Should we honor slave owners? Specifically, should we honor one of the most famous slave owners in history, namely George Washington. It’s a question that divides many Americans and echoes some of the most contentious conversations on race in America today.
Today is widely known as “President’s Day” (or some say “Presidents’ Day”), but the holiday is officially and properly known as “George Washington’s Birthday, Observed.” And thus it’s appropriate to call our attention to George Washington, the father of our country … and a slave owner.
Until the middle of the 20th century, there was no dispute that George Washington should be honored. Americans pretty much universally agreed that the father of our country should be respected and honored.
The times, however, are changing.
Many Americans today don’t regard George Washington as a hero. Some are outright hostile to the idea, while others are unsure.
In You Never Forget Your First (2020), a highly critical (at times, blistering) new biography of Washington, author Alexis Coe challenges many of the popular assumptions about our nation’s father, calling into serious question (at least for some) whether Washington should be highly regarded.
Last year, Nike yanked a planned 4th of July sneaker branded around the famous Betsy Ross 13-star colonial American flag. The reason was due to allegations from many, most notably Colin Kaepernick, that the Betsy Ross flag is “racist.” Georgetown University professor Michael Eric Dyson associated the Betsy Ross flag with the Nazi swastika.
This was the flag that George Washington fought under.
Writing for The Philadelphia Tribune, Michael Coard bitterly denounces George Washington as a “miserly, cheap, and heartless racist who didn’t and wouldn’t pay his enslaved human ‘property’ even a single penny for anything.”
Coard, an attorney, radio host, and columnist, focuses his ire particularly on Washington’s dentures, alleging that many of the teeth making up those dentures were “yanked” from the mouths of “my enslaved ancestors.”
Coe likewise takes up the issue of Washington’s dentures being supplied by the teeth of slaves.
The controversy stems from an entry in George Washington’s ledger (dated May 8, 1784) in which he paid 6 pounds and 2 shillings to “Negros for 9 Teeth on Acct of Dr Lemoin.”
The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association explains that, while the buying and selling of teeth may seem “gruesome” to us today, it was common in the 18th century for people to make a little extra money by selling their teeth to dentists. They do concede, however, that “while Washington paid these enslaved people for their teeth, it does not mean they had a real option to refuse his request.”
Coard angrily derides this concession from the MVLA, insisting that since Washington could have refused to pay these enslaved persons, he therefore did refuse to pay them.
This declaration on Coard’s part of course is not only a non sequitur, but it flies in the face of the documentary evidence — evidence which shows Washington did make the payment.
Washington was a stickler for details. He kept scrupulous records and was obsessively precise. If he wasn’t going to pay someone for something, why write down that he did? It flies in the face of his personality and habit.
Bottom line: Coard’s refusal to seriously consider the clear evidence that Washington indeed compensated enslaved persons for their teeth says more about him than about Washington.
That being said, Coard’s article does raise and spotlight the fact that…
George Washington was a slave owner.
The man we regard as the father of our country owned human beings. This cannot be denied or ignored.
It also can’t be denied that George Washington was (humanly speaking) indispensable to the founding of the United States. But… the man who made the United States possible owned human beings.
Can we forgive that?
Should we forgive that?
George Washington became a slave owner at age eleven. He continued in that status until his death. Early in life, he showed little qualms about slavery. In the years leading up to and even during the American Revolution, Washington worked his slaves hard and (according to many historical studies) didn’t treat them all that well.
Washington’s views on slavery began to change, however, during and especially after the American Revolution. Henry Wiencek explains that Washington’s “actions and private statements suggest a long evolution in his stance on slavery, based on experience and a possible awakening of conscience.” Wiencek is a journalist and historian whose work includes the award-winning An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America (2004).
In the years following the war, according to Wiencek, “slavery’s injustice weighed very heavily on Washington’s conscience” and the general referred to his ownership of slaves as a “regret.”
In 1778, Washington wrote that he wanted to “get quit” of owning slaves. In 1786, he declared that there “is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for this abolition of [slavery].” And in 1794, he described himself as “principled against selling negroes, as you would do cattle in the market.” In 1799, the year of his death, he wrote: “I am principled against this kind of traffic in the human species.”
