It does not. That is the subject that I put on the email subject line. I put it because he worked so hard to keep the information off of the public record. Someone who goes out of their way to free thei vr slaves, but attempts to hide it, is in my view, a closet abolitionist. Just my perspective.
From: Albert Fields [mailto:cbilmarket...@yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 7:49 PM To: tdemorse...@multiculturaladvantage.com; kalpub...@aol.com; scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com; dar...@darylelockhart.com; afrikanm...@hotmail.com; bettil...@msn.com; cinque3...@verizon.net; dorothyh...@sbcglobal.net; duva...@hotmail.com; fis...@bellsouth.net; gwashin...@aol.com; jeffreypbal...@gmail.com; killa...@gmail.com; keithbjohn...@comcast.net; imke...@gmail.com; seriousnup...@yahoo.com; logic1...@aol.com; truthseeker...@icqmail.com; mmb1...@gmail.com; gord...@indiana.edu; michael.v.w.gor...@gmail.com; ravena...@yahoo.com; rs...@yahoo.com; everything...@nyc.rr.com; valeryjea...@yahoo.com; wendellsmit...@gmail.com; sonofafieldne...@sbcglobal.net; williamsf...@speakeasy.net; beta...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: George Washington became a abolitionist (in closet) Where does this say that washington was on the DL for abolistionist? I may be reading too, too fast. albert "El mundo es tuyo" _____ From: Tracey de Morsella <tdemorse...@multiculturaladvantage.com> To: kalpub...@aol.com; scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com; dar...@darylelockhart.com; afrikanm...@hotmail.com; cbilmarket...@yahoo.com; bettil...@msn.com; cinque3...@verizon.net; dorothyh...@sbcglobal.net; duva...@hotmail.com; fis...@bellsouth.net; gwashin...@aol.com; jeffreypbal...@gmail.com; killa...@gmail.com; keithbjohn...@comcast.net; imke...@gmail.com; seriousnup...@yahoo.com; logic1...@aol.com; truthseeker...@icqmail.com; mmb1...@gmail.com; gord...@indiana.edu; michael.v.w.gor...@gmail.com; ravena...@yahoo.com; rs...@yahoo.com; everything...@nyc.rr.com; valeryjea...@yahoo.com; wendellsmit...@gmail.com; sonofafieldne...@sbcglobal.net; williamsf...@speakeasy.net; beta...@yahoo.com Sent: Sun, January 17, 2010 9:16:57 PM Subject: RE: George Washington became a abolitionist (in closet) Thanks for the heads up From: kalpub...@aol.com [mailto:kalpub...@aol.com] Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 6:56 PM To: tdemorse...@multiculturaladvantage.com; scifinoir2@yahoogroups.com; dar...@darylelockhart.com; afrikanm...@hotmail.com; cbilmarket...@yahoo.com; bettil...@msn.com; cinque3...@verizon.net; dorothyh...@sbcglobal.net; duva...@hotmail.com; fis...@bellsouth.net; gwashin...@aol.com; jeffreypbal...@gmail.com; killa...@gmail.com; keithbjohn...@comcast.net; imke...@gmail.com; seriousnup...@yahoo.com; logic1...@aol.com; truthseeker...@icqmail.com; mmb1...@gmail.com; gord...@indiana.edu; michael.v.w.gor...@gmail.com; ravena...@yahoo.com; rs...@yahoo.com; everything...@nyc.rr.com; valeryjea...@yahoo.com; wendellsmit...@gmail.com; sonofafieldne...@sbcglobal.net; williamsf...@speakeasy.net; beta...@yahoo.com Subject: Re: George Washington became a abolitionist (in closet) Tracy: This is corroborated by Frederick Douglass in his famous speech. Here is an excerpt.... Excerpt from WHAT IS TO THE SLAVE THE FOURTH OF JULY? by Frederick Douglass, July 5, 1852, Rochester, N.Y. There are illustrations of it near and remote, ancient and modern. It was fashionable, hundreds of years ago, for the children of Jacob to boast, we have "Abraham to our father," when they had long lost Abraham's faith and spirit. That people contented themselves under the shadow of Abraham's great name, while they repudiated the deeds which made his name great. Need I remind you that a similar thing is being done all over this country to-day? Need I tell you that the Jews are not the only people who built the tombs of the prophets, and garnished the sepulchers of the righteous? Washington could not die till he had broken the chains of his slaves. Yet his monument is built up by the price of human blood, and the traders in the bodies and souls of men, shout "We have Washington to our father." Alas! that it should be so; yet so it is. "The evil that men do, lives after them, The good is oft' interred with their bones." Fellow-citizens, pardon me, allow me to ask, why am I called upon to speak here to-day? What have I, or those I represent, to do with your national independence? Are the great principles of political freedom and of natural justice, embodied in that Declaration of Independence, extended to us? and am I, therefore, called upon to bring our humble offering to the national altar, and to confess the benefits and express devout gratitude for the blessings resulting from your independence to us? …. Fellow-citizens! there is no matter in respect to which, the people of the North have allowed themselves to be so ruinously imposed upon, as that of