire and encourage.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm
By Peter R. Henriques