Thomas Jefferson's Views on Taxing the Wealthy

          "To tax the rich or not to tax the rich,” that is the age old question.  The age old answer, well that depends on who you ask, the Democrats or the Republicans.  But whomever you ask, they will probably believe their answer is the only right answer. With that in mind, I contend that both sides might find it interesting to look back at what at least one of our founding fathers thought about taxation.  And I’m not talking about the, “no taxation without representation,” argument.  I’m talking about one of our founding fathers' views on the collection of revenue and how it relates to services and national debt.  No one can argue against the fact that a government needs revenue to survive, but they don’t always agree on where that revenue should come from.  Our third President of the United States, and author of the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson had very definite ideas on taxation and the accumulation of national debt.

          During his second inaugural address, Jefferson said of Tariffs charged on foreign imports, “…revenue on the consumption of foreign articles is paid cheerfully by those who can afford to add foreign luxuries to domestic comforts.  Being collected on our seaboards and frontiers only, and incorporated with the transactions of our mercantile citizens, it may be the pleasure and pride of an American to ask, what farmer, what mechanic, what laborer ever sees a tax gatherer of the United States?”  It was a matter of pride to Jefferson that those who could not afford to pay taxes, did not have to pay taxes.  Jefferson expanded on this thought in 1811, “These revenues will be levied entirely on the rich, the business of household manufacture being now so established that the farmer and laborer clothe themselves entirely.  The rich alone use imported articles, and on these alone the whole taxes of the general government are levied.”  So, Jefferson was not opposed to the Rich paying all of the taxes that kept the government running.  He even comments on what should be done with a surplus of revenue, “Our revenues liberated from the public debt and its surplus applied to canals, roads, schools, etc., the farmer will see his children educated, and the face of his country made a paradise by contributions of the rich alone, without being called to spend a cent from his earnings.” 

           Many are now shouting, “Jefferson wanted to redistribute wealth!”  However, Jefferson was clear that he did not want these taxes as a means of redistributing wealth, “We do not mean that our people shall be burdened with oppressive taxes to provide sinecures for the idle or the wicked under color of providing for a civil list.”  He also stated that, “Every man is under the natural duty of contributing to the necessities of the society; and this is all the law should enforce on him,” and Jefferson believed, “Taxes on consumption, like those on capital or income, to be just, must be uniform.” 

          With that in mind, there are several things that are standard practice today that I don’t believe Jefferson would agree with.  For example, I don’t believe he would agree with our current policy of giving enormous tax refunds to families who do not pay any taxes at all.  I believe Jefferson would see that as a redistribution of wealth.  Something he was opposed too.  Giving people a hand up is different than giving someone making low wages a hand out.

          Also, Jefferson would not approve of our complex tax code.  Jefferson was all about simplifying and making things easy to understand.  He wrote, “I think it an object of great importance…to simplify our system of finance, and bring it within the comprehension of every member of congress…we might hope to see the finances of the Union as clear and intelligible as a merchant’s books, so that every member of congress and every man of any mind in the Union, should be able to comprehend them, to investigate abuses, and consequently to control them.”   I believe Jefferson would want to see the same principle applied to our tax code.  However, not only is our tax code not simple or easy for anyone to understand, it is far from uniform or fair.

          In addition to his disapproval of the tax code, Jefferson would greatly disapprove of our mounting federal deficit, which our Nation will never have paid off in twenty years time; which is what Jefferson considered the standard time for repayment if you wanted to pay something back in one generation.  In the eighteen hundreds, Jefferson was adamant that one generation had no right to burden the generations that came after.  He said, “We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the succeeding generations, more than the inhabitants of another country…..The laws of nature impose no obligation on one generation to pay another’s debts.”  To this end, Jefferson believed that you, “never borrow a dollar without laying a tax in the same instant for paying the interest annually, and the principal within a given term; and to consider that tax as pledged to the creditors on the public faith.”   I guess, he wasn’t a big supporter of robbing Peter to pay Paul.  It seems he actually believed that if you levied a tax to pay a certain debt, it should be used to pay that debt and only that debt, until the debt was paid and then, as stated above, the surplus would go for schools, roads, canals, etc.

