The great psychological issue is not about slaves but those who still seek to rationalize the irrational about slaves and descendents of slaves as inferior human beings.   Means and methods of observation and declaration have changed; but, the underlying doctrines have remained the same suggesting that cultural dynamics that span generations should not be neglected in analysis of matters that matter — such as hereditary, chattel and sexual slavery.

The greatest of human virtues, courage, are easily applied to George Washington and other signers of the Declaration of Independence. And descendents of any White colonial during that era are assumed by historians to be the offspring of patriots even though the majority of people in the original colonies were decidedly non-combatants and non-participants.   

Yet, not all men, then or now, were courageous and patriotic; but, some who were such as William Lee are still challenged and denied with a combination of rationale and reasoning that a slave could not be courageous, — or a patriot? Classical scholars in successive generations during the past two centuries in circular reasoning consistent with the teachings of Aristotle that slaves do not have courage or other virtues, — ie slaves are not virtuous.  

A psychological profile of peoples who write about the history of slavery suggests that few are ever able or willing to assume or accept the existence of virtues or creditability among any slaves, nor do any ever suggest existence of non-Christian virtues by owners.  

“A group is extraordinarily credulous and open to influence; it has no critical faculty, and the improbable does not exist for it. The feelings of the group are always very simple and very exaggerated, so that it knows neither doubt nor uncertainty.” [Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego: Sigmund Freud].  

There should be no doubt about existence of group behavior in the establishment and sustaining of chattel, hereditary and sexual slavery that raged in the Americas and Caribbean by European colonists and later as Americans.  The question ought to be as to what extent, if any, theology of various groups restrained or sustained it? 

Scholars of the past, have only reluctantly been willing to address the issues of racism in group behavior that operated and owned the chattel slave trade; but, little mentioning has made to the realities of hereditary and sexual slavery.  In fact, institutions of slavery in Africa, America or anywhere else outside old testament tales, have been viewed and written as monolithic. 

The realities that millions of youth were born into and thus inherited the slavery of their mothers is fairly well understood; but, most historians have adamantly refused to acknowledge that thousands of White men knowingly enslaved their own offspring of mothers they sexually enslaved, — if only for a few  minutes. The birth of mulatto offspring can easily be traced all the way from slave castles on the African coasts to and through slave owners in America that generated mulatto offspring.   Unfortunately, the history of slavery is not an account of what happened but rather a telling of information that writers and publishers want known.  A psychological analysis is overdue as to how and why obvious facts are treated as unknown by historians. The emotions of the terrorism, denigration and segregation associated with slavery are conspicuous by its absence from what historians care to write about, — compared to such horrors as Europe’s Dark Ages or the modern Jewish Holocaust.

The scholarly patriot John Jay (1745-1829), American jurist and statesman and first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court (1789-1795) proclaimed to Congress “that while no man can be compensated for a lifetime of bondage, an owner can and should be compensated for the loss of a runaway slave.”

Such was the simple logic applied to the great moral, ethical, legal, and financial aspects of slavery by men in the cause of their own life, liberty and pursuit of property.

A prerequisite requirement exists to consider and understand the applicable theology and psychology in any analysis of adult behavior by past generations, — especially those that aided, traded, owned and procreated in the existence of slaves.  George Washington and William Lee were such persons, a prominent owner who pursued runaway slaves; and the latter a loyal slave who chose not to runaway to liberty.  

Understanding slaves or those who enslaved them requires an attempt to acknowledge attitudes that fostered and sustained their behavior, — even before they lived and died.  All people are born into a culture, high-medium-low, and few ever change it; but, those one or two percent of humanity able and willing to do so are generally regarded as “chosen, gifted” for better or worse!

Legacy of Hellenism

Aristotle’s greatness as a philosopher and proto-scientist is undeniable but his errors (accepted as logical truths by many millions of his disciples) have had enduring harmful effects on people of African heritage.  His doctrines of natural inferiority and female inferiority, respectively, justified, or helped to justify, slavery and the inequality of the sexes until this very day.

His great authority also helped to defend tyranny, in the name of “benevolent” despotism, and his doctrine of ethnic inferiority helped to justify racism.  All of these errors, — for that is what they are, — might have endured without Aristotle but it would have been harder for generations of scholars to justify their attitudes presented as logic. 

The attitudes of most scholars trained in the classics are consistent with the teachings of Aristotle that a slave is inferior, not gifted, otherwise he would not allow himself to be a slave. A classical scholar and those seeking to be in that class, — will not use any of the cardinal or theological virtues in describing a man like William Lee or even a very beautiful woman such as Sarah (Sally) Lee. 

And, vice-versa such scholarship assumes the impossibility and improbabilities of love existing or occurring between superior and inferior persons.  The fallacy of course, is that of the ancient Hellenists, who then logically concluded the greatest love of a superior man was the love of another superior man, not a woman or slave, or even children, who were obviously his inferiors.  Pursuant such reasoning, lust may exist between superiors and inferiors, but never love!

 The psychology of this great driving issue in American scholarship lasts until this very day in that regardless of any slave’s actions (such as William Lee) and observed behavior by other slaves or descendents, — the typical scholar, at best, will cite a lack of documentation relative to perceived virtues or superior behavior by slaves (such as William Lee’s revolutionary war services despite a written certification by George Washington).

Using the analysis processes applied by various well published scholars of other races and creeds, it is not likely or probable that anyone who was a slave (such as William Lee at Mount Vernon or Elizabeth Hemings at Monticello) —- could also have been chosen or gifted in the context of scholar validated gifted and chosen men (like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson)?  

Who was Nathanael in the Bible?

Is it conceivable that gifted human beings could not be born among slaves?  “And Nathanael said unto him, ‘Can there any good thing come out of Naz’a-reth?’ “