This is something regarding his conflict of interest on slavery;
http://www.ucd.ie/amerstud/archives/Morgan.htm
http://www.ucd.ie/amerstud/archives/Morgan.htm
Was George Washington a hero?
- Thread starter McRocket
- Start date
L3ggy
Special Operations FOX-HOUND
Sweden...
Here are a coouple of excerpts from the following:
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henrique...615/gwslav.htm
This is a letter from Washington in 1766:
"Sir: With this letter comes a Negro (Tom) which I beg the favour of you to sell, in any of the Islands you may go to, for whatever he will fetch, and bring me in return for him: one hhd of best molasses, one of best Rum, one barrel of Lymes if good and cheap, … and the residue, much or little in good ole spirits…That this Fellow is both a rogue and a Runaway…I shall not pretend to deny. But . . . he is exceedingly healthy, strong and good at the Hoe… which gives me reason to hope he may, with your good management sell well (if kept clean and trim'd up a little when offered for sale… must beg the favor of you (lest he should attempt his escape) to keep him hand-cuffed till you get to Sea."
Maybe not cruel for the time. But he certainly treated them as little better then cattle.
Here are a couple of other things he supposedly said or wrote:
'GW unquestionably assumed that his slaves would "be at their work, as soon as it was light, [and] work till it was dark." Each bondsman "must be made to do a sufficient day's work." GW's goal for his bondsmen and women was explicit: "that every laborer (male and female) does as much in 24 hours as their strength, without endangering their health or constitution, will allow."'
Again, treating them like cattle.
Also,
And in terms of punishment and/or how he spoke to them:
'In his effort to achieve a disciplined work force, Washington occasionally resorted to corporal punishment, although there is no record that he personally ever administered it. There is, however, the testimony of the perceptive wife of the British ambassador, Henrietta Liston. Acknowledging GW's consistent control of his passions on public occasions, she noted that "in private and particularly with his Servants, its violence sometimes broke out." Another visitor was shocked at the way the President spoke to his slaves - "as differently as if he had been quite another man, or had been in anger." One of GW's former slaves much later recalled that GW was "exact and strict" and might complain "in language of severity." GW justified the occasional severity. In his words, "if the Negros will not do their duty by fair means, they must be compelled to do it." Or again, "must have by fair means or by coercion (the first is vastly more agreeable to me) [Here is another example of the "patriarchal contract" GW had entered] When confronted by a particularly recalcitrant bondsman he simply directed his manager to "give him a good whippin". Occasionally, female slaves felt the whip as well. He wrote his manager, "Your treatment of Charlotte was very proper, and if She, or any other of the Servants will not do their duty by fair means, or are impertinent, correction (as the only alternative) must be administered." His directions regarding one runaway perhaps represents his attitude in general: "Let Abram get his deserts when taken, by way of example; but do not trust to [Hyland] Crow to administer it as he is swayed more by passion than judgment in all his corrections." Or again, "As for Waggoner Jack, try further correction accompanied by admonition and advice." [Admonition and advice along with close supervision was Washington's mantra] Apparently, in this case it did not work, for GW later wrote his plantation manager to warn a young slave named Ben that if he did not shape up, "I will ship him off as I did Waggoner Jack for the West Indies where he will have no opportunity to play such pranks." In a final example, he had his manager tell Muclus, "if his pride [!] is not a sufficient stimulus to excite him to industry, & admonition has no effect on him, that I have directed you to have him severely punished and placed under one of the Overseers as a common hoe negro." Interestingly, GW recognized that with a few of his servants, whipping was counter-productive. About Will French he noted, "Harsh treatment will not do with him. You had better therefore let him piddle, and in this way (thought I believe little trust is to be placed in him) get what you can out of him."'
And the living conditions of his slaves:
'There is some dispute about the living conditions of the slaves at Mount Vernon as the evidence and testimony are in conflict. Certainly, they did not live well. One visitor to Mount Vernon [a Polish nobleman] was shocked by the living quarters of Washington's slaves referring to them as "huts," adding "for one can not call them by the name of houses. They are more miserable than the most miserable of the cottages of our peasants. The husband and wife sleep on a mean pallet, the children on the ground; a very bad fireplace, some utensils for cooking." GW himself seemed to acknowledge their very rudimentary condition, for when he later sought Europeans to work Mount Vernon's fields, he admitted that the slave quarters at MV "might not be thought good enough for the workmen or day laborers" of England. Clothing and blankets were carefully rationed. A woman would receive an extra blanket if she had a child, but if the child died, the woman would not get a new blanket for herself but was to use the one given to her child. On clothing for the children, another French nobleman declared, the Negro quarters "swarm with pickaninnies in rags that our beggars would scorn to wear." [This might be from 19th century] The slaves' rations, consisting chiefly of maize, herring, and occasionally salt meat, must have been at least on occasion rather meager, for GW's slaves at least once took the extraordinary step of petitioning their master, claiming they received an inadequate supply of food.'
