Washington and slavery

Talking about slavery in the past, or even in Third World countries of today is not only a distraction from the issue, but puts one in the position of being an apologist for the custom here in the United States. After all, our country was founded in relatively modern times, during the Age of Enlightenment. There were enough people who abhorred the practice at the time to make it the aberration that we view it as today.

Using the argument that it happened in the past or still may occur elsewhere today does not excuse the practice in our nation of certain people being allowed to own other people and the Jim Crow laws, etc. that followed.
A distraction from what issue? And no one has said that the practice should be excused. Nothing is going to change history, not even tearing down monuments or burning books or any of the other hysteria so common nowadays. Slavery was a blight on our young nation but no one alive today was a slave or owned a slave.

Washington was a great man and a founder of our country. What a shame that anyone would think otherwise.
 

A distraction from what issue? And no one has said that the practice should be excused. Nothing is going to change history, not even tearing down monuments or burning books or any of the other hysteria so common nowadays. Slavery was a blight on our young nation but no one alive today was a slave or owned a slave.

Washington was a great man and a founder of our country. What a shame that anyone would think otherwise.

I said nothing about Washington, so you can't be addressing that to me.....not sure who you are addressing it to. Distraction meaning making slavery a normal human activity. As for "......no one alive today was a slave or owned a slave." Now that's a huge distraction, but for an issue not currently under discussion, and probably not condoned under this forum's mandates.

The OP question was imaginary, but I would hope Washington would be against the treasonous efforts made by the south and he would have wanted the union intact. Tearing down monuments and statues lauding treason is not top of my list. Besides, in the words of the current occupant in DC "Big Losers." Nothing to celebrate and respect for the living, not the dead (which includes their "ideals") demands not their destruction but placement in a museum.
 
I agree, Pepper. At the risk of repeating myself, let me repeat myself:;)

I wonder what Washington would have done during the Civil War if he was still alive. I imagine by then he would have just freed all his slaves, and not only after he was dead. He struggled and suffered to help the Union get its start, and was its first major leader. The Civil War was, basically, over dissolving the Union, over the issue of slavery. I don't think he would have sided with the Confederacy.

But the slave issue is certainly a blot on him and Jefferson.

In other words, it's more complicated than, well, black and white. He enjoyed a comfortable, highly respected lifestyle, made possible only because of the labor of many slaves. But I imagine that his dedication to the Union he was founding along with a group of other geniuses would have superceded the comforts and luxuries he and Martha enjoyed. I imagine the turmoil leading up to the Civil War would have jolted him into an awareness that all this was seriously wrong, and had to be given up, or at least drastically modified. He could have kept the house and continued at least some of the farming, but probably everything would have been greatly reduced, as he would have to pay his workers for their labor.

One interesting thing was the enormous selection of books on Washington and the Founding Fathers in the gift shop. I'm sure this subject has been analyzed a million times over by now, and unless I really delve into it, all I can do is a certain amount of (ignorant) conjecture. In other words, I don't really know enough about it to have an intelligent opinion on the subject.

One more thought about this, and then I'll shut up: my daughter commented that she was surprised at how frank the tour guides were about slavery. She said she kind of expected them to gloss over it, or minimize the importance of the slaves, but they did just the opposite. They talked a lot about the slaves, even giving us some of their names. Some of the buildings still standing were the slave quarters, and other buildings mainly used by the slaves. They are very open about discussing it. The brochure they give out to all visitors mentions: "Tribute at the Slave Memorial and Cemetery. To commemorate the lives and contributions of Mount Vernon's enslaved individuals, a brief wreath laying and presentation occurs daily at the slave memorial site." This ceremony is held twice daily. Hardly enough to make up for slavery, but at least the slaves are honored.

It also says that Washington was always keen to incorporate labor-saving technology whenever possible, and described an automated system he put in his gristmill, involving a water wheel and elevators.

I am not particularly a history buff, but I found all this fascinating. I'd like to go back, as we just scratched the surface.
 

If you are interested in reading about slavery, see the movie Twelve Years a Slave or read the autobiography of the gentleman enslaved. The book closely follows the movie. Another is the autobiography of Booker T. Washington. He was freed as a teen as a result of the Civil War, and never really experienced the toil of older slaves. The first desire of his was to get an education, and later the education of other former slaves. The back of the book has shorter accounts of the slave experience written for the freed illiterate slaves. I like fist person accounts since they are probably not sanitized versions.

Read them both!! ...even back in the 70's when I was very young, I was completely engrossed in ''Roots''...
 
