Not that there could be anything as a good slave owner, but from the sounds of things the Washingtons were pretty bad. Yes, the did shuttle slaves to a make sure they were not freed, but my understanding was it was between Philly and New Jersey. They had the cook you mentioned who escaped and also a maid, Ona Judge, which caused great humiliation for the Washingntons because Martha had promised the slave a wedding gift to her granddaughter. After she fled to the north, got married and had children the Washingtons were still trying to get her back and wanted to abduct her and her kids and bring them back to Mount Vernon. He only backed off after someone told him this would look really bad in the press and might damage his sterling reputation.Many people like to point out that Washington freed his slaves on his death bed (an admission of guilt if there ever was one) Fact is most of the slaves on Mount Vernon belonged to Martha, not him, so the number freed was really small. Martha kept her slaves but then years later freed them all because she was convinced they were going to rebel and murder her in her sleep.
"It was the 18th Century."I just finished an academic book, "American Freedom, American Slavery" which explains what happened during our origins in the 17th century. Indentured servants were treated ALMOST as badly as slaves-- for example, you had to keep servants clothed when whipping them, but you could strip slaves naked. You could add years onto a servant's indentureship for the slightest infraction. Slaves were allowed to work part-time for themselves and thus buy their way to freedom. But the seeds were there, because white supremacy was underpinned by pseudo-science throughout Europe and all its' colonies. Bacon's Rebellion, 1676, when the slaves and the servants joined forces to overthrow the planters, was a major turning point. The colonial land-owners started distinguishing sharply between servants and slaves based on skin color. The worst-off white servant was given privileges that black slaves couldn't have. This encouraged racism to grow among potential allies, and the division was on, and still hasn't been understood or acknowledged by most Americans.
Whining about any slave running away is a constant refrain when you start reading slaveowner letters or memoirs. Particularly if they were slaveowners who were NOT free with the whip and gave sufficient food and clothing, they thought that "their" slaves were akin to faithful and loyal old hound dogs. In what I've read, owners are absolutely gobsmacked when somebody runs away, and they express grief and anger over the "betrayal." They just couldn't stretch their minds enough to realize that the Africans were fully human, with a human need for freedom, autonomy, and control over their own lives. Some of the writing reminds me of well-intentioned "white liberals" today who think they know what is best for the black community.
"It reinforces the radical belief that the United States was founded by racist white men who installed a system whereby white guys would run everything and blacks, women and others would be exploited."
Fun fact - women (no race specified) who owned a sufficient amount of property had the right to vote under the New Jersey state constitution of 1776.
That right was taken away in 1807 when the legislature revised voting rights after allegations of fraud in one local election. Oddly enough, in the same session, the legislature eliminated the property requirements for white men to vote.
Why, it's almost as if they wanted white guys to run everything, and excluded anyone else!
But that can't be right, because Bill O'Falafel says that's not what happened!!
I've sort of gathered that even the side of Washington that wasn't petty and dickish still dumped principle for what was politically expedient when it came to revolt against British rule. "We can't insist that slavery is wrong and commit ourselves to abolishing it if we want the rich slave owners on our side, and they won't fight to abolish the source of their own wealth. As a rich slave owner myself I can vouch for that. I think we should abolish slavery, definitely, but some time in the future, like after I'm dead and it can't inconvenience me."Reminds me of Saint Augustine's attitude to sex. As a young man he had the usual young man's intense sexual desires and proved it with a dynamite mistress, even though he thought it was wrong, really really really wrong, and against his religious principles. He's supposed to have prayed, "Oh Lord, give me chastity and continence. But not just yet."
They (slave owners) probably all feared that in their hearts because in secret they knew they had it coming. And they pretended in public, assiduously, that blacks were suited to slavery and actually more happy in servitude to whitey. Must have been why they kept running away at great risk, and why even some black freedmen and women plotted slave revolts. (Which were always betrayed before they started.) Then Nat Turner's revolt happened and it became a lot harder to keep the myth of the happy cotton-picking darkie going.
We could video it, and it would be like the Richard Spencer clip.
YES!!!!!!!!!
My local library has every RWNJ book ever written, I sure hope they were donated.
More than one got paid hush-money.
With this?
https://uploads.disquscdn.c...
That would be a mercy.
