Founding Fathers and Slaveholders
To what degree do the attitudes of Washington and Jefferson toward slavery diminish their achievements?
- By Stephen E. Ambrose
- Smithsonian magazine, November 2002, Subscribe
(Page 3 of 4)
Washington and Jefferson were both rich Virginia planters, but they were never friends. Washington did not have Jefferson’s IQ. He was not anywhere near as good a writer. He was not as worldly. He had less formal education than any subsequent president, except Abraham Lincoln. He towered over his contemporaries, literally so. He was a six-foot-three general; his soldiers averaged five-foot-eight. He was not a good general, or so his critics say. His army lost more battles than it won.
But Washington held the Continental Army together, "in being" as the military expression puts it, and he had a masterly judgment of when and where and how to strike the British in order to raise morale among his soldiers and throughout his country—perhaps most symbolic was his crossing the Delaware River at Christmastime in 1776, when in a lightning week of campaigning he picked off the British garrisons at Trenton and Princeton, taking many prisoners and valuable supplies. The next winter he spent with his soldiers in a freezing Valley Forge. From there, he directed the strategy of the war, turned the Revolutionary army from a ragtag collection into a solid regular army, forced the politicians in Congress to support him, and emerged as the one who would lead the nation through the Revolutionary War.
Washington’s character was rock solid. At the center of events for 24 years, he never lied, fudged, or cheated. He shared his army’s privations, though never pretended to be "one of the men." Washington came to stand for the new nation and its republican virtues, which was why he became our first president by unanimous choice and, in the eyes of many, including this author, our greatest.
Washington personifies the word "great." In his looks, in his regular habits, in his dress and bearing, in his generalship and his political leadership, in his ability to persuade, in his sure grip on what the new nation needed (above all else, not a king), and in his optimism no matter how bad the American cause looked, he rose above all others. He established the thought, "We can do it," as an integral part of the American spirit. He was indispensable, "first in war, first in peace, first in the hearts of his countrymen." Abigail Adams, again, so insightful in her descriptions, quoted John Dryden to describe Washington: "Mark his majestic fabric. He’s a temple sacred from his birth and built by hands divine."
Of the nine presidents who owned slaves, only Washington freed his. He resisted efforts to make him a king and established the precedent that no one should serve more than two terms as president. He voluntarily yielded power. His enemy, George III, remarked in 1796, as Washington’s second term was coming to an end, "If George Washington goes back to his farm, he will be the greatest character of his age." As George Will wrote, "the final component of Washington’s indispensability was the imperishable example he gave by proclaiming himself dispensable."
Washington was a slaveholder. In New Orleans, in the late 1990s, George Washington Elementary School was renamed Charles Richard Drew Elementary School, after the developer of blood-banking. I don’t see how we can take down the name of the man whose leadership brought this nation through the Revolutionary War and who turned down a real chance to be the first king of the nation.
"But he was a slaveholder," students sometimes say to me.
"Listen, he was our leader in the Revolution, to which he pledged his life, his fortune, and his honor. Those were not idle pledges. What do you think would have happened to him had he been captured by the British Army?
"I’ll tell you. He would have been brought to London, tried, found guilty of treason, ordered executed, and then drawn and quartered. Do you know what that means? He would have had one arm tied to one horse, the other arm to another horse, one leg to yet another, and the other leg to a fourth. Then the four horses would have been simultaneously whipped and started off at a gallop, one going north, another south, another east and the fourth to the west.
"That is what Washington risked to establish your freedom and mine."
Single Page « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (22)
+ View All Comments
Thank you Mr. Ambrose for a very thoughtful article.
Posted by Terrence on February 6,2013 | 06:39 PM
I SEE ON THIS PAGE THERE IS A LOT OF DEFENSE FOR WASHINGTON AND JEFFERSON BOTTOM LINE OWNING SLAVES WAS MORALLY WRONG PERIOD. THAT WOULD BE LIKE BRITAIN DURING THAT TIME OWNING THEM AND MAKING THEM WORK ON PLANTATIONS IT WAS WRONG IM KNOCKING WHAT THEY ACCOMPLISHED AS POLITICAL GURUS THEY WROTE LAWS IN THIS COUNTRY TILL THIS DAY I AGREE WITH. THEY FAILED TO ADDRESS THE BIG ISSUE WHICH WAS SLAVERY DURING THAT TIME. THEY TURNED BLIND EYE TO IT NO LEGISLATION PASSED FOR ALL SLAVES TO BE FREE IT TOOK LINCOLN TO DO THAT AND HE WAS SHOT DEAD FOR BEING MORALLY RIGHT AND CONSCIOUS.
Posted by TAUREAN on February 5,2013 | 09:25 PM
You may want to do a little mor e research on Adams. He had slaves African and Indian. I know this for a fact my ancestors were those slaves.
Posted by Lita Adams on January 1,2013 | 08:13 AM
Although George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, they were still the fathers of our country, and are the reason why we are still united today. Yes, everyone is flawed in their own ways, and we have to open our eyes to that, instead of ripping on them for what they did, and discrediting their amazing accomplishments. I view them as great men to liberty and justice.
