The Los Angeles Times Magazine,
George Washington,
Slavery
and Censorship
A personal note from Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin
The press is always on the look-out for a man on a white horse to come and rescue the Establishment from
its well-deserved fate, and it appears that some people are pinning their hopes on John Kennedy, Jr. In
the shadow of Camelot, Jack Kennedy, Jr. and Family are regularly referred to as "The Closest Thing This
Country Has To A Royal Family." This would seem to intimate that there is a secret yearning within the
nation for the restoration of the monarchy. Nonetheless, the media's fascination with the the Presidency
and the First Family has had the effect of creating a mass presidential cult.
In the piece about "George" -- the magazine -- there is more revealing the personal anger of the author
that Kennedy wouldn't meet with her, than anything else. This is attributed to the celebrity status of the
deceased former president's son, which we learn started with a deliberate effort of his father, who
"originated the glamorization of the family and children that other president's had resisted." The
magazine "George," it turns out, is only "whimsically named George after the Founding Father," and its
true focus is on the political views of America's celebrity icons. A kind of People Magazine for politics...
The article related to the cover of the 11 August, Los Angeles Times Magazine, was a hybridized
infotainment piece that any tabloid journalist would have been proud of. The only remotely factual
attribution for the article came from a Ms. Joyce Appleby, a UCLA history professor, who will probably
think twice before she ever lets her name get attached to such a piece of journalistic nonsense again in the
future. (Any such connection should rightfully throw a damper on any effort on her part to be considered
a serious historian or scholar). The article took speculation to new heights in the form of a fictional New
Age channeler named Ms. Amiable Rogers, who the editorial staff is quick to distance itself from, stating
"we don't believe in channeling, unlike others in Washington." Then, of course, the channeling begins,
with the dialogue notated by the initials of the two participants, so that the father of the country is
identified by the uncharacteristically familiar initials G.W.
The first glaring error in the reporting comes in the L.A. Magazine's Table of Contents, where the first
president is described as having won an uncontested election. This is an error that in an earlier, more
well-read day and age would never have made it beyond the editor. But this is only the beginning.
Amiable the Channeler tells GW that "we study you in our American history classes," and she "knows that
you did not have any opponents when you ran for the presidency." Instead of informing Amiable of how
the system worked, as we can be sure the real GW would have, the "historian" Appleby brushes the whole
issue aside by attributing phrases to GW whereby he is more concerned with the verb "ran," (because
gentlemen did not "run" for office in the early days of the republic), than in the facts of how the first men
were elected to the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the United States. "We drafters of the Constitution
knew well that our finest leaders would be ardent contenders for positions of honor and trust."
Amiable lets us know how disconcerted GW is that his two Cabinet members cannot agree on the proper
color of a "good glass of port" -- something that comes as no surprise to anyone knowledgeable about the
Washington Administration's Cabinet -- and that he is annoyed by Jefferson's establishment of a party
organ, "a newspaper for the concerted purpose of criticizing my administration." Amiable then asks the
first President "Don't you think that a free press is good for a democracy? Doesn't it help the voters make
up their minds?"
Answering this query probably invoked the most honest response of the whole article, illustrating GW's
actual class consciousness. It was this class consciousness that made it impossible for him to accept a
crown that might have been his, had he been willing to take it using the Army. In his mind the Army was
made up of men from the lowest castes, who he held in contempt. All the historians agree that
Washington was ambitious and inclined to intrigue, and he happily accepted the newly created presidency
offered to him by the aristocratic landed gentry, of which he was a leading member.
GW: "My dear young woman, you will excuse me, you sound like Mr. Jefferson. In a well-run
government -- monarchical or republican -- political discussion is best confined to public officials and
their circle of friends, men known for their discretion and decorum. Voters need not trouble themselves to
"make up their minds." Their representatives will do it for them. It is the duty and the responsibility of
voters to discern which of the respectable men appearing on their ballot is most likely to make up his
mind for the good of all..." Of course, at the time GW was president, one had to own property in order to
be eligible to vote, such as a slave.
The property qualification is lightly touched upon, without conveying the reality that people who owned
nothing were not entitled to vote in the election in which George Washington ran for President. For all
the high-brow references to personal freedom there is not a single mention of the fact that one of the
principal sources of revenue for the fledgling republic was a tax on the trade in human slaves. Nor is the
routine business of the Federal government touched upon, of returning fugitive slaves to their bondage, a
practice that lasted until the Civil War, and which created underlying attitudes in law-enforcement that
remain to this day. What could one expect, ultimately, from a magazine that spends most of its pages
reviewing restaurants?
