Below is my column in the Hill Newspaper on the call for the removal of the statue of George Washington in my hometown of Chicago. This is not the first such call to remove statues of confederate figures or those who supported segregation. The most recent such removal was the removal of the statue of Chief Justice Roger B. Taney due to his authorship of the Dredd Scott decision. There have been demands that monuments and the names of slave-owning founders be removed.
Here is the column:
George Washington may have survived the winter at Valley Forge, but he may not see the end of the summer of Charlottesville. Bishop James Dukes of Chicago’s Liberation Christian Center and others are calling for the removal of his and Andrew Jackson’s statues and and stripping of their names from parks. Dukes insists that these monuments are “a slap in the face and it’s a disgrace” for African Americans given their history as slave owning presidents.
The bishop’s call for the removal of our first president’s statue is the latest effort to strip away the names of historical figures over ties to slavery or segregation. There is a movement to remove the name of Woodrow Wilson (who helped establish Princeton as a world academic institution) from buildings and schools, due to his support for segregation. The University of Virginia was founded by Thomas Jefferson, but last year, University President Teresa Sullivan was denounced by students and faculty for merely quoting our third president in a public message because he was a slave owner.
The call to remove Washington’s statue came less than a day after President Trump asked whether Washington would be next in the movement to remove statues like the Robert E. Lee monument in Charlottesville. The statement drew the ire of CNN’s Jim Acosta who described the notion as absurd and said it was “taken as a sign that the president perhaps needs a refresher course and needs to go back to History 101.”
History is precisely where this controversy should begin and end. Washington is rightfully condemned for his ownership of slaves. There were contemporaries like John Adams, John Jay, Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton who were outspoken critics of slavery. Franklin called slavery “an atrocious debasement of human nature,” while Adams referred to it as a “foul contagion in the human character.” These visionaries not only saw a great evil but answered the call of history to stand steadfastly against it.
However, before Mayor Rahm Emanuel sends in the bulldozers into Washington Park, it is worth considering a few facts about our first president’s history with slavery. Washington inherited a number of slaves at age 11 and received more slaves in his marriage to Martha Custis. However, he gradually came to oppose slavery. On the interim, Washington tried to assuage his guilt by refusing to sell slaves that would break up families, telling an associate that it was “against my inclination…to hurt the feelings of those unhappy people by a separation of man and wife, or of families.”
After the war, Washington continued to discuss ways to convert his plantation from slaves to tenants at the suggestion of his close aide (and outspoken opponent of slavery) Marquis de Lafayette. By 1786, Washington wrote his friend Robert Morris, “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 [slavery].”
In the end, Washington was the only one of nine slaveholding presidents (and the only slaveholding founder) who freed his slaves upon his death. Washington freed as many of his 317 slaves as possible. Some 123 slaves were his to emancipate while neither he nor Martha could free the so-called “Custis Dower slaves” (who remained property of the heirs to the estate of Daniel Parke Custis, Martha Washington’s first husband). He further ordered that all of the elderly or sick slaves would be supported by his estate for the rest of their lives.
So where does this leave us? With a complex and flawed figure who practiced a great evil while belatedly coming to reject it. He finished his life allied with his more enlightened colleagues but this is no reason to forgive his prior history. However, that is the point of history. It is never some neat narrative divided cleanly between demons and angels. Washington was a great leader who held a nation together through sheer leadership and stands as one of the few leaders in history to refuse to become a monarch himself.
Curiously, Dukes does offer a concession. Washington Park and Jackson Park could be formally named after former Mayor Harold Washington and civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson or singer Michael Jackson. It is unlikely to convince those who view these statutes as not simply reminders of past leaders but past struggles in an evolving society. The same cannot be said for Michael Jackson. “Thriller” may be the best selling album in history, but the Battle of New Orleans still has more of a hold on history.
The fact is that we often learn as much from the failures as we do the triumphs of historical figures. Washington ultimately proved to be an early transitional figure in our ugly history of slavery. Washington himself described his desire at Mount Vernon “to lay a foundation” for a “rising generation” with a “new destiny” other than slavery.