In the next paragraph there are warmer descriptions.
But the fact remains that these slaves were treated as, well, slaves. And if they did wrong then they were send off to far harsher places.
http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henrique...615/gwslav.htm
This is a letter from Washington in 1766:
"Sir: With this letter comes a Negro (Tom) which I beg the favour of you to sell, in any of the Islands you may go to, for whatever he will fetch, and bring me in return for him: one hhd of best molasses, one of best Rum, one barrel of Lymes if good and cheap, … and the residue, much or little in good ole spirits…That this Fellow is both a rogue and a Runaway…I shall not pretend to deny. But . . . he is exceedingly healthy, strong and good at the Hoe… which gives me reason to hope he may, with your good management sell well (if kept clean and trim'd up a little when offered for sale… must beg the favor of you (lest he should attempt his escape) to keep him hand-cuffed till you get to Sea."
Maybe not cruel for the time. But he certainly treated them as little better then cattle.
Here are a couple of other things he supposedly said or wrote:
'GW unquestionably assumed that his slaves would "be at their work, as soon as it was light, [and] work till it was dark." Each bondsman "must be made to do a sufficient day's work." GW's goal for his bondsmen and women was explicit: "that every laborer (male and female) does as much in 24 hours as their strength, without endangering their health or constitution, will allow."'
Again, treating them like cattle.
Also,
And in terms of punishment and/or how he spoke to them:
'In his effort to achieve a disciplined work force, Washington occasionally resorted to corporal punishment, although there is no record that he personally ever administered it. There is, however, the testimony of the perceptive wife of the British ambassador, Henrietta Liston. Acknowledging GW's consistent control of his passions on public occasions, she noted that "in private and particularly with his Servants, its violence sometimes broke out." Another visitor was shocked at the way the President spoke to his slaves - "as differently as if he had been quite another man, or had been in anger." One of GW's former slaves much later recalled that GW was "exact and strict" and might complain "in language of severity." GW justified the occasional severity. In his words, "if the Negros will not do their duty by fair means, they must be compelled to do it." Or again, "must have by fair means or by coercion (the first is vastly more agreeable to me) [Here is another example of the "patriarchal contract" GW had entered] When confronted by a particularly recalcitrant bondsman he simply directed his manager to "give him a good whippin". Occasionally, female slaves felt the whip as well. He wrote his manager, "Your treatment of Charlotte was very proper, and if She, or any other of the Servants will not do their duty by fair means, or are impertinent, correction (as the only alternative) must be administered." His directions regarding one runaway perhaps represents his attitude in general: "Let Abram get his deserts when taken, by way of example; but do not trust to [Hyland] Crow to administer it as he is swayed more by passion than judgment in all his corrections." Or again, "As for Waggoner Jack, try further correction accompanied by admonition and advice." [Admonition and advice along with close supervision was Washington's mantra] Apparently, in this case it did not work, for GW later wrote his plantation manager to warn a young slave named Ben that if he did not shape up, "I will ship him off as I did Waggoner Jack for the West Indies where he will have no opportunity to play such pranks." In a final example, he had his manager tell Muclus, "if his pride [!] is not a sufficient stimulus to excite him to industry, & admonition has no effect on him, that I have directed you to have him severely punished and placed under one of the Overseers as a common hoe negro." Interestingly, GW recognized that with a few of his servants, whipping was counter-productive. About Will French he noted, "Harsh treatment will not do with him. You had better therefore let him piddle, and in this way (thought I believe little trust is to be placed in him) get what you can out of him."'
And the living conditions of his slaves:
'There is some dispute about the living conditions of the slaves at Mount Vernon as the evidence and testimony are in conflict. Certainly, they did not live well. One visitor to Mount Vernon [a Polish nobleman] was shocked by the living quarters of Washington's slaves referring to them as "huts," adding "for one can not call them by the name of houses. They are more miserable than the most miserable of the cottages of our peasants. The husband and wife sleep on a mean pallet, the children on the ground; a very bad fireplace, some utensils for cooking." GW himself seemed to acknowledge their very rudimentary condition, for when he later sought Europeans to work Mount Vernon's fields, he admitted that the slave quarters at MV "might not be thought good enough for the workmen or day laborers" of England. Clothing and blankets were carefully rationed. A woman would receive an extra blanket if she had a child, but if the child died, the woman would not get a new blanket for herself but was to use the one given to her child. On clothing for the children, another French nobleman declared, the Negro quarters "swarm with pickaninnies in rags that our beggars would scorn to wear." [This might be from 19th century] The slaves' rations, consisting chiefly of maize, herring, and occasionally salt meat, must have been at least on occasion rather meager, for GW's slaves at least once took the extraordinary step of petitioning their master, claiming they received an inadequate supply of food.'
