Note: Sample below may appear distorted but all corresponding word document files contain proper formattingExcerpt from Term Paper:
Man of Honor or Man of Shame?
When most people think of George Washington they imagine a noble man of almost mythical proportions. Indeed, to many of Washington's contemporaries, as well, the former President of the United States was commonly considered to be " ... A man of unquestioned integrity (Halstead, 1997)." This is perhaps even more the case in modern times, partly due to the efforts of numerous biographers over the years since his death. Not only did they make a veritable science out of capitalizing on tales of his legendary goodness, as well as his symbolic role as the embodiment of "American virtue (Halsted)," but they seem to have also "struck a chord" with a deep need in the collective American psyche to imagine the beginnings of this nation as an event steeped in nothing but noble division to the ideals of liberty. Be that as it may, there remain many who are not so willing to gloss over history -- instead asserting that the historical record of Washington the man is not so rife with shining goodness. Instead, they suggest that for all of Washington's supposed virtue, he was a man who was so tainted by the bane of slave ownership that it a mark on the character of the Nation that he should be continually held up as a paragon of right.
In 1700's America, slave ownership was hardly uncommon. Thus, when George Washington began his adult life on his Mount Vernon plantation, he simply continued holding slaves much the same as the generations had before him. Further, when one considers the "who's who" of his contemporary society, one can clearly see that he was not alone in his ownership of human beings for his own gain (all the while standing for liberty). Consider, for example the infamous example of the great Thomas Jefferson, whom not only owned slaves, but DNA evidence now shows, fathered at least one child into slavery by one of his female slaves (Twohig, 2001). However, the fact that slave ownership was during that time legal does not necessarily mean that the so called "great men" of the time did not realize that it was immoral. After all, by the time Washington began his tenure as the master of Mount Vernon, it is clear that an antislavery movement was in full swing both nationally and internationally, and such important contemporaries as Alexander Hamilton and Benjamin Franklin held the then revolutionary thought that Blacks could (and perhaps should) be the equals of Whites in all ways (Twohig, 1997). Consider, for example, the letter received by Washington in 1796 from English antislavery advocate, Edward Rushton:
It will generally be admitted, Sir, and perhaps with justice, that the great family of mankind were nevermore benefited by the military abilities of any individual, than by those which you displayed during the American contest. . . . By the flame which you have kindled every oppressed nation will be enabled to perceive its fetters. . . . But it is not to the commander in chief of the American forces, nor to the president of the United States, that I have ought to address. My business is with George Washington of Mount Vernon in Virginia, a man who not withstanding his hatred of oppression and his ardent love of liberty holds at this moment hundreds of his fellow being in a state of abject bondage -- Yes: you who conquered under the banners of freedom -- you who are now the first magistrate of a free people are (strange to relate) a slave holder. . . . Shame! Shame! That man should be deemed the property of man or that the name of Washington should be found among the list of such proprietors. . . . Ages to come will read with Astonishment that the man who was foremost to wrench the rights of America from the tyrannical grasp of Britain was among the last to relinquish his own oppressive hold of poor unoffending negroes. In the name of justice what can induce you thus to tarnish your own well earned celebrity and to impair the fair features of American liberty with so foul and indelible a blot. (Twohig, 1997)
Of course, there are those who will assert that although Washington was, indeed a slave holder, he was among one of the most honorable and "kind" types of slave masters in existence. For example, of the few words he is credited with writing about the institution of slavery, many of them are decidedly "progressive" for his day. Take for instance the following words, written to his Mount Vernon Manager in 1792:
It is foremost in my thoughts ... To desire you will be particularly attentive to my Negros in their sickness; and to order every Overseer positively to be so likewise; for I am sorry to observe that the generality of them, view these poor creatures in scarcely any other light than they do a draughthorse or Ox; neglecting them as much when they are unable to work; instead of comforting & nursing them when they lye on a sickbed. (Twohig).
Indeed, many would argue that for a man who at this time owned more than one hundred human beings (many of whom were children), he was surprisingly progressive, writing, " ... were it not that I am principled against selling Negroes . . . I would not in twelve months from this date be possessed of one as a slave (Washington, Fitzpatrick, 1939)." Perhaps this kind of thinking is attributable to his particular kind of "genius" of which he is so well-known today, a type referred to by author Joseph Epstein in his 1998 work, George Washington: An Amateur's View, " ... his genius was perhaps the rarest kind of all: a genius for discerning right action so strong that he was utterly incapable of knowingly doing anything wrong." Yet was this really true?
Although it is true that Washington did abhor the rending of families that was the common practice with slave trading in the South, writing, of the morality of "selling" slaves, " ... If these poor wretches are to be held in a State of Slavery I do not see that a change of masters will render it more irksome, provided husband & wife, and Parents & children are not separated from each other, which is not my intention to do (Twohig, 1997)," he certainly saw nothing wrong with continuing to hold the "poor wretches" as slaves himself. Furthermore, the very fact that he regarded them as "poor wretches" living "irksome" lives, it seems quite clear that he hardly saw their position as a favorable one.