For my part, I am proud to teach at the George Washington University, whose charter was paid for by Washington himself as part of that same final testament. Of course, that does not mean we could not make other improvements. Another school in Washington is named after a British king, George II, who kept our nation under colonial oppression. After all, the moonwalk and robot dance steps did have a transformative impact on my generation… and “Jacksontown University” has a nice ring to it.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
Oh, one more thing Nick, tell your cousin Nancy Pelosi she has to kick in something too.
Why are people so willing to look past the recent abuses of black people, to go after historical figures? I suspect that morality has nothing to do with it and political exploitation has everything.
The more recent an affront is, the more painful and fresh in our minds, it usually is. As a black man driving alone in the South, I can still relive the feeling of intimidation I felt almost 30 years ago, as I drove into Mobile, AL and had to pass through the George C. Wallace tunnel. That was a real and palpable feeling of discomfiture. I can still find clips of Wallace’s “Segregation forever” speech, today.
Is there one prominent figure calling for the removal of this vile man’s name from the Federal Interstate Highway system? I can only surmise that there is a greater and more sinister motive behind these calls to expunge the names of historical figures.
Long before Lee, Washington, and Jefferson, there are a few who should be driven from public honor:
Robert C. Byrd
George C. Wallace
Orville Faubus
Lester Maddox
William Fulbright
Strom Thurmond
Jesse Helms
The names spread across both parties. The only anomaly is that at the height of their racist deeds they were all Democrat. Thurmond in particular was vilified as a racist even in death. Yet as far as I know he never belonged to the Klan, and certainly never achieved the high office there that Byrd did.
When they remove all vestige of these men from the public square they can talk to me about the founders.
Robert C. Byrd
George C. Wallace
Orville Faubus
Lester Maddox
William Fulbright
Strom Thurmond
Jesse Helms
I doubt you can find any public buildings or munuments dedicated to Faubus, Maddox, or Helms. You might not be able to find one dedicated to Thurmond.
Byrd was a juvenile screwball who organized Klaverns in a weird self-aggrandizing exercise. Elected to Congress, he busied himself sending pork to West Virginia. He was in public office from the age of 29 until his death at age 92. Wallace was a gross and self-centered op portunist (see his treatment of his 1st wife for an example). Faubus, Fulbright, and Thurmond were Southern politicians of an ordinary disposition in the era in question. Faubus is remembered primarily because federal courts put him in the middle of a maelstrom, Thurmond because he rallied opposition to Hubert Humphrey in 1948. Helms political career post-dated the Jim Crow era. Helms at the time was a journalist. I don’t think any surviving recordings mark him as a fire-eater. The issues of segregation and negro disfranchisement were passe when he was a member of Congress.
You can find memorials to all of them in their home states. I know of at least 1 statue of Faubus in Little Rock.
You so glibly dismiss their “indiscretions” but people is this country still rail against a military officer who did what he saw as his duty to his native Virginia. If Byrd was a man of his times, wasn’t Lee even more so? Lee at least help in the education of black children.
I know Thurmond was the first U.S. Senator to hire black staffers in the modern era and Helms became a leading advocate for HIV/AIDS in the Senate but do they all get a pass? Does Fulbright deserve the high honor of a national scholarship in his name?
Does Byrd warrant some 56 memorials to his name?
Does Wallace deserve to intimidate black people even from his grave, when we are forced to drive through a tunnel in his name in order to traverse the state of Alabama?
You can find memorials to all of them in their home states. I know of at least 1 statue of Faubus in Little Rock.
You can? Than why do you not tell me where? Do you mean a portrait on a wall or a 15 inch bust on a pedestal? That’s perfectly banal for quondam public office holders. New York’s had 13 governors since 1928. That’ll fill a 40 foot long corridor in the state capitol. You’re going to have to come up with a reason why these people should be airbrushed from history.
You so glibly dismiss their “indiscretions”
I never referred to ‘indiscretions’ at all, but never mind.
but people is this country still rail against a military officer who did what he saw as his duty to his native Virginia. If Byrd was a man of his times, wasn’t Lee even more so? Lee at least help in the education of black children.
