I’m inclined to disagree with this take if only for the fact that many of Washington’s contemporaries recognized that slavery was immoral, and the topic of abolition was one of the earliest controversies in the US before Washington was even president.
Just because everyone in power is doing evil, heinous things does not excuse the evil, heinous things. If you want to make the argument that it was normalized, that’s one thing, but the slaveowners of that day knew what they were doing and deserve condemnation because of it.
Sure, though I guess I’m wondering what angle you’re coming from, then.
Not to say this was your intention, but a lot of people try to “justify” the fact that many of the founding fathers owned slaves, even when it is seen as reprehensible today, as a product of contemporary values. My main point is that slavery was viewed just as negatively then as it is today by everyone except the slaveowner class, of which Washington was a member. But because Washington is frequently positioned as some kind of pseudo-mythology figure representing pure American values (e.g. this post), I often see a lot of mental gymnastics used to explain why he still had slaves, often citing his decision to free his slaves in his will and signing some anti-slavery measures passed in congress as indicators that, deep down inside, he really opposed slavery all along. Yet he still lived and died a slaveowner.
So I just needed to clarify my point, namely that slavery was seen as unethical then as it is today. Washington became president in 1789, but even prior to that, slavery was a hotly debated topic at the 1787 constitutional congress, during which time the US was already dividing itself into slave states and free states. That’s when we see things like the three-fifths compromise, where southern slave states attempted to use their slave populations to gain more representation in government over the more populous free states. When a state has to leverage its own population of enslaved people to preserve their power against the growing abolitionist movement, it’s inexcusable. If Washington recognized that but still decided that he was fine with using his hundreds of slaves to reinforce Virginia’s economic power and representation in government, he should be seen as a coward more than a role model.
I’m inclined to disagree with this take if only for the fact that many of Washington’s contemporaries recognized that slavery was immoral, and the topic of abolition was one of the earliest controversies in the US before Washington was even president.
Just because everyone in power is doing evil, heinous things does not excuse the evil, heinous things. If you want to make the argument that it was normalized, that’s one thing, but the slaveowners of that day knew what they were doing and deserve condemnation because of it.
I called it unethical and said it doesnt excuse anything
Sure, though I guess I’m wondering what angle you’re coming from, then.
Not to say this was your intention, but a lot of people try to “justify” the fact that many of the founding fathers owned slaves, even when it is seen as reprehensible today, as a product of contemporary values. My main point is that slavery was viewed just as negatively then as it is today by everyone except the slaveowner class, of which Washington was a member. But because Washington is frequently positioned as some kind of pseudo-mythology figure representing pure American values (e.g. this post), I often see a lot of mental gymnastics used to explain why he still had slaves, often citing his decision to free his slaves in his will and signing some anti-slavery measures passed in congress as indicators that, deep down inside, he really opposed slavery all along. Yet he still lived and died a slaveowner.
So I just needed to clarify my point, namely that slavery was seen as unethical then as it is today. Washington became president in 1789, but even prior to that, slavery was a hotly debated topic at the 1787 constitutional congress, during which time the US was already dividing itself into slave states and free states. That’s when we see things like the three-fifths compromise, where southern slave states attempted to use their slave populations to gain more representation in government over the more populous free states. When a state has to leverage its own population of enslaved people to preserve their power against the growing abolitionist movement, it’s inexcusable. If Washington recognized that but still decided that he was fine with using his hundreds of slaves to reinforce Virginia’s economic power and representation in government, he should be seen as a coward more than a role model.