Its funny how everyone thinks they have the moral high ground. But wait 150 years and most of us will retroactively be deemed evil and immoral in some way.
150 years from now they will think we were all idiots and will be amazed how will lived life and such a harsh environment, They wouldn’t be able to believe we had to leave the house to do stuff.
One thing missing from this conversation, at the time of the Constitutional Convention slavery was thought to be a dying institution. Slavery was becoming less profitable for plantation owners. There were enough hardcore slave supporters to hold up the Constitution. There were also people who hated slavery and wanted to see it end. Including George Mason, who owned slaves but really grew to hate slavery. The cotton gin changed everything. Also, Virginia, where Washington and Mason were from, had laws forbidding freeing slaves.
They were trapped in this legal cage and had to let all this happen or else they’ll be labelled as criminals. People nowadays miss the fact people were born into the idea slavery is normal, it takes someone to grow up and see the dark side to really put it into perspective. It’s like feeling patriotic that you learn Britain ruled most of the world when you were young, only to learn about the other side of colonialism.
Yeah it took guys like Frederick Douglas to actually get people to see just how bad slavery gets to realize that it's not ok, since apparently not everyone during read their bibles too well and thought since God talked about slavery it was, even he was telling people to actually treat their slaves well and how he freed the jews from Egypt since they were pretty bad masters just the southerners became, also based on what I read about Jefferson is that yeah he wanted to something about it but couldn't during the time but after a while to change his opinions and not only got it in his head that maybe slavery isn't as bad as he thought it was but even became racist spoke about the inferiority of black folk, so long story short, Frederick Douglas was right slavery really is like poison Also sorry for the long rant just had a bit to say about the subject
You all have to remember that this was before the cotton gin. Many founders believed slavery would slowly but surly die away in the southern states. Washington also lived in the 1700s a time when African people were seen as property. It is unfortunate and heartbreaking but we do have to put the founders into the context of their time.
It ended by law with the signing of the Declaration of Independence . The issue was no mystery to George nor to his friend Lafayette who wrote his disbelief at the time .
It is true that GW didn't have the power to end slavery but there was a spirit in the aftermath of the Revolution to end it. This led northern states to gradually abolish it & some in Virginia wanted that. If GW had made a statement in favor of abolition & perhaps freed his slaves in his lifetime, that might not have convinced the Virginia legislature to offer gradual emancipation like northern states but it would have improved his legacy.
GW could not legally do that in the state of Virginia, for that to happen he would of had to get elected to the Virginia state legislature, propose a bill to allow the freeing of one's own slaves in the state of Virginia, somehow get it passed by all the plantation owning elected officials, and then passed into law by the plantation owning governor which at the time did not have free state elections. And then he could've done what you're suggesting he should've done.
Not only was it not within his power to end slavery, but he didn’t want it to be solely within his power. The whole point of Washington acting as he did as President and helping form the powers and duties of a POTUS was so one individual didn’t have complete authoritative rule. That’s what the colonies just got done fighting against the crown the British to avoid. Had Washington had the power and done so, the union may have fallen apart before it ever began because slave states at the time were adamant that they’d only stay in the new Union if they could retain certain states rights, one of those being slavery. Today slavery is thought of as a solely moral issue and how racist and repulsively wrong it is for whites to own black slaves. While true, the real issue of slavery in that time was an economic one. Cotton and other crops were hugely profitable to southern states and taking away slavery would’ve significantly hurt their economy. Also at the time, the states wanted to retain states rights and not be betrothed to a large federal government which they felt again was like King George ruling them from afar. So while yes many slave owners and plantation workers were cruel and racist to slaves, they were looked at as property. So was it wrong? Of course. Was it abhorrent? Absolutely. But thinking about the time period and prevailing thoughts, had Washington just said “slavery is abolished”, its likely the southern states would have done what they did in the Civil War and succeeded. You may think OK we should’ve just thought the war then but it’s not that easy. The country was in its infancy and had just finished a long, expensive and bloody war. Had we fought a Civil War between free and slave states immediately after the Revolution, it would’ve opened the door for all kinds of bad - including the British returning and re-conquering a weakened nation at war with itself.
