Maybe there are some, maybe to protected them from any harm to his family. If anything it was a good choice. Deep thoughts .......hmmmmmmm
2007-03-20 12:07:40 · 8 answers · asked by goldlv89103 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Genealogy
No descendents? Of course he did. They were his stepchildren and they went forth and were quite bountiful. The irony of it is that Gen Robert E Lee was one of George's descendents.
You're confusing descendents with "biological children". But since he raised the Custiss children as his own and left them his estate, he did indeed leave descendents aplenty.
2007-03-20 12:35:55 · answer #1 · answered by GenevievesMom 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
There is no coverup. It wouldn't add up. After all, if you were a secret son or daughter of Washington, wouldn't you have claimed this relationship in order to profit from the prestige?
There was a tradition that Washington, like many other slaveholders, had intercourse with black women and fathered mulatto children, but there isn't much evidence that this is true. Washington wasn't a model slaveholder, whatever that might be, but the DNA evidence from the African American line claiming relationship with him has proven that there is none. Actually, it suggests that one of Martha's kin was the father of this line of African American descendants. Jackie Custis is known to have fathered a mulatto son.
Washington, despite his many flaws when it came to race relations and slavery, did have a late awakening to the injustice of the plantation. He is the only major founding father to have freed all of his slaves by his will and to have provided for them. I suggest you read AN IMPERFECT GOD for more on this subject. Very good book.
2007-03-20 20:52:34 · answer #2 · answered by Henry M 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Maybe, maybe not. Whoever follows, isn't him. Add destiny to that equation. Sometimes you can manipulate people by saying or trying to convince them of a remote lineage of note. You can even get their heads off in the wrong direction by picking the historical figure and quirky nature ( if any ). Anybody with any real sense? Knows we stand on our own. Doesn't mean anything. The man did his bit, move on. Next.
2007-03-20 19:17:56 · answer #3 · answered by vanamont7 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
We will never know I guess, but that really is a deep thought. I would doubt it though, because noone would a grudge for George Washington by now, would they?
"You chopped down my great great great great great grandfathers tree! I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!"
See? Not very likely. If they were going to hide a president, they should hide the current one. He could still perform all of his duties, but noone would no where he is. That way, he would not be in as much danger from a bomb threat or air raid.
2007-03-20 19:17:17 · answer #4 · answered by Mat 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I don't know if he has descendants or not. I can't figure out why you think they need protecting? Why would they want to harm the people?
2007-03-20 19:18:58 · answer #5 · answered by Virginia C 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
this is the reason why George Washington never had any children—his earlier bout with smallpox followed, possibly, by tuberculosis may have made him sterile. he may have much earlier have had some illegitimate kids but they wouldn't have counted as descendants anyway. it's not a cover up.
peace
2007-03-20 19:20:24 · answer #6 · answered by Shadow Lark 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I think that like many a man of the day he had slaves. How many people with the last name washington that are white?? Ok How many are black??
2007-03-20 19:23:55 · answer #7 · answered by Barbara 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Not a cover up, he had many descendents... However, there are no records from the "slavery" files.....
2007-03-20 19:16:48 · answer #8 · answered by Sparky 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