George Washington's slaves could hunt

[another okie]

I've been reading about Washington as a farmer and slave owner recently and found that his slaves, at Mount Vernon at least, could hunt and fish on their own time to supplement their food. They could legally own guns if their master gave them permission, which Washington often did. He also occasionally supplied them with lead shot, apparently so they could provide wild game for both themselves and him.

Some of the slaves who were good hunters were known by name and reputation as good sources for wild game, and gun parts, lead shot, and flints were found in the cellar of one of the slave quarters at Mount Vernon.

I just thought that was interesting, especially in light of how frantic white Democrats were to disarm blacks during Reconstruction, and even today in places such as Washington, D.C., just a few miles away.

 

[Roswell 1847]

Washington was legally barred from freeing his slaves, they had come to him as his wife's property when they married and his wife was against freeing them for her own reasons.
Several Founding Fathers who were personally against slavery found that laws requiring that a cash bond be posted for every slave they freed made it impossible for them to free the slaves they had inherited along with the family property, they just didn't have that much money everything being tied up in keeping the business afloat. Most of these men seemed prosperous but like Jefferson were eyeball deep in debt most of their lives.

I've read that Washington often hunted with one of the slaves and they were close friends beyond the master slave relationship.

One story about Washington I always liked was when a Free Blackman took off his hat and bowed as Washington walked past. Washington then removed his own hat and returned the bow with a flourish. A Frenchman walking with Washington was flabbergasted to see a Whiteman return a bow to a Blackman. Washington said "I could not allow him to be more a Gentleman than I".

 

[RLsnow]

some people ive talked with almost foamed at the moath raving about how washington was a hypcrite and all that...

 

[cbsbyte]

some people ive talked with almost foamed at the moath raving about how washington was a hypcrite and all that...

That is the sad fact in todays world. Most of the information taught in schools in this country and elsewhere is that many of the founding fathers where slave owners, but leave out the fact that most of them where morally against it even if they owned slaves. Its trying to reinturpet history to suit the current political correctness ideaology. As stated above their was little many of them could do about slavery at that time period. Especially after founding a country that was in desperate finanical shape after fighting a prtacted war against Britian. Making slavery illegal would have ecominicaly runied much of the south and probably sunk the whole country. They though the better path would be to slowly ween the country off slavery over a period of time.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

Until the cotton gin was invented it seemed likely slavery would fade out. Unfortunately, it didn't, partly due to the cotton gin and the profits it made possible. But, that's an interesting detail on Washington...and interestingly enough, the inventor of the cotton gin and others in his family were also into guns quite heavily, leading to the Whitney name being associated with firearms for many decades...

 

[mp510]

I'm personally surprised that he would allow his slaves to have weapons. From a practical position, there was a strong potential for revolt and violence. However, it says one of two things about Washington- either that he was an idiot (which I doubt) or that he was a compassionate slave holder and was respected by those under his bondage.

 

[mekender]

I'm personally surprised that he would allow his slaves to have weapons. From a practical position, there was a strong potential for revolt and violence. However, it says one of two things about Washington- either that he was an idiot (which I doubt) or that he was a compassionate slave holder and was respected by those under his bondage.

many of the slaves held in the north were more like servants that paid for their room and board by working... not every slave owner was a brutal abuser that beat his slaves to death... there are countless stories of owners making their slaves get educations, building them churches, and yes even letting them have guns...

 

[another okie]

Some visitors to Mount Vernon said Washington was a kind master, others said he was a harsh master, so there's evidence on both sides. One explanation is that he was an agricultural experimenter who regularly asked his slaves to learn new agricultural skills and techniques, and we all know how people hate change. He did use physical force on his slaves, but he also had black overseers.

Roswell1847 - you are correct about some of the slaves at Mount Vernon, who were the dower property of his wife from her first marriage. However, he also owned some slaves in his own name, which he could have freed at any time, but he did not free them until his death. His ideas about slavery changed over his lifetime and he began to grow uneasy about it after the revolution.

It is important to remember that slavery was a matter of state law, so it varied from place to place. In some states setting slaves free was illegal, in others it was easy. In Virginia it was legal but there were some requirements and formalities to go through that discouraged manumission.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

"...not every slave owner was a brutal abuser that beat his slaves to death."

Most of that thinking was anti-slave propaganda. Think about it. A slave owners self-interest would prevent most of them from abusing their slaves. Slaves were expensive and most people could not afford to own them. In fact, most wanted to keep their slaves happy as they contributed more to the household when happy. This is supported by the fact that many slaves, after the War Between the States was over, went back to their old master's houses to get their old jobs back. They just had a different job title and could quit if they wanted to.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

Applying todays moral standards to history is intellectually dishonest.
Do we want to go back and round up all the living WWII bomber pilots that flew missions over Germany and Japan and prosecute them for bombing civilians? we would call that a war crime today.

 

[mekender]

Applying todays moral standards to history is intellectually dishonest.
Do we want to go back and round up all the living WWII bomber pilots that flew missions over Germany and Japan and prosecute them for bombing civilians? we would call that a war crime today.

and dont forget the guys that used flamethrowers to clear out bunkers and the shot the screaming flaming men to death as they ran out..oh the horror!!! /sarcasm off

 

[Grizzly Adams]

Phil DeGraves, this is a point that most so called Civil War historians fail to mention or take into consideration when writing or discussing this subject.

We could go into a whole dissertation about this but it would be off-topic, so enuff said!

 

[lacoochee]

After the war the North provided nothing for the newly freed slaves. Many of them left their plantations and headed for the cities for help and there was precious little help in those days, everyone suffered in the end and many returned home. My family clothed and fed our freed slaves for many years after they were freed, we still provide help when needed to their descendents even now a 151 years later.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

My family was to poor to have any slaves, they were barely better off then slaves themselves, but yeah we still provide for their descendents even now 151 years later.