There were no “free” or “slave” states during the ARev. You’ve superimposed a later “cotton” period onto an earlier period. Slavery was established as a legal institution in each of the Thirteen Colonies, from 1619 onward.
I think it was possible slavery could have been abolished at the constitutional convention. So in return for black people being counted in the census which the South wanted. They must agree to abolish slavery and pay their workers 50 dollars a year, get a part of the yearly harvest of crops and provide them a cabin or place to stay at the plantation. In return they must agree to work at the plantation and if they chose to leave they must find food and a home elsewhere. 50 dollars was minimum wage during the late 18th century.
Washington was also very afraid of a civil war. Of course, that is what ended up happening, but if Washington as President came out against slavery, that may alone have caused a rebellion. If what happened in 1861 happened in 1790, this country wouldn’t have survived.
The question,"Why Didn't Washington Abolish Slavery ?" could only be asked by a 21st century person. It was part of the culture and the economy. The question could also be asked,"Why weren't the freed slaves after the Civil War sento to Africa or Sout America as both Jefferson Davis and Abraham LIncoln thought ?
Why would they want to go back to Africa? When it was their own people who sold them? For what? Alcohol? Yeah they were sold for Alcohol and not money. To this day there is upto 700,000 slaves in Africa. To send them back wouldn't of been ideal, maybe just let them be free and choose where they wanted to go would of been better.
Well,he did doubt his actions along the way,even writing letters to a few friends about how he disliked Slavery.But that was a secret issue.Most people would've called him mad.Of course,it can't be ignored that he was a slaver,but he was quite a step ahead of his time.A victim of circumstances,in a way.
@@edwardkenway1743 ahead of his time? plenty of ppl were against it…. can we stop the lying pls, he did free his slaves upon his death which makes him redeemable but let’s not act like he was a victim LOL
@@Armed-Forever He was ahead of his time in the sense that he doubted his actions.Of course,he was,in many ways,a product of his time.And,if you don't mind,I suggest you study about the racial dominance that persisted that time.And still if there is something wrong,please tell me.I would gladly like to listen to it.Thank you.😊
When the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, it was well known that the the Southern states would not agree to any Constitution that forbade slavery. For them, it was a non-starter. So the 53 delegates from the twelve states (Rhode Island didn't send anybody...) basically punted. The Northern states didn't push for national abolition, as the need for a Constitution was critical. The young nation was about to fail without one. So the young nation, born of freedom, permitted slavery for many more decades. The Civil war was the price the nation paid as a result of those delegates punting.
They forgot about the part where abolishing slavery would have meant he had no slaves to work his plantation. He didn’t abolish slavery because he didn’t want to.
He didnt want to have slaves after he came to fruition and Virginia had laws against freeing slaves. Slaves dont make that much money compared to the machines they had
The Emancipation Proclamation was a tool that Abraham Lincoln used in his quest to keep the Union in tact! If gave the Southern States three months to return to the control of the Federal Government or lose their slaves. If they didn’t it would give him the high moral ground for his conquest of his Confederacy!
"It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one." George Washington Well sir, a bad excuse is when you had ample opportunity to free the slaves that have been working on Mount Vernon for years. But you chose to follow other plantation owners and the worry of the economies destruction to even hear their cries. That cousin is an excuse and a very, very bad one.
The more I've learnt about slavery and manumission (and I'm far from an expert) the more I've learnt that pro-slavery politicians deliberately made it difficult. Virginia slave owners were not allowed to simply say to his slaves 'youre free'. If he tried that, the owner would be punished and those 'freed' slaves would be rounded up and brought back to the owner or given to other slave owners. To free a slave you had to support them financially for the rest of their lives. In 1776 there was no welfare state for the poor. Then they made manumission only permissible at the owner's death. Meanwhile, slave families kept growing and growing. How could the owner afford to free them? That Washington freed his slaves at his death was the only legal way possible and was a financial planning achievement for him and for the work of the slaves who made their own freedom possible financially. I might be wrong about some of this, I'm no historian, this is just what I've gathered from reading and watching videos. So fact check me, it's complicated is the point. The more I learn about Washington and the world in which he lived, the more he seems like he was great for his time, at least. Just my two cents. Wish he could have ended slavery by declaration, but only Congress had that power, and in the end even they couldn't do it. Took a civil war and a half million dead folks.
