During Friday’s riots in Portland, Antifa-types wrapped the George Washington statue with an American flag and set it on fire, pulling down the statute and defacing it. Was this a justified action or a declaration of war against America?

They argument that George Washington was a slave owner and therefore had to be bad and therefore he couldn’t have written a credible constitution. They vent their anger without logic or reason to justify destroying the statue and flag.

The flag they so carelessly disrespect symbolizes what so many have died to protect, and Americans have deep emotional attachments to it. Thus, flag burning is not political speech but instead an attack upon Americans feelings. Burning the American Flag was illegal to burn or desecrate until June 11, 1990, when the Supreme Court ruled that the burning of the flag is protected by the First Amendment. Acts of desecrating the flag is a deliberate act to denounce America and all it stands for. Can the flag be desecrated and not declare a hatred towards America and the American people?

Destroying George Washington, the commander in chief in a war to free America that would lead to freeing slaves is short sighted. It is true that George Washington personally owned 123 slaves, inheriting 10 from his father at age 11. His ownership was about one-third of the 317 slaves at Mount Vernon. By the 1780s, Washington’s feelings about using slaves to work the land had changed, and he expressed his uneasiness with close friends, including his Revolutionary War comrade Marquis de Lafayette. His distaste for selling slaves at public venue was based on his desire that slave families not be split up.

There was still the matter of maintaining his Virginia plantation and Virginia laws. But, upon his death in 1799, Washington's will freed his slaves upon his wife's death. Up until 1782. Virginia’s legislature made it illegal to release slaves and the new legislation permitted release by will or deed at the death of the slaveholder. Both Washington and Jefferson took advantage of freeing slaves.

Neither George nor Martha Washington could free all the slaves at Mount Vernon because they did not own all the slaves. Some were owned by Martha Washington's first husband, Daniel Parke Custis, and they were inherited by their children. One such slave is written about in Never Caught: The Washingtons’ Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge. She actually ran away when Martha was going to give her to her granddaughter, and agreed to return if freed upon Martha’s death, but Martha didn’t have authority over that decision. Martha Washington chose to free her late husband’s slaves early. So, in December 1800, she signed a deed of manumission to free George’s slaves.

Toppling the statue of George Washington on the eve of when all slaves were freed seems like hypocrisy. The defacing included graffiti on the surface that read “genocide colonist.” If the rioters knew their history, George Washington was the least likely person to kill Black people or even mistreat them. Writings on Washington recently has grabbed generalities of slave owners and imposed them on his history. Wikipedia says Washington thought of his workers as part of an extended family with him the father figure at its head.

The paternalist in him saw his relationship with his slaves as one of mutual obligations; he provided for them and they in return served him, a relationship in which slaves were able to approach Washington with their concerns and grievances. He allowed his slaves to supplemented their diet by hunting, trapping, and growing vegetables in their free time, and to buy extra rations, clothing and housewares with income from the sale of game and produce. As commander-in-chief of the Continental Army in 1775, Washington initially refused to accept African-Americans into the ranks, seeing they were needed to support the economy. But, it became necessary to reverse this position due to the demands of war.

According to historian Joseph Ellis, Washington saw slavery as the culprit, preventing the development of diligence and responsibility that would emerge gradually and naturally after emancipation. E.P. Thompson wrote, “Washington went beyond the legal requirement to support and maintain younger slaves until adulthood, stipulating that those children whose education could not be undertaken by parents were to be taught reading, writing, and a useful trade by their masters and then be freed at the age of 25.”

What cruel slave owner whose sole interest was in his own financial status would make sure his slaves were educated for success once freed? What would those slaves say about burning the flag and destroying George Washington’s statue?


--Donna Bleiler

Post Date: 2020-06-21 09:14:12

Last Update: 2020-06-21 09:14:31