MDDM more re Washington, part III

[Doug Millison]

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/henriques/hist615/gwslav.htm


[...] Hercules, GW's cook, was a very strong and highly respected
perfectionist who accompanied GW to both NYC and Philadelphia.
Affectionately nicknamed Harkless, he was allowed to sell "slops" from the
presidential kitchen to earn extra money. Apparently, he used the money to
purchase fine clothes. He is described as wearing white linen, black silk
breeches and waistcoat, highly polished shoes with large buckles, a blue
cloth coat with velvet collar and bright metal buttons, a watch fob and
chain, cocked hat, and gold-headed cane[?]" Hercules absconded in March
1797 rather than go back to Virginia at the end of Washington's presidency.
GW tried to reclaim him but, as in the case of Ona, he did not want a scene
that might damage his reputation. He gave grudging recognition to the
chef's cleverness by warning those seeking to apprehend him that they must
do it by stealth "for if Herculas was to get the least hint of the design
he would elude all your vigilance." After Hercules escaped, GW admitted he
would have to break his vow and buy another slave as he must have a cook.
Hercules was never recaptured. Later, a visitor to Mount Vernon conversed
with Hercules' six-year-old daughter, Was she not upset at not seeing her
father again? Back shot the reply: "oh! Sir, I am very glad, because he is
free now."

Finally, there is the relationship with Christopher Sheels who attended
Washington in his final illness and received Washington's last recorded
order to one of his servants when the President, despite his own intense
suffering, aware that Christopher had been standing by his bed for hours,
asked him to sit down. Limited as the information is, the extant record on
the relationship between Christopher and Washington again indicates just
how complex and convoluted the issue of slavery was. At the time of
Washington's death, Christopher was still a young man, born in 1775 or
1776, son of Alce [Alice], a spinner, and the grandson of Doll, the first
cook for Mount Vernon. In time, Christopher replaced "Billy" Lee as GW's
personal body servant. Two very different surviving vignettes indicate the
complicated relationship between Washington and Christopher.

 

The first involved an attack on Christopher by a rabid dog in 1797.
Washington's concern was great enough that he might have allowed himself to
be a victim of medical quackery. There was a "hex-doctor" in Lebanon,
Pennsylvania, "celebrated for curing persons bitten by mad animals."
Washington not only allowed Christopher to travel all the way to
Pennsylvania for treatment but also entrusted him with twenty-five dollars,
a very significant amount of money in the 18th century, to cover his
possible expenses. In his accompanying letter to the physician, Washington
expressed his desire to have Christopher cured. "For besides the call of
Humanity, I am particularly anxious for His cure, He being my own Body
servant." For whatever reason or reasons, Christopher returned to Mount
Vernon cured and declared he no longer feared being bitten by a rabid dog
in the future. Interestingly, Washington later noted in his ledger that
Christopher returned twelve dollars to him.

 

Another, darker side of their relationship is indicated in an incident only
months before GW's death. Christopher plotted to run away from Mount
Vernon. What triggered his decision to flee in 1799 when he had a perfect
chance to flee with money in his pocket in 1797 and did not is unknown.
Almost certainly his recent marriage to a slave woman from a neighboring
plantation was pivotal as she was planning to flee with him. Perhaps the
recent marriage of his mother to Charles, a free black man, also influenced
him. At any rate, a chance discovery foiled the plot. A note discussing the
plan was inadvertently dropped, Washington discovered it, learned of the
cabal, and squelched it. (Interestingly, the presence of the note indicates
that Christopher - as was the case with many of GW's house servants - was
literate). Unfortunately, the surviving record leaves no hint of what
Washington felt upon learning that his personal servant, on whom he had
spent considerable money, wanted to run away. [Although we can speculate on
the basis of his known response to Ona's flight.] What exchange, if any,
occurred between the two men over the planned escape is lost to history. It
is, however, perhaps significant that even after learning of the plan to
escape, George Washington still kept Christopher as his personal servant,
and Christopher was at his post on December 14th.

[...] What was GW's attitude towards his slaves and blacks in general? Was
he a racist? In some ways this is too modern a question and hard to apply
to George Washington's views.

There can be no denying that GW's observations on slavery and those held in
bondage contain many unfortunate comments from a modern perspective.
"Blacks were ignorant and shiftless; they were careless, deceitful, and
liable to act without any qualms of conscience." Describing Betty, GW
lamented that "a more lazy, deceitful & impudent huzzy" cannot be found in
the United States. On his black carpenters, he declared "there is not to be
found so idle set of Rascals." He recommended keys be left with a white
servant because "I know of no black person about the house [who] is to be
trusted." GW, an elitist by temperament and upbringing, did have an
"engrained sense of racial superiority," and did not identify with their
plight. As a group, the slaves seemed different than whites. In a
conversation with British actor, John Bernard, Washington came close to
explicitly racist language in justifying fighting for freedom while
maintaining slavery: "This may seem a contradiction, but Š it is neither a
crime nor an absurdity. When we profess, as our fundamental principle, that
liberty is the inalienable right of every man, we do not include madmen or
idiots; liberty in their hands would become a scourge. Till the mind of the
slave has been educated to perceive what are the obligations of a state of
freedom, the gift would insure its abuse."

 

There are, however, in the vast record of his correspondence no explicit
statements by Washington that blacks were innately inferior to whites. Even
in GW's rather negative quote to the actor Bernard, GW did not doubt that
the mind of the slave could be educated to receive the gift of freedom -
just as he believed whites could lose the gift. Earlier, he had warned that
if the Americans did not resist British tyranny they would become "as tame
and abject slaves as the blacks we rule over with such arbitrary sway." In
other words, whites and blacks could both become equally abject slaves or
be able to enjoy liberty. As Joseph Ellis notes, GW "tended to regard the
condition of the black population as a product of nurture rather than
nature - that is he saw slavery as the culprit, preventing the diligence
and responsibility that would emerge gradually and naturally after
emancipation." Speaking of blacks in general he asserted since they have
"no ambition to establish a good name, they are too regardless of a bad
one." The point - slaves had no opportunity to win respect and earn good
reputation - hence their lack of "ambition" and the inferior quality of
their work.

[...] We might wish that GW had been more sympathetic to the plight of his
bondsmen and bondswomen, [He seemed to accept the myth that many slaves
were happy and content]; that he might have better understood why they were
often idle and why they regularly engaged in theft; that he had better
understood that no matter how well they were treated, they were justified
in running away. Nevertheless, it is still important to remember the times
in which he lived and the way that he had been brought up. I think it is
noteworthy that he never explicitly argued in favor of innate black
inferiority, demonstrated little "Negrophobia," and never succumbed to
favoring large-scale colonization of blacks overseas.

[...] And if Washington did not use his great prestige to publicly attack
the institution of slavery, he used that same prestige to firmly establish
a permanent union for the United States based on a government dedicated to
human freedom. He was not able to complete everything he might have wished
to do, but he left us a united nation and the tools to do so. Given the
real world situation he faced and the crippling impact of slavery and
racism on individuals as well as nations, George Washington's example of at
least partially outgrowing the racist society that produced him can still
inspire and encourage.