Robert Byrd wasn’t a ‘man of his times’. He lived in a state with few blacks (about 3.5% of the total population) among a population of upland Southern whites who simply did not have much visceral investment in Jim Crow. Neither his predecessor, Chapman Revercomb, nor the senator who served alongside him, Jennings Randolph, were antagonists of black political interests. The 2d incarnation of the Klan had largely evaporated after 1930 and there he was in West Virginia trying to revive it in an area where it was irrelevant to the social landscape. (The national organization formally dissolved in 1944, btw).
know Thurmond was the first U.S. Senator to hire black staffers in the modern era
He wasn’t.
and Helms became a leading advocate for HIV/AIDS in the Senate but do they all get a pass?
Pretty irrelevant to the question at hand.
Does Fulbright deserve the high honor of a national scholarship in his name?
He was a foreign affairs maven and it’s a scholarship to study abroad. (Personally, I don’t care for federal involvement in higher education in this way, but that’s a different question).
Does Byrd warrant some 56 memorials to his name?
That’s pork. And since they were built during his lifetime, ego. Cheesy enough to warrant getting rid of them. Pork and ego are not why you have Confederate memorials.
Does Wallace deserve to intimidate black people even from his grave, when we are forced to drive through a tunnel in his name in order to traverse the state of Alabama?
Wallace isn’t intimidating anyone. If you’re having phobic reactions to an inscription on a bridge, it’s because you’ve got an anxiety disorder. And Wallace pretty much failed at everything of note he set out to do other than garner and hold office.
Nick S. You Italians owe the rest of us reparations for the Roman Empire. Are there any Babalonians still with? Maybe they could chip in something too!
Mea culpa, mea culpa mea maxima culpa.
Did anybody mentioned that there were black slaves owners during times of slavery? We need to be careful not to destroy the United States of America. Taking down Thomas Jefferson and George Washington status isn’t what can destroy this country, in my opinion (even though I am personally opposed to taking down their statues). It is this divide and conquer/5th grade mindset of millions of people. Should Egypt destroy their Pyramids?
Since we have allowed this insane PC Mao teachings in our schools & universities for several decades,
We can see where this is going……
And since over 1/2 of our signers of the Declaration of Independence were slave owners, this will not have a good end. 😮
NIce dig at Georgetown.
It truly bothers me when essentially useless people condemn the great ones for their flaws. Let Rahm Emmanuel first lead a great nation in revolution, preside of over its Constitutional Convention, and be its first President before he criticizes George Washington for ANYTHING.
Although I hate surrendering to mob rule, let me propose a suggestion that might satisfy both those who believe in preserving history and those who wish to vent. Instead of removing statues of slave owners/Confederates, add a statue representing the opposite side. In Charlottsville, rather than remove a statue of Lee, add a statue of Grant. The fought each other not too far from Charlottsville. Having statues of the two generals in the same park, shifts the focus from honoring Lee to memorializing a historic event. Instead of removing the statue of Roger B. Taney from the Maryland statehouse grounds, add a statue of Thurgood Marshall. The artwork would then shift its message from praising Taney to demonstrate how far Maryland has come in the intervening years. Instead of removing the statue of the Confederate soldier from the Rockville, MD courthouse grounds, add a statue of a Union soldier to represent the conflicted nature of that border state. I know that this solution would preempt the politicians pandering and, therefore, will probably not be implemented, but why not?
Oh, excuse me. Did I suggest that Rahm Emmanuel is essentially useless. I meant to say he is essentially worse than useless.
BTW. Most of the people I see tearing down the Confederate’s statues are white. Why do some white people feel compelled to tell black people what should offend them. It seems like it is a 21st century version of the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Vince, Charles Barkley had a great rant about how black folk in the South don’t care about this. They care about JOBS. This identity politics/PC/destruction of art is how Trump became President and the Dems are doubling down on it.
The only people who should have a say in whether the statues stay or go are the people who live in these cities or towns. That’s their business not anyone else’s.