In the next paragraph there are warmer descriptions.
But the fact remains that these slaves were treated as, well, slaves. And if they did wrong then they were send off to far harsher places.
Apparently, blacks were not the only ones he pissed off.
This excerpt is from the following:
http://www.rosecity.net/cherokee/washington.html (which I am sorry, now seems to be a dead link)
'George Washington was given thousands of acres of native peoples' land on the south bank of the Ohio River. This was his payment for fighting for the British against the Indians in the "French and Indians War. Native people were living on this land when it was stolen by the British and given to George Washington!
He also owned shares in a Mississippi land company that held 2.5 million acres of native land in the Ohio Valley. This land too was never given to the company by the native people who still lived on it. He was often in debt to the British merchants so he bought and sold native lands as a way of paying back his debts.
Many white settlers found this land west of the Alleghenies which was very appealing and for farms and villages. They bought this land from the speculators that made handsome profits while forcing the Indians off their lands without any profits.
In 1763 the British King issued the Proclamation of 1763, which agreed no more white settlers could go west of the Allegheny mountains and demanded that the white settlers already there "remove themselves." This did not stop George Washington, there was too much profits to be made! So he secretly employed a surveyor to find more land for him.
With the American Revolution the Kings proclamation was thrown out and this gave George Washington the opportunity to continue making profits from illegal land deals. At his death in 1799, he owned 40,000 acres of Native American Land and 317 Black people in slavery. Many Native Americans like the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, was against the war and refused to fight in it. This made George Washington mad so he ordered a harsh military campaign.
On May 31, 1779 George Washington wrote this account to the General: "The expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians with their associates and adherents. The immediate object is their total destruction and devastation and the capture of as many persons of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now on the ground, and prevent their planting more... Parties should be detached to lay waste all settlements around... that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed. Washington's men obeyed, they burned 11 towns with about 165 log homes. They destroyed more than 500 acres of land and stole nearly $30,000 in loot."
General Sullivan later wrote in his report: "The quantity of corn destroyed might amount to 160,000 bushels, with vast quantities of vegetables of every kind... We have not left a single settlement or field of corn in the country of the Five Nations, nor is there even the appearance of an indian on this side of the Niagara."'
This excerpt is from the following:
http://www.rosecity.net/cherokee/washington.html (which I am sorry, now seems to be a dead link)
'George Washington was given thousands of acres of native peoples' land on the south bank of the Ohio River. This was his payment for fighting for the British against the Indians in the "French and Indians War. Native people were living on this land when it was stolen by the British and given to George Washington!
He also owned shares in a Mississippi land company that held 2.5 million acres of native land in the Ohio Valley. This land too was never given to the company by the native people who still lived on it. He was often in debt to the British merchants so he bought and sold native lands as a way of paying back his debts.
Many white settlers found this land west of the Alleghenies which was very appealing and for farms and villages. They bought this land from the speculators that made handsome profits while forcing the Indians off their lands without any profits.
In 1763 the British King issued the Proclamation of 1763, which agreed no more white settlers could go west of the Allegheny mountains and demanded that the white settlers already there "remove themselves." This did not stop George Washington, there was too much profits to be made! So he secretly employed a surveyor to find more land for him.
With the American Revolution the Kings proclamation was thrown out and this gave George Washington the opportunity to continue making profits from illegal land deals. At his death in 1799, he owned 40,000 acres of Native American Land and 317 Black people in slavery. Many Native Americans like the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy, was against the war and refused to fight in it. This made George Washington mad so he ordered a harsh military campaign.
On May 31, 1779 George Washington wrote this account to the General: "The expedition you are appointed to command is to be directed against the hostile tribes of the Six Nations of Indians with their associates and adherents. The immediate object is their total destruction and devastation and the capture of as many persons of every age and sex as possible. It will be essential to ruin their crops now on the ground, and prevent their planting more... Parties should be detached to lay waste all settlements around... that the country may not be merely overrun, but destroyed. Washington's men obeyed, they burned 11 towns with about 165 log homes. They destroyed more than 500 acres of land and stole nearly $30,000 in loot."
