The Washington Post Calls Out George Washington for Racism, Forgets Their Own Name
- 4.8K Views
The Washington Post released an article on Friday that questioned the name of our first president, George Washington, and how it is so widely used despite the fact that he owned slaves.
The article from the Post comes in response to the growing calls from the Left to rename and remove anything that relates to a historical figure who may have had a "racist" past.
The article was titled: "George and Martha Washington enslaved 300 people. Let’s start with their names."
Throughout the article, the Washington Post hammered George and Martha Washington for their ties to slavery, but left out one important fact: The Washington Post itself is named after George Washington.
"Since this moment of reckoning has led to a prickly discussion about our Founding Fathers’ slave-owning pasts, let us take a moment, starting with George Washington, to think about the people they enslaved," the Post's Michele L. Norris wrote.
Check out what else she had to say:
Did you know that the president was often unwell, having survived two wars and a nasty bout with a cutaneous form of anthrax? He was tended to by Richmond and William Lee during long stretches when he was unable to sit or stand.
Did you know that some of the names belong to people who were “dower slaves,” legally controlled by Martha? She had the money in the family as a widow who was left with thousands of acres and hundreds of people when her first husband, Daniel Parke Custis, died.
Did you know that when Ona Judge escaped, Martha insisted that George do everything in his power to track her down so she could gift her to a granddaughter as an attendant (thus avoiding the need to reimburse her first husband’s estate for loss of property)? And yes, the correct word is “property,” because next to acreage (as in real estate), the enslaved composed the greatest source of wealth for families such as the Washingtons.
Did you know that Pennsylvania’s Gradual Abolition Act of 1780 held that if you lived in that state for more than six months with enslaved people, they could successfully petition for their freedom?
Correspondence shows that Washington thought he was exempt from that law because his work required that he reside in the state for an extended period. His attorney general, Edmund Jennings Randolph, cleared up that false impression when he knocked on Washington’s High Street door in Philadelphia one day to say that Randolph’s own slaves had familiarized themselves with that law and were packing up to leave.
Towards the end of the article, Norris questions the Washington name and asks if he should receive "grace" because he freed his slaves at the time of his death.
"Many say Washington deserves some measure of grace because he arranged to free some of his slaves upon his death," Norris said. "So, he did in death what he would not do in life? We must own up to the fact that he owned people, that those people were separated from their loved ones, made to work without pay, made to live without dignity, made to suffer whippings, made to disappear. Because of that their names are monuments unto themselves."
So one question remains... Will the Washington Post change their name?
What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below!