Writing on the op-ed pages of the New York Times on July 7, 2009, columnist David Brooks clearly touched a nerve.
His column, entitled "In Search of Dignity," topped the Times list of most emailed articles and drew hundreds on online comments, many of them laudatory. Brooks used the column to celebrate the good manners, civility and dignity possessed by George Washington. These attributes, Brooks believed, could be traced back to Washington's boyhood, when he scrupulously copied out maxims from the "Miss Manners" of his day, a book called Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior in Company and Conversation. Among its 110 rules:
When in Company, put not your Hands to any Part of the Body not usually Discovered.
Brooks then contrasted Washington's demeanor in public with that of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford -- he of the secret rendezvous in Argentina that didn't stay secret-- and Governor Sarah Palin, who chose Friday afternoon on the July 4th Weekend to inform the world that she was resigning as Governor of Alaska for reasons that many found mystifying. Brooks bemoaned the fact that these modern Republicans just couldn't hold a candle to Washington when it came to dignified behavior.
Brooks, an unapologetic conservative, finally made the leap to Barack Obama, surprising many readers with an admiring nod that placed the current President on equal footing with the First President in terms of his public demeanor.
Set against the backdrop of the day's Michael Jackson memorial frenzy, the piece clearly tapped into a great American yearning for civility and a gentler time when wise men with Washington's virtues held court.
But his argument has a fatal flaw. As I read Brooks' words, the obvious jumped off the page. In his catalog of Washington's public virtues and civility, David Brooks neglected to mention that George Washington owned, bought and sold his fellow human beings. When they ran away, he took out advertisements offering a reward for their return. He ran such an advertisement in 1761 when three of his "Negroes" took flight.
Whoever apprehends the said Negroes, so that the Subscriber may readily get them, shall have, if taken up in this County, forty shillings reward. . .
Brooks neglected this uncomfortable fact of Washington's life. It is a truth all the more evident in light of the recent celebration of the Declaration of Independence. With its clarion call that "All Men are created equal," the Declaration was written by Washington's fellow Virginian who also relied completely upon slave labor to put food on his table. Yet both men would have been completely at home owning Barack Obama, his wife and their children and perhaps selling some or all of them if necessary.
It was for this fact that Samuel Johnson once railed in Parliament:
How is that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?
The great contradiction between Washington's dignity and idealism and the fact he was a slave owner is at the heart of so much of what was rotten in this country for centuries. It strikes me as outlandish to attempt to laud Washington's courtly demeanor without reflecting on this great stain on his character. And the "everybody did it back then" defense doesn't cut it either. Washington knew slavery was wrong and completely at odds with what he was fighting for. It is shameful to give him --and the rest of the "Revolutionary Generation-- a pass when it comes to America's "original sin."
As the events of the day have shown, we live in a world that is quick to lavish praise on the departed --to cover a multitude of sins up in an orgy of adulation that allows the country to feel some pride in a sanitized past. But when we overlook the "evil that men do" in singing those praises, the music starts to sound very tinny.
True dignity demands far more than decent manners.
Follow Kenneth C. Davis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/kennethcdavis
I'm glad that you went on to point out Washington's postmortem manumission and his opposition to the expansion of slavery in the new republic. I also feel it important that your readers take note of something you mention in passing: Lafayette's abolitionism. Add to that Kosciusko's freeing of slaves which along with land, were given to him for his Revolutionary War service. Kosciusko who felt that slavery was wrong, granted the freedmen land. A prominent Virginian, who was a cousin of Thomas Jefferson, not only freed his slaves at his death in 1796, he left them 400 acres of his land which became the prosperous community of Israel Hill.
Also, slavery has to be taken in context of the times. Yes it was wrong, but big wrongs don't change overnight.
Compare America of 1776 to the middle ages and you see tremendous progress in human rights. All the gains could not be made at once. Eventually slavery was abolished and would have happened even without the Civil war as machines eventually became more efficient and cheaper to use than slave would have been.
Thanks for an article trying to induce more white man's guilt. You think slavery is bad. Go check out the Middle East and Africa where woman are still considered possessions of men, and not just white men. Female genital mutilation? Not in America.
Okay, now you can all call me names.
And you are are right that slavery must be taken in context. However, my complaint was that Washington's history was a bit too neatly sanitized by Mr. Brooks. It is specious to me to discuss "dignity" and overlook the gross indignity that ownership of slaves meant.
But thank you for taking the time to read.
There. No name calling at all.
In the mid 19th century, 1858, to be exact, another white man said this:"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races-- that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office...." His name? Abraham Lincoln, who though he is revered by Americans today for his championing of emancipation, came to it through war and practical necessity-- and out of a regard for his political base-- free whites who felt (rightly) that they could never expect higher wages so long as they were in competition with slave labor.
Space constrains me from a full history. After the war, in particular, Washington wrote several letters expressing a desire to see slavery abolished over a period of time, recognizing that it was at odds with America's founding principles. He was also urged to emancipate his slaves by his close friend, the Marquis de Lafayette who was an early abolitionist. To Washington's credit, he stopped selling slaves as he did not wish to break up families. And the Northwest Ordinance which he supported, prohibited slavery in some new territories being opened, the first federal attempt to limit slavery's extension. Jefferson, too, expressed hopes for gradual emancipation and wrote the Northwest Ordinance. The record of Washington's growing disdain for slavery is evident and has been examined in depth by several historians. And Washington did, under Virginia law, emancipate some of his slaves in his will.
And yes, by modern standards Lincoln also said things we would consider racist. These are points I discuss in greater depth in some of my books.
When my daughter was in high school about eight years ago, I was shocked at how little her American history textbook taught about Washington and the fact that it focused heavily on the him owning slaves. His life is indeed worth studying, however, and one of the things I have always admired about him is that he was sort of an everyman who led a life that was noble and extraordinary in many ways, as evidenced by his great admiration by public of his day and the men who served under him during the Revolutionary War. Today, our culture seems to have a bent toward denigrating past heros. It is one thing to have a realistic portrait of them, but another to focus mainly on the negatives, which is not helpful to our national psyche.