Posted by Jake on December 18,2012 | 12:38 AM
Jefferson was one of the most educated, intelligent, and skilled writers of his and our time. He was also a slave owner. On the other hand, Washington was an inspiration to Revolutionary soldiers, a wonderful character, and a guiding first President. Washington was also a slave owner. To say that these two men “failed to rise above their place and time” is preposterous. If anyone rose to the occasion, it would be the author of the Declaration of Independence and the first President of the United States. By today’s standards, it may seem cruel to own a slave, but during Jefferson and Washington’s time, it was acceptable. Remember, when thinking on the past, one must put them selves in the past, and when living in the present, one must put them selves in the future. Washington and Jefferson were certainly thinking ahead by defying the British and creating a lasting government, but we have to do our part and put our futuristic minds in the past.
Posted by Rusty on December 18,2012 | 09:33 PM
I do not agree with Ambrose. Washington and Jefferson should be viewed by the people of their time not ours. Back then many people could have been for slavery, it could have been helping the economy, we never know. It is more cear to us today what the right decision should be but we will never kno for sure what was going on back then and in Washington and Jeffersons' minds.
Posted by John on December 18,2012 | 06:50 PM
Jefferson a racist?? That's the most pathetic attempt at an attention grab I've ever seen. He had a black mistress who who took with him to Paris!! The two had a child, which is the only 'slave' that could truly be considered his. Also, the 'slaves' mentioned in this story were never truly Jefferson's. They were inherited from his father and law and worked the land at Monticello. Due to the debt also inherited from his father and law and Jefferson's incessant collecting and travels his creditors would NEVER have allowed him to free his slaves and cut all source of income from the small plantation. His child with the 'slave' lived happily on their plantation in a separate house with his mother, with no responsibilities, traveled with him to Europe and was 'FREED' by Jefferson on his deathbead. He also guaranteed that he receive an education, something that was all but forbidden at that time. He took ridiculous amounts of care to ensure the safety and continued success of even an illegitimate child with a slave. Doesn't sound very racist to me.
Posted by Erikch Weiss on December 6,2012 | 04:35 PM
In their times they may have been on par with other men, but through the lens of history they were elevated to higher status for the framework they helped lay that transcends their times. It does not make them any better or less than their contemporaries, but viewed through history and through specifics of their nature, the flaws can be seen as things to not admire, that affect them personally, not so much the frameworks left. Much of what the country celebrates in holidays are the affects of the person, not really the person since so few know the whole person.
Posted by xaviersx on November 23,2012 | 02:20 PM
Can I just point out that being hanged, drawn and quartered is not at all what the author describes here. It is being hanged or strangled to death or near death, followed by evisceration and dismemberment.
Posted by Kay on November 11,2012 | 07:45 PM
Absolutely unfounded and biased information. But just look at one of a multitude of actual historical writings: John Quincy Adams, called the "Hell Hound of Abolition" for his extensive endeavors against that institution, regularly invoked the efforts of the Virginia patriots, particularly Jefferson, to justify his own crusade against slavery. In fact, in a speech in 1837, John Quincy Adams declared: The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself [Jefferson]. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country [Great Britain] and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. 52
Posted by Judy on November 10,2012 | 12:40 AM
Since when is curriculum based on the subjects actions? I'm not excusing Jefferson one bit, but why not teach the reality?
Posted by Ryan on August 29,2012 | 06:27 PM
"Yes," she replied. "He was a slave holder." And that, class, is how ignorance is born. Thomas Jefferson had a flawed character in many ways, yes, but he was one of the greatest minds to ever live. If you do not teach his writings like they are the very word of truth, you are an imbecile. Criticize his actions and preach his writings.
Posted by max on August 6,2012 | 04:12 PM
What PC garbage. The Libertarian leader M. Gilson wrote an amazing article in 2001 "Jefferson's Slaves" based on his personal research. It seems Jefferson COULDN'T free his slaves because they weren't his--he was in massive debt (the article here points it out but doesn't make the connection)--just as you can't give away your house if ther is a mortgage on it. Also, there were many legal problems to mass emancipation as in where would these people go? etc. Gilson also points out that the whole matter diverts attention from today's neo-slavery of putting people in prison for lifestyle offenses. Why don' we free those slaves and the academics talk about that? Cultural blindness lives on...
Posted by Rich on July 20,2012 | 10:03 AM
I see that 200 years from now we will ridcule and castigate those who set the foundation for bringing awareness to reducing carbon emissions, just because they owned automobiles in their lifetime. Even if it was a hybrid, that wasn't good enough.
I've read in several sources that Thomas Jefferson actually freed the slaves who were children of Sally Hemings (the slave women who he is said to have fathered the children with). He kept Ms. Hemings from being traded or sold until his death when Thomas Jefferson's daughter freed her.
Jefferson was the leading proponet to ban international slave trade during his presidency in 1807, denouncing this action as,
"violations of human rights which have been so long continued on the unoffending inhabitants of Africa, in which the morality, the reputation, and the best interests of our country have long been eager to proscribe".
Now it may seem contradictory since domestic slave trade continued, but I believe it refutes the claim of him being a racist and "incapable of rising above his time and place".
Posted by Ry on March 12,2012 | 02:35 PM
+ View All Comments