          So where does that leave us today?  We have free trade, so there are no tariffs collected on imports to generate needed revenue.  In fact, opening up free trade helped our manufactures ship our jobs overseas.  Although Jefferson did say that tariffs would eventually be waived on some goods that became staples in society, he believed that tariffs would help support American manufactures because the poor and middle class could by goods made in America cheaper than items imported from other countries.  Jefferson also believed that those who wanted to buy imports would be willing to pay higher prices; thus providing needed revenue to the Federal government.  However, today thanks to free trade, and the loss of American manufacturing, everything is imported so what worked in the nineteenth century will not work for us today.  The poor as well as the rich would be hit by tariffs.

          Therefore, maybe it’s time to start looking at spending cuts, as well as ways to increase revenues; to look at paying our debts as we go and not passing the buck on to our children; to look at ways to simplify our tax code so that businesses and wealthier Americans are not using loop holes to pay less taxes than average working Americans.  Remember, “Taxes must be uniform to be fair.”  Maybe both sides need to sit down and really talk about what is best for America.  When you look at Jefferson’s views of taxation, you find tenets from both the democratic and republican platforms.  So, while we cannot solve our problems by going back to the policies of the eighteen hundreds, maybe if both parties take the time to look to our past, they can learn enough to forge a compromise for our future.  

George Washington's Views on Foreign Affairs

                  George Washington had very definite ideas about many subjects.  How the United States should conduct its Foreign Affairs was definitely one of those subjects.  Being the first President of a young nation and one that was just trying to find its place in the world, Washington believed that it was in the best interest of his country to, “be able to stay disengaged from the labyrinth of European politics and war. . . It should be the policy of the United America to administer to their (Europe’s) wants without being engaged in their quarrels.”              

                Although his views were not always popular, which is putting it mildly, Washington, as in all things, was consistent throughout his administration; making his decisions based on what he felt was in the best interest of the nation.    On several occasion, his refusal to take sides between England and France led to outcries from the American people, especially the “Republicans.”  Many were quick to point out that we had a treaty with France.  Washington, well aware of the treaty between the United States and France had gone over the provisions and concluded that as France was the aggressor in this conflict and as the Monarchy with which the United States had entered into this agreement no longer existed, the treaty was no longer binding.  “Washington felt that entering into a war at that time would have been disastrous for the budding republic, barely on a solid footing itself.”  Therefore, neutrality was in the best interest of the United States.

                When France sent a minister, Edmond Charles Genet, to the United States to argue on their behalf, he was welcomed by the people with open arms.  Genet landed in Charleston, and ignoring protocol, refused to visit the U.S. President first, instead, he began to enlist privateers from among American citizens.  In addition, “In an effort to strengthen French support, the Pennsylvania Democratic Society was formed; it was to be the first of many clubs whose purpose was to incite pro-French, anti-administration feeling throughout the nation.”  The situation with Genet came to a head when he outfitted a former British brigantine, (the Little Sarah) with an American crew and was making ready to sail it against British ships.  President Washington called an emergency Cabinet meeting to decide how to handle the situation, but before they could act, the ship sailed.  “The President immediately sent a stern message to France, demanding that they recall their minister."  The American public by this time had become aware of Genet’s total disregard of America’s laws and sovereignty.  At that point, public opinion shifted squarely back in the corner of George Washington.

                France complied with Washington’s request, and sent a replacement for Genet to the United States.  When he arrived in Philadelphia, he brought with him a letter requesting that George Washington have Genet arrested and returned to France where he would stand trial.  Genet requested asylum from the American President, and Washington granted it, knowing that Genet would be beheaded if he was returned to France.

                However, this victory did not resolve the conflicts in the new Republic over the hostilities between France and England.  The people of the United States were still firmly behind France and they became even angrier with their President when he entered into the Jay Treaty with England.  Washington felt that negotiating a Treaty with England was the best way to stop British attacks on American ships and the conscription of American sailors into the British Navy.  Although Washington was not happy with the final Treaty, and acknowledged that England gained far more than did the United States, he knew the United States was not in a position to wage war.  Therefore, even though the treaty did not address many key American concerns and did not ultimately stop the seizing of American ships, something which was left to future negotiations, it did seem to guarantee continued peace with England.  The President signed the treaty in 1795. 