General Sullivan later wrote in his report: "The quantity of corn destroyed might amount to 160,000 bushels, with vast quantities of vegetables of every kind... We have not left a single settlement or field of corn in the country of the Five Nations, nor is there even the appearance of an indian on this side of the Niagara."'
And for those that may argue that his behaviour was par for the times (I am NOT referring to anyone on here directly) the following is an excerpt from this site:
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/twohig_2.html
'In 1796 George Washington received a letter from Edward Rushton, a prominent English antislavery advocate. It was hardly the polite, respectful missive that the president of the United States normally received.
It will generally be admitted, Sir, and perhaps with justice, that the great family of mankind were nevermore benefited by the military abilities of any individual, than by those which you displayed during the American contest. . . . By the flame which you have kindled every oppressed nation will be enabled to perceive its fetters. . . . But it is not to the commander in chief of the American forces, nor to the president of the United States, that I have ought to address. My business is with George Washington of Mount Vernon in Virginia, a man who not withstanding his hatred of oppression and his ardent love of liberty holds at this moment hundreds of his fellow being in a state of abject bondage--Yes: you who conquered under the banners of freedom--you who are now the first magistrate of a free people are (strange to relate) a slave holder. . . . Shame! Shame! That man should be deemed the property of man or that the name of Washington should be found among the list of such proprietors. . . . Ages to come will read with Astonishment that the man who was foremost to wrench the rights of America from the tyrannical grasp of Britain was among the last to relinquish his own oppressive hold of poor unoffending negroes. In the name of justice what can induce you thus to tarnish your own well earned celebrity and to impair the fair features of American liberty with so foul and indelibile a blot.'
And besides. We are not talking about 'normal' people of the time. We are talking about the 'Father of America'. A man that is supposed to act as shinning example of how to act. A man that leads the country by example, not follows it for his own profit.
Yes, what he did was not exceedingly rare. But neither are heros. Surely they have to be held to a higher moral account then merely 'average' persons.
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/articles/twohig_2.html
'In 1796 George Washington received a letter from Edward Rushton, a prominent English antislavery advocate. It was hardly the polite, respectful missive that the president of the United States normally received.
It will generally be admitted, Sir, and perhaps with justice, that the great family of mankind were nevermore benefited by the military abilities of any individual, than by those which you displayed during the American contest. . . . By the flame which you have kindled every oppressed nation will be enabled to perceive its fetters. . . . But it is not to the commander in chief of the American forces, nor to the president of the United States, that I have ought to address. My business is with George Washington of Mount Vernon in Virginia, a man who not withstanding his hatred of oppression and his ardent love of liberty holds at this moment hundreds of his fellow being in a state of abject bondage--Yes: you who conquered under the banners of freedom--you who are now the first magistrate of a free people are (strange to relate) a slave holder. . . . Shame! Shame! That man should be deemed the property of man or that the name of Washington should be found among the list of such proprietors. . . . Ages to come will read with Astonishment that the man who was foremost to wrench the rights of America from the tyrannical grasp of Britain was among the last to relinquish his own oppressive hold of poor unoffending negroes. In the name of justice what can induce you thus to tarnish your own well earned celebrity and to impair the fair features of American liberty with so foul and indelibile a blot.'
And besides. We are not talking about 'normal' people of the time. We are talking about the 'Father of America'. A man that is supposed to act as shinning example of how to act. A man that leads the country by example, not follows it for his own profit.
Yes, what he did was not exceedingly rare. But neither are heros. Surely they have to be held to a higher moral account then merely 'average' persons.
member2013
Closed Account
Perhaps to some that didn’t want to think, and lead for themselves.
Yeah, he owned slaves. All wealthy aristocratic white males back then did. Was he a bad guy? Who knows.
What we do know is that Washington was well respected on both sides of the revolutionary war. He added stability at the top. He defined the Presidency for generations, and helped to form a nation with a certain set of principles, that still exists to this day.
Was he a hero? Yes.
What we do know is that Washington was well respected on both sides of the revolutionary war. He added stability at the top. He defined the Presidency for generations, and helped to form a nation with a certain set of principles, that still exists to this day.
Was he a hero? Yes.
Robyn_Hood
Banned
Not all white aristocratic males owned slaves,Virtually none in the North did and there were some wealthy southern abolishinists but not many, as the economy of the south was built on slavery.
Last edited:
Robyn_Hood
Banned
But probably more than you think. We're talking 100 years before the civil war, when the US was founded. But obviously less than the south... and the north had it's own problems, what with child labor and Mill Houses.
