Richard M. Stallman resigns
&gt; <i>Washington had slaves, that doesn&#x27;t mean we should hate him.</i><p>Counterpoint: yes it does.<p>Judging Washington <i>by the standards of his time and his peers</i>, slavery was abhorrent. Take the case of Quock Walker, who sued for his freedom in 1781, for instance. The chief justice of Massachusetts (and later Washington&#x27;s own nominee for chief justice of the US) wrote:<p>&gt; <i>As to the doctrine of slavery and the right of Christians to hold Africans in perpetual servitude, and sell and treat them as we do our horses and cattle [...] nowhere is it expressly enacted or established. It has been a usage -- a usage which took its origin from the practice of some of the European nations, and the regulations of British government respecting the then Colonies, for the benefit of trade and wealth. But whatever sentiments have formerly prevailed in this particular or slid in upon us by the example of others, a different idea has taken place with the people of America, more favorable to the natural rights of mankind, and to that natural, innate desire of Liberty, with which Heaven (without regard to color, complexion, or shape of noses-features) has inspired all the human race. And upon this ground our Constitution of Government [...] sets out with declaring that all men are born free and equal [...] and in short is totally repugnant to the idea of being born slaves. This being the case, I think the idea of slavery is inconsistent with our own conduct and Constitution; and there can be no such thing as perpetual servitude of a rational creature [...]</i><p>As recorded by Washington&#x27;s contemporary James Madison, Washington&#x27;s contemporary Gouverneur Morris denounced the three-fifths compromise during the 1787 constitutional convention:<p>&gt; <i>He never would concur in upholding domestic slavery. It was a nefarious institution. It was the curse of heaven on the States where it prevailed. Compare the free regions of the Middle States, where a rich &amp; noble cultivation marks the prosperity &amp; happiness of the people, with the misery &amp; poverty which overspread the barren wastes of Va. Maryd. &amp; the other States having slaves. [...] Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed in the representation? Are they men? Then make them Citizens and let them vote. [...] The admission of slaves into the Representation when fairly explained comes to this: that the inhabitant of Georgia and S. C. who goes to the Coast of Africa, and in defiance of the most sacred laws of humanity tears away his fellow creatures from their dearest connections &amp; damns them to the most cruel bondages, shall have more votes in a Govt. instituted for protection of the rights of mankind, than the Citizen of Pa. or N. Jersey who views with a laudable horror, so nefarious a practice.</i><p>We should not so facilely dismiss the difficult challenge that Washington is seen as the father of this nation and yet owned slaves. <i>Other founding fathers</i> understood that the American norm of liberty was clearly incompatible with holding slavery in anything other than contempt. <i>Other founding fathers</i> called his behavior &quot;repugnant&quot; and &quot;nefarious&quot; - why should we shy away from criticizing him? It seems far more sensible to me to worry that Washington (along with many others) led our nation into believing a compromised, twisted view of liberty and the natural rights of man, with lasting consequences for the country which hardly ended in the Civil War.