the pro-slavery character of the Constitution. In that instrument I hold there is neither warrant, license, nor sanction of the hateful thing; but, interpreted, as it ought to be interpreted, the Constitution is a GLORIOUS LIBERTY DOCUMENT. Read its preamble, consider its purposes. Is slavery among them? Is it at the gateway? or is it in the temple? it is neither. While I do not intend to argue this question on the present occasion, let me ask, if it be not somewhat singular that, if the Constitution were intended to be, by its framers and adopters, a slave-holding instrument, why neither slavery, slaveholding, nor slave can anywhere be found in it. What would be thought of an instrument, drawn up, legally drawn up, for the purpose of entitling the city of Rochester to a track of land, in which no mention of land was made? Now, there are certain rules of interpretation, for the proper understanding of all legal instruments. These rules are well established. They are plain, common-sense rules, such as you and I, and all of us, can understand and apply, without having passed years in the study of law. I scout the idea that the question of the constitutionality, or unconstitutionality of slavery is not a question for the people. I hold that every American citizen has a right to form an opinion of the Constitution, and to propagate that opinion, and to use all honorable means to make his opinion the prevailing one. Without this right, the liberty of an American citizen would be as insecure as that of a Frenchman. Ex-Vice-President Dallas tells us that the Constitution is an object to which no American mind can be too attentive, and no American heart too devoted. He further says, the Constitution, in its words, is plain and intelligible, and is meant for the home-bred, unsophisticated understandings of our fellow-citizens. Senator Berrien tells us that the Constitution is the fundamental law, that which controls all others. The charter of our liberties, which every citizen has a personal interest in understanding thoroughly. The testimony of Senator Breese, Lewis Cass, and many others that might be named, who are everywhere esteemed as sound lawyers, so regard the Constitution. I take it, therefore, that it is not presumption in a private citizen to form an opinion of that instrument. From: Chris de Morsella [mailto:cdemorse...@yahoo.com <mailto:cdemorse...@yahoo.com?> ] Sent: Sunday, January 17, 2010 6:23 PM To: tdemorse...@multiculturaladvantage.com Subject: RE George Washington and slavery Extracts from "Hidden Cities: The discovery and loss of ancient North American civilization" by Roger G. Kennedy (New York: The Free Press, 1994) pages 96 and 97: "After the [Revolutionary] war,...Philadelphia was the capital of the United States...His [Washington's] first response to abolitionist Philadelphia was to send his household slaves back to Mount Vernon to avoid the automatic freedom required by the laws of Pennsylvania. "By September, 1793, however, he had reached the conclusion that he wished to "liberate a certain species of property which I posess very repugnantly to my feelings." This plan, revealed only to his secretary and stripped from the documents kept in his public records...[but] the laws of Virginia were not hospitable to manumission, however disguised. "When Washington left the presidency, and Philadelphia, in 1797, he reversed his previous response to the laws of Pennsylvania. Instead of sneaking his household slaves away, he sneaked them out of his household into freedom, where their escape could not be detected by the Virginians. Once back at Mount Vernon, surrounded by implacable hostility to manumission on the part of all but a few of his neighbors, he encouraged his slaves to marry, lest they be separated. In his will he required that his executors support the old and infirm among his slaves and provide to the young the same education received by Whites until they were twenty-five and ready for employment. By then, he hoped, the world would be ready for them. Finally, they were all to be set free at the death of his wife. Since many of them had come to the family from her, and since she would otherwise have been left with no one to tend her in her last years, this seemed a reasonable provision. "A gulf had opened between Washington and other planters. By the end of the 1790s, he rendered his judgement on the Peculiar Institution to a visitor, John Bernard: "Nothing but the rooting out of slavery can perpetuate the existence of our union by consolidating it in a common bond of principle." One might expect such language from Abraham Lincoln in 1864, or from John Quincy Adams in 1840, but not from an elderly Virginia planter in 1797. "By then, Washington was full of surprises: he told Edmund Randolph, who had been his attorney general, that should the Union separate north from south, he had made up his mind "to move, and be of the Northern." "