                As with past Executive decisions, Washington was castigated in the press but ultimately the furor died down and many of the detractors of the treaty had to eventually admit that it was the right course of action for the country, especially as it led to a much needed treaty with Spain; one that Spain was not willing to enter into until they became concerned about a friendly relationship between the United States and Britain.  As a result, the disputes with Spain over the navigation of the Mississippi river, Florida’s boundaries and the issue of neutral rights were resolved.

                In many of his writings, Washington expressed his views on Foreign Relations plainly,  “My Policy in our foreign transactions has been to cultivate peace with all the world; to observe treaties with pure and absolute faith; to check every deviation from the line of impartiality; to explain what may have been misapprehended, and  correct what may have been injurious to any nation; and having thus acquired the right , to lose no time in acquiring the ability to insist upon justice being done to ourselves.”    

                He also wrote, “I have always given it as my decided opinion that no nation had a right to intermeddle in the internal concerns of another; that everyone had a right to form and adopt whatever government they like best to live under themselves; and that if this country could, consistently with its engagements, maintain a strict neutrality and thereby preserve peace, it was bound to do so by motives of policy, interest, and every other consideration that ought to actuate a people situated and circumstanced as we are, already deeply in debt, and in a convalescent state from the struggle we have been engaged in ourselves.”

                And in Washington’s farewell address he stated, “Observe good faith and justice towards all nations. . . .In the execution of such a plan nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations and passionate attachments for others should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated.  The nation which indulges towards another an habitual hatred, or an habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave.  It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.”

                It is thus clear, that Washington firmly believed that our engagements overseas should extend only to those actions which were in our National Interest.  That we should in all cases, allow sovereign nations to decide their own method of government and that we should, as a sovereign nation, respect their choices.  The wave of public opinion ebbs and flows constantly on the seas of political opinion, but Washington in this as in all things, remained true to his corps principles regardless of whether or not that wave was flowing with him or against him.  Truly the mark of a great man!

But for George Washington: America – Monarchy or Military Dictatorship

               Many American’s today don’t realize how close this country came to being either a monarchy or a military dictatorship.  I think it is fair to say, that had we chosen another man to lead the continental armies, one of three things would have happened; One, We would have lost the war and still been a British Colony for many years, two, we would have become a monarchy which is what some close to Washington wanted, or three we would have become a military dictatorship which is what almost happened in 1783 just one month before the peace treaty with Britain was ratified.

                How is this possible you ask?  George Washington was a truly extraordinary man.  He, by the force of his personality, kept the continental army going when they were tired, starving, cold and disheartened.  He also turned down two documented opportunities to use that power to his advantage.

                In May of 1782, he received a letter from Colonel Lewis Nicola, Commander of the Invalid Regiment.  In his letter, Nicola complained about the state of the army, laying out all of the grievances that plagued the Army year after year.  His solution was for Washington to use the army to take over the government and establish a new monarchy.  After all, everyone knew that the reason nothing was being done for the army was because there was no centralized government.  Congress was too weak. 

                Washington’s response was swift and to the point, letting Nicola know that, “you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable.”  He went on to tell Nicola that he never wanted to receive a similar letter from him again.  However, he did acknowledge the validity of Nicola’s concerns with regard to the army and assured him, “he would do everything in his power to find a solution.”

                Unfortunately, this was not the last time Washington would hear about the Army marching on Congress to redress the wrong done to the army.  In February of 1783 Washington received another letter, this time from Alexander Hamilton.  He also talked about the discontent of the army and told Washington that the men were beginning to blame him, Washington, for not doing enough.  He told Washington that many were ready to resort to the sword to procure justice.  Hamilton suggested that Washington take direction of the Army and thereby moderate their demands when they marched on Congress.  General Washington stewed about the letter he received from Hamilton for days.  He believed that if the Army became the arbiters of the law, the results would be disastrous.  Finally he replied to Hamilton, letting him know that “No observations are necessary to evince the fatal tendency of such a measure. . . .It would at this day be productive of civil commotions and end in blood. . . . .God forbid that we should be involved in this.”

