I'm not, nor is any of my family, associated with Russellites. I'm a "budding" historian, still in university. I'll have my MA by mid June next. I honor ethics. Ethically, historians should write accurate history. What happens here most often is a repeat of claims that have no basis in fact. If one opposes the Witnesses, making false, misleading claims will weaken your argument. You will preach to the quire, but that has no real effect.
Do I think Russell was the faithful slave? No, the claim was a bit of wild imagination, and though he was careful to not make the claim in public, he believed it. One can find it, if memory serves, only one time from his pen and that in a 1909 Watch Tower article. Don't ask. I'm too busy to look it up.
The transcript of the Ross trial [The King vs. J. J. Ross] has this:
Q: Did you ever give out that you were "some great one?"
A: No Sir.
Q: Never did it?
A: No Sir.
Q: You were never the servant, never prophesied no time that you were the servant mentioned in the 24th of St. Matthew?
A: I never did, but some of my friends suggested that they believed that the Scripture in Matthew 24-25 was applicable to myself. I have never said it was, and I have never said it was not. I may have merely said I did not know whether it was or not.
This is not totally true. Schulz and de Vienne: Separate Identity, vol. 1 wrote:
Revisionists more contemporary to ourselves say that Russell never claimed to be the Faithful Servant. This is what our grandmother (Great Grandmother for one of us) would have called “hooie.” Russell believed that he was “chosen for his great work from before birth,” telling his associates that. If one rejects the testimony of his associates, including P. S. L. Johnson and C. Woodworth, one must provide solid reasons for doing so. We see no grounds upon which to reject their testimony. While most of this argument is best played out in Book Three of this series, we should note that Russell never corrected claims that he was “that servant.” Examples of “uncorrected” claims are found in various convention reports where he is frequently referred to as “that Servant.” Russell saw himself in this era as a divinely appointed teacher. Starting in 1895, he described himself as “God’s mouthpiece” first as a reference to the Millennial Dawn series which, of course he wrote; then as a direct reference to himself. The only other way he used this phrase was to refer to God’s prophets of old.
This paragraph is supported by the following footnotes:
55 The claim appears to have been first made by Horace Hollister within Russell’s lifetime. See: Cryptology of the Kingdom, St. Paul Enterprise, 1914, page 70. More recently it was made by a Watch Tower writer in God’s Kingdom of a Thousand Years has Approached. Hollister testifies only to what he saw in print or heard. In point of fact, Russell makes the claim in 1909. We can add E. C. Henninges to the list of those who said Russell claimed to be the Faithful and Wise Servant. See The Watch Tower Confusion, New Covenant Advocate, April 1, 1927, page 5ff, where he presents proof.
56 Woodworth and Fisher: Finished Mystery, Watch Tower Society, Brooklyn, 1917, page 53.
57 C. T. Russell: Concerning Profitable Meetings, Zion’s Watch Tower, September 15, 1895, page 217; Harvest Gatherings and Siftings, July 15, 1906, page 229. One should note that in the original of the 1906 article (as first published in 1890) he used the phrase “the truths we present as God’s mouthpieces.” In the 1906 article he dropped the “we,” substituting “I” for it.
Russell printed the text of a letter addressed to him in the June 15, 1899, Watch Tower in which the writer referred to Russell as the faithful and wise servant. Russell printed it without demure. Again from Schulz and de Vienne (yes, that's my mother): "Two things are apparent here. Russell reproduced Randle’s circular letter without rebuke or demure. This puts the lie to revisionists who say he never claimed to be the Faithful and Wise Servant. That he let others make the claim without protesting shows that he did, in fact, see himself as the fulfillment of a last-times prophecy."
That's the history of the claim, in brief. It was and remains fanciful. We should note that the identification of Russell as the Laodicean Messenger did not come from Russell but from C. J.Woodworth's commentary on Revelation found in Finished Mystery.
Most of the unfounded, rather silly but still believed claims about Russell (and Rutherford) do not stand up under scrutiny. Repeating them does a disservice, and damages your arguments in opposition to Watchtower theology and practice. And most Witnessed do not care about their history, certainly not about events of a century ago. Do your due diligence, and research authoritative sources material before you post nonsense.
If one wishes to please gullible former adherents who seek anything to justify their leaving the faith, then by all means repeat every claim whether factual or not. Someone will be pleased by it and believe it uncritically. I don't see the need for justification. If you do not wish to remain a Witness, just leave. You do not need justification.