You forget that the foundation of our nation forbids the president from making laws and total control he (as said in the video) didn't have the authority to do so (as it says in the Constitution) you need approval from Congress that is why he couldn't pass it, the pro slavery congressmen could with two-thirds of a vote.
Ignorance and more ignorance. You've been under modern government over reach too long man. A president cannot make laws, just like the ATF, IRS, or FBI cannot. A president cannot waive property or debts. (Biden's student forgiveness for example) It is constitutionally impossible, no matter how right or wrong it is.
The Emancipation Proclamation had no effect on the seceding states for two reasons. 1) They were no longer a part of the Union, therefore a presidential proclamation of any kind had no legal effect. 2) Since Lincoln considered them still part of the Union (he was wrong), the Constitution still appled and slavery was still legal and his proclamation had no legal effect.
What a difference, mexico's first proclamation by Jose Maria Morelos one of our founder fathers called the sentiment of the nation says "the slave and the boss have the same right under the new independence proclamation and both have the right to the same acces to the justice, period!
And manumission was tough. We all know of legal but controversial property still. Tobacco and guns, for example. How would you divest yourself if you inherited $10 million of cigarette company stock... without selling the stock? That's the challenge the children of slave owners faced. And manumission meant depriving your descendants of your most transferrable assets.
Triggered...😂 400 years of slavery, oppression, and inequity... and you're whining about the outcome??? 🤣 Bet you're big mad the nazi's lost too. 😜😜😜 What you gonna do? Cry? Lmao!
@@Rylee_DJ When Ona Judge ran away Washington was very annoyed with her and couldn't understand how she could be so ungrateful to him. He repeatedly tried to get her to return to slavery; and her unwillingness to voluntarily return to slavery left him puzzled.
@@Rylee_DJ Like I said, he did not get rid of it, because he saw nothing wrong with it. John Adams on the other hand did see something wrong with slavery.
@@Rylee_DJ He took full advantage of slaves all around him, and saw no issue try to get Ona Judge back. The only concern was the political backlash should he force the issue.
@@Rylee_DJ His actual actions showed his true views on the institution. When George Washington was elected president, fifteen-year-old Ona Judge traveled with seven other enslaved people to the executive residence, first in New York and then in Philadelphia. She was among the enslaved people whom Washington secretly rotated out of the latter city in order to evade the 1780 Pennsylvania emancipation law. Washington asked his secretary to accomplish this rotation “under pretext that may deceive both them and the Public.” On May 21, 1796, as the Washingtons prepared to return to Mount Vernon for the summer, Ona Judge fled. Two days later, Frederick Kitt-the hired steward at the executive residence-placed an advertisement in the Philadelphia Gazette and Daily Advertiser announcing that “Oney Judge” had “absconded” from the president’s house and offering a $10 reward for her recapture. Kitt’s advertisement stated that Judge had run off with “no provocation,” ----------------------------- George Washington had different values than most modern Americans, especially when it came to slavery. Today, someone running to freedom would be fully understood, but at that time many would accept that being a slave was not provocation to seek freedom.
What gives with that? I thought George Washington hated slavery I think that’s what he said? I know that before in my class in the past? I kind of don’t want to know how many slaves how had?
That's not true, Washington's views on slavery change greatly over his life, he wrote that it was "the only unavoidable subject of regret" www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/the-only-unavoidable-subject-of-regret/
@@mountvernon exactly! Some folks are also unaware of the fact that there were also African American slaveowners in America as well. Before and during the civil war. Slavery wasn’t about race.
@@Broomey95 Based on the statements made by confederae leaders before the war and treatment and laws the south made during reconstruction after the Civil War leads one to conclude that slavery was all about race.