                Ultimately, Washington had to call a meeting of his officers to stop such a march on congress and prevent a mutiny of his troops.  His men were chomping at the bit to give Congress a piece of their minds.  They were cold, hungry, and had not been paid for over a year.  And even if they were paid, the money issued by Congress was worthless anyway, and no one would accept it as legal tender.  Printed material had been circulating among his men calling for a meeting of general and field officers.    The circular was also calling for them to forcibly seek redress from the long delinquent Congress.  “Washington immediately issued strict orders condemning the meeting and calling for another meeting to be held on the fifteenth of March.  At that time, Washington felt they could openly discuss their grievances and come to a more intelligent solution to their problems.”

            Washington knew, however, that this situation could still explode.  The night before the meeting was to take place, Washington came to a realization.  He had not planned on attending the meeting, hoping his officers would chose the right course on their own, but upon reflection, he knew that he had to attend to try to stop what he feared would be the result of the day.  His men were angry and he needed to be the one to try to talk them down. 

It was into this environment that Washington walked, on March 15, 1783.  He stood in front of his officers, and with dignity, made his case for advancing the cause of honor and liberty.   Although not recognized as a great orator, when Washington left the tent, his officers voted to abide by Washington’s wishes, only one officer abstained from the vote.  Just one month later, Washington received word that hostilities were to cease.  The peace treaty with Britain had been ratified and America had dodged a bullet.

                I can’t help but compare our revolution, to the struggles that are going on in the Middle East today and their fight for freedom.  Which direction will their new governments take?  It is all too easy to see how one man can make the difference between winning or losing liberty.  Our Country might look so different now if not for the integrity of the Commander in Chief of our Continental Armies.  Washington was a man who held the meaning of liberty in his heart.  He was a man who never wavered from his goal and he served with unwavering loyalty to his country.   Because of him, America has been truly blessed.  We are a unique experiment and we need to follow in the footsteps of George Washington, moving forward with integrity to preserve what he dedicated his life to help create.

An Expanded View of George Washington's Views on Political Parties

George Washington was a very astute man, and during his two terms as President, he was given a front row seat in the development of political parties in the new United States.  Being of no party affiliation himself, he prided himself on being able to collect the relative information on any piece of legislation and then sign it or not based solely on its merits.  However, not everyone in his cabinet felt the same.

             In fact, the first two political parties in this country were founded on the principles and ideas of two members of Washington’s cabinet; Thomas Jefferson, his Secretary of State and Alexander Hamilton, his secretary of the Treasury.  Thomas Jefferson’s followers called themselves “Republicans,” while Alexander Hamilton’s followers called themselves “Federalists.”  “Jefferson believed in the right and ability of the people to rule themselves.  Hamilton felt the common man was incapable of self-rule,” as explained in “The Real George Washington,” part one by Jay A. Perry and Andrew M. Allison.  These two ideas lead to the development of two new newspapers in Philadelphia.   The “Hamiltonians established a national newspaper called The Gazette of the United States, while the Jeffersonians founded The National Gazette.”  In essence, the Republicans believed in a small limited federal government and the Federalist Party fought for a stronger Federal Government with expanded power.   

Although these two men had many differences in ideology and philosophy, the problems between them reached a point of no return when Hamilton pushed the idea of a national bank which would be “under a private, not a public, direction – under the guidance of individual interest, not of public policy.”  Jefferson felt that the constitution did not give the federal government the right to create such a bank but Hamilton argued that “every power vested in a government is in its nature sovereign, and includes, by force of the term, a right to employ all means requisite and fairly applicable to the attainment of the ends of such power, and which are not precluded by restrictions and exceptions specified in the Constitution.”  After much wrangling, the measure passed both houses of congress. 