Thinking that the genuine history was worth bringing up, I penned the following correspondence to the
Editorial staff of the Los Angeles Times Magazine, it speaks for itself:
To: latmag@latimes.com
SENT BY E-MAIL & RETURNED
I read the article "The Father of Our Country on Politics '96 Style," and I
have a comment to make regarding the historical facts. First, George
Washington personally held human beings in a state of bondage, as his
property. When he was president of the United States, it was a felony crime
for black people (of slave status) to seek freedom. It was also a serious
crime for free (white) people to teach a slave to read or write.
At the time George "ran" for president, the rules dictated that the man with
the most votes became president, and the man with the second highest number
of votes became vice-president. John Adams also "ran" for president, and
came in second. At the time, only free people who OWNED property could vote,
which excluded the vast majority of the people. It is important to
understand that slaves were property, and the main criteria was that one had
to either be a slaveholder, or approve of slavery as an institution, in
order to vote. When slavery was finally outlawed, it was done under the
proviso that all other conventions of ownership remained in tact; thus the
legal doctrine of ownership remained the same when human beings could
constitute chattel. This is extremely important, because the courts today
recognize the inviolability of private property from the same legal
precedents that once gave us the Dredd Scott decision. Except now these
legal precedents reinforce the Middle Class individual in his or her
possession of a Honda instead of another human being.
Someday, the media will get honest about the slave-state roots of the modern
Federal and state governments, so that a genuine dialogue for a national
peace can be inaugurated. Until that time, Americans can only be confused,
as they seek to honor slavemasters as "folk heros."
Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin,
On August 23, the following email came in, from a David Blume at the Los Angeles Times Magazine:
Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 17:19:43 -700 (PDT)
Please fone me at 213-XXX-XXXX at ur convenience. Have to speak to you fonely if am to
publish part of ur letter. Tnx.
So of course, I think I may be wrong. Maybe the mainstream press IS ready to deal with the issue of
slavery and the Founding Fathers. After all, the White House was built with slave labor... The Union was
built on the backs of slaves. How can anyone be patriotic to a political order that is based on historic
fictions? It would seem that the motherland, the homeland, is important enough to warrant perfect
honesty. I phoned David Blume, and he happily told me that if they do print the letter, they needed my
phone number, and the name of the city I lived in, which I provided. I assumed that the power
Establishment felt comfortable enough that it could withstand a single short letter that addressed the issue
of the impact of slavery on modern society, over 100 years after it was legally abolished. BUT I WAS
WRONG.
The following email came in:
11:29 AM 8/28/96 -0700
What struck me was the fact that a serious reporter at the Los Angeles Times Magazine had done
independent research, and knew the EXACT number of slaves owned by George Washington, yet no
articles have appeared in the Los Angeles Times publications that would even appear to acknowledge that
the revered First President owned fellow human beings as property. How, ultimately, can we reasonably
teach our children to look up to role models who owned living, breathing human beings as their property,
to do with as they pleased? Apparently this is not a conflict to the mass media, the Los Angeles Times,
the Washington Post, the allegedly-liberal New York Times.
The journalists know the truth, but they won't put it in articles, because they are afraid of becoming
rabble-rousers. They don't want any crowds to gather, which might turn into angry mobs. The American
people should rightfully be angry, they have been cheated by the political system of their freedom. The
only thing the politicians are building are PRISONS. Anyone who has read the Amendment to the
Constitution that prohibits slavery should take notice that it does not outlaw the enslavement of
Americans for purposes of penal servitude. Today, the Federal Government of the United States has more
prisoners than any other institution on the Earth. We are going down a road none of the journalists even
want to be honest about, because most of them are intimidated too. This kind of mass intimidation is the
very heart and soul of a fascist state, a state in which the main system of social control is the use of fear.
As we lose our freedom to the garrison state of the slave-owning founding fathers, let us remember the
good times we leave behind, when we were allowed to own ourselves.
(LA Times Magazine)
From: Marc Ely-Chaitlin
Subject: "The Father of Our Country" 11 Aug. 1996
FAXED 14 Aug. 1996
of the House of David
From: David Blume
To: marceric@earthlink.net
cc:david.blume@latimes.com
Subject: ur letter to magazine
Dave B.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
david n. blume
la times sun mag
Marc:
it turns out that space was so much at a premium that your letter
couldn't be run, but as I said, I did find it interesting, it's heart was
in the right place, and I thought I'd respond a bit more. I hope you
still have a copy of it for reference.
Old George indeed had slaves--390 of them, my research has told me.
It seems that some states had statutes prohibiting the education of
slaves, but not all of the states, and the statutes were, to a great extent
ignored, especially in urban areas. In fact, while Washington was
President, New Jersey passed an act making it compulsary that slaves be
taught to read.
Generally, denying blacks education, on a greater scale, came later,
from 1830 to 1860, and were called the "Black Codes." So that was long
after George was President.
I forwarding this information NOT to refute you but so you can have
still more accurate information at your beck and call. The truth always
strengthens one's argument.
Thanks again for the letter.
Dave B.
------------------------------------------
david n. blume la times sun mag
Return to Index