This country has been savaged by the lies of those who believe that they should rule us. These lies cover every part of our culture from politics to medicine to religion to life itself. We are inundated by lies and people who tell lies without fear or favor. But this is nothing new. Below is a series of communications between myself and an internet site regarding a matter posted on that site involving the misnamed "Civil War." You will see here ~ injustice one historical instance ~ how lies are the foundation of what was, what is and probably what will be, that is if they are not acknowledged and corrected: The fictitious “history” of the great conflict between the two sections of the (formerly) “united” States (a/k/a the “Civil War”) has been ongoing for a long, long time. The present narrative, however, has been changed greatly since the end of the last century. Older folks such as myself remember that the whole conflict was “summed up” in what became known as The Grand Bargain, a narrative that was “accepted” beginning in the late 19th and sustained through the middle of the 20th century until the rise of the Civil Rights movement in the 1950s. The Grand Bargain was an attempt at a reconciliation between the combatants that was to be brought about through an understanding that the South fought bravely and nobly and her heroes were great “Americans” but that, in the end, it was better for all concerned that the “Union” (the government) won and that we went on to become a “great world power” etc. etc. At least that is certainly what I believed almost into the 21st Century. But as I became more interested in – and knowledgeable about – Confederate hero and partisan Col. John Singleton Mosby, I began to research into his life and the matters that surrounded his service to the South. In this research I discovered a great many “facts” that had been deliberately hidden from the public because they contradicted the narrative produced by The Grand Bargain. And, of course, the more I learned, the more I wanted to know until I could no longer pretend that what had been presented as “history” was not only false, but a deliberate lie! And that, indeed, the cost to the people of the South in accepting the Grand Bargain was far more than the cost to the people of the North! Of course, the Grand Bargain ended with the rise of the Civil Rights movement because it became necessary at that point to make the people of the South into heartless villains in defense of the goals and aims of that movement. As the new Millennia approached, it soon became obvious to Southern historians – or rather, honest historians – that very soon what little defense offered to the South under the Grand Bargain was to be completely nullified and the mindset demanded of most Americans would once again make of the South the worst of traitors and evil slaveholders. Of course, as efforts to inflict this evil fiction upon the people grew, I did my best to respond to it when possible. One such instance presented itself in the review of a book put out by a group called H-NET in May of 2008. The book being reviewed was entitled: Diehard Rebels: The Confederate Culture of Invincibility, written by Jason Phillips and the review was by Susannah Ural Bruce of the Department of History, Sam Houston State University, hardly a “Yankee” institution! In her review, Ms. Bruce made the following statement under the heading: Why They Fought On: New Interpretations of Confederate Soldier Ideology. In chapter 2, Phillips contends that the Confederate dehumanization of federal forces and Northerners in general also sustained their fighting spirit. While this tool is not unique to Southern soldiers, Phillips still proves its effectiveness for Confederate troops, and argues that their images of the enemy may have been more extravagant than most. After reading the review, I determined to respond to the reviewer’s belief that the soldiers of the “Union army” had been unfairly “dehumanized” according to the book’s author: “The author's point about Confederates ‘dehumanizing’ Union soldiers and the North is hardly difficult to understand. Almost from the beginning, Union armies stole whatever wasn't nailed down including personal effects from civilians as well as what might be considered (in the broadest of senses) materials necessary to wage war. And this propensity for thieving grew worse and finally became "total war" that included the burning, violence and killing of Southern civilians - male and female, young and old, black and white (Sheridan and Hunter in the Shenandoah, Sherman wherever he went) and a studied mistreatment of Confederate prisoners in such hell-holes as Ft. Douglas and Elmira ("Hell"mira) - see among other works, Dr. Brian Cisco's "War Crimes Against Southern Civilians." These atrocities are well documented, but hardly well reported. Indeed, the only prison camp known by the public is Andersonville in the South where even the inmates admitted that the commander, Henry Wirtz, made efforts to alleviate suffering but was unable to make much headway because of the shortages of food, clothing and medicine suffered by the South. As well, Ulysses Grant's declaration of an end to prisoner exchange condemned Union soldiers held in camps and prisons to remain there despite the desire by the South to exchange them. On the other hand, no such "shortages" accounted for the atrocious death rate in Elmira where the commander boasted that he had killed as many Confederate soldiers as most Union generals! No, I would say the ‘dehumanization’ of the North by the South was well and truly earned and is STILL a well-guarded "secret" by ‘orthodox historians.’” Now, I must speak well of the H-NET responder. Ordinarily – especially these days – such things are ignored by the establishment. The gentleman involved here responded and very quickly to my comment and for that I commend him. There is no sin in ignorance unless one chooses to remain in it. Below is his comment to me: Dear Ms. Protopapas; Given that the American Civil War still arouses strong feeling, I am going to have to ask that you try to "de-fang" the tone of your post a bit as well provide some citation for allegations of widespread Union atrocities; this should allow the ensuing discussion to stay scholarly in nature. All the best, Scott N. Hendrix, Ph.D. H-War List Editor Now, though I was appreciative of his response – better than nothing, I agree! – still I did not consider my comment to be other than “scholarly in nature” and responded accordingly: “Defang? Since when do truth and facts have ‘fangs?’ “Perhaps you mean that as most people have never heard about these atrocities – or at least heard of them as atrocities rather than simply (as at least one Union apologist has called them) ‘the hard hand of war,’ that I should present these facts (yes, facts) as ‘blandly’ as possible so as not to ‘offend’ the sensibilities of those who have been raised on ‘orthodox history.’ (And, by the way, I did cite Dr. Cisco's book on atrocities committed against Southern civilians which is a scholarly work well researched and sourced.) “The problem is, so many people don't want to hear about this. When Lincoln or Sheridan or Sherman are quoted, the actual words of these men are censored or criticized or disbelieved or excused or explained or dismissed out of hand as if they are being misquoted. If that is going to be the attitude, how is it possible to have a ‘scholarly discussion?’ For instance, I'm sure there are those who will dismiss Dr. Cisco's book immediately because he doesn't fall into the accepted group of ‘historical scholars’ whatever his credentials. It doesn't matter how much research or proof Dr. Cisco has produced, the problem is that his conclusion is neither satisfactory nor desired and it is therefore rejected. That is not ‘scholarship;’ that is censorship. “The author who has been critiqued has made a point that Confederates ‘dehumanized’ Union soldiers and the people of the North and I would assume that that is a statement which is meant to be taken as that ‘dehumanization’ was fallacious, mendacious and wicked. I simply pointed out that the behavior of the Union army under men like Hunter (a Virginian), Sheridan and Sherman (a true genocide), provided all the evidence that any reasonable person would need that their viewpoint about the Union and the army it sent against them was quite correct. The South didn't dehumanize the North, the North acted in such a way that even the governments of Europe called them beasts and lamented that the United States had turned its back on all attempts to wage ‘humane war.’ Indeed, when Hitler's generals were asked where they learned their scorched earth strategy, they proudly pointed to William T. Sherman! I cannot give you chapter and verse in all of this because with other projects, I have not taken the time to list every source. However, below I present some of the words of at least Sherman and perhaps others if I can find them. I don't ask that you post them, I merely present them to you as what should be sufficient evidence that my point is well taken. Indeed, I would say unequivocally that it would be about as easy to ‘defang’ reports of fascist and communist atrocities as it would be those committed in the name of restoring the Union and freeing the slaves! I know that my point of view will not be accepted because it doesn't fit the accepted version of what passes for ‘history’ - that is, history written by the winner. And, of course, if you believe that the other members will be unable to come to grips with a dissenting opinion, feel free not to post it. I know from past experience just how dismissive, angry and upset supposed ‘scholars’ can be when their nice, settled little world is challenged! Thank you for your courteous attention.” Below are the list of “Quotes and Facts” I presented to Mr. Hendrix for his own edification and, I had hoped, the edification of anyone else interested in what happened rather than what we are told happened along with the source(s) of the information: Sherman's Locust Strategy This excerpt from the German-language magazine "Signal" from WW2 illustrates a concern that American "Yankee" troops in Europe might imitate the habits of the legendary war criminal Sherman. It is ironic though that the German Midwesterners of Sherman's locusts were reportedly responsible for the worst of his pacification techniques. Nonetheless, Europeans viewed Sherman and his war crimes with horror though Spain sent General Valeriano Weyler to Cuba in 1896 to brutally subdue the native freedom fighters – Weyler as a young officer had been military attache' at the US Spanish legation during the War Between the States and served as an observer during Sherman's march through Georgia, absorbing his tactics and the bummers daily routines. He knew quite well how to apply the same "war is hell" antidote to the Cuban independence movement. "I begin to regard the death and mangling of a couple of thousand men as a small affair, a kind of morning dash. (Hitler's Wartime Picture Magazine, S.L. Mayer, "Our method of warfare is different from that in Europe. We are not fighting against enemy armies but against an enemy people; both young and old, rich and poor must feel the iron hand of war in the same way as the organized armies. In this respect my march through Georgia was a wonderful success." General Sherman to General Grant, End of January, 1865. Both the date and the author of this letter must appear extraordinary to every European. How could an American general write such a monstrous thing just at that particular time? The most noble minds and hearts in Europe were then making every effort to humanize warfare as far as possible. On the other hand, a 45-year old man in Ohio, America, the son of a lawyer of Puritan descent, General William Tecumseh Sherman had invented a new warfare that was directed against the enemy people, against the civilian population. Sherman was the inventor of locust strategy. His doctrine was: Where I have been the war has ceased because all forms of life no longer exist. It involves nothing more than the suppression of humane warfare. The cruelties of the Marquis de Sade and the atrocities perpetrated by Jack the Ripper have never led to mass suggestion. Sherman's strategy however, has been acclaimed as classical. After carrying out his acts of cruelty as a general, Sherman was appointed commander in chief of the (army of the) United States of America. His method has become the ideal. It first infected the Anglo-Saxon world; the great von Moltke ominously predicted at the end of the century that in future wars armies would not fight against one another but peoples. Sherman's strategy is the art of war employed by the unsuccessful. It is necessary to bear this in mind when considering Sherman's methods. He was unsuccessful but by no means untalented. It was his fate always to fight against enemies better than himself. He never won a success against an enemy of equal strength. We are discussing what is known as the War of Secession. "Secession" was what the ancient Romans used to call the effort to achieve independence. Superficially, this was being fought on the question of the abolition of slavery. Temperament and religious fanaticism converted it into one of the bloodiest massacres in history. In his book "Der Krieg ohne Gnade" (War Without Quarter), the Swiss historian Bircher says that force of arms alone could not decide the war. It was not until Sherman employed his locust strategy that the Northern States won the victory. Sherman said it was foolish to continue the war in the manner of a usual campaign as had been the case so far. The way the war was being fought meant that you were continually dependent on the enemy. Whether you advanced or retreated, you always had to reckon with the enemy. The war could only be brought to a close by surprise operations, and such surprise operations could only be carried out if the enemy was prevented from sticking at your heels. Sherman said it was his intention to disappear without the enemy being in a position to follow him. It was necessary for him to destroy his supply base. "I will sow economic ruin throughout the country so that no soldier coming after me will find anything to eat." (Sheridan voiced that same strategy during the burning of the Shenandoah in 1864 when he said that any crow flying over the desolated area would have to carry his own food! vp) Sherman consequently wrote to Grant as follows: "Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to defend it, but the complete destruction of its roads, its buildings, its population and its military resources is essential. The attempt to defend its roads costs us a thousand men every month and brings us no advantages. I can carry out the march and make Georgia howl." The truth is that Sherman wished to act on the offensive but not against the enemy's army. He wished to make the land of Georgia howl, not the army of Georgia of which he was afraid. He was planning a bold crime and covertly (in a letter to Grant) indicated his intention in the words "This operation is not purely military and strategic." He had become a violent criminal who wished to confer victory on his country's politics whatever it cost the enemy. He had converted war from being an act of violence against an enemy army to an act of violence against an enemy people. He went even further and made it an act of total violence. Even violence has limits imposed on it by morality. When he reappeared, Savannah fell and the world regarded this as a sign of Sherman's bravery and of his military genius. During the time he spent in Georgia, Sherman enriched the history of tactics by only one feature, but that alone should have sufficed to exclude him from the company of gentlemen. He had prisoners of war put on carts which had to drive along in front of his own troops. If they were blown up, Sherman knew that a minefield lay ahead. He answered all protests against his cruel treatment of defenseless people with the icy coldness characteristic of all his writings." Sherman, as general-in-chief of the army, had much to do with post-war Indian campaigns. This is covered in Michael Fellman's book, CITIZEN SHERMAN (Random House, 1995). Sherman wrote in 1866, "It is one of those irreconcilable conflicts that will end only in one way, one or the other must be exterminated ..." And again, "We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to the extermination, men, women and children." [p. 264] Sherman became Sheridan's superior, and biographer Fellman has this to say [p. 271]: "Although Sherman had not ordered an extermination campaign in so many words, he had given Sheridan prior authorization to slaughter as many women and children as well as men Sheridan or his subordinates felt was necessary when they attacked Indian villages. However many they killed, Sherman would cover the political and media front. They were freed to do anything. At the same time, Sherman maintained personal deniability – he could assert in any public forum that he had not ordered any atrocities that might occur." “To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better. Satan and the rebellious saints of Heaven were allowed a continuous existence in hell merely to swell their punishment. To such as would rebel against a Government so mild and just as ours was in peace, a punishment equal would not be unjustified.” Gen. William T. Sherman Prof. Harry Stout of Yale University Divinity School recently acknowledged, "Sherman's religion was America, and America's God was a jealous God of law and order, such as all those who resisted were reprobates who deserved death." Below are the first two paragraphs of a letter written by Gen. Sherman to Major Sawyer dated January 31, 1864, in which Sherman writes from Vicksburg to the AAG Army of the Tenn., Huntsville, Alabama. Major Sawyer was with Sherman until the close of the war, by which time he has the rank of Colonel. Dear Sawyer, In my former letters I have answered all your questions save one, and that relates to the treatment of inhabitants known or suspected to be hostile or "Secesh." This is in truth the most difficult business of our Army as it advances & occupies the Southern Country. It is almost impossible to lay down Rules and I invariably leave this whole subject to the local commander, but am willing to give them the benefit of my acquired knowledge and experience. In Europe whence we derive our principles of war Wars are between Kings or Rulers through hired Armies and not between Peoples. These remain as it were neutral and sell their produce to whatever Army is in possession. Napoleon when at War with Prussia, Austria and Russia bought forage & provisions of the Inhabitants and consequently had an interest to protect the farms and factories which ministered to his wants. In lake manner the Allied Armies in France could buy of the French Habitants, whatever they needed, the produce of the soil or manufactures of the Country. Therefore the General Rule was & is that War is confined to the Armies engaged, and should not visit the houses of families or private interests. But in other examples a different Rule obtained the Sanction of Historical Authority. I will only instance one when in the reign of William and Mary the English Army occupied Ireland then in a state of revolt. The inhabitants were actually driven into foreign lands and were dispossessed of their property and a new population introduced. To this day a large part of the North of Ireland is held by the descendants of the Scotch emigrants sent thereby by Williams order & an Act of Parliament. The War which now prevails in our land is essentially a war of Races. The Southern People entered into a clear Compact of Government with us of the North, but still maintained through State organizations a species of separate existence with separate interests, history and prejudices. These latter became stronger and stronger till at last they have led to war, and have developed the fruits of the bitterest kind. We of the North are beyond all question right in our cause but we are not bound to ignore the fact that the people of the South have prejudices which form a part of their nature, and which they cannon throw off without an effort of reason, or by the slower process of natural change. The question then arises Should we treat as absolute enemies all in the South who differ from us in opinion or prejudice, kill or banish them, or should we give them time to think and gradually change their conduct, so as to conform to the new order of things which is slowly & gradually creeping into their country? "Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources….I can make the march, and make Georgia howl." "I have deemed it to the interest of the United States that the citizens now residing in Atlanta should remove, those who prefer it to go South and the rest North.” "The Government of the United States has in North Alabama any and all rights which they choose to enforce in war – to take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything, because they cannot deny that war does exist there, and war is simply power unrestrained by constitution or compact." Enemies must be killed or transported to some other country. "The United States has the right, and ... the ... power, to penetrate to every part of the national domain…. We will remove and destroy every obstacle - if need be, take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property, everything that to us seems proper." Writing to his wife in 1862, Sherman said, "We are in our enemy's country, and I act accordingly...the war will soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people." On August 4, 1863, W. T. Sherman in Camp on Big Black River, Mississippi, wrote to Grant at Vicksburg, "The amount of burning, stealing and plundering done by our army makes me ashamed of it. I would rather quit the service if I could, because I fear that we are drifting to the worst sort of vandalism....You and I and every commander must go through the war, justly charged with crimes at which we blush." Federal Official Records ( O.R.) vol. XXIV, pt. III 574 "In his memoirs Sherman wrote that when he met with Lincoln after his March to the Sea was completed, Lincoln was eager to hear the stories of how thousands of Southern civilians, mostly women, children, and old men, were plundered, sometimes murdered, and rendered homeless. Lincoln, according to Sherman, laughed almost uncontrollably at the stories. Even Sherman biographer Lee Kennett, who writes very favorably of the general, concluded that had the Confederates won the war, they would have been 'justified in stringing up President Lincoln and the entire Union high command for violation of the laws of war, specifically for waging war against noncombatants.'" ~ Dr. Thomas J. DiLorenzo Sadly, I never heard back from Mr. Hendrix nor do I know if any of the above information was made available to the H-NET viewers. It is too bad if it was not because a great deal of what far too many people believe today was proved false within it. Again, it is no crime to be ignorant, but it is criminal to choose to remain so.

I have once again embarked upon a topic of historical research. Over the years, a particular individual having caught my attention results in an almost monomaniacal concentration upon the chosen object of study. My present interest arose after watching a replay of the old TV drama, The Crossing, a well done though moderately fictionalized version of George Washington’s attack on Trenton launched on Christmas night, 1776 in which Washington and his ragged, starving army crossed the Delaware River to launch a strike against the Hessian mercenaries encamped in that town. The story was of particular interest to myself as it involved a man whom my grandmother once assured me was one of my ancestors, Continental Colonel John Glover. Glover’s New England fisherman ferried Washington and his army together with his artillery, supplies and horses, across the ice-choked river in a howling nor’easter, an act of incredible difficulty and supreme courage that resulted in the relatively small but essential victory that was shown to have been the first step in turning the tide of the then failing American Revolution! Of course, this was not the first time that Glover and his sailors had saved both the Continental Army and the Revolution! He and his men carried out the evacuation of Washington’s nine thousand plus soldiers as well as artillery and horses from Brooklyn Heights to Manhattan across the East River during the battle of Long Island, a miracle later followed by his successful efforts during the escape of what remained of that army from British forces led by General Cornwallis as they were pursued across New Jersey and into Pennsylvania! But this movie kindled in myself an interest not in Glover, but in Washington, a man often portrayed as marble-like and a somewhat dull figurehead even if he did carry a sword and ride a magnificent horse. But I will testify that my initial studies clearly demonstrate how very wrong is that assessment, for even in such a brief time, I have now come to know Washington as a truly remarkable – indeed, indispensable – man without whom we, as a nation, would never have come into being! He was indeed, a Virginia hero! As well as having obtained dozens of (mostly used) books on Washington and his era, I have also acquired on-line articles and relevant videos and watched a host of You Tube presentations including two full TV productions and a FOX history series narrated by Kelsey Grammar. I mention all of this to validate my claim of having discovered a profound issue that continually appears in the majority of these extremely varied forms of information – or at least the more modern ones. Worse, the matter is exceptionally negative with reference not only to Washington but to the rest of the Founders – as well as being ubiquitous; that is, it is found in almost all the available information I have encountered save for the very old tomes. Now such a strong negative issue this prevalent in any study must influence those seeking knowledge on that subject. How could it not? Thus, the consequences arising from the proclaimed importance of this matter cannot be discounted when considering its effect upon today’s view of Washington and his era including the founding of the United States of America. The issue so apparently crucial today to any understanding of history is, of course, slavery, a matter we’re told is of paramount importance in any judgment made about that history. Thus, the issue must be “properly” understood and that understanding admitted to before any historical evaluation will be accepted by today’s “scholars!” For black slavery is the unforgivable sin of the new millennium. The fact that most people have little to no knowledge or understanding of the complexities of the issue and must depend upon the narrative presented by often biased ideologues means nothing! All that is required – nay, demanded! – is that the individual being morally crucified as a consequence of participating in this “unforgivable sin” must be white! That many blacks also owned slaves is without interest to the inquisitors. In fact, that the entire slave “industry” arose in Africa and was run by Africans never seems to influence the discussion! Finally, that black slavery continues to exist has no bearing whatsoever on the condemnation of those whites who owned slaves in our nation’s past – and especially those “Founding Fathers” who, year by year, continue to slip lower in the esteem of Americans who have so greatly benefited from their lives. It would seem one of our greatest sins as a people is our total lack of knowledge about or gratitude to those whose sacrifices gave to us what we otherwise would never have received! As to Washington in particular, virtually every book and article about the man if not limited to some individual battle of the war or particular political action – and sometimes not even then – involves speculations about his role as a slave owner. In one article it was charged that he was “more cruel than any other slave owning Founder,” a charge later refuted in a report that having discovered one of his slaves deathly ill, Washington had the man moved to Mount Vernon by carriage and cared for by his own physician in a spare bedroom of his home! Such an act validates claims about Washington’s concern for “his people,” and should put to rest any charges of mistreatment. He did, however, dispose of a particularly obnoxious and unreliable slave by selling the man to the Indies with warnings to any who purchased him regarding his unacceptable behavior. And he did seek to recover several slaves including one favorite belonging to his wife who had run off. But that was the existing system of the day and Washington, though he grew to hate slavery as an institution, was a part of that system by accident of birth, not choice. Therefore, to expect the man to have behaved as would a WOKE partisan of the 21st Century is unrealistic, unreasonable and altogether unjust. Indeed, Washington alone among all the slave owning Founders – including Thomas Jefferson who had openly denounced the institution – emancipated his slaves at the time of his death, although the matter could not be completed until the death of his wife some two years later for not all the slaves at Mount Vernon belonged to him personally and both “groups” had by that time intermarried and could not therefore be separated as Washington refused to break up families! But he didn’t just “emancipate” those who had come to depend upon Mount Vernon for their lives. He made arrangements for the lifetime care of the ill and the elderly and the instruction of the young so that “his people” would not simply be abandoned to a “freedom” that might result in their suffering. And, again, with regard to “his people:” several of the literally hundreds of books about the man either directly address his involvement with slavery as an institution or with one or more of his slaves. Such matters include a claim that he fathered a child by a slave though research into that claim indicates that the individual named as his son was not credible given the circumstances involved. And, of course, this does not address the well-known fact that Washington was unable to father a child probably as the result of a bout of smallpox when he was an adolescent. Given the continuing interest in (and condemnation of) Thomas Jefferson for his “relationship” with the slave Sally Hemings, the fact that there is no strong interest in continuing to clothe Washington in that particular hairshirt, should lead us to consider invalid all attempts to put George into the bed of a female slave with or without issue. Of course, with this tasty moral morsel no longer available, the writers return to the fact that Washington owned and used slaves as if, in that day and age, the matter itself was condemnatory upon its face. As well, it is equally unreasonable to believe that Washington, who chose what kind of man he wanted to be when he was still very young – something of which there is overwhelming proof! – and worked assiduously and successfully toward that end, was promiscuous with women of any race. But what is most obvious is that as Washington became even before the end of his life a truly mythic figure – not only in America but in the world at large – any hint of scandalous, inappropriate or promiscuous behavior would have been passed down to us today along with all the needful proofs of those claims! That his reputation remains spotless in a world addicted to scandal should be sufficient proof that no such scandal exists else it would have been trumpeted from the house tops! Now, it is fair to say that physically, George Washington was, in the modern vernacular, a “stud” – though it is difficult for modern Americans to envision him in that light. And it was certainly well known at the time that he was both attractive to and attracted by the ladies, in proof of which he bore the nickname “the Stallion of the Potomac!” But despite his physical and social allure and the apparent universal favor he found with the fair sex – including Abigail Adams! – his relationships were morally and socially proper at all times! Though George enjoyed dancing, parties, good food, strong drink, card playing, the theatre and other such worldly diversions that frequently formed the foundation of a dissolute life, he did not live that way. Yes, he did “have an eye” for the ladies and openly appreciated their many gifts including their worship! And again, as I have not yet had the opportunity to read the books about Washington that deal directly with the issue of slavery I do not know if or how deeply they go into claims that he bedded any female slave or, if indeed, the matter is even raised. However, in keeping with the thrust of this article it is enough to know that the authors involved believed this issue of sufficient importance despite Washington’s accomplishments and sacrifices to bring it before the public for judgment. That in and of itself indicates the direction in which these opinions trend – and it isn’t favorable to Washington. And again, with regard to the thrust of this article, that is, the use of the issue of slavery in any judgments being made of our ancestors including the Founding Fathers, there were a good many things done in Washington’s day that we do not do today. There were penalties for breaking the law that included hanging for many different and often seemingly lesser offenses and for those legally defined as lesser infractions there was the public exercise of corporal punishment including the stocks, branding, ear and nose cropping and flogging, the latter being especially prevalent in the military. That’s how it was done and any judgments must be made in relationship to the standards of the time rather than by those of today. Washington, a firm believer in discipline in the army was not averse to the lash. He was obviously not a cruel man, but he did not believe in sparing the rod when the rod was essential to the safety of his soldiers as well as ultimate victory. But, in fact, the whole point in rejecting the slavery issue as it is presently presented is that the behavior of men like Washington is being framed against the backdrop of present moral and legal standards and not against the standards – moral or legal! – of the time of the person being so judged! This deprives the individual involved of the protection afforded to him under the law during that period in which he lived and as a result he lacks any competent means of defense! In any era, that would be seen as unjust! Therefore, if because of slavery we are going to diminish or even abandon our appreciation of George Washington, and perhaps even condemn him, by so doing we prove our lack of understanding of and appreciation for what the man was willing to risk to save the American dream of liberty! For one cannot understand the risks of the game if one neither knows nor understands the consequences of losing that game! Of course, the greatest risk is death but there are different kinds of death – and that matters! Washington’s fate, had he been captured alive by the British (an effort that was ongoing throughout the war!) would have found him being taken to London and convicted of the crime of high treason. The penalty for that greatest of crimes has been considered the worst and most cruel form of execution ever performed by any nation; that is, to be “hanged, drawn and quartered,” a penalty that remained on the books in Britain until the 1870s! This was the fate suffered by Scottish hero Sir William Wallace after he was betrayed to King Edward by his own people! George Washington knew this would be his fate and yet he willingly embraced that possibility when he accepted the commission given to him by the Continental Congress to wage a war that was not only exceptionally onerous, but – according to most of the “experts” of the day – impossible for him to win! And this is not speculation! The matter is recognized to this day! Both the FOX history series and at least one internet presentation clearly declares that to be Washington’s fate had matters ended differently. Indeed, in one You Tube video addressing the treason of Benedict Arnold, the historian-narrator pointed out – and with some emotion! – that, had the British won, “ . . . Arnold would have been Duke Arnold and Washington would have been hanged, drawn and quartered.” This is not a small matter, especially when considering any overall judgment of a man and his actions! Everything must be weighed together; that is, a great and deliberate sacrifice against actions that were nothing more than the ordinary behavior of the times! These are not equable in value much less the ordinary being considered of more importance than the extraordinary! Thus, to suggest that George Washington’s actions become somehow less noble and his life less worthy because he owned slaves in an era of slavery is not simply unjust but strongly testifies to a different motive behind this condemnation! For those making such “judgements” do not address or even acknowledge the fact that blacks not whites created that particular institution of slavery and that blacks could be born and/or become free in the colonies in Washington’s time – in other words, not all blacks were slaves! – and neither do they bother to point out that the first black legally owned as a slave for life* in those same colonies had as his master a black former slave named Anthony Johnson! Therefore, “the slavery blame game” used against the Founders in general and George Washington in particular is more than just inaccurate, it is demonstrably unjust, and I think clearly indicates an effort to destroy the reputations of our Founding Fathers and by so doing, the history of our nation – a matter far more sinister than most Americans realize. No, this particular “Virginia hero” has no apologies to make for his life on this earth and those who condemn him for matters beyond his control are to be themselves condemned by all good and reasonable men. (*The slave sued Johnson in court saying that he was enslaved for a definite but limited period. The judge’s ruling found otherwise, thus making of him the first black chattel slave for life as determined by a colonial court.)