I knew none of this about Washington except that he was our first President and a slave owner. Probably 99% of other Americans don’t know either. Thank you for sharing this and keep sharing your wisdom!
Thank you for your commentary on this anniversary of the founding of our country. It is easy in 2023 to sit back and judge people in the 1700 and 1800s for their lives (and also, as you point out, only one aspect of their lives). But each of us is human and as such, have foibles.
In Thomas Sowell’s book, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, he points out that Slavery was not an invention of Western Europe. It was practiced around the world (and some can say, it is still practiced around the world). But judging every action and person through the prism of one lens (slavery) negates every other aspect of these peoples’ character.
Western Europeans did not invent slavery which existed for many thousands of years. However, historically slavery was a technique to limit the vengeance of enemies your people had defeated. Your side lost, and rather than murdering you we make you our slave. You would never be part of our group, but those enslaved were regarded as “losers”, not as inferior. Thus, educated Greek slaves serving as teachers of the upper classes of the Roman Empire. Even Barbados, the first English slave colony founded in the 1620’s, began with poor whites from England and Ireland serving as temporary slaves I.e. indentures. However, the tropical climate took a toll on the English indentures and after about twenty years they started bringing in slaves from Africa. The English poor and the enslaved Africans worked side by side in the sugar cane fields with little or no class distinction between them. In fact, the slaves who boiled down the cane after the harvest, a highly skilled and essential job , were well compensated because the slightest slip might ruin the entire harvest, impoverishing the plantation owner. It was The Enlightenment that enabled the myth of African intellectual inferiority. Enlightenment reasoning could only countenance the subjugation of slaves if they were regarded as “less than human”. Thus the enslaved were no longer regarded as unfortunate humans whose side had lost, but rather as semi-human animals who must be “lead” by Europeans. Not for the first time did a society find justification for building and preserving their wealth by laughably convenient reasoning.
So what about the relationship between the WWII Japanese and the Chinese? Or the Koreans? Or the Tutsis and the Hutus? How about the English / Scots vis-a-vis the Irish? The Barbary Pirates enslaved many Europeans (like the citizens of Vestmannaeyjar who were kidnapped and taken to Northern Africa). Some were enslaved for ransoms that their families might pay. But others were enslaved because the Barbary Pirates could sell them in the slave markets of North Africa. And lastly, how did all of those Africans make it to the Atlantic Coast to be sold into slavery? I am not defending the institution of slavery, however, it is one thing to talk about it looking in the rear view mirror of history.
Indeed human societies have frequently treated each other with contempt and will continue to do so, but the discussion is about slavery, not national oppression. And yes, European Christians and North African Muslims kidnapped each other and pressed their victims into slavery, justified by their religious differences, but not regarding their victims as “less than human”. Have you seen Othello lately? A Blackamoor raised to high position by the Duke and married to the Duke’s very daughter. Written in 1600 when Black folks could be regarded as fully human, and sometimes heroic. The myth of African inferiority came later as the essential justification for a slave system. Of course, most enslaved Africans were driven to the slave ports by their African enemies. As I said in my previous post historically enslavement was a strategy to deprive your enemies of potential combatants. When the Atlantic slave trade opened they could permanently deport their enemies and make some money in the process. Nice, no. Humane, hardly. But it did not require the anyone to believe that their victims were inferior semi-humans. That is the burden that Black Americans have labored under for three hundred years. History is the only way we can diagnose this eternal American problem, and perhaps, finally, solve it.
When I was a kid in school the portrait of Washington just looked like an old grumpy guy to me. I later learned more about him. Someone with less guts than him would have given up the struggle for independence at many times. He didn't. And after victory there were many who wanted him to be more like a king but he wouldn't. Even after the presidency was over he still served, putting up ordinary Americans up in his home. And this was after he had been through the ringer for many years, if we had lost the Brits would have hanged him. He fought the Indians when he was a young British officer, but in his later years worried that the Indians did not have the experience to keep from being swindled. He wasn't perfect but then nobody is. And even though he wasn't the most learned of the founders it was his perseverance and will that helped our country be born.
The book Never Caught is a good counterpart to this essay. It neither demonizes nor excuses the Washingtons but presents them as often self-seeking and imperfect.
Thank you for looking at Washington through a wider lens, and for sharing information about him that I had never known. Too many today practice "presentism" which judges people and actions in the past by the standards of today. I always thought the phrase "sick and tired" was a chiche', but truly I am both sick, and tired, of excoriating a person for one facet of their life. We cancel living people and erase dead ones, and every time we do that, we lose a little bit of our human-ity. Thank you for a timely article.