            Washington asked for written statements from his cabinet before making his decision to sign or veto the measure.  He, himself, was not convinced that the creation of a bank was a right given to the federal government in the constitution.  Two cabinet members opposed the measure believing it unconstitutional; those men were Thomas Jefferson and Attorney General Edmund Randolph.  Two cabinet members supported the measure believing that it was in fact constitutional; Alexander Hamilton and Secretary of War, Henry Knox.  After much deliberation on the merits of the measure, and upon receiving written arguments from all four men on why they held the positions they did, Washington ultimately signed the legislation to create the bank for a limited term of 20 years.  Jefferson strongly felt that the creation of this national bank, even for a term of twenty years was beyond the powers as set forth by the constitution and would only serve to, “raise up a moneyed aristocracy and abandon the public to the discretion of avarice and swindlers.”  While he felt that paper money might have some advantages, he felt its abuses were inevitable, and that by breaking up the measure of value it made a lottery of all private property.

Subsequently, the 10^th amendment to the constitution was passed ten months later which states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or the people.”  With the passage of the tenth amendment, the argument made by Hamilton, that any power not prohibited in the constitution was given to the federal government, could no longer be used as any power not explicitly given to the federal government was now retained by the states and the people. 

Although much of the rhetoric in the new newspapers was focused on either Jefferson or Hamilton, Washington felt that the complaints were against the administration as a whole.  “In condemning the administration of the government, they condemned me, for, if they thought these were measures pursued contrary to my sentiments, they must conceive me too careless to attend to them or too stupid to understand them.” Washington acknowledged that he had signed many acts of which he did not approve in all their parts, but never had he put his hand to one which he did not think eligible on the whole.

When it became clear that Jefferson and Hamilton would never agree on any system of politics, “he urged them to accommodate their differences by mutual yielding.”

“A measure of this sort would produce harmony of consequent good in our public councils, and the contrary will inevitably produce confusion and serious mischiefs.  And all for what?  Because mankind cannot think alike, but would adopt different means to attain the same end.  For I will frankly and solemnly declare that I believe the views of both to be pure and well meant, and that experience only will decide with respect to the salutariness of the measures which are the subjects of this dispute.”

“Why, then, when some of the best citizens of the United States – Men of discernment – uniform and tried patriots – who have no sinister views to promote but are chaste in their ways of thinking and acting, are to be found some on one side and some on the other of the questions which have caused these agitations – why should either of you be so tenacious of your opinions as to make no allowance for those of the other?”    

“I have a great, a sincere esteem and regard for you both and ardently wish that some line could be marked out by which both of you could walk.” 

Despite Washington’ s desire to find a middle ground that his colleagues could walk, Jefferson resigned at the end of Washington’s first term in office and Hamilton resigned a year later.

The Attacks on Washington’s motives and character continued into his second term from the two opposing camps and wounded his feelings.  He wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “I was no believer in the infallibility of politics or measures of any man living. . . . I was no party man myself, and the first wish of my heart was, if parties did exist, to reconcile them.”

He also wrote, “Until within the last year or two ago, I had no conception that parties would, or even could, go to such length as I have been witness to; nor did I believe. . .that every act of my administration would be tortured, and the grossest and most insidious misrepresentations of them made.  He also indicated the opposition had a habit of, “giving one side only of a subject, and that, too in such exaggerated and indecent terms as could scarcely be applied to a Nero, a notorious defaulter, or even to a common pickpocket.”

As the end of his second term neared, Washington was adamant that he would not serve again.  He knew that some wanted him to serve as a monarch did, until death, naming a successor, but that was not what he wanted for the United States.  He wanted a new President to be elected while he yet lived.  Instead giving a farewell address, Washington wrote his farewell address to the people of the United States which was published in September of 1796.  In his letter he offers advice to the new nation on many subjects.  One that he takes some time on is the dangers he saw in political parties.”

                “I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations.  Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.”

                “This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind.  It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.”

                “The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism.  But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism.  The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.”

                “Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

                “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration.  It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.  It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions.  Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.”

                “There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty.  This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party.  But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged.  From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose.  And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it.  A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”

                George Washington was a very wise and a very astute man.  He saw the dangers in allowing political parties to reign uncontrolled.  Yet two men he respected were unable to find common ground.  Why? Because they firmly believed they were doing what was best for the new republic.  Their ideologies were diametrically opposed.  Where they both wrong? 

