MDDM more re historical Martha & Washington & corporal punishment

[Doug Millison]

http://www.americanpresident.org/kotrain/courses/GW/GW_The_First_Lady.htm
[...] As her husband steadily rose to power, their relationship grew into
love and mutual affection. By the time of the American Revolution, she had
become his closest adviser and dearest friend. Although George towered over
her by more than a foot, Martha knew how to get his attention in the middle
of a house swarming with servants and visitors: she grabbed his lapels,
yanked him down to her level, and made her point. According to a letter by
Abigail Adams, Martha was fond of referring to her husband as her "old
man." When alone with him, Martha often referred to Washington as "Pappa."
In public, he was always "The General." He liked to call her his "amiable
consort." [...]

Martha's love of independence for women did not make her a supporter of
full democracy or equality, however, for everyone. In politics, she was an
avowed Federalist, and she mistrusted "Democrats" like Thomas Jefferson.
Nor did she look favorably upon those who advocated freeing slaves. She
believed that all black people were innately servile and thus inferior-best
suited to a life of slavery. She believed that few blacks could be trusted,
and she suspected them of always trying to impose upon their masters. In
her mind, they were naturally lazy and incapable of caring for themselves.
Martha governed her six slaves on the president's household staff with a
firm but kind hand. When one of her slaves ran away from Philadelphia,
Martha traced her to a free black community in New Hampshire-absolutely
astounded that the woman could leave her privileged life as the First
Lady's slave.

After her husband's death, Martha lived actively for a time at Mount
Vernon, throwing herself into managing her estate. At first she felt
strangely liberated by "The General's" death. Then she grew morose and
terribly lonely. She died on May 2, 1802. [...]



http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm
[...] There is an extant letter from Washington [1766] that leaves a flavor
of the nature of the institution and his rather routine acceptance of it.

"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, Š and the residue, much or little in
good ole spiritsŠThat this Fellow is both a rogue and a RunawayŠI shall not
pretend to deny. But . . . he is exceedingly healthy, strong and good at
the HoeŠ 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 saleŠ [I]
must beg the favor of you (lest he should attempt his escape) to keep him
hand-cuffed till you get to Sea."

Fortunately, this is only transaction of this kind to be recorded in GW's
correspondence, and there are many other later entries and incidents that
reveal a more humane and caring master. The story is complicated because
GW's views about MV and his slaves was an uneasy mixture of commercial and
paternalistic attitudes. These aspects were often in conflict with one
another and led to inconsistent action. [...] it can help us understand
GW's position if we realize that he thought that he had entered into a type
of "patriarchal contract" in which his slaves owed him service in return
for care. Reciprocal obligations & duties between master and servant were
the essence of patriarchalism that GW accepted. GW saw himself as the
provider - he would protect and care for his dependents. He would give them
"everything that is proper for them" and prevent "as far as vigilance can -
all irregularities and improper conduct."

Washington often thought he, not his servants, suffered from the
arrangement. Following a fire, Washington wrote what I think is a very
revealing letter to his plantation manager, "I wish you would inform him
[Isaac] that I sustain injury enough by their idleness, they need not add
to it by their carelessness." It is GW, not his servants, who "sustain
injury" from the system of slavery. Thinking in these terms, he was eager
to get as much back for his investment as possible. Thinking in these
terms, he was eager to get as much back for his investment as possible.
When in Philadelphia, he learned that the sewing women at Mount Vernon
produced nine shirts each week when Martha supervised them and only six in
her absence, Washington had his manager warn them "that what has been done,
shall be done by fair or foul means" or he would send them off to be common
laborers on his outlying farms (Hirschfeld, p. 63).

[...] 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." [...]


...more on the way...