I’m always amused at efforts to soften, or even harden historical figures. I guess one can claim adding to historical record. But there seems to be something larger than that, something more psychological. If you level up to 30 thousand feet, what you see is an attempt to mitigate slavery, kinda like those who say they were worker who learned enduring skills. It was slavery folks, a political economy of human degradation. The idea of George wouldn’t SELL his slaves with their permission is a weird take that seeks to find some sort of humanity in slaveholders, because of their status in history. I’m not mad at George or any other of America’s forefathers. A mature mind can understand ‘what was’ and ‘what is’ in our history without penalty or prejudice. But doing a historical remake is purely a post-modern deconstructionist exercise for psychological reason that I can’t fully put my finder on. Nonetheless, interesting article. But yikes!
A perfect article for Presidents' Day 2025! I remember reading this article when it originally came out. This is a masterful article by the great W.F. Twyman, Jr. about the Father of Our Country, George Washington! Washington today is vilified as a monster who tyrannized over enslaved people and a hypocrite who fought for freedom and liberty while denying it to others. Pastor Dukes' comments are appalling but unfortunately not surprising. But this NOT in any way, shape or form a fair judgement on the first President. As slave owners go, George Washington was pretty progressive for his time. This is an aspect of his life that is little known to the American public and which woke leftists and BLM activists are ignorant of. George Washington absolutely refused to sell his slaves without their consent if it would break up their family, working in the fields alongside enslaved men and women, he tended to sick slaves personally, inoculated his slaves, recognized slave marriages, and freed his slaves sixty years before the Emancipation Proclamation. These are historical facts about General Washington that show his for the time, cutting edge and humane treatment of enslaved people. Many slave owners were not so kind to those they held in bondage. Especially in the Deep South in places like Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina. Washington's respect and admiration for and courtesy shown to, Phillis Wheatley was remarkable and unusual for the 18th Century. General Washington treated her with a degree of social equality that is especially surprising and ahead of its time given he was a Southern slave owner from the upper class in Virginia. Her beautiful poems about General Washington were clearly very much genuinely appreciated by him. His change of heart about enlisting black soldiers in the Continental Army shows he was capable of growth and becoming broader minded on race. The same could be said about his contemporary the esteemed Benjamin Franklin. As a young man, Franklin could reasonably be called a racist. But after visiting a school for free black children he came to see that black children were just as capable as white children of learning and gaining knowledge and could be just as intelligent. By the end of his life, he was a staunch abolitionist active in an anti-slavery society and wrote a plan to integrate them into American society and teach free blacks a trade. Returning to Washington, His personal relationship with his biracial slave Billy Lee between whom there was clear mutual respect, showed he recognized and had an appreciation for the labor and work ethic of his slaves. That he in his will freed what slaves he could upon Martha's death shows that he and every regard for their personal hopes and dreams. Rev. Richard Allen's stirring eulogy for President Washington exemplifies the reverence with which the black community in America held George Washington in. Folks like Pastor Dukes and Charles Blow from the Washington Post would do well to give this amazing article a read! This article reminds me of another President who gets wrongly vilified whos' birthday is celebrated today, Abraham Lincoln. Starting with a book by the infamous late historian Lenore Bennett, an ugly allegation emerged that Lincoln wasn't truly dedicated to ending slavery and was a racist. Neither of these allegations is true. Lincoln definitely personally hated slavery. He opposed the Fugitive Slave Act, was appalled by the Dred Scott decision and as a congressman spoke out against the Mexican War as he saw it as a way to expand slavery into the West. Lincoln had a number of black Americans who were personal friends in particular the great Frederick Douglass. As President he visited black neighborhoods, prayed with black people in their churches, was the first U.S. President to welcome an ambassador from Haiti, was the first U.S. President to invite a black guest to a White House reception, and famed abolitionist Sojourner Truth said no one ever treated her with more kindness than Lincoln did. Despite opposition from many white Americans North and South, he signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and worked hard to help get the 13th Amendment passed in 1865. Before his tragic assassination at Ford's Theatre, he gave his approval for the creation of the Freedman's Bureau and his final speech gave his support for limited black suffrage. As to Lincoln's support for colonization that came from more from racial pessimism than racism. Lincoln feared white prejudice was so great that black Americans could never get a fair shake in this country. But when it became clear most black Americans weren't for it and wasn't practical, he gave up on it.