And of course, in his will, George Washington famously ordered the freeing (and, in some cases, compensating) of his slaves. Sadly, there were legal and family complications, but the publicizing of Washington’s will placed him squarely on the side of those who (in the words of Abraham Lincoln) wanted to put slavery “on the course of ultimate extinction.”
Slavery is unquestionably the most tragic blight on our nation’s history. And it’s the most tragic sin marring the legacy of George Washington.
Let’s also acknowledge that all Bible-believing Christians should (and must) regard slavery as practiced in North America (or any form of chattel-based slavery) as an egregious sin.
Some critics of evangelical Christianity will of course challenge the above statement, arguing that the Scriptures support slavery. In doing so, they will rely on the same poor (and dishonest) biblical exegesis used by slave owning interests in the 1700s and 1800s, especially in the southern United States. Not only do such interpretations incorrectly represent biblical teachings, they caused untold harm to millions of people.
Let there be no mistake….
Slavery is evil.
It’s an egregious sin that forever mars the legacy of the United States of America.
Nevertheless, is slavery an unforgivable sin?
Can Americans today (particularly those whose ancestors were held in slavery) forgive a man who grew up in a slave-holding society and yet whose views and practices evolved to the point that he personally renounced slavery?
For some, including Coard, the answer is “no.” They cannot forgive Washington.
In fact, Coard isn’t particularly fond of forgiveness in general. Writing for The Pennsylvania Capital-Star, Coard wants all purveyors of “systemic racism” (which naturally includes, but is not limited to, slavery) to “suffer because they not only caused suffering and continue to cause it but also because they benefited from and continue to benefit from it.”
Coard’s frustration is understandable. As is his refusal and the refusal of others to tolerate continued racism.
Likewise, I acknowledge that, as a white man, I will never fully grasp or appreciate the dreadful and catastrophic impact that white supremacy and racial oppression (including, but not limited to, slavery and segregation) have had on people of color in the United States.
Nevertheless, it strikes me as ironic that most of the people today who denounce Washington for his ties to slavery often identify themselves as “progressive.” And yet these critics make no allowance for the progress that Washington personally experienced in his views on slavery. They also give little to no credit to Washington for the positive impact his evolving views on slavery had for the cause of abolition.
When it comes to the matter of forgiveness specifically, I am reminded of the words of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr…
“We must develop and maintain the capacity to forgive. He who is devoid of the power to forgive is devoid of the power to love. There is some good in the worst of us and some evil in the best of us. When we discover this, we are less prone to hate our enemies.”
Sadly, some people will never forgive George Washington, no matter how remorseful he became toward the end of his life.
But for Richard Allen, a contemporary of Washington, and one of the greatest African American preachers in U.S. history, the answer is different.
Allen of course is known as the founder of the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church. And when Washington died in 1799, Allen (like many other pastors) took the opportunity to eulogize the nation’s hero in church.
After acknowledging Washington’s hero status for the nation overall, Allen specifically addressed his African American congregation with these words:
We, my friends, have particular cause to bemoan our loss. To us he has been the sympathising friend and tender father. He has watched over us, and viewed our degraded and afflicted state with compassion and pity– his heart was not insensible to our sufferings. He whose wisdom the nations revered thought we had a right to liberty. Unbiased by the popular opinion of the state in which is the memorable Mount Vernon–he dared to do his duty, and wipe off the only stain with which man could ever reproach him.
Allen is often praised for his clever use of Washington’s death (and the publicizing of Washington’s will) to call for the abolition of slavery as America neared the 19th century. As he should be.
But there’s something else.
Allen doesn’t challenge Washington’s hero status because the man owned slaves. Instead, Allen calls slavery “the only stain” on Washington’s honor, the only reason that some “could ever reproach him.”
Does slavery stain Washington’s honor? Absolutely
Does slavery give reason for some to reproach Washington? Definitely
Does slavery destroy Washington’s hero status? Does it represent an unpardonable, unforgivable sin that should relegate Washington to the status of national villain? Not according to Allen.
On the contrary, the African American preacher declared:
The name of Washington will live when the sculptured marble and statue of bronze shall be crumbled into dust–for it is the decree of the eternal God that “the righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance, but the memorial of the wicked shall rot.”
If Richard Allen, an African American who lived during Washington’s time and who may have known Washington, could forgive the father of our country for the grievous sin of slavery and still consider him a hero, why can’t we?
