1.
In December 1785, George Washington received a letter from Robert Pleasants, a Virginia Quaker, who had freed his eighty slaves. Now he urged Washington to do the same: "How strange then must it appear to impartial thinking men, to be informed, that many who were warm advocates for that noble cause during the War, are now sitting down in a state of ease, dissipation and extravigance on the labour of Slaves? And more especially that thou, who could forego all the Sweets of domestic felicity for a number of years, & expose thy Person to the greatest fatigue & dangers in that cause, should now withhold that enestimable blessing from any who are absolutely in thy power, & after the Right of freedom, is acknowledg'd to be the natural & unalienable Right of all mankind."
.Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram
Washington was by then a hero of the American War of Independence, and many would come to pay their respects at his mansion in Mount Vernon, Virginia. In January 1789, just over three years after he received the letter from Pleasants, Washington would be elected the first president of the United States of America. The Quakers were a religious community that believed in direct contact with God without the mediation of priests. As pacifists, they did not fight in the American War of Independence, they believed in the equality of all men and became active in the abolitionist movement and the smuggling of slaves to freedom. After Tisha B'Av and the repetitive and exhausting public discourse over the judicial reform, I decided to take a break from our local commotion and share a few things that have been on my mind lately.
2.
Pleasants must have had in mind Jeremiah's grave prophecy on the eve of the destruction of Jerusalem after the last king, Zedekiah, had made a covenant with the people "that everyone should set free their Hebrew slaves, both male and female, and that no one should keep their fellow Hebrew enslaved" (Jeremiah 34:8-9). At first, all the Hebrew slaves were set free but afterward, the men and women were recaptured and forced back into slavery. In response to the breaking of this covenant, Jeremiah prophesied: "I proclaim your release – declares God – to the sword, to pestilence, and to famine; and I will make you a horror to all the kingdoms of the earth… [they] shall be handed over to their enemies, to those who seek to kill them" (Ibid 34:17). Jeremiah added that the Babylonian army would return to Jerusalem and "They shall attack it and capture it and burn it down. I will make the towns of Judah a desolation, without inhabitant" (34:22). If there had been any hope of saving the city, then by breaking the covenant and restoring slavery, the chance for change was lost and the verdict was sealed. Jeremiah emphasized that his harsh prophecy was especially aimed at the government and religious elite, headed by the king, whom he saw as primarily responsible for the destruction.
Video: Twitter/Prime Minister's Office
The destruction of Judea in the sixth century BCE, partly due to the non-emancipation of the slaves, projected onto the fear of destruction of the newborn American state for the same reason. Religion has played an important role in the United States since its birth. It is important to recognize the various shades of religious influence when evaluating and analyzing our ally.
3.
Pleasants also wrote that Washington should take advantage of the opportunity to free his slaves, thus "crowning the great action of thy life" and securing his place in history. But, warned Pleasants, if Washington were to drag his feet and miss his hour of opportunity, his name would be tarnished forever: "For notwithstanding thou art now receiving the tribute of praise from a grateful people, the time is coming when all actions will be weighed in an equal ballance, and undergo an impartial examination; how inconsistant then will it appear to posterity, should it be recorded, that the Great General Washington, without fee or reward, had commanded the united forces of America, and at the expence of much Blood & treasure been instrumental in relieving those States from Tyranny & oppression: Yet after all had so far countinanced those Evils, as to keep a number of People in absolute Slavery, who were by nature equally entitled to freedom as himself."
Slavery was an issue Washington had barely dealt with before. Ten years earlier, he had agreed to accept freed blacks into the ranks of his army and while he may not have been enthusiastic about it, for eight years he commanded a combined force of the two races. In 1779, he accepted a plan to arm 3,000 slaves in South Carolina and enlist them in military service in exchange for their freedom. Marquis de Lafayette, a French officer who had volunteered to serve under Washington in the War of Independence, also urged Washington to recognize that ending slavery was an obvious logical consequence of the American Revolution, and shortly before the end of the war, in 1783, urged him to free a group of slaves from Virginia and settle them as tenant farmers. Washington accepted the plan without reservation.
4.
After the war, Washington changed his tune. He insisted that runaway slaves who had found refuge with the British, be returned to their owners. Lafayette did not let up and urged him to take a clear stand on the question of slavery, which seemed to him a huge anomaly. In response, Washington wrote that he had decided to adopt the idea of freeing slaves in stages. He informed those who owed him money that he would not accept slaves in payment, "it being among my first wishes to see some plan adopted by the legislature by which slavery in the Country may be abolished by slow, sure, & imperceptible degrees." He adhered to the principle of not selling slaves in a way that would split families and decided to replace the slaves on his estate with hired laborers.
In any case, it appears that the reasons and considerations that Washington noted in his letters were not necessarily morally or ideologically based, but that economic and business reasons stood behind them. In his view, slave labor was less efficient and more expensive than the labor of free people. Neither did he in fact consider the option of freeing his own slaves, instead he preferred to sell them to other slave owners. In fact, he owned more slaves than he could employ efficiently, and the surplus cost him dearly. Historical evidence suggests that Washington swore never to buy slaves again. He admitted that he had more than enough slaves and that his estate had become an old people's home and child-rearing center for many of his slaves, so he felt a moral obligation to care for them.
5.
Either way, the fascinating historical question is, "What would have happened if …?" What would have happened if Washington had ordered the release of his slaves and pushed for abolitionist legislation that would have resulted in free labor and more diverse crop growths? Can we assume that had he done so, the social and political dynamic would have developed differently from the track that two generations later led to civil war? Would civil war have erupted if Virginia had been part of the North? It is a hypothesis that certainly holds water.
But what could George Washington have known in the late 18th century when the United States was just at the beginning of its formative process as a nation? The answer is not much. Business and economic considerations and class interests led to hesitancy on his part when it came to these questions. He took a private, moral position not to sell his slaves but to prioritize supporting the families on his estate over financial gain. But it is not personal, private decisions that motivate a people. At such historical moments, a leader must weigh his principles, ideology, and vision for the country – even after his time – against the narrow considerations of the moment and the material considerations of the epoch. From the distance of generations, can Washington be judged? And not just Washington; can we, in this generation, be judged, when we know that our actions will affect future generations, but without knowing how? What here is the parable and what here is the analogy?
Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!
