Washington's Slaves

post 077

On July 10, 2010 I saw a book review on "BookTV After Words" channel CSP2 351 by Judge Andrew Napolitano regarding his book "Lies the Government Told You" proclaiming that George Washington was a ruthless slave owner who maneuvered his slaves from one place to another in order to avoid the law which might obligate him to free them.
His accusations against Mr. Washington are of conduct only seen from the worst kind of humanity, reserved for monsters and serial killers.
It is far too easy to assume our founders were as corrupt of character as Americans are today, but recorded history shows most these men to have a very deep commitment and obedience to the Almighty, and character above reproach. Whether 1776 or 2076, The Word of God remains consistent and faithful. Cruelty to your fellow man was as wrong to the believer then, as it is today. These are the men, of Washington's day, who fled the cruelty of England, and after a long and arduous effort for reconciliation, severed all allegiance to England because of cruel treatment by writing the Declaration of Independence, then they wrote the constitution to form a government free of such cruelty!
In the Amendments to the Constitution, is Article 13. Written and sponsored by these same men, including George Washington, which speaks for itself;

Article 13
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Mr. Washington was an active party to these writings, and events of this time, and was of such character that the people voted him to be the first President of the United States.


An accusation is so easy to make, and the defense against one can consume huge amounts of time and documentation to refute.
There are now so many, many accusations coming against the founders, that it is impossible to address each of them in a thorough way.
So in this writing, before I have a chance to explore this accusation in detail, I will take the course, which aught to be considered in every argument. That course is the one of spirit:

Today for a Jury trial, the jury is picked with the specific exclusion of anyone who knows the accused. The reason given is to avoid favors toward friends, and thereby letting the guilty escape punishment. Juries are also instructed with the exclusion of any past conduct of the accused, which is supposed to avoid jury bias.
But originally the Jury was established with just the opposite points, to avoid the very same results!
How is that possible?
The original jury was designed to be the peers of the accused. In this way the jury was sure to know the spirit, or the nature of the accused, because they knew the man in public life at least, and private life at best. They knew better than a stranger if the man was prone to laziness, greed, lust, anger or selfishness, therefore the heart intent of the accused, in the event being investigated, was a main point of the trial. (Elliot, 2:110)
Is the man guilty of willful misconduct? Or is this alleged violation the result of another reason?

The reason why the Jury was so important to the protection of our freedom is because the law has no heart. (Elliot, 3:545, 546) The law is a point of fact designed to manage an organized society and cannot include the many human elements that might add obscure variables to that point of fact. “…The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” II Corinthians 3:6
This separation of law and humanity is the reason the original laws were so few, and performed their job so wonderfully for so many years. The law did not try to encroach onto the spiritual element.
The blending of law and humanity today is why there is an ever increasing need for more laws and yet still incapable of covering the need. For every point of fact law, which attempts to cover a human element, there are new loopholes and additional factors that compound the complication and therefore need yet more laws to address them.

This principle of separation between law and spirit, is a core element in the form of the American experiment.
Our founders and citizens were so familiar with God’s Word, and therefore God’s intent, they understood the design and purpose of this separation.
It is the design of separation that caused them to form our government into three branches, the Judicial branch, the Legislative branch, and the Executive branch.
This separation is found in Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our Judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.”

It is the purpose of separation that also caused the founders to establish the final and most powerful check and balance of power, the Jury, the greatest protection to the citizen against corruption as identified in Jeremiah 17:9 “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; who can know it?”
The whole purpose of the Jury was to ensure that regardless of the laws, regardless of the powers, regardless of the judges, the citizen was protected by the decision of the people who knew him, from any injustices, which may arise.
“Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories.”
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 14, 1781

This last separation is also found in the Scriptures, but unlike the point of fact making the law very clear and non-negotiable, this last separation is a bit less defined and more spiritual in nature. It is the principle of this last separation that caused the founders to keep the wording of the lawful founding documents, free from religion while at the same time ensuring that religion remained free and unobstructed to regulate those same documents and the resulting laws.
The religion, needed to maintain a healthy balance, must remain held in the hearts of the people and not held in the Law.
This principle, though also found in the Scriptures, is not found in one clear verse because it is not in the category of point in fact, as the law is.
The details of this concept is laid out in a very long chapter in my upcoming book of the same title as this blog, but for this post I will condense the data;

Christians around the world are aware of the scriptural prophesy for the last days including two mysterious witnesses who will preach the gospel of Jesus Christ, and cannot be harmed, though many will try.
It is said, they will be given great, unhindered power to fulfill their mission for a specific period of time determined by God. Revelation 11:3 “And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth.” (That’s 1260 days exactly)
What most modern Christians no longer know, is anything more about them.
They appear to pop out of nowhere, have no names, do their obscure job, and then are done, with nothing more said about them.
But this is not the way of the Scriptures.
The bible always provides from itself, a precedent for itself. If any concept of the bible appears to be unique in world history, one of two things is sure:

1) The bible has previously shown an example of the event in a representation, metaphor, or a similar evens.
Or
2) The concept is not a correct interpretation of scripture.