The politicians or the people? Do you agree w/ the mayor of Baltimore removing art in the middle of the night?
The oath taken by traitors to receive amnesty:
http://68.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lsauryIiS71qhk04bo1_1280.jpg
You other story, the discovery of the SS Indianapolis, edifies my conviction that I was going to base my comment on, and it is just this. When I looked at the individuals that took it upon themselves to pull down the statue in Durham, I wondered what they had even contributed to America that they could exercise such authority over anything. I think when a decision like the one about the monuments is made, I don’t feel that everyone in America is equal. I’d like to hear from actual military people regarding the monuments and grave sites of the war dead. I don’t think a Communist agitator whose family came here from South East Asia and lists their resume as “disabled gender weird” is morally equal to someone who’s family has served in the American military or fought in the wars that kept the world free. I really don’t care about everyone’s opinion on this issue, and the paler your state is, on the map of which state’s young people enlist and serve, the less I care about their opinion on this issue.
This is just silly people, playing silly games. These events happened a long time ago, but deal. And it was the War of Northern Aggression.
South Carolina started it.
I’ve heard southerners call it the War Between the States. As best as I can make out it was only a civil war in some of the border states.
True Schulte.
Today’s sheeple still fooled about the economic ‘Slavery’ still endured by non-Whites 150 years on. Conned by corrupt mainstream media ‘fake’ omissions of the deviously hidden agenda that the mass murder Civil War was the callous industrial North’s brutal land grab for highly valued and still valuable KING COTTON!!
Grown only sub-tropic WAY Down South o’ Dixie.
BIG Bonus Vid: BIG Bob’s BAND, ‘The Nite They Drove Ole Dixie Down!’ Hit it late great Arkansas Good Ole drummer boy Levon…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-VShpcqd3zE
Pretty soon the afro americans will no longer be able to point to any proofs that their ancestors were bought and sold by the Northern Democrats nor worked as slaves by the Southern Democrats. That should cure racism and reverse racism as it will have been erased from the history books forever. Leaving onlly the Selective Service Act sss.org.
Was slavery in the United States even all that great an “evil”, relative to what was going on in the world at the time? Here’s a picture of slaves, around 1850:
http://i2.cdn.cnn.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/161122133246-electoral-college-slavery-super-169.jpg
They look pretty healthy and well fed overall. I bet that “free” Africans in Africa on the whole weren’t carrying a lot of extra weight. And, I bet their life spans were not as long. I am sure that it sucked having some one else being the complete boss of you, but ask yourself—who would you rather have as a master, some white Christian dude, an African chieftain from an opposing side, or a Muslim slave owner?
Because remember, the ones brought here were already slaves. Some African tribe sold them to the white folks. The ones sent to the Muslim countries faced castration and much worse cruelties than the one coming here. Life spans for blacks and whites alike were often only 30 or 40 years on average. White people were whipped and flogged for misdeeds as well as blacks.
And frankly, slaveholders didn’t get “free” labor. They got “subsistence level” labor, because the slaves had to be provided food, medical care, clothes, a place to live, and retirement benefits of a sort when they got too old to work. Heck, the average low paid worker in America doesn’t make enough to pay rent, medical insurance, food, and clothes. The government has to subsidize low skilled people here with food stamps, Medicaid, housing vouchers, etc.
Slavery needed to come to an end, because when any one person has total power over another, bad horrible things are going to occur. Sheeeesh, just look at married life! But life was no cakewalk for most white peoples either at the time. 60 to 70 hour+ workweeks, child labor, female mortality during childbirth, poverty, malnutrition. If you are doubtful slaves here led a better life than their counterparts in Africa or the Arab lands, then ask yourself, in 1875, 10 years after slavery ended, who was better off—the free Negroes in America, or the average black African.
Ask it again every 10 years thereafter until now, and my opinion is that American blacks were always better off, and still are to this day. Because if they weren’t, what keeps them from hauling a$$ back to Africa in large numbers? It doesn’t cost that much to fly there, probably less than the cost of a few hair weave treatments. And there are millions of whites who would freely pay for their ticket out of here, if it meant they were gone for good.