Perhaps if the case were to end there, one might imagine that Washington was simply "caught in his times" unable to move the wheels of liberty against slavery until the stability of the new nation could tolerate its grinding. However, upon careful reading of his written words, one can see that this is simply not the case. Instead the man held even today to be synonymous with virtue, and "incapable of knowingly doing anything wrong," was just as base a tyrant against the liberty of man as any in history.
Consider, for example, the fact that although Washington did not sell slaves away from their families as a practice, he routinely held them in work details that separated them from one another, and were subjected to one of the cruelest treatments imaginable in the collective imagination concerning slavery, whipping. Indeed, in the name of "discipline" (some might imagine a term imbibed with the antithesis of liberty), he allowed his overseers to whip defiant slaves (Wilkins, 2001). Additionally, he also threatened to sell "disruptive" slaves to the dreaded West Indies as punishment (dreaded for its harsh conditions and high incidence of disease). Consider the following excerpt, taken from a letter written to a slave trader known as Captain Joseph Thomson in the year 1766:
With this Letter comes a Negro (Tom) which I beg the favour of you to sell... For whatever he will fetch... This Fellow is both a Rogue & Runaway... [though] he is exceedingly healthy, strong, and good at the Hoe... And [I] must beg the favour of you (least he should [sic] attempt his escape) to keep him handcuffd till you get to Sea... (Herschfeld, 1997)
Clearly, no matter how progressive some might imagine George Washington to be, one cannot help but recoil at the image of keeping a man handcuffed until safely out to sea -- especially when such a directive was penned by one of the founding fathers of liberty, and by one synonymous with virtue. Indeed, for a man to have written words such as these to have also uttered the words, "Liberty, when it begins to take root, is a plant of rapid growth (BQ, 2004)," is almost enough to cause one to abandon the man altogether as a false hypocrite of the highest order. Why, then does…[continue]
"George Washington Man Of Honor Or Man" (2004, November 28) Retrieved October 25, 2016, from http://www.paperdue.com/essay/george-washington-man-of-honor-or-60264
"George Washington Man Of Honor Or Man" 28 November 2004. Web.25 October. 2016. <http://www.paperdue.com/essay/george-washington-man-of-honor-or-60264>
"George Washington Man Of Honor Or Man", 28 November 2004, Accessed.25 October. 2016, http://www.paperdue.com/essay/george-washington-man-of-honor-or-60264
George Washington There have been many people in American history who have dedicated their lives to the people and progress of the nation, and perhaps none are more notable than our very own one dollar bill - George Washington, who not only conjures up images of freedom and democracy, but of also the birth of America; a founding-father who was the first to govern the people under their own flag. George Washington
Its effects would have impact on the political decisions of all future generations; any mistake could have had disastrous consequences for the ones to come. Regarding the matter, the president at some point wrote to James Madison that given the historical circumstances and precedents his presidency constituted, he preferred that all decisions be made on a moral basis.. Washington couldn't have been more right; for instance, his refusal to
But that's where we are now. 'We have to look at this operation very carefully and maybe it shouldn't be allowed to go ahead at all'" (Nat Hentoff, p.A19). Today we find our system of government to claim that they are the only people who know the difference between right and wrong and thus while the entire world should disarm themselves of nuclear warheads, we should keep them. Our government
Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois present opposing representations of the diametrically opposed philosophies that came to define African-American culture in the United States during the upheaval of Reconstruction. Washington, in his autobiography Up From Slavery, advocates a sweeping reconciliation between former slaves and their former owners, believing that the most accessible path to securing rights for his people is paved with acquiescence and cooperation, rather than by forcible
Paintbrush & Peacepipe: The Story of George Catlin, and George Catlin and the Old Frontier Two books, Paintbrush & Peacepipe: The Story of George Catlin, by Anne Rockwell and George Catlin and the Old Frontier, by Harold McCracken, cover almost exactly the same subject matter and differ most significantly in tone and style according to the vastly different audiences to which each is directed. The first book, Paintbrush and Peacepipe, 86 small
Simon Bolivar In order to understand the value and significance of the life of Simon Bolivar, it's important to understand both his early and adult life. His Jamaican Letter, why he was called The Great Liberator, and his historic significance -- that has been compared with the significance of George Washington -- all matter. Bolivar was a military leader, but also a political leader. The combination opened up many different options
C. Mayor Adrian Fenty made HIV / AIDS the most important public health priority (Greenberg et al., 2009). Funding from the CDC allowed for a partnership between the D.C. Department of Health's HIV / AIDS Administration and the George Washington University School of Public Health and Healthy Services, which was responsible for the Epidemiology Annual Report for 2007 -- the first to be published for D.C. since 2002 (Greenberg et