So where do we find the representation of these two witnesses in scripture?
Amazingly they are found many times from Geneses to Revelation;

They are first represented as the two trees in the Garden of Eden; the tree of Life, (the Spirit) and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. (The Law) Genesis 2:9

They next appear as the two Brass Pillars standing before the first temple in Jerusalem. I Kings 7:21
Today we have no idea what the job of these pillars was, or why they were placed there. They appear to have been nothing but ornamental yet they were there, and they even had names.

They appear again in the presentation of the tith by Moses, (the lawful authority), to the High Priest, Melchizidek, (The spiritual authority).
Genesis 14:18-20, Hebrews 7:2.

We see them again in the Zechariah vision of a still future 3 dimensional menorah which had two olive trees on each side of it, dripping their life giving olive oil into the menorah to feed the flames of light.

That principle is made more clear when we understand the significance that Jesus, will be priest, but David will be king even in the millennium! Ezekiel 37:24

All these and more, show us a many fold representation of the power and authority establishing a none-corruptible form of government, which cannot fall unless it breaks down from its own failure to maintain.
The American form of Government was established on this principle. Though intentionally kept independent, these two elements are crucial in working together.
This is also the foundational concept behind making us a Democratic Republic.
We were not made a Democracy as is commonly assumed today! We were created as a democratically managed republic.
The spirit represented in the Democracy element by the vote of the people, and the Law represented in the Republic element.
A pure republic allows for a despot, a pure democracy allows for anarchy just before implosion with countless following evils.*1
But a proper Democratic Republic defends against both! Much of the problems in America today can be found in the corruption or dismantling of this concept, which has been the long term goals of our enemies, (Progressives among them).

According to Judeao Christianity which our founders understood, the event of Jesus the Christ establishing his realm of Priest in the hearts of his followers through the gift of the Holy Spirit, made each believer a priest unto God, and so eliminated the single man as a representation.
In a great experiment of providence, our founders also established the lawful role of the priest in the hearts of the citizens by the form of government they gave us.
It is for this reason that John Q. Adams stated;
“. . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
He knew the importance of both these powers to maintain it.
Perhaps now you can begin to see the depth and meaning intended by his statement.

It is this concept by which the Jury "plays the role" of the priest, in the final separation of power. The Jury judges the heart, and evaluates the applied law to make the final judgment.

* * *
So what does this have to do with Washington and his slaves?
Because with all the evidence showing the deep understanding Washington had of Scriptural principles, this accusation of Washington’s evil actions toward his slaves is not compatible with his known spirit. A man that is committed to the ways of Christ, As the history of his life clearly shows, cannot have such an un-scriptural attitude toward enslaving, and inhuman treatment of, another human being.
So knowing the man’s spirit, we have the ability to investigate the other explanations as options which may better fit his character.

Did Washington own slaves? Yes he did.
Did Washington transport his slaves to different plantations in an effort to avoid the law? Perhaps. I don’t know yet.
So is this not proof that this supposed Christian man was an evil slave owner?
Lets wait just a second before we decide;

It is an ignorant but public understanding that early Americans brought slaves to America. Do you think the bible packing families of pilgrims with funny hats and buckles on their shoes, read their bible verses above decks while their slaves were naked and starving in chains below decks? If you think so, then you have virtually no understanding of the ways of Christ. Your confidence of this possibility is a purely ignorant fabrication in violation of many historical documents.
So how did the slaves get to America? And how did Washington end up with slaves?
While still the lawful authority over the new land, England sent slave traders to America and sold their slaves to colonies of Virginia in 1619, thus establishing the slave trade here in opposition to the will of the majority, much like the Obama administration is passing laws today. But the first slave ship that came to sell slaves in the Christian Pilgrim colonies of Massachusetts, was confiscated, the captain imprisoned, and at the expense of the colonies, the slaves were sent back to their own lands. Thus showing a significant difference in thinking which separated the secular settlers from the Christian Pilgrims.
England was still the Authority at that time. The colonial laws established by England established slavery, and not the colonists themselves.
If you have forgotten, the colonies eventually went to war with the king of England to separate themselves from unacceptable oppressive laws, including slavery. The result was the Declaration Of Independence in 1776 declaring in part;

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Where did they get such notions?
From scripture such as Acts 17:26a;

"From one man He made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth..."