Slavery sucked, but a lot of things sucked back in those days. For everybody.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Yes and a well stated polemic. Still, you need to understand why a great many came to oppose slavery, not the least all the slaves.
I understand. It is just that back in the 1850s and 1860s, not many people got 2 week vacations, and could go to Starbucks for a chai tea latte every day, and chocolate covered espresso beans. Or coffee beans, because technically there is no such thing as an espresso bean.
You walked where you went, or you rode a horse. You cut your own fire wood, strangled your own chickens, died in childbirth, died of infections and STDs, had large objects fall on you. Etc. Life was sucky to some extent all over, unless you were rich. Then, you still died in childbirth, of infections, although somebody else strangled the chickens for you.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
You repeat yourself. The point was better stated the first time.
Go read Quaker history.
Most of the great abolitionists such as the Quaker women who were publicly whipped naked for their anti-slavery preaching, William Wilberforce and John Brown were very clear about the dynamic that propelled them. They had reached their conclusion as a response to the gospel. Maybe that’s why they only succeeded in outlawing human slavery in the Western Hemisphere.
That is a good point.
There is rabbinical commentary that a slave in OT Judaism had more rights than a fully vested citizen of most nations or tribes. We need to identify the compass heading that resulted in America putting the high mark on the wall of human rights achievements by outlawing slavery in the Western Hemisphere and continue on that course.
I suggest reading about the Quakers.
Exactly what “rights” did a slave have?
The only Rights I can see is the basics food and shelter, and I assume those were taken away at times for punishment. Mankind has a long history of human trafficking. And it still going on under our noses. So we need to speak up and support Pres Trump when he is trying to end it and arrest the snakes.
Snopes:
The first legal slave owner in American history was a black tobacco farmer named Anthony Johnson.
Possibly true. The wording of the statement is important. Anthony Johnson was not the first slave owner in American history, but he was, according to historians, among the first to have his lifetime ownership of a servant legally sanctioned by a court.
A former indentured servant himself, Anthony Johnson was a “free negro” who owned a 250-acre farm in Virginia during the 1650s, with five indentured servants under contract to him. One of them, a black man named John Casor, claimed that his term of service had expired years earlier and Johnson was holding him illegally. In 1654, a civil court found that Johnson in fact owned Casor’s services for life, an outcome historian R Halliburton Jr. calls “one of the first known legal sanctions of slavery — other than as a punishment for crime.”
“Basic food and shelter” might have been a practical thing to provide but could be denied at a whim. Serious question, what is Trump doing to end trafficking?
Regarding the story you provided, the point of which I’m uncertain. Not that no black people in America ever owned slaves. But if you’re equating having indentured servants with having slaves as seems to be the case in this “possibly true” tale. We might have to widely expand the list of slave owners.
Exactly what “rights” did a slave have?
They had the same natural right to life, liberty and property as everyone else.
They may have had the “natural right” but possessed none of those three things.
That’s precisely why they were slaves. And if we continue with the erosion of those same natural rights, we too will be slaves.
Those house slaves in the picture were raped by the master on a regular basis.
None of them appear to have any white blood in them, so clearly their mothers were not raped. I’m sure that there were some young, attractive black female slaves who used that to their advantage. Flirting with the master may have gotten them out of the hot fields picking cotton and into the “big house” polishing silverware and dusting. Then, as now, some women will use their attractiveness as a means of advancement. Slave live was more complex than the simplistic version presented in elementary school. Some slaves were highly valued because they were blacksmiths, carpenters, horse trainers and so forth. The ones who did drudge labor were not particularly valuable and were often sold. There were also complex social relationships. Undoubtedly some abuse, but also some slave owners who educated their slaves and granted them freedom in their wills.
I would not remove statues of Presidents (or Supreme Court Justices) of the United States becuse thay are a necessary part of US history and none fought against the union in the Civil War. The southern leaders sought to damage the US government and he Union by creating a separate naton. . We should not be revering them in any way.