@@kylemielke1021 Dude not everyone that thought for the Confederacy thought they were fighting for slavery. Most of them thought they were fighting for their state
@@winterszhuzhupets2 I mean yeah. You're always going to have deviations and exceptions. Some military leaders I suppose decided to stay and fight for their state rather than the slave issue. But that detracts from the main point of Confederate policy which is was to not only preserve (because Lincoln stated he would as much during his presidency) but to expand slavery. The fallacy of the confederacy after the war, and they have done a very good job of doing this, is to say that the Civil War was regarding states rights. Except that state right they were fighting for was the right to have slavery. Slavery is pretty much the answer to every question of how our union was formed from 1800 - 1865 or so from state shapes and size to how many states were in the union, etc. And another important thing. The Union wasn't a saint either when it came to relations with black Americans. Especially when black Americans started to move into northern cities.
He didnt abolish slavery because he believed in the divine right through christ to be independent. To grow his our fruits and vegetables. To have his our nation.
So do you if you live in most 1st world countries. Prisoners are forced to do community service. Many of your products, like your phones are made by literal slaves over seas. But you still buy them for convenience.
Dan, you should spend more time enjoying the freedom fought and died for you by men like Washington rather than whining about it. If you dont like the foundation of this country, go move somewhere else. But I know you wont lol
Actually the first american president did abolish slavery and was the first to draft that order as president. Revolutionary warfare is the why america in his hay day didn't. Foreign influence that's the reason of not paying taxes to the British. The first slave in our america as termed for inmates. There is even history of England declaring war on United States of America in the 20th century, but, when the ships approached they surrendered.
Ken Mackay - They absolutely were geniuses! They were also just men, and like men (and women) from any time they were human beings and made many mistakes. Kings ruled by Devine right. One of the things that separates a democracy from a monarchy is that our rulers are answerable to us.
Gw could fight against “tyranny” but couldn’t tell his new nation to give freedom to all ppl? i don’t buy it, the constitution is great but let’s be real
The negatives shouldn’t outweigh the positives. Without Washington and the Founding Fathers, the US might’ve not been the diverse and free place that it is today.
Those men were products of their time, for better or worse. Judging them on the standards of the 21st Century just isn’t a great way to go about studying history.
A president can not veto the Constitution. The only way to end slavery would be to amend the Constitution. A president, any president has no authority to amend it. That has to be done by Congress and the individual states.
Its funny how everyone thinks they have the moral high ground. But wait 150 years and most of us will retroactively be deemed evil and immoral in some way.
We're all evil. No-one is moral.
@@gloomsouls that's his point smarty pants
150 years from now they will think we were all idiots and will be amazed how will lived life and such a harsh environment, They wouldn’t be able to believe we had to leave the house to do stuff.
Yeah. Spartacus was a well known slave who rebelled against the Roman empire but white people in America needed to figure it out themselves.
We'll at least i didn't own people fucko
One thing missing from this conversation, at the time of the Constitutional Convention slavery was thought to be a dying institution. Slavery was becoming less profitable for plantation owners. There were enough hardcore slave supporters to hold up the Constitution. There were also people who hated slavery and wanted to see it end. Including George Mason, who owned slaves but really grew to hate slavery. The cotton gin changed everything. Also, Virginia, where Washington and Mason were from, had laws forbidding freeing slaves.
That's the same situation with Thomas Jefferson. He thought slavery was an abomination yet he couldn't free his slaves.
They were trapped in this legal cage and had to let all this happen or else they’ll be labelled as criminals. People nowadays miss the fact people were born into the idea slavery is normal, it takes someone to grow up and see the dark side to really put it into perspective. It’s like feeling patriotic that you learn Britain ruled most of the world when you were young, only to learn about the other side of colonialism.
Yeah it took guys like Frederick Douglas to actually get people to see just how bad slavery gets to realize that it's not ok, since apparently not everyone during read their bibles too well and thought since God talked about slavery it was, even he was telling people to actually treat their slaves well and how he freed the jews from Egypt since they were pretty bad masters just the southerners became, also based on what I read about Jefferson is that yeah he wanted to something about it but couldn't during the time but after a while to change his opinions and not only got it in his head that maybe slavery isn't as bad as he thought it was but even became racist spoke about the inferiority of black folk, so long story short, Frederick Douglas was right slavery really is like poison
Also sorry for the long rant just had a bit to say about the subject
Profitable off human trafficking is criminal
@@AboveVenus1 very good poinrt
You all have to remember that this was before the cotton gin. Many founders believed slavery would slowly but surly die away in the southern states. Washington also lived in the 1700s a time when African people were seen as property. It is unfortunate and heartbreaking but we do have to put the founders into the context of their time.