But by the time our nation was founded, slavery was a very real problem here.
So did Washington take advantage of this?
Not if you believe him to be a Christian.
The Christian mind frame at that time can be summarized by Noah Webster;

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the Scriptures ought to form the basis of all of our civil constitutions and laws...All of the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery and war, proceed from them despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

But Washington bought slaves! And he used slaves on his plantation!
Yet from the heart of a Christian, it is more likely he bought them not as property, but as protection for them. To him and them both they were not slaves, but hired labor. They needed to survive in a world that enslaved free blacks, and he needed workers, so he bought them to protect them from the wickedness of the slave laws, and treated them as friends.
Legislation was in the process of making slaves free, but the South was very committed to slavery by this time. There was a common problem of freed blacks, being abducted and sold back into slavery.
Washington dearly wanted his slaves to have freedom, but to send them out at that time was to send them to horrible slavery beyond his ability to help.
His slaves did not want to go because they had such a good life working for him as an employer, and lawful security as under a master, but the new laws required their freedom.
And so in an effort to keep them safe, it is very possible that both Washington and his slaves agreed to move them from one plantation to another in an effort to avoid the law which would subject them to the open slave market.
The anti-slavery law was good, but the application was complicated because of wicked men.
Until the transition was complete “things got worse before it got better”.
All this of course is supposition, but this interpretation of events fits far better the character and spirit of the man we know through history.

Am I suggesting Washington was a perfect saint? Of course not, he was a man. But he could not have done what he did, nor written what he wrote, nor achieved what he achieved if his heart and mind was not Christian.
Therefore without spending months investigating the legitimacy of the accusations presented by Judge Napolitano in his book, The Character of George Washington should stand against blanket Character assassination such as this.

This is the kind of original Jury thinking we need to have when new accusations arises.
Take the man’s nature and his character into deep consideration when accused of violating the law. Thorough investigations are indeed warranted, and should be conducted whenever possible.
If it is found by fact and spirit that he actually did commit an intentional wickedness, the law is there to bind him. If his actions can be shown to have a pure and good purpose even if in violation of some law, the jury is there to find him not guilty.
This is the marriage of Law and Spirit, established in separation of offices, upon which this nation was founded.
This is the mind frame of government, and the people, that would keep us free.

“The jury has a right to judge both the law as well as the fact in controversy.”
John Jay, 1st Chief Justice U.S. supreme Court, 1789

“The jury has the right to determine both the law and the facts.”
Samuel Chase, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1796

“The jury has the power to bring a verdict in the teeth of both law and fact.”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, U.S. supreme Court Justice, 1902

* * *

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion . . . Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
John Adams in a speech to the military in 1798 is a signer of the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights and our second President.

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice cannot sleep for ever.”
Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18, 1781

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut, January 1, 1802

“I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Charles Jarvis, September 28, 1820

“It is not honorable to take mere legal advantage, when it happens to be contrary to justice.”
Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on Debts Due to Soldiers, 1790

“The principle of the Constitution is that of a separation of legislative, Executive and Judiciary functions, except in cases specified. If this principle be not expressed in direct terms, it is clearly the spirit of the Constitution, and it ought to be so commented and acted on by every friend of free government.”
Thomas Jefferson, January, 1797

“The people are the masters of both Congress and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert it!”
Abraham Lincoln

“Where jurors can be acquainted with the characters of the parties and the witnesses - where the whole cause can be brought within their knowledge and their view - I know no mode of investigation equal to that by a trial by jury; …” (Elliot, 2:516)

* * * * * * *

*1
“Democracy... while it lasts is more bloody than either [aristocracy or monarchy]. Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There is never a democracy that did not commit suicide.”
John Adams
*1
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!”
Benjamin Franklin
*1
"Democracy leads to anarchy, which is mob rule."
Plato
*1
“Democracy is the road to socialism.“ Karl Marx
*1
"Democracy is indispensable to socialism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

For more along the topic of slavery please see Post 226 The Door to Slavery (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2011/12/door-to-slavery.html).
*