Not that there could be anything as a good slave owner, but from the sounds of things the Washingtons were pretty bad. Yes, the did shuttle slaves to a make sure they were not freed, but my understanding was it was between Philly and New Jersey. They had the cook you mentioned who escaped and also a maid, Ona Judge, which caused great humiliation for the Washingntons because Martha had promised the slave a wedding gift to her granddaughter. After she fled to the north, got married and had children the Washingtons were still trying to get her back and wanted to abduct her and her kids and bring them back to Mount Vernon. He only backed off after someone told him this would look really bad in the press and might damage his sterling reputation.Many people like to point out that Washington freed his slaves on his death bed (an admission of guilt if there ever was one) Fact is most of the slaves on Mount Vernon belonged to Martha, not him, so the number freed was really small. Martha kept her slaves but then years later freed them all because she was convinced they were going to rebel and murder her in her sleep.
Why is it surprising anyone that a guy in Virginia who lived in a slave-owning state owned slaves?
"It was the 18th Century."I just finished an academic book, "American Freedom, American Slavery" which explains what happened during our origins in the 17th century. Indentured servants were treated ALMOST as badly as slaves-- for example, you had to keep servants clothed when whipping them, but you could strip slaves naked. You could add years onto a servant's indentureship for the slightest infraction. Slaves were allowed to work part-time for themselves and thus buy their way to freedom. But the seeds were there, because white supremacy was underpinned by pseudo-science throughout Europe and all its' colonies. Bacon's Rebellion, 1676, when the slaves and the servants joined forces to overthrow the planters, was a major turning point. The colonial land-owners started distinguishing sharply between servants and slaves based on skin color. The worst-off white servant was given privileges that black slaves couldn't have. This encouraged racism to grow among potential allies, and the division was on, and still hasn't been understood or acknowledged by most Americans.
Whining about any slave running away is a constant refrain when you start reading slaveowner letters or memoirs. Particularly if they were slaveowners who were NOT free with the whip and gave sufficient food and clothing, they thought that "their" slaves were akin to faithful and loyal old hound dogs. In what I've read, owners are absolutely gobsmacked when somebody runs away, and they express grief and anger over the "betrayal." They just couldn't stretch their minds enough to realize that the Africans were fully human, with a human need for freedom, autonomy, and control over their own lives. Some of the writing reminds me of well-intentioned "white liberals" today who think they know what is best for the black community.
I have heard all of these things said, and not in my long ago youth, but in the last fucking couple of years.
"It reinforces the radical belief that the United States was founded by racist white men who installed a system whereby white guys would run everything and blacks, women and others would be exploited."
Fun fact - women (no race specified) who owned a sufficient amount of property had the right to vote under the New Jersey state constitution of 1776.
That right was taken away in 1807 when the legislature revised voting rights after allegations of fraud in one local election. Oddly enough, in the same session, the legislature eliminated the property requirements for white men to vote.
Why, it's almost as if they wanted white guys to run everything, and excluded anyone else!
But that can't be right, because Bill O'Falafel says that's not what happened!!
And one has a hat!!!!!!
I've sort of gathered that even the side of Washington that wasn't petty and dickish still dumped principle for what was politically expedient when it came to revolt against British rule. "We can't insist that slavery is wrong and commit ourselves to abolishing it if we want the rich slave owners on our side, and they won't fight to abolish the source of their own wealth. As a rich slave owner myself I can vouch for that. I think we should abolish slavery, definitely, but some time in the future, like after I'm dead and it can't inconvenience me."Reminds me of Saint Augustine's attitude to sex. As a young man he had the usual young man's intense sexual desires and proved it with a dynamite mistress, even though he thought it was wrong, really really really wrong, and against his religious principles. He's supposed to have prayed, "Oh Lord, give me chastity and continence. But not just yet."
They (slave owners) probably all feared that in their hearts because in secret they knew they had it coming. And they pretended in public, assiduously, that blacks were suited to slavery and actually more happy in servitude to whitey. Must have been why they kept running away at great risk, and why even some black freedmen and women plotted slave revolts. (Which were always betrayed before they started.) Then Nat Turner's revolt happened and it became a lot harder to keep the myth of the happy cotton-picking darkie going.
Bill O'Reilly…Bill O'Reilly…Nope, doesn't ring a bell. Was he a somebody?