It ended by law with the signing of the Declaration of Independence . The issue was no mystery to George nor to his friend Lafayette who wrote his disbelief at the time .
It is true that GW didn't have the power to end slavery but there was a spirit in the aftermath of the Revolution to end it. This led northern states to gradually abolish it & some in Virginia wanted that. If GW had made a statement in favor of abolition & perhaps freed his slaves in his lifetime, that might not have convinced the Virginia legislature to offer gradual emancipation like northern states but it would have improved his legacy.
GW could not legally do that in the state of Virginia, for that to happen he would of had to get elected to the Virginia state legislature, propose a bill to allow the freeing of one's own slaves in the state of Virginia, somehow get it passed by all the plantation owning elected officials, and then passed into law by the plantation owning governor which at the time did not have free state elections.
And then he could've done what you're suggesting he should've done.
Not only was it not within his power to end slavery, but he didn’t want it to be solely within his power.
The whole point of Washington acting as he did as President and helping form the powers and duties of a POTUS was so one individual didn’t have complete authoritative rule. That’s what the colonies just got done fighting against the crown the British to avoid.
Had Washington had the power and done so, the union may have fallen apart before it ever began because slave states at the time were adamant that they’d only stay in the new Union if they could retain certain states rights, one of those being slavery.
Today slavery is thought of as a solely moral issue and how racist and repulsively wrong it is for whites to own black slaves. While true, the real issue of slavery in that time was an economic one.
Cotton and other crops were hugely profitable to southern states and taking away slavery would’ve significantly hurt their economy. Also at the time, the states wanted to retain states rights and not be betrothed to a large federal government which they felt again was like King George ruling them from afar. So while yes many slave owners and plantation workers were cruel and racist to slaves, they were looked at as property.
So was it wrong? Of course. Was it abhorrent? Absolutely. But thinking about the time period and prevailing thoughts, had Washington just said “slavery is abolished”, its likely the southern states would have done what they did in the Civil War and succeeded.
You may think OK we should’ve just thought the war then but it’s not that easy. The country was in its infancy and had just finished a long, expensive and bloody war. Had we fought a Civil War between free and slave states immediately after the Revolution, it would’ve opened the door for all kinds of bad - including the British returning and re-conquering a weakened nation at war with itself.
A man of reason!
There were no “free” or “slave” states during the ARev. You’ve superimposed a later “cotton” period onto an earlier period. Slavery was established as a legal institution in each of the Thirteen Colonies, from 1619 onward.
I think it was possible slavery could have been abolished at the constitutional convention. So in return for black people being counted in the census which the South wanted. They must agree to abolish slavery and pay their workers 50 dollars a year, get a part of the yearly harvest of crops and provide them a cabin or place to stay at the plantation. In return they must agree to work at the plantation and if they chose to leave they must find food and a home elsewhere.
50 dollars was minimum wage during the late 18th century.
Washington was also very afraid of a civil war. Of course, that is what ended up happening, but if Washington as President came out against slavery, that may alone have caused a rebellion. If what happened in 1861 happened in 1790, this country wouldn’t have survived.
The question,"Why Didn't Washington Abolish Slavery ?" could only be asked by a 21st century person. It was part of the culture and the economy. The question could also be asked,"Why weren't the freed slaves after the Civil War sento to Africa or Sout America as both Jefferson Davis and Abraham LIncoln thought ?
Why would they want to go back to Africa? When it was their own people who sold them? For what? Alcohol? Yeah they were sold for Alcohol and not money. To this day there is upto 700,000 slaves in Africa. To send them back wouldn't of been ideal, maybe just let them be free and choose where they wanted to go would of been better.
Or, it may have never occured in his mind because he was a slave owner.
