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
Americans in great numbers are rediscovering their founding fathers in such best-selling books as Joseph Ellis’ Founding