Washington and the Chinese Sage-Kings

The first thing many people notice about Washington’s virtue as a human being is that he was a slave owner. Slavery existed in both the East and the West since ancient times. Both Socrates and Confucius lived in societies where slavery was common. Confucius never questioned the morality of owning slaves, though there is no historical record that he himself owned any. As for Socrates, I do not know enough about his personal life to say whether this inquisitive thinker ever justified or challenged the institution of slavery.

Washington lived in an era when a few lesser-known thinkers, such as Montesquieu and Diderot, began to challenge the morality of slavery, while major figures like Kant and Locke may have philosophically legitimized or even personally benefited from aspects of the slave trade.

Washington was likely a Christian Deist, but he may have been influenced by the Quakers and other religious groups to recognize that holding fellow humans in bondage was a sin against Divine Providence. In his will, he arranged for his slaves to be freed after the death of his wife, Martha. He clearly recognized the moral failing of slave ownership, yet he kept his slaves during his lifetime so that he and Martha could live comfortably with their labor. In this aspect of “small virtue” (xiao-de), he did not score particularly high. A fuller assessment would require examining whether he was a kind or harsh slave owner—an investigation I must leave to professional presidential historians.

In the Legalist Confucian tradition (that is, Confucianism after the First Emperor of Qin), the three ancient Sage-Kings were portrayed as perfect in both small virtue and great virtue, often without strong historical evidence. They may have excelled in personal conduct, but as human beings, they surely had shortcomings. Let us engage in a speculative reverse comparison: since Washington was great in “great virtue” (da-de) but imperfect in “small virtue,” we might assume that the Sage-Kings of antiquity were like Washington in their small virtues—not entirely flawless.

The reason I believe the Imperial minister and the local prefect’s high judgment of Washington would have been shared by the entire Chinese literati class for more than two thousand years is that Confucius himself proclaimed, “How grand, how grand were [Sage-Kings] Shun and Yu! They ruled the world (all under Heaven) yet declined to possess it as their own.” (Analects 8.18). Notably, in this praise, Confucius left out Sage-King Yao, who passed the throne to his son-in-law Shun.

Confucius enjoyed associating with people from whom he could learn—whether in virtue, music, rituals, knowledge, or archery—just as Warren Buffett seeks out friends who can improve him in business or life. Confucius would likely have considered Washington a worthy friend for his great act of voluntarily stepping down from the presidency after two terms.¹

Washington was a well-mannered and composed man whom Confucius would have admired. His honesty and integrity would also have earned deep respect. Confucius would have been delighted by Washington’s efforts to make honesty a core American value and a cardinal virtue for all citizens.

In my book Confucius the Man, I compared Confucius’s concept of ritualistic etiquette (li) with the Rules of Civility & Decent Behaviour in Company and Conversation—a guide written by French Jesuit priests that young Washington hand-copied. I also drew parallels between Confucius’s idea of “benevolence” (ren) in state-building and the seven key principles embedded in the long opening sentence of the U.S. Constitution’s Preamble (often called the “constitutional spirit”). The similarities are remarkably striking.²