In bringing his personal household servants with him to Philadelphia, Washington was not making any kind of a statement on the theory of slavery, or anything involved with it. He brought those he was comfortable working with--those whom he trusted. That the labor system was not one where they were paid a wage may be significant in a discussion of labor conditions then and now, but it has little other relevance. For that matter, many Americans in that era would have gladly volunteered to serve General Washington for free. Again, these were people he trusted. People he freed ten years later.
Does anyone make a point as to the freedom of the servants Richard The Lion Hearted took on the Third Crusade? How about the freedom of the servants that Charlemagne took to the Pyranees. Slavery was not seen primarily as a moral issue in 1789. Bondage in one form or another was an accepted part of the social structure going back to Biblical times.
The sole reason for this little controversy is to make Washington look less appealing to the historically illiterate, who do not understand the pre-industrial labor systems. In an era when absolutely no one is advocating returning to such systems, it is pure agitation, and nothing else.
William Flax Return Of The Gods Web Site
So... when going to see the Liberty Bell, instead of being happy and proud of my country, which did so much to create a place where human freedom could flourish... I will be confronted with this guilt-provoking claptrap. Washington is no more to be blamed for having slaves in his day and age as he is to be blamed for not having proper refrigeration equipment. "Freedom" was a new concept -- it was just being explored and invented -- and Washington was helping invent it. He was a creature of his age -- as we all are. Someday, people in the future will be just as appalled at some aspect of our lives as we are of this aspect of our ancestors' -- and it won't be what we expect! I am sick of this 'hate-America' stuff. It is killing us.