He try to free his slaves look it up
Well,he did doubt his actions along the way,even writing letters to a few friends about how he disliked Slavery.But that was a secret issue.Most people would've called him mad.Of course,it can't be ignored that he was a slaver,but he was quite a step ahead of his time.A victim of circumstances,in a way.
@@nathanr3447 he didn't try to free his slaves he looked for a slave that ran away for years so that just proves he wanted slavery
@@edwardkenway1743 ahead of his time? plenty of ppl were against it…. can we stop the lying pls, he did free his slaves upon his death which makes him redeemable but let’s not act like he was a victim LOL
@@Armed-Forever He was ahead of his time in the sense that he doubted his actions.Of course,he was,in many ways,a product of his time.And,if you don't mind,I suggest you study about the racial dominance that persisted that time.And still if there is something wrong,please tell me.I would gladly like to listen to it.Thank you.😊
To save you 3 minutes, he couldn’t. Slavery was state by state then. It required a constitutional amendment to abolish it.
When the Delegates to the Constitutional Convention met in 1787, it was well known that the the Southern states would not agree to any Constitution that forbade slavery. For them, it was a non-starter. So the 53 delegates from the twelve states (Rhode Island didn't send anybody...) basically punted. The Northern states didn't push for national abolition, as the need for a Constitution was critical. The young nation was about to fail without one.
So the young nation, born of freedom, permitted slavery for many more decades. The Civil war was the price the nation paid as a result of those delegates punting.
why couldn’t they just create a nation without the south? exactly, stop with the defending of nonsense pls
They forgot about the part where abolishing slavery would have meant he had no slaves to work his plantation. He didn’t abolish slavery because he didn’t want to.
He didnt want to have slaves after he came to fruition and Virginia had laws against freeing slaves. Slaves dont make that much money compared to the machines they had
I was wondering about the emancipation Proclamation
The Emancipation Proclamation was a tool that Abraham Lincoln used in his quest to keep the Union in tact! If gave the Southern States three months to return to the control of the Federal Government or lose their slaves. If they didn’t it would give him the high moral ground for his conquest of his Confederacy!
the EP did not end slavery. The 13th amendment did.
That was Lincoln, not Washington.
"It is better to offer no excuse than a bad one."
George Washington
Well sir, a bad excuse is when you had ample opportunity to free the slaves that have been working on Mount Vernon for years. But you chose to follow other plantation owners and the worry of the economies destruction to even hear their cries. That cousin is an excuse and a very, very bad one.
The more I've learnt about slavery and manumission (and I'm far from an expert) the more I've learnt that pro-slavery politicians deliberately made it difficult. Virginia slave owners were not allowed to simply say to his slaves 'youre free'. If he tried that, the owner would be punished and those 'freed' slaves would be rounded up and brought back to the owner or given to other slave owners. To free a slave you had to support them financially for the rest of their lives. In 1776 there was no welfare state for the poor. Then they made manumission only permissible at the owner's death. Meanwhile, slave families kept growing and growing. How could the owner afford to free them? That Washington freed his slaves at his death was the only legal way possible and was a financial planning achievement for him and for the work of the slaves who made their own freedom possible financially. I might be wrong about some of this, I'm no historian, this is just what I've gathered from reading and watching videos. So fact check me, it's complicated is the point. The more I learn about Washington and the world in which he lived, the more he seems like he was great for his time, at least. Just my two cents. Wish he could have ended slavery by declaration, but only Congress had that power, and in the end even they couldn't do it. Took a civil war and a half million dead folks.
@@jamesflynn4741 Very interestin take.
You forget that the foundation of our nation forbids the president from making laws and total control he (as said in the video) didn't have the authority to do so (as it says in the Constitution) you need approval from Congress that is why he couldn't pass it, the pro slavery congressmen could with two-thirds of a vote.
Ignorance and more ignorance.
You've been under modern government over reach too long man.
A president cannot make laws, just like the ATF, IRS, or FBI cannot.
A president cannot waive property or debts. (Biden's student forgiveness for example)
It is constitutionally impossible, no matter how right or wrong it is.