Very powerful essay. Those who are surprised or taken aback by some of these facts about Washington should read the Chernow biography mentioned by the author. There is no one more important to the liberty enjoyed by Americans and consequently others around the world than Washington.
Just found this article today. I will share it with the administration and staff of George Washington High School in my city, where, I pray, it will be shared with all the students. That is going to be a very, very heartfelt prayer and very needed because so many of those that head and teach in our schools have that same hard-heartedness of Pastor Dukes. We'll see. Thank you for this eloquent wide-lens view of the our founding father, George Washington.
And unlike Jefferson, Washington (and Madison) rejected innate black inferiority and thought that blacks and whites could eventually peacefully coexist.
It may be true head did all those things during his life time, however, it doesn't give him a pass for being a hypocrite. He sign the DOI , which stated all men are created equal and that ever man deserves liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Washington did not sign the Declaration of Independence. He was busy at the time leading a rag-tag army that would eventually bring independence and a modern world where attitudes toward slavery - an institution that was ubiquitous throughout history and the world - were completely reversed.
The issue is the global spread of Europeans. Who cares about nationalism? Native Hawaiians leave the state for California because the economic power games designed and evolved by haoles makes Hawaii too expensive.
Washington was a great political leader leagues ahead of his battleing contemporaries Adams and Jefferson. He was the least self-interested of powerful men and for that he is well honored. However, it is not petty to note that his career was enabled by his convenient marriage to Martha, who brought her one hundred slaves to their household. As a man of wealth through marriage he was able to embark on a political life that would otherwise been unlikely. Similarly, the noble gesture of manumitting his slaves upon the deaths of himself and Martha, is a bit less glowing in that they had no children, and thus, no one to logically leave his slaves too. He was indeed a great man with a admirable resistance to the blandishments of power, however, but for the system of slavery, he may well not be remembered at all.
I knew none of this about Washington except that he was our first President and a slave owner. Probably 99% of other Americans don’t know either. Thank you for sharing this and keep sharing your wisdom!
Thank you for your commentary on this anniversary of the founding of our country. It is easy in 2023 to sit back and judge people in the 1700 and 1800s for their lives (and also, as you point out, only one aspect of their lives). But each of us is human and as such, have foibles.
In Thomas Sowell’s book, Black Rednecks and White Liberals, he points out that Slavery was not an invention of Western Europe. It was practiced around the world (and some can say, it is still practiced around the world). But judging every action and person through the prism of one lens (slavery) negates every other aspect of these peoples’ character.
Western Europeans did not invent slavery which existed for many thousands of years. However, historically slavery was a technique to limit the vengeance of enemies your people had defeated. Your side lost, and rather than murdering you we make you our slave. You would never be part of our group, but those enslaved were regarded as “losers”, not as inferior. Thus, educated Greek slaves serving as teachers of the upper classes of the Roman Empire. Even Barbados, the first English slave colony founded in the 1620’s, began with poor whites from England and Ireland serving as temporary slaves I.e. indentures. However, the tropical climate took a toll on the English indentures and after about twenty years they started bringing in slaves from Africa. The English poor and the enslaved Africans worked side by side in the sugar cane fields with little or no class distinction between them. In fact, the slaves who boiled down the cane after the harvest, a highly skilled and essential job , were well compensated because the slightest slip might ruin the entire harvest, impoverishing the plantation owner. It was The Enlightenment that enabled the myth of African intellectual inferiority. Enlightenment reasoning could only countenance the subjugation of slaves if they were regarded as “less than human”. Thus the enslaved were no longer regarded as unfortunate humans whose side had lost, but rather as semi-human animals who must be “lead” by Europeans. Not for the first time did a society find justification for building and preserving their wealth by laughably convenient reasoning.
So what about the relationship between the WWII Japanese and the Chinese? Or the Koreans? Or the Tutsis and the Hutus? How about the English / Scots vis-a-vis the Irish? The Barbary Pirates enslaved many Europeans (like the citizens of Vestmannaeyjar who were kidnapped and taken to Northern Africa). Some were enslaved for ransoms that their families might pay. But others were enslaved because the Barbary Pirates could sell them in the slave markets of North Africa. And lastly, how did all of those Africans make it to the Atlantic Coast to be sold into slavery? I am not defending the institution of slavery, however, it is one thing to talk about it looking in the rear view mirror of history.