IMO Wahington and his peers that took steps to found our country were just businessmen rebelling against the high cost of taxes and tariffs imposed by the British government.

I think that Washington probably would have viewed emancipation as government overreach and sided with the south to protect what he viewed as his investments.

Follow the money! :):playful::eek:nthego:
 
A distraction from what issue? And no one has said that the practice should be excused. Nothing is going to change history, not even tearing down monuments or burning books or any of the other hysteria so common nowadays. Slavery was a blight on our young nation but no one alive today was a slave or owned a slave.

Washington was a great man and a founder of our country. What a shame that anyone would think otherwise.

I agree with this analysis. Tearing down monuments and rewriting history is ridiculous. History is a record to learn from IMHO. Never make the same mistakes again.
 
Washington is protrayed by history as ''Founder of Our Country'' a title given him and we hope he earned it. A blight on him as a individual is that he owned 317 slaves (humans). Just saying slaves (Afro-American) made ole George a very rich and influential man and probably bragging rights for most humans owned during chit chats at get together picnics etc. History cannot be changed and and unfortunatrly forgotten. Tearing down statues and destroying property is not going to change history and C'est is correct about no person living today was a slave or owned a slave. It is political unrest and probably will get worst before it gets better.
 
As to Confederate Civil War monuments. Exactly why are we memorializing those, who took up arms, fought a five year war, resulting in over 600,000 deaths, all to keep slaves?

"Most of the Confederate monuments concerned were built in periods of racial conflict, such as when Jim Crow laws were being introduced in the late 19th century and at the start of the 20th century or during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials


In other words, most were erected not due to misplaced pride, but to remind and threaten. That's why they belong inside a museum and not on public property where it is a constant call back to the days when many passerby were property.
 
"Most of the Confederate monuments concerned were built in periods of racial conflict, such as when Jim Crow laws were being introduced in the late 19th century and at the start of the 20th century or during the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Removal_of_Confederate_monuments_and_memorials


In other words, most were erected not due to misplaced pride, but to remind and threaten. That's why they belong inside a museum and not on public property where it is a constant call back to the days when many passerby were property.


Pride was (and is ...though I'm at a loss as to why it still is)a big part of it, and the monument's being placed during Jim Crow had a lot to do with the fact that it wasn't possible to put them up during Reconstruction. Grave decoration, however, did start before war's end and organizations of white Southern ladies group dedicated to honoring the dead by tending the dead and raising money for monuments held powerful sway for many years.

I'm an amateur genealogist and spend time visiting courthouses throughout Mississippi. I was especially struck one day about the negativity of the monuments because of the size of the big! huge! CW soldier monument outside the Leflore MS county courthouse. At my healthcare job the next week I asked my black coworker friends what it most symbolized to them ...that their ancestors were slaves or as a reminder of the black subjugation of Jim Crow. Most said pretty much equal between the two. Most agree with you and me that they ought to be removed from government property and placed in a private museum.
 
IMO we need to be careful in carving up our past and altering history.

I think that it would be wrong to remove this monument from Arlington National Cemetery.

https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore/Monuments-and-Memorials/Confederate-Memorial

confederate.jpg

Not for fame or reward
Not for place or for rank
Not lured by ambition
Or goaded by necessity
But in simple
Obedience to duty
As they understood it
These men suffered all
Sacrificed all
Dared all-and died
 
IMO we need to be careful in carving up our past and altering history.

I think that it would be wrong to remove this monument from Arlington National Cemetery.

https://www.arlingtoncemetery.mil/Explore/Monuments-and-Memorials/Confederate-Memorial

confederate.jpg

Not for fame or reward
Not for place or for rank
Not lured by ambition
Or goaded by necessity
But in simple
Obedience to duty
As they understood it
These men suffered all
Sacrificed all
Dared all-and died

I agree strongly with you, Aunt Bea. First, off I strongly agree that we should never attempt to alter or whitewash history. It simply is what it is.

Secondly, I think it is important to remember that the vast majority of confederate soldiers were not slaveholders and were simply doing what the inscription above says -- they were doing what they perceived as their duty (and what conscription required them to do if they wanted not to get shot for cowardice or desertion). To think that every confederate soldier thought about whether slavery was right or not or had the option to say "no, I'm not going to fight for slavery" is as simplistic and wrong as it would be to say that every solder who fought in Vietnam approved of or even understood the reasons they were there.

I also think it is important to understand and remember history in the context of the times in which it occurred.
 


Back
Top