He also needed help to stand guard of this new republic through the nation. From east to west
If he tried to free slaves during that time he would have became a slave himself.
Abolishing slavery early on wouldve been highly controversial and would probably had made washington very unpopular in the southern states.
The Emancipation Proclamation had no effect on the seceding states for two reasons.
1) They were no longer a part of the Union, therefore a presidential proclamation of any kind had no legal effect.
2) Since Lincoln considered them still part of the Union (he was wrong), the Constitution still appled and slavery was still legal and his proclamation had no legal effect.
What a difference, mexico's first proclamation by Jose Maria Morelos one of our founder fathers called the sentiment of the nation says "the slave and the boss have the same right under the new independence proclamation and both have the right to the same acces to the justice, period!
And manumission was tough. We all know of legal but controversial property still. Tobacco and guns, for example. How would you divest yourself if you inherited $10 million of cigarette company stock... without selling the stock? That's the challenge the children of slave owners faced. And manumission meant depriving your descendants of your most transferrable assets.
For the same reason we are regretting this decision today.
He knew what would come of it.
Been paying for years and nothing good came of it.
Triggered...😂
400 years of slavery, oppression, and inequity... and you're whining about the outcome??? 🤣
Bet you're big mad the nazi's lost too. 😜😜😜
What you gonna do? Cry? Lmao!
You can tell who are the educated and who are the emotionally driven, fueld by propaganda, just by reading the comments... Very sad.
May have overly supported slavery and possibly was not willing to change.
He writes extensively about how he thinks it's wrong.
Please read and study before typing libel.
it wasnt difficult he allowed it
How could he stop it? A president CAN NOT write laws. He does not have the power to do that. Laws are written by Congress.
Autistic comment.
And when we added Kansas, the pot boiled over.
Because he saw nothing wrong with it. See his response to Ona (Oney) Judge.
@@Rylee_DJ When Ona Judge ran away Washington was very annoyed with her and couldn't understand how she could be so ungrateful to him. He repeatedly tried to get her to return to slavery; and her unwillingness to voluntarily return to slavery left him puzzled.
@@Rylee_DJ Like I said, he did not get rid of it, because he saw nothing wrong with it. John Adams on the other hand did see something wrong with slavery.
@@Rylee_DJ He took full advantage of slaves all around him, and saw no issue try to get Ona Judge back. The only concern was the political backlash should he force the issue.
@@Rylee_DJ His actual actions showed his true views on the institution.
When George Washington was elected president, fifteen-year-old Ona Judge traveled with seven other enslaved people to the executive residence, first in New York and then in Philadelphia. She was among the enslaved people whom Washington secretly rotated out of the latter city in order to evade the 1780 Pennsylvania emancipation law. Washington asked his secretary to accomplish this rotation “under pretext that may deceive both them and the Public.”
On May 21, 1796, as the Washingtons prepared to return to Mount Vernon for the summer, Ona Judge fled.
Two days later, Frederick Kitt-the hired steward at the executive residence-placed an advertisement in the Philadelphia Gazette and Daily Advertiser announcing that “Oney Judge” had “absconded” from the president’s house and offering a $10 reward for her recapture.
Kitt’s advertisement stated that Judge had run off with “no provocation,”
-----------------------------
George Washington had different values than most modern Americans, especially when it came to slavery. Today, someone running to freedom would be fully understood, but at that time many would accept that being a slave was not provocation to seek freedom.
What gives with that? I thought George Washington hated slavery I think that’s what he said? I know that before in my class in the past? I kind of don’t want to know how many slaves how had?
Compromise of 1850
Because who would wash the sheets at Mount Vernon?
Is your name Summer?!😐😐😐
He's leaving out one important detail to all that b******* you could just saying George Washington didn't want to end slavery
That's not true, Washington's views on slavery change greatly over his life, he wrote that it was "the only unavoidable subject of regret" www.mountvernon.org/george-washington/slavery/the-only-unavoidable-subject-of-regret/
@@mountvernon exactly! Some folks are also unaware of the fact that there were also African American slaveowners in America as well. Before and during the civil war. Slavery wasn’t about race.
