Jill Lepore writes:
What would have happened if he had decided, before taking that oath of office, to emancipate his slaves? ...Lepore doesn't sugarcoat her interpretation of history. Good for her!
[Yet] he would not, could not, do it. Few of Washington's decisions would have such lasting and terrible consequences as this one failure to act.
Of course, Washington was acutely aware of the deal that was struck--the three-fifths clause--for the Constitution. He knew how the slave-owning southern delegates felt about slavery, slaves, and blacks. Like William Loughton Smith of South Carolina, who opposed emancipation "by insisting that if blacks were free they would marry whites, "the white race would be extinct, and the American people would be all of the mulatto breed."
Such bigotry exists today, even nearly 230 years later. Iowa's long-term representative, steve king, has been saying such crap for years before trump jumped on that hatred and made it a winner! When trump boasted to king about how much money he had raised for him, king's reply was telling: “But I market-tested your immigration policy for fourteen years, and that ought to be worth something.”
Washington set a precedent: In politics, leaders will compromise on morals and basic human decency for the sake of money and power. It should not surprise us then that the GOP and 63 million voters prostrated before trump!
During Washington's time, and later too, slaves were, after all, "property" and, therefore, wealth. The leaders treated their fellow humans as less-than-human even though they fully knew otherwise. And they compromised.
They all knew well what they were doing. Which is why the framers of the Constitution "tried to hide it. Nowhere do the words "slave" or "slavery" appear in the final document." They tried to hide it. But, they knew that the truth will reveal itself sooner than later.
No comments:
Post a Comment