MDDM Washington & Gershom

[jbor]

Otto wrote:

> No, I was just answering a question from Terrance.

Sorry. It was rude of me to butt in.

> Agreed, but a freedom in poverty may be more welcomed than a full stomach in
> slavery.

I guess my argument is that the freed slaves and their descendants didn't
have all that many liberties/privileges up in the northern towns either. At
the time it was still a thoroughly racist society (and not just America).
"Free" slaves were only nominally free; they did not have the same rights
and opportunities that white people, particularly those of the upper
classes, enjoyed.

There's a lot in Henriques' essay/talk which correlates with Pynchon's
depiction of GW and Gersh in _M&D_:

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

Re. the way he speaks to Gershom:

    The stereotypical image of slaves moving in lock step to bellowed
    commands does not apply to Mount Vernon.

Re. Gershom's liberties/privileges as far as food, drink and intoxicants:

    [MV's archaeologist]: "The diet was more diverse, and therefore probably
    more healthful, than previously believed. Bones of such wild fowl as
    quail, duck, goose and turkey, such wild animals as deer, squirrel,
    rabbit, and opossum and such non-schooling fish as pickerel, gar &
    bluegill were recovered."

    While others were discontinuing the practice of providing rum at certain
    times, GW declared, as his "people have always been accustomed to it, a
    hogshead of rum must be purchased."

Re. allowing Gersh to express himself and worship as a Jewish man:

    When he was in need of good workmen, Washington made clear he believed
    they could be of any race or religion. "I am a good deal in want of a
    House Joiner and Bricklayer, (who really understand their profession)
    and you would do me a favor by purchasing one of each, for me. . . If
    they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may
    be Mahometans, Jews or Christian of any Sect, or they may be Athiests."

Re. George's (very probable) admonition of the racist man in Raleigh's
Tavern in Ch. 58:

    Not only did he free them, but he also rejected explicit racist
    language concerning innate inferiority of blacks ... "

And there's a lot which speaks to the recent "discussion" of GW's
representation in the novel:

    To some on the left wing of the political spectrum anything less than a
    strong denunciation of Washington for owning slaves demonstrates the
    speaker's moral obtuseness and lack of racial sensitivity.

    [...]

    In recent years, a virulent form of popular history has emerged, one
    that combines genuine moral outrage, a smug condescension, and more than
    a little dramatic license to arraign the dead white males who fathered
    the nation.

    [...]

    George Washington was a "man of his time," and we cannot lift him out of
    his century. 

    [...]

    It was a time when common soldiers were flogged routinely, children
    could be hanged, and gentlemen put into prison for debt.

    [...]

    It might be mentioned in passing that GW was a hard man to work for and
    he makes constant complaints about the quality of his laborers - white
    as well as black.

    [...]

    Washington occasionally resorted to corporal punishment, although there
    is no record that he personally ever administered it.

    [...]

    [GW]: "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.]

    [...]

    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.

    [...]

    A fourth point of contrast might be mentioned. "There has never been
    a credible tale of George Washington taking advantage of a slave
    sexually."

    [...]


The concluding paragraphs are worth requoting in their entirety:

"The President made the creation and unity of the new nation a more
important priority than attacking slavery. To be honest, in his mind there
was no contest. While he was convinced slavery must eventually be
eradicated, he was convinced that an early attack upon it would undermine
and destroy his beloved union before it could be properly established. While
we can't run the film through to see what would have happened if a major
effort had been mounted against slavery by Washington and other leaders in
the early years of the republic, virtually all of the founders - and most
historians - agree it would have led to the breakup of the union. Joseph
Ellis in his new book, Founding Brothers, makes clear that NO ONE in
authority in the new federal government was thinking about doing that and
believed an effort to do so seemed diametrically opposed to remaining a
united nation. George Washington was a "rock-ribbed realist." The
establishment of a permanent union under the new Constitution was extremely
challenging and difficult but possible. He well understood the remarkably
profound affection his countrymen held for him was crucial to attaining that
goal. To dissipate that affection on a quixotic crusade attacking slavery
held no appeal for the Master of Mount Vernon. Nevertheless, Washington also
recognized his ownership of slaves posed a potential threat to his honor and
to his historical reputation, matters of the utmost importance to him.

Washington faced this issue head on in his final statement on slavery in his
remarkable last will and testament that he wrote completely by himself
during the summer before his death. Very significantly, in what was
essentially his last act, he freed all of his personal slaves in his will
(by law, he could not free those belonging to his wife and the Custis
estate). Additionally, he provided for their education as well as declaring
those old slaves and children without parents "be comfortably cloathed and
fed by my heirs." [The estate made the last payment in the early 1830's for
a coffin]. Pushing education for his former slaves when it was frowned upon
sent a strong statement to his countrymen, present and future. To stress the
importance he placed on his decision, which he put near the beginning of his
long will, immediately after making provisions for his beloved wife, the
President particularly enjoined his executors "to see that this clause
respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled."

Critics note that Washington only freed his slaves at his death, and even
then postponed the emancipation until after his wife's death.

Personally, I think it is true that GW's solution was not really a very good
one but his options were severely limited. Since his slaves had intermarried
with the Custis slaves, he postponed the date of their emancipation until
after Martha died. He did so to avoid what he called "the most painful
sensations" - i.e. some family members would be free and others would not.
[By law Martha could not free the Custis slaves even if she wished to. They
were for her use during her lifetime, but were to be passed on to the Custis
heirs upon her death.] Of course, this delay was strictly for Martha's
benefit. Those "painful sensations" would happen eventually when the
emancipation of GW's slaves was effected. Martha would simply not have to
witness them. Nevertheless, Martha, apparently fearful of her own life,
freed Washington's slaves before her death. Abigail Adams wrote that Martha
told her that "she did not feel as tho her Life were safe in their hands."

It is I think both interesting and revealing that a man as thoughtful and
careful as GW came up with a solution about freeing his slaves that his wife
ultimately came to believe endangered her life! This once again simply
points out slavery's corroding characteristics. The reason GW's solution was
not very good is because there simply was no good solution available, try as
he might to find it. "For those who are tempted to criticize GW for not
initiating an emancipation policy for the entire nation, it is instructive
to see that he could not even effectively free 124 men, women, and children
on his own plantation in northern Virginia." [John Riley]The institution of
slavery was more than a match for any individual, even an individual as
capable as GW. 

When, Thurgood Marshall, America's first black Supreme Court justice, was
asked how he wished to be remembered, he said, "He did the best he could
with what he had." One might argue that George Washington did the best he
could considering the circumstances in which he found himself. Of all of the
founding fathers, only George Washington actually freed his slaves. In the
words of one scholar, "it was the last and greatest debt he owed to his
honor." Not only did he free them, but he also rejected explicit racist
language concerning innate inferiority of blacks and did not dismiss the
idea of free blacks living in the United States in harmony with whites.
Interestingly, his views were in contrast to Thomas Jefferson on all three
points. A fourth point of contrast might be mentioned. "There has never been
a credible tale of George Washington taking advantage of a slave sexually."

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."

best