@@Broomey95 Based on the statements made by confederae leaders before the war and treatment and laws the south made during reconstruction after the Civil War leads one to conclude that slavery was all about race.
@@kylemielke1021 Dude not everyone that thought for the Confederacy thought they were fighting for slavery. Most of them thought they were fighting for their state
@@winterszhuzhupets2 I mean yeah. You're always going to have deviations and exceptions. Some military leaders I suppose decided to stay and fight for their state rather than the slave issue. But that detracts from the main point of Confederate policy which is was to not only preserve (because Lincoln stated he would as much during his presidency) but to expand slavery.
The fallacy of the confederacy after the war, and they have done a very good job of doing this, is to say that the Civil War was regarding states rights. Except that state right they were fighting for was the right to have slavery.
Slavery is pretty much the answer to every question of how our union was formed from 1800 - 1865 or so from state shapes and size to how many states were in the union, etc.
And another important thing. The Union wasn't a saint either when it came to relations with black Americans. Especially when black Americans started to move into northern cities.
He didnt abolish slavery because he believed in the divine right through christ to be independent. To grow his our fruits and vegetables. To have his our nation.
He also had slaves
So do you if you live in most 1st world countries.
Prisoners are forced to do community service.
Many of your products, like your phones are made by literal slaves over seas.
But you still buy them for convenience.
❤❤❤❤❤❤
Man stop lying to that girl he didn't end it bcuz he benefitted from it
He valued money over human life thats why. Greed and hate were jis guiding principles
And that is why he risked his own life for this nation?
Dan, you should spend more time enjoying the freedom fought and died for you by men like Washington rather than whining about it. If you dont like the foundation of this country, go move somewhere else. But I know you wont lol
@@JoMama123451234 Given his reparations which are Old to him and I bet he will
Actually the first american president did abolish slavery and was the first to draft that order as president. Revolutionary warfare is the why america in his hay day didn't. Foreign influence that's the reason of not paying taxes to the British. The first slave in our america as termed for inmates. There is even history of England declaring war on United States of America in the 20th century, but, when the ships approached they surrendered.
A lie for every generation. What's God to do with this?
Because he didn’t view black people as man period.
No more excuses he’s not special.
your kidding right !
People need to back off of criticising the found fathers . They were geniuses .
Ken Mackay - They absolutely were geniuses!
They were also just men, and like men (and women) from any time they were human beings and made many mistakes.
Kings ruled by Devine right. One of the things that separates a democracy from a monarchy is that our rulers are answerable to us.
Ken Mackay that fat wrinkly old ugly ass man ain’t my father
Why worship flawed men when you could worship God?
...And racist!!!
A bunch of BS
Why would he this is dumb
Gw could fight against “tyranny” but couldn’t tell his new nation to give freedom to all ppl? i don’t buy it, the constitution is great but let’s be real
Because the ends justified the means... It's bazaar to revere people of the past we would consider worthy of executing today.
Or people today executed then for acts they deemed intolerable?
The negatives shouldn’t outweigh the positives. Without Washington and the Founding Fathers, the US might’ve not been the diverse and free place that it is today.
Those men were products of their time, for better or worse. Judging them on the standards of the 21st Century just isn’t a great way to go about studying history.
@@sledgehammerk35 not true at all, the British crown literally advocated ending it… quakers?
... this is so cringeworthy. The 13th amendment ended slavery? Um, have you not read the 13th amendment?
Had Washington become King ,he could have done anything he pleased.
@He ro He could have end slavery had he become King
@@fannybuster and start an entire nation based on monarchy that they just fought against.
@@jaydani1996 A President is like a king ,He can use executive order to decree his wish just about any time he chooses
@@fannybuster holy hell u have no idea what democracy is do you?
@@fannybuster not quite, presidents are voted in, but a king inherits his position through birthright
LIE. He could’ve vetoed it! Liar
A president can not veto the Constitution. The only way to end slavery would be to amend the Constitution. A president, any president has no authority to amend it. That has to be done by Congress and the individual states.
He didn't answer the question
Yes he did. Presidents do not write laws (they do not have the authority to). Only Congress can write federal law .