Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Left, the schools, the media, and black lives matter are all lying about George Washington. They need to demonize him to advance their agenda. Here are excerpts from an article linked below, which tells the truth about George Washington's attitude toward slavery.
The fact is, Washington treated his slaves better than most other slave owners did. Eventually, he came to regret slave ownership and to actively promoted laws abolishing slavery.
These facts are not taugh in schools or mentioned on CNN. They want you to believe that Washington was an ogre who whipped his slaves while dancing on their corpses. People who don't know their history are condemned to succumb to the mistakes of the past, and they are.
Excerpts from the article linked below:
Toward the end of his life, Washington looked back on his years as a slave owner, reflecting that: "The unfortunate condition of the persons, whose labour in part I employed, has been the only unavoidable subject of regret.
More typical of the descriptions of Washington as a slave owner was an account left by a foreign visitor traveling in America, who recorded that George Washington dealt with his enslaved people "far more humanely than do his fellow citizens of Virginia."
It was this man's opinion that Virginians typically treated their enslaved workers harshly, providing "only bread, water and blows." Washington himself once criticized other large plantation owners, "who are not always as kind, and as attentive to their slaves wants and usage as they ought to be."
Over the course of his life, Washington gradually changed from a young man who accepted slavery as matter of course into a person who decided never again to buy or sell another enslaved individual and held hopes for the eventual abolition of the institution.
Within 3 years of the start of the Revolutionary war, Washington, who was then 46 years old and had been a slave owner for 35 years, confided in a cousin back in Virginia that he longed "every day [sic]...more and more to get clear" of the ownership of slaves.
In 1786, Washington said, "I hope it will not be conceived from these observations, that it is my wish to hold the unhappy people, who are the subject of this letter, in slavery. I can only say that there is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it."
In his will, written several months before his death in December 1799, Washington left directions for the emancipation, after Martha Washington died, of all the enslaved people who belonged to him. Of the 317 slaves at Mount Vernon in 1799, a little less than half, 123 individuals, belonged to George Washington and would go free.
As an old man, freed for many years, former Mount Vernon carpenter Sambo Anderson said that, when he told a white acquaintance that he "was a much happier man when he was a slave than he had ever been since," because he had then "had a good kind master to look after all my wants, but now I have no one to care for me." The narrator remarked that he had known quite a few former Washington enslaved workers and "they all spoke in the highest terms of their master."
I'm okay with George Washington keeping his revered place in our history, but if you're okay with the inconveniences of his slave-holding, then your should be okay with the similar marks on other important people in American history.
In exchange for George Washington, there should be more attention and praise for the likes of Malcolm X, the Black Panthers, and Che Guevara to start.
This country was founded on the principal that you can.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Radical concept at the time, now not so radical although clearly not universally believed today. Maybe Washington didn't believe in the Declaration of Independence in its entirety and specifically that clause of it. Maybe he did but acted in a less than moral way because it was expedient to do so.
The Declaration of Independence does say that. Given the way that they behaved though, and continued to behave for over 100 years, I think the unwritten part of that high-sounding principle is "...all white men...". Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - for blacks and native Americans, was of little concern to most Americans. I mean, blacks were enslaved and native Americans were subjected to what we now call ethnic cleansing, on a whole-continent scale.
Fortunately, we have evolved since then, not only here, but in other nations around the world. I don't think progress is fast, nor by any means complete, but I do think that things grind slowly and inexorably towards more just societies over time.
Many years ago my history teacher had talked about Washington and his slaves. I remember that he'd said during that period freeing slaves just was not done. It caused unrest among other slaves on other plantations. When a slave owner freed slaves other slave owners would burn that slave owners buildings and/or murder the freed slaves. Freeing slaves via a will after the slave owner died was a completely different thing.
I don't know/remember if my history teacher had facts to back it up or if it was just a different perspective, or opinion, on a different time period. If it is true then Washington may have done it that way to keep them from being murdered. idk.
I don't know about at that time. Later it's certainly true. Many states had laws passed making it illegal to free slaves for that reason, even after death. There was just a tremendous fear of slave uprisings, which is fairly reasonable if you look at how populations were distributed and that the slave population far outnumbered the white in quite a bit of the South which would make suppressing any insurrection difficult.
The Declaration of Independence does say that. Given the way that they behaved though, and continued to behave for over 100 years, I think the unwritten part of that high-sounding principle is "...all white men...". Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - for blacks and native Americans, was of little concern to most Americans. I mean, blacks were enslaved and native Americans were subjected to what we now call ethnic cleansing, on a whole-continent scale.
Fortunately, we have evolved since then, not only here, but in other nations around the world. I don't think progress is fast, nor by any means complete, but I do think that things grind slowly and inexorably towards more just societies over time.
Yup, Washington was far from alone in either not believing in that clause or just merely choosing to act immorally because it was expeditious to do so.
However, the fact remains that he could have freed his slaves, but he did not. They stayed enslaved not only until after he died, but after his wife died as well.
She actually freed them shortly after his death. But she did that because she was afraid that her death would be, ehem, arranged. Once he got out of early adulthood he may have been a decent slave owner comparatively in how he treated his slaves but clearly not beloved by his property.
She actually freed them shortly after his death. But she did that because she was afraid that her death would be, ehem, arranged. Once he got out of early adulthood he may have been a decent slave owner comparatively in how he treated his slaves but clearly not beloved by his property.
Oh, dear. That would put one in a precarious position, to be sure.
"Neither George nor Martha Washington could free these slaves by law and upon Martha’s death these individuals reverted to the Custis estate and were divided among her grandchildren."
Seems those would be the slaves that she brought to the marriage.
However, the slaves he owned would be free up on her death. Hmmm?
So she freed them and kept the others enslaved.
Last edited by GotHereQuickAsICould; 06-19-2020 at 10:41 AM..
"Neither George nor Martha Washington could free these slaves by law and upon Martha’s death these individuals reverted to the Custis estate and were divided among her grandchildren."
Seems those would be the slaves that she brought to the marriage.
However, the slaves he owned would be free up on her death. Hmmm?
So she freed them and kept the others enslaved.
The dowery slaves they couldn't free as they belonged to the Custis estate (Martha's first husband). Just how property rights were. Upon Martha's death the estate returned to the Custis family, including the slaves, rather than to any of George Washington's relatives. They were sort of a living trust. Martha got the use of the Custis estate during her lifetime but didn't own it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