I would allow statues of Presidents and Justices but also erect plaques on each plinth that tells of the person’s history of owning slaves. I would also place a plaque on the plinth of a statue of Justice Taney that describes his Dred Scott decision. These are people who held high positions in the US governmemt and should not be removed from historical memory. Robert E Lee was not a member of the US government, so, in my view, he does not deserve a statue or reverence. As for naming parks, buildings and airports for people, in government, I would end the practice altogether as unnecessary and bound to cause dissension. The US doesn’t need this.
I propose a Federal Civil Rights museum that shows exhibits and provides information about the terrible history of slavery and its demise and publicly shames the people who were behind the practice of slavery, segregation and discrimination and should honor the people who worked for civil rights for everyone. Obviously, I wouldn’t name it after any person but call it the United States Civil Rights Museum. Lets end false heroism and false reverence but make known the history of the country and those involved in it, warts and all. Statues of people who fought to destroy the government should be allowed only on strictly private parks and museums. I’m not in favor of destroying statues and memorials. They should be taken down and given to entities that want them, perhaps to display them on private property.
Make sure the one’s not destroyed are clearly marked as to the political party and poltical descendents of those who practiced slave trading and slavery. I imagine many of the actual slaves died without hearing an apology from that party except for that feeble half hearted token attempt by Clinton, Bill. Somehow to hear the likes of Pelosi rail and rant against others while hiding behind the tokens of that race being used for political purposes is not what I would call an apology.
The political parties of the 1840s no longer exist. Today’s Democrats have no similarity to the Democrats of so long ago.
Do study more history before commenting. Thank you.
What is the magical date that the Democrats stopped being racists intent on the subjugation of non white people?
It wasn’t as recent as 1964 when LBJ had to rely on Every Dirckson and the Republicans to pass the CRA. And it wasn’t in 2014 when a Democratic Party President and his AG, allowed Ferguson, MO to burn based on what they KNEW to be a lie, destroying many black owned businesses.
The change was that the Democrats found a more subtle way to manipulate and control black people, keeping us enslaved with chains made of dollar bills instead of iron.
I would not do any of that stuff, because this is mostly coming from spoiled little white kids who want to “participate” in some great social justice war. Mentally, and mind-set wise, they are not much different than Muslim kids who want to blow themselves up, and take a bunch of infidels with them, for Allah!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
But why honor traitors to the United States such as Robert E. Lee or Stonewall Jackson? Individuals who led an armed insurrection against the duly elected government of the United States of America. Why name a US Army base after Braxton Bragg, a man responsible for the death of thousands of US soldiers?
They were only “traitors” because they lost. Just like George Washington would have been, if the British had won. And what are the Calexit proponents? Or, the mayors and governors who openly defy immigration laws? What are people who break the law and just tear down statues they don’t like? Or who prevent other people from enjoying their free speech rights?
Pejoratives are great! Why don’t you expand their use to some of the people with whom you agree on things?
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Look to the definition of traitor in the Constitution. It is rather narrowly defined.
Your lack of history training is showing. Prior to the Civil War the original colonies ha the right to withdraw and that right was debated at great length.for many decades. It was the main issue. .
Texas had the right to change into smaller states or withdraw completely on it’s own.I think not true for California. But Texas as a separate nation again joined the CSA and took up arms against the USA. Then brought back under force of arms as spoils of war. thus that right no longer exists. The debate on secession centered around South Carolina and said little about slavery in the beginning.
The issue of slavery was generally held to be one that would be self correcting as the south became industrialized so the real issue was States Rights and the right to secede. . Is California going to change the name of Fort Bragg a town on it’s North Coast?
But as for the secession issue a close reading of history shows southern states did have the righ tto secede and the northern government was in the wrong on that issue can be the conclusion drawn just as easily as the other way around.
Besides the issue isn’t about any of that. it’s about a modern day war between a Constitutional Republic and a Socialist Autocracy.
From South Carolina’s Declaration of Succession:
“For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”
http://www.ucs.louisiana.edu/~ras2777/amgov/secession.html#South%20Carolina
Whether the secession was legal or not is not clear. It was decided by force and because the South chose to include human slavery in their platform, the legitimacy of the secession itself is tainted by that fact.