 

[Jim K]

Most of us today have no concept of slavery or the way it worked. Slaves were a commodity, made necessary by the heavy planting of labor intensive crops. There was no way free people would willingly work in the tobacco or cotton fields unless they were paid so much that the crops could not be sold competitively. (Other areas, notably Turkey and North Africa also grew both crops, also using slave labor.)

Slaves were generally not treated with extreme cruelty since they had to be kept well enough to work, but the idea that they were treated with loving kindness is fiction originally put out by those who had owned or whose ancestors had owned slaves. I doubt many of us would like to experience that sort of love and kindness.

Some time back my wife, who had read about Jefferson having children by a slave woman, asked me why he would "have an affair" with a slave. I replied, "Why not, he owned her." My wife about had a fit.

Jim

 

[Roswell 1847]

Some time back my wife, who had read about Jefferson having children by a slave woman, asked me why he would "have an affair" with a slave. I replied, "Why not, he owned her." My wife about had a fit.

Some doubts have surfaced about the identity of the father of Sally Hemmings children. The DNA testing only narrowed it down to a dozen or so of Jefferson's male relatives, a number of whom were regular visitors to the Plantation. Also one baby was certainly not his unless it was a fifteen month pregnancy.
Sally's sons all looked to Thomas Jefferson as a fatherly figure but its not a sure bet that he was their biological father.
He seems to have dodged the issue because he feared that an affair with the wife of a friend might come out if he allowed speculation on his sexlife to become a public issue.
Can't say for sure either way, but since Sally's wellfare was his responsibility her children were his responsibilty whoever the father was, and they are genetically Jefferson kin.

PS
While Jefferson had some racist views towards Black People he was not a White Supremist, he openly stated that he believed the American Indian to be the equal of the Whiteman in every way.

 

[ilbob]

A lot of what people think they know about slavery is based on fiction. Fictional books, fictional movies, and fictional TV miniseries.

Most slaves were owned not by those with large plantations, but by individual farmers who often owned just one slave, as that was all they could afford. The poor white farmer generally worked alongside his slave (or in a few cases slaves), because that is what he had to do to survive.

Such a farmer would be no more likely to seriously mistreat his slave(s) than to mistreat a mule or other farm animal. They were valuable property and hard for a poor farmer to replace due to the expense. I do not mean to suggest they were in any way treated with kid gloves, but a badly mistreated slave was not real valuable to anyone, and very few could afford to mistreat them.

Slavery as an institution has existed in this world probably almost as long as there have been human beings. It still exists to this day. To expect an 18th century slave owner to accept a 21st century view of slavery is not realistic.

 

[Titan6]

Gosh, some of you make it sound almost okay to own another person as chattel. By and large I think many slaves were allowed firearms in a limited way, simply because they knew their situation was hopeless and they were treated well enough. But most were not for the same reasons.

 

[ilbob]

Gosh, some of you make it sound almost okay to own another person as chattel. By and large I think many slaves were allowed firearms in a limited way, simply because they knew their situation was hopeless and they were treated well enough. But most were not for the same reasons.

I don't recall anyone saying, or even almost saying, that slavery was OK.

You are kind of making an assumption that I am not all that sure is warranted, i.e.-that a majority of slaves wanted to be free. Keep in mind most of them came originally from slave owning regions of Africa where the practice was even more wide spread than in the US. I am not suggesting that at least some slaves might not want out of their condition, but I am also not sure that it was widespread.

I suspect that until the early 1800s, that slaves might well have commonly had access to firearms for hunting. It is known that slaves supplemented their diet with wild game, and one would think that larger critters would mostly be taken with firearms.

 

[gc70]

There was no way free people would willingly work in the tobacco or cotton fields unless they were paid so much that the crops could not be sold competitively.

Perceptions of "willingly" may differ, but my grandparents (born 1893 and 1898, respectively) worked in the cotton fields for less-than-princely waqes.

 

[General Geoff]

Remember also that back then, the only firearms available for use were single shot muskets or (rarely) rifles. Even if a slave was of the mind to revolt with said firearm, he'd only get one shot off before being subdued and/or killed. I'm not too sure a slave owner would allow a slave to use any kind of modern weapon if they were available, as it would be far more feasible to rebel effectively with a repeating firearm.

 

[RoadkingLarry]

Geoff, check your history, repeating arms were very very scarce prior to 1861. Flintlocks were still in fashion as late as 20 years before the War of Northern Agression. I would imagine a smoothbore fouling piece would not have been out of bounds in some cases but a single shot cap lock rifle was about as modern as you got in the years leading up to 1861.

 

[AntiqueCollector]

There were repeating arms of various types (revolvers, pepperboxes, and some oddball guns like Isaiah Jennings' 12 shot flintlock repeater) but they were expensive.

And FWIW, conditions in northern and also European and British factories were not really any better than what the slaves had, but people worked there "willingly" (or rather, out of necessity to avoid starving).

 

[Roswell 1847]

Almost without exception African Slaves were originally bought from Africans.
They were the ultimate Displaced Persons.
When Jefferson and others banded together to arrange the purchase of Liberia as a colony and new start for freed slaves, those freed slaves immediately started treating the native Liberians as second class citizens and showed every prejudice towards those unfortunates that Whites had shown towards them in the US.

 

[another okie]

To clarify, the historical sources almost always refer to the use of shotguns by slaves, very rarely to rifles. And even that was rare. I didn't mean to say that Washington gave broad permission to own firearms to his slaves, only to a select few who he trusted and were known as good hunters.

Eyewitnesses said that ducks and geese were so thick along the Potomac then that it was almost impossible to miss!