Indeed human societies have frequently treated each other with contempt and will continue to do so, but the discussion is about slavery, not national oppression. And yes, European Christians and North African Muslims kidnapped each other and pressed their victims into slavery, justified by their religious differences, but not regarding their victims as “less than human”. Have you seen Othello lately? A Blackamoor raised to high position by the Duke and married to the Duke’s very daughter. Written in 1600 when Black folks could be regarded as fully human, and sometimes heroic. The myth of African inferiority came later as the essential justification for a slave system. Of course, most enslaved Africans were driven to the slave ports by their African enemies. As I said in my previous post historically enslavement was a strategy to deprive your enemies of potential combatants. When the Atlantic slave trade opened they could permanently deport their enemies and make some money in the process. Nice, no. Humane, hardly. But it did not require the anyone to believe that their victims were inferior semi-humans. That is the burden that Black Americans have labored under for three hundred years. History is the only way we can diagnose this eternal American problem, and perhaps, finally, solve it.
An inspiring piece about a hero who managed to win and hold a fledgling nation together during a critical time. Where are the Washingtons of today?
When I was a kid in school the portrait of Washington just looked like an old grumpy guy to me. I later learned more about him. Someone with less guts than him would have given up the struggle for independence at many times. He didn't. And after victory there were many who wanted him to be more like a king but he wouldn't. Even after the presidency was over he still served, putting up ordinary Americans up in his home. And this was after he had been through the ringer for many years, if we had lost the Brits would have hanged him. He fought the Indians when he was a young British officer, but in his later years worried that the Indians did not have the experience to keep from being swindled. He wasn't perfect but then nobody is. And even though he wasn't the most learned of the founders it was his perseverance and will that helped our country be born.
"I refuse to use fire because the people who invented fire were cannibals" </sarcasm>
The book Never Caught is a good counterpart to this essay. It neither demonizes nor excuses the Washingtons but presents them as often self-seeking and imperfect.
Thank you for looking at Washington through a wider lens, and for sharing information about him that I had never known. Too many today practice "presentism" which judges people and actions in the past by the standards of today. I always thought the phrase "sick and tired" was a chiche', but truly I am both sick, and tired, of excoriating a person for one facet of their life. We cancel living people and erase dead ones, and every time we do that, we lose a little bit of our human-ity. Thank you for a timely article.
I’m always amused at efforts to soften, or even harden historical figures. I guess one can claim adding to historical record. But there seems to be something larger than that, something more psychological. If you level up to 30 thousand feet, what you see is an attempt to mitigate slavery, kinda like those who say they were worker who learned enduring skills. It was slavery folks, a political economy of human degradation. The idea of George wouldn’t SELL his slaves with their permission is a weird take that seeks to find some sort of humanity in slaveholders, because of their status in history. I’m not mad at George or any other of America’s forefathers. A mature mind can understand ‘what was’ and ‘what is’ in our history without penalty or prejudice. But doing a historical remake is purely a post-modern deconstructionist exercise for psychological reason that I can’t fully put my finder on. Nonetheless, interesting article. But yikes!