I used to get into arguments with My Mom about this.I thought that George was a traitor to England & She "being a child of the Korean war & the cold war & that time was all about waving the flag."--I do LOVE America...but George commited treason against England,,in My opinion.
For the record:
"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part."
- Founding Father John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.
"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."
-Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four... (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. "To the Citizens of the United States."
And by 1804, the following states had apparently outlawed slavery:
Pennsylvania, Massachisetts, Connecticutt, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York and New Jersey.
"That men should pray and fight for their own freedom and yet keep others in slavery is certainly acting a very inconsistent as well as unjust and perhaps impious part."
- Founding Father John Jay, President of Continental Congress, Chief-Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and Governor of New York. In a letter to Dr. Richard Price on Sep. 27, 1785.
"Domestic slavery is repugnant to the principles of Christianity... It is rebellion against the authority of a common Father. It is a practical denial of the extent and efficacy of the death of a common Savior. It is an usurpation of the prerogative of the great Sovereign of the universe who has solemnly claimed an exclusive property in the souls of men."
-Benjamin Rush, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Minutes of the Proceedings of a Convention of Delegates From the Abolition Societies Established in Different Parts of the United States, Assembled at Philadelphia, on the First Day of January, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-Four... (Philadelphia: Zachariah Poulson, 1794), p. 24. "To the Citizens of the United States."
And by 1804, the following states had apparently outlawed slavery:
Pennsylvania, Massachisetts, Connecticutt, Rhode Island, New Hampshire, Vermont, New York and New Jersey.
Well its one mans traitor is another man's freedom fighter,But no doubt Washington loses war English would have had his head.
He was a human being. Some people are heroes to some while not being heroes to others. I don't know of any person that has ever lived that didn't have faults. Our founding fathers were among people that did like anybody else. As with most people there are both good and bas aspects to them. Even with people that do both tremendously good and bad things, it doesn't mean you have to separate them and either take the good or the bad without realizing the other side.
excellent poll idea McRocket. i voted "definitely". he was, warts and all, the man of the hour. history has had so few. without his leadership, the colonies may well have ended up a much different place. of course, there were others whose contributions were just as great, if not moreso, in their way.
some people might consider him to be an asshole, but as assholes go, he wasn't the worst of the bunch.
yes, historically there has always been slavery, but that means that there were a good number of people that did not own slaves being that they were slaves themselves. In other words, there has always been people that knew that slavery was wrong and inhuman, so there is no excuse for it.
I think the guy that helped to abolish slavery in england is more of a hero than washington.
yes, historically there has always been slavery, but that means that there were a good number of people that did not own slaves being that they were slaves themselves. In other words, there has always been people that knew that slavery was wrong and inhuman, so there is no excuse for it.
I think the guy that helped to abolish slavery in england is more of a hero than washington.
That is a good point.
And I hate it when people judge me without knowing me. So to call him a loser or a jerk maybe stretching it.
But I DO STRONGLY object to a man that ripped off the natives (apparently) and had over 300 slaves at the time of his death being called a hero.
And the fact that he emancipated them after his wife's death means nothing to me. He had no children, so what was he going to do with them when he and his wife had died?
I could right off his behaviour to an extent to naivety.
But to call someone who abused and used SO many people a hero is borderline disgusting to me. And I am neither Native nor black. Just imagine how they feel about him?
No. I am sorry but to me his accomplishments do not make up for his shortcomings. Bad people still can be good at things. That does not mean they are not bad people.
I am guessing he wasen't bad per se. But extremely selfish and/or ignorant.
VERY undeserving of the title 'hero'.
An important man in American history? Yes.
But a hero? Definitely not.
He's no George Washington Carver!
Yes, I agree. As time goes on, we've been blessed with newer and bigger assholes! :jester:
good point. we all choose our own heroes. whether it's my grandmother, the every-day civilian who rescues someone from a burning building, or a president. for the sake of nit-picking i've included this:
hero (plural heroes)
1. A real or mythical person of great bravery who carries out extraordinary deeds.
2. A role model.
3. The main protagonist in a work of fiction.
4. A champion.
5. A large sandwich made from meats and cheeses.
george washington could arguably be no fewer than three of these. for my own personal convenience, i choose not to analyze the transgressions of the founding fathers. this is a personal decision i made around the time news broke about thomas jefferson's "slave affair". i'm not saying it was right, it's just that it was so long ago, these people have passed into "distant history", it's like the statute of limitation has expired. i'm certainly not in favor of re-writing history, omitting the bad.
the fact that these letters and papers survived to "fill in the blanks" is certainly an interesting footnote.
:2 cents:
Last edited:
