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.)

The issue of black slavery has become the cause celeb these days as if it were a rare and unusual situation and limited to the Southern States of the United States from colonial times until, we are assured, “Lincoln freed the slaves” in 1865. But the history of slavery is as long as human history itself. It predates the records mankind began to keep with the rise of civilization. Virtually all races and peoples have been both enslaved and have held slaves and for most of history, slavery was considered a perfectly normal human condition. The practice probably began when human tribes engaged in warfare, discovered that killing the enemy was counterproductive when he (or she) could be used for the purposes of labor or, when circumstances demanded, to increase the numbers of the group for their protection and expansion. Though the condition of the slave was hardly a preferred status, there have been instances in which individuals and even groups have placed themselves into slavery when seeking the protection of a larger and stronger group in response to life-threatening situations. The widespread concept of slavery today—that is, of men and women used, abused and murdered out of hand for little or no reason, is hardly legitimate though doubtless, such circumstances have existed and do continue to exist. However, slaves were usually valued by their owners and some even held in high esteem if they provided an exceptional service. Consider Joseph in Egypt! In smaller groups, family slaves or servants were treated with considerable kindness and even respect. Remember, Sarai offered her husband Abram her bondsmaid Hagar to bear his child because she was barren! The Bible is filled with admonitions regarding a master’s treatment of his bondservant and that servant’s obligations to his master in that he must be a loving servant and not merely a time server. Israel survived in slavery for four hundred years in Egypt under difficult and cruel circumstances. During their captivity in Babylon, the situation was not as dire, but it was still slavery—and yet Israel survived. With the rise of Western Civilization, slavery in the West did not die out altogether but changed from the sort of bondage that existed in the Middle East, Africa, Asia and the New World civilizations of Mezo-America. The peasant or serf was not a slave as we would recognize that term, but neither was he a free man to go and do as he wished. He was “chained to the land” and served a master though he could usually marry as he wished and might even rise above his status if he possessed useful skills or if he joined the Church. Christianity also bestowed upon the serf an identity that slaves in other places did not enjoy. After all, according to Mother Church, Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Redeemer of Mankind died even for that serf and though this great gift did not exempt him from doing his earthly lord’s bidding, he was not “property” as were slaves under pagan kings. It might seem a matter of little consequence, but we must remember what Robert E. Lee said about black slaves who found themselves in the New World (and notjust the South!), that is, that they had been removed from their dark homeland and introduced to Christianity and Western (white) civilization, a fact that surely bettered both their worldly and eternal conditions! Nowhere, however, was slavery of such paramount importance than in sub-Saharan Africa (hereinafter Africa). Yes, slavery existed on every continent but Antarctica, however in the rest of the world, slavery served a limited purpose—that is as a fixed labor source, a negation of the threat of conquered peoples and, in the case of especially Mezo-America, to provide sacrificial offerings to their gods. In Africa, however, slavery was that continent’s economy, its money and its means of existence; that is, it was the method by which its peoples and their rulers existed and thrived—or, in the alternative, were defeated and enslaved. Though the continent was bursting with natural wealth, the natives did not mine, neither did they plant, fish and hunt save in limited circumstances. They did not build nor create any advanced “civilization.” Even their weapons were little different from those used by their stone-age ancestors. There was no sense of place or concept of nationhood; there was only the tribe—and those entities were constantly at war with one another. Most of the indigenous peoples of North America (hereinafter Indians) were similarly limited in their social and cultural development. Unlike the natives of Mexico and Central and South America—the Aztecs, Incas and Mayans—the development of the North American Indian was much more primitive. Many if not most were nomadic hunter-gatherers and therefore the use of slaves, at least in any great numbers, was unknown though by the time of the American “Civil War” there were Indian tribes that had black slaves. But nowhere in the world save in Africa was slavery the basis upon which all prosperity depended and as inter-tribal warfare was continual—and its captives always available for sale to the rest of the world—Africa’s “economy” eventually created a situation affecting the rest of humanity far from the Skeleton Coast. Oddly enough, however, when black slavery—and remember, all other racial groups have been enslaved at one time or another—became a great moral crisis in the West, few indeed were those who called to mind the foundation from which that crisis arose; that is, Africa! Rather, the narrative was then—and remains today—one of evil and greedy whites abducting and enslaving the helpless and noble inhabitants of some sort of pre-Edenic world! Such a scenario does not survive once it is admitted that while those in the West who bought black slaves may have been—if not in all cases—white, those who sold them were in all cases, black—thus making this scenario patent (and provable) nonsense! Yet these facts appear to make no difference to those who choose to embrace the myth of white culpability! Indeed, it is considered wicked in the extreme even to question it. Of course, the reason why this is the case is directly linked to the use to which this “moral crisis” is put; that is, as a direct attack upon Western (a/k/a “white”) Civilization! And, if one asks why attempt to destroy that movement of mankind that has brought the greatest benefits to all of our species, the answer is simply because the New World Order with its one-world government and atheistic—humanistic “religion,” cannot prevail against a strong and healthy white Christian West! Now there has never been any race of men altogether good or altogether bad. Aside from the small number of what today are termed “sociopaths,” even the worst of us have our good points and the best of us, our bad. And why should this matter? Because today, even though slavery still exists in Africa, the Middle East and Asia, the “blame” for blackslavery is placed upon the (white) people of Europe and “the West” and, by extension, its foundation, Western Civilization. If one listens to the call for the extermination of white people either directly or through socially encouraged “inter-racial breeding,” one would think that every evil of the world arose in the West! This, of course, is nonsense! Have evils come out of the West? Certainly! But so has great good and no force of “good” has been more uplifting to all of humankind than Christianity—the foundation of Western Civilization! I find it interesting that non-Christians berate Christians for behavior that fails to rise to the standards set by Christ even when that failure produces behavior that is better than much of the rest of humanity! In other words, in the judgment of the world, there are two standards: one for white Christians and one for everybody else and those standards include, of course, the present narrative concerning the history of black slavery. Alas, this will remain the case as long as intelligent people – white and otherwise – believe and accept it.