A perfect article for Presidents' Day 2025! I remember reading this article when it originally came out. This is a masterful article by the great W.F. Twyman, Jr. about the Father of Our Country, George Washington! Washington today is vilified as a monster who tyrannized over enslaved people and a hypocrite who fought for freedom and liberty while denying it to others. Pastor Dukes' comments are appalling but unfortunately not surprising. But this NOT in any way, shape or form a fair judgement on the first President. As slave owners go, George Washington was pretty progressive for his time. This is an aspect of his life that is little known to the American public and which woke leftists and BLM activists are ignorant of. George Washington absolutely refused to sell his slaves without their consent if it would break up their family, working in the fields alongside enslaved men and women, he tended to sick slaves personally, inoculated his slaves, recognized slave marriages, and freed his slaves sixty years before the Emancipation Proclamation. These are historical facts about General Washington that show his for the time, cutting edge and humane treatment of enslaved people. Many slave owners were not so kind to those they held in bondage. Especially in the Deep South in places like Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina. Washington's respect and admiration for and courtesy shown to, Phillis Wheatley was remarkable and unusual for the 18th Century. General Washington treated her with a degree of social equality that is especially surprising and ahead of its time given he was a Southern slave owner from the upper class in Virginia. Her beautiful poems about General Washington were clearly very much genuinely appreciated by him. His change of heart about enlisting black soldiers in the Continental Army shows he was capable of growth and becoming broader minded on race. The same could be said about his contemporary the esteemed Benjamin Franklin. As a young man, Franklin could reasonably be called a racist. But after visiting a school for free black children he came to see that black children were just as capable as white children of learning and gaining knowledge and could be just as intelligent. By the end of his life, he was a staunch abolitionist active in an anti-slavery society and wrote a plan to integrate them into American society and teach free blacks a trade. Returning to Washington, His personal relationship with his biracial slave Billy Lee between whom there was clear mutual respect, showed he recognized and had an appreciation for the labor and work ethic of his slaves. That he in his will freed what slaves he could upon Martha's death shows that he and every regard for their personal hopes and dreams. Rev. Richard Allen's stirring eulogy for President Washington exemplifies the reverence with which the black community in America held George Washington in. Folks like Pastor Dukes and Charles Blow from the Washington Post would do well to give this amazing article a read! This article reminds me of another President who gets wrongly vilified whos' birthday is celebrated today, Abraham Lincoln. Starting with a book by the infamous late historian Lenore Bennett, an ugly allegation emerged that Lincoln wasn't truly dedicated to ending slavery and was a racist. Neither of these allegations is true. Lincoln definitely personally hated slavery. He opposed the Fugitive Slave Act, was appalled by the Dred Scott decision and as a congressman spoke out against the Mexican War as he saw it as a way to expand slavery into the West. Lincoln had a number of black Americans who were personal friends in particular the great Frederick Douglass. As President he visited black neighborhoods, prayed with black people in their churches, was the first U.S. President to welcome an ambassador from Haiti, was the first U.S. President to invite a black guest to a White House reception, and famed abolitionist Sojourner Truth said no one ever treated her with more kindness than Lincoln did. Despite opposition from many white Americans North and South, he signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and worked hard to help get the 13th Amendment passed in 1865. Before his tragic assassination at Ford's Theatre, he gave his approval for the creation of the Freedman's Bureau and his final speech gave his support for limited black suffrage. As to Lincoln's support for colonization that came from more from racial pessimism than racism. Lincoln feared white prejudice was so great that black Americans could never get a fair shake in this country. But when it became clear most black Americans weren't for it and wasn't practical, he gave up on it.
Very powerful essay. Those who are surprised or taken aback by some of these facts about Washington should read the Chernow biography mentioned by the author. There is no one more important to the liberty enjoyed by Americans and consequently others around the world than Washington.
Just found this article today. I will share it with the administration and staff of George Washington High School in my city, where, I pray, it will be shared with all the students. That is going to be a very, very heartfelt prayer and very needed because so many of those that head and teach in our schools have that same hard-heartedness of Pastor Dukes. We'll see. Thank you for this eloquent wide-lens view of the our founding father, George Washington.
Thank you for this. Thank you very much.
And unlike Jefferson, Washington (and Madison) rejected innate black inferiority and thought that blacks and whites could eventually peacefully coexist.
It may be true head did all those things during his life time, however, it doesn't give him a pass for being a hypocrite. He sign the DOI , which stated all men are created equal and that ever man deserves liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Washington did not sign the Declaration of Independence. He was busy at the time leading a rag-tag army that would eventually bring independence and a modern world where attitudes toward slavery - an institution that was ubiquitous throughout history and the world - were completely reversed.
So are you saying he shouldn’t have signed it or that they should have taken that part out?
That is not all:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_Destroyer
The issue is the global spread of Europeans. Who cares about nationalism? Native Hawaiians leave the state for California because the economic power games designed and evolved by haoles makes Hawaii too expensive.
Washington was a great political leader leagues ahead of his battleing contemporaries Adams and Jefferson. He was the least self-interested of powerful men and for that he is well honored. However, it is not petty to note that his career was enabled by his convenient marriage to Martha, who brought her one hundred slaves to their household. As a man of wealth through marriage he was able to embark on a political life that would otherwise been unlikely. Similarly, the noble gesture of manumitting his slaves upon the deaths of himself and Martha, is a bit less glowing in that they had no children, and thus, no one to logically leave his slaves too. He was indeed a great man with a admirable resistance to the blandishments of power, however, but for the system of slavery, he may well not be remembered at all.
I thought women weren't allowed to own property until the 70s, the 1970s! Dunno where I heard that...