Yup.
I agree, but . . . Can a State secede from The Union and still claim protection for itself and its citizens under The Constitution?
“In the end, Washington was the only one of nine slaveholding presidents (and the only slaveholding founder) who freed his slaves upon his death.”
This argument never cut any ice with me. You free your slaves when you’re dead? No, that doesn’t strike me as “better” than allowing them to move into one’s estate. The decedent still got his “economic value” before death.
Perhaps a negotiated settlement would have made far more sense. Southern slave owners pay reparations to the slaves; and northerners share the economic burden with the southerners. A show of good faith, as it were. Oh, but then there is that thorny state’s rights issue no one wants to talk about anymore.
For George Washington it was just an economic problem.
As in all these arguments, George Washington and the rest are horrid when you compare them to a perfect world, but against the back drop of actual history, in which most men who ever lived or died did so in a state that was more slave than freeman, the departure from human slavery that evolved from the establishment of the American ethos laid the foundation for the high mark on the wall of human rights achievements, put there by America, the abolition of slavery in the Western Hemisphere.
In other words they really suck when you compare them to an imaginary land and people but if you weigh them against the real world they are very good men. We need to continue on the course that they set for America. Let’s not play games and pretend that the nations in this world had all set a goal of “Justice for All” and America was the knuckledraggers. And I wish people would stop lying to the kids about it.
“[T]he departure from human slavery that evolved from the establishment of the American ethos…”
Actually, Great Britain abolished slavery thirty years before the United States.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_Abolition_Act_1833
I love your “imaginary” land and people analysis!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
There is a good chance we will see the world destroyed in our lifetimes, and we focus on the removal or destruction of statues and monuments? Yet, there was no interest in removing these statues and monuments during the 8 years of the Obama presidency…Insanity on steroids!!
Yup.
I think what we just witnessed is the MSM and Liberals trying to recapture their control of the American narrative and I am sure they convinced themselves that they have. They now believe they have hung a board on the neck of every conservative with the name “RACIST” on it. But I suspect that they have done nothing but patched the holes in their echo chambers. They can call up 150000 Anti-Trump supporters in Anti-Trump cities. That should surprise nobody.
Christine, You eloquently nailed it! Superb analysis.
There is not one Black American alive today who was ever a slave in the United States of America, and there is not one White American alive today who was ever a slave owner in the United States of America. This has become ridiculous. If Black Americans intend to forever be referred to as African Americans instead of Black Americans, this will never end. I guess I am a Lakota, Irish American. Wait, the Irish were treated horribly as slaves. What about me, me, me…… ? ~! Slavery didn’t start in America and it certainly was not the only place in the world where it occurred. How many people’s families came to this country after slavery ended, and why do they have to listen to this crap day in and day out? They had nothing to do with it, and neither did we.
African American refers to partial genetic ancestry; a decent descriptor. As opposed to some Indian Americans, from India, who have more melanin than almost all African Americans.
“Black” is no longer a useful descriptor.
Neither is African American. Malcolm X said he was black and I’ll stick w/ him. I’m certain you are white.
Part Amerindian.
African American refers to partial genetic ancestry; a decent descriptor.
Yes, cumbersome six-syllable double-barrelled adjectives no one but Albert Vann ever used prior to 1989 are ‘decent descriptors’. An appellation for black Americans who have no affinity for (nor any manifest interest in) any extant African ethnic assemblage is a ‘decent descriptor’,
I have begun to understand that Andrew Jackson was a bad actor for much more and worse than putting his boots up upon the desk in the Oval Office.
Pick on him.
The Trail of Tears.
From what I have read, took various areas and ruling families in Africa a long, long time to give up slavery
Funny how that is…
Millions of people of all races are enslaved TODAY around the world. Slavery ended in America 150+ years ago. For God’s sake, get perspective.
Exactly, as is real misogamy. Meanwhile, there are sectors calling the hijab liberating. i used to be a bit of a social justice warrior, then I lived in a third world, socialist country.