Even Washington saw merits in both schools of thought.  No one is ever always wrong or always right.  The danger comes in inflexibility.   Jefferson and Hamilton were brilliant men, yet neither was infallible.  Washington himself admitted that he had probably made mistakes, but had acted in all things with the good of country as his foundation.  George Washington tried to look at all sides of an issue and “He acknowledged, indeed that he had signed many acts of which he did not approve in all their parts, put never did he put his hand to one which he did not think eligible on the whole,” according to “George Washington a Biography,” by Washington Irving.  Is it possible in our present time to find a man who truly puts the good of the country before the good of the party?  One who is willing to acknowledge that he may not have all the answers, but who is willing to look at all sides of an issue and try to fined the common ground?  Because I believe that America needs such a man right now!  But, the question is, in the 21^st century, does such a man exist?

George Washington: America's First Independent

              George Washington was a very astute man, and during his two terms as President, he was given a front row seat in the development of political parties in the new United States.  Being of no party affiliation himself, he made his decisions as President in much the same way he did as Commanding General of the Continental Armies.  By Collecting all the relative information (from sources he considered reliable), on any piece of legislation and then making the decision to sign or not to sign based solely on the merits of the bill and on whether or not it would be good for the country.  However, not everyone in his cabinet felt the same.

                In fact, the first two political parties of the United States were formed during Washington’s first term, based on the political ideologies of two men; Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State, and Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury.  The followers of Thomas Jefferson became known as the “Republicans,” while the followers of Alexander Hamilton became known as the “Federalists.”

                The political infighting that we see today is in no way different than the political wrangling that could be seen in the days of George Washington and our Founding Fathers.  At the time, two new newspapers were started to promote the ideas of these two respective philosophies.  What were the beliefs of these men?   Jefferson believed strongly that the people could rule themselves, and he believed in state’s rights, while Hamilton felt that the common man was incapable of self-rule and he advocated for a strong central government with expanded powers.  Sound familiar?

                 Although two hundred and thirty-five years have passed since the signing of the declaration of independence, things haven’t changed all that much.  Our politicians are still having the same old arguments today that they had in the eighteenth century, which only goes to prove that times may change, but people don’t. 

                Washington valiantly tried to keep the peace between these two men and their different ideologies, but instead of keeping the peace he found himself coming under fire.  The new newspapers attacked his character and his motives on any piece of legislation which he supported and they opposed.  Washington was shocked at the lengths to which these parties would go in their efforts to push their opinions.  They would grossly misrepresent the facts, only showing one side and that side was so exaggerated that it bore little resemblance to the truth at all. 

Because of his personal experiences, by the time Washington left office, he felt he needed to warn the American people about the dangers inherent in the existence of political parties.  In the farewell address he wrote to the American people, he spent quite a bit of time on the pit falls he saw ahead for America if we allowed political parties to gain too much traction in society.

                 He said in part, “…the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.”

                “It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration.  It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot and insurrection.”

                 I believe that it is as important for us to remember George Washington’s words and warnings today, as it was for him to write them in is his farewell address to the Nation, published in September of 1796.  We did not heed his warnings then, and today we have two very powerful political parties who have not been kept in check, but instead have run amok.   Therefore, it would behoove us as a free people, to be discerning in our judgments and vigilant in our search for truth; especially when listening to today’s politicians.  It is always important to remember, that the person speaking to you may have an agenda, and that what you are being told is not always the facts, and nothing but the facts, but may be a twisted version of the facts designed to engender the desired response.  In fact, it is as important today, as it was in the days of George Washington to be discriminating in our debates and judicious in our judgments.  To always remember, as Washington did, to keep the good of our country first and foremost in our hearts and minds.

          

                For all those who are interested, tomorrow’s blog will be a more in depth look at George Washington’s views on political parties and the difficulties he had with Jefferson and Hamilton.  I have been told by friends and family that it is dry and hard to read as there are many direct quotes in the old style.  I accept this.  Therefore, if you are not a true History buff, please feel free to give it a miss.  For all of those who are, I hope you enjoy it!

George Washington - One of the First Abolitionists

                I had planned on making my first blog post about Washington’s views on political parties.  I felt this was appropriate considering the focus on the wrangling between the Democrats and Republicans.  However, after receiving an email regarding the covering of a statue of George Washington by the NAACP during the annual South Carolina Martin Luther King rally in January of this year, and upon reading that they had covered this statue for the past four years, I had to respond. 

                 There is a quote, sited on the day, by an unnamed source and sited as having come from a member of the NAACP in South Carolina; the quote, “The Statue has been covered so as not to offend anyone. “  In a later public statement, the NAACP said the statue had been covered to a make a better back drop for the speeches and a video presentation that was going to be played.  It is important to note however, that the video presentation was not ready on the day of the rally so it was not shown.  Yet, the statue was still covered.  In addition, the statue had been covered during the rally for the three previous years. 

                 If it was covered to prevent giving offense to anyone attending the rally, my questions is; who would it offend?  Anyone educated in their history would know that George Washington, while born into a slave owning family, changed his opinions on slavery during the revolutionary war.  He can now be considered one of the first abolitionists.

                It was Washington’s greatest wish that slavery be abolished.  He supported the idea of legislation to do away with slavery over time, understanding that the basis of income in the south was agriculture and that to do away with slavery abruptly, would cause many to lose their lands and lively hoods.  However, he didn’t believe that anyone should traffic in the sale of Human beings.

                Washington stopped purchasing slaves well before the end of the revolutionary war.  He also stopped selling his slaves.  Even though, at the end of the revolutionary war, he was over $120,000 in debt.  The sale of one slave would have paid the taxes on Mount Vernon for a year, but he refused to sell a human being as you would cattle or horses.  In later years, despite the fact that he had twice as many slaves as were needed to run his plantation, an additional expense which would have helped to contributed to his debt, he continued his practice of not selling slaves.  He firmly believed in keeping families together. 

             He was also a strong supporter of the abolition of slavery, but knew it had to be a legislated act accomplished over time.  In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette he wrote that petitions were presented to the Virginia Assembly to abolish slavery in 1786 but they could scarcely obtain a reading.  He let it be known that he would support any such measure. 

There were only two ways to free slaves legally in Virginia during Washington’s life.  One was by deed and one was by will.  Washington did not free his slaves while he lived as he would have had to give up Mount Vernon to do it.  He sold land instead of people to help pay his debts and ultimately had to take a loan a year prior to his death to keep his plantation running.  However, he did free his slaves in his will, requesting that all slaves at Mount Vernon be freed upon the death of Martha.  This did not include those slaves that were acquired by dower, who came to the Estate as a result of marriage.  These slaves were not his to free.  He also made provisions in his will instructing his heirs to continue to care for the elderly and infirm and to ensure that the young were educated and taught a trade.

So why would the appearance of a statue, the statue of the father of our country, the statue of a man who believed in the freedom of all people, offend anyone?  And why isn’t Washington’s name included when we speak about Abolitionists.  I would think that a statue of George Washington would be something to be desired at an event sponsored by the NAACP, not something to be hidden.  But then I know my history.  Do they?  Do you?  Our founding fathers were amazing men, and ones worth taking the time to get to know.  To really know, from original sources and in their own words.

Our Mission

At Histories Attic, our mission is to put the truth back in history.  We will use every due diligence to present the facts without any emotional bias.  Not an easy task as we all have strong opinions about a number of issues.  However, it is our wish that we can present a factual account of history to all who read this blog, thereby allowing them to draw their own conclusions about any subject we discuss.

In addition, we will be reviewing a number of books, putting them to the test as far as truth in their representations.  If a book, for example, is sited as a biography, and a work of fact, we like to think that what is represented is an accurate account of events.  Sadly, we have found that this is not always the case, so we will site examples of the facts and compare it with the fictions whenever possible.

The first series of blogs that we will undertake will be focused on our founding fathers.  "Fact verses fiction," and there is plenty of both to go around.  We will try to be concise in our presentation and objective in our approach.

Join us next week for our first post where the subject will be "George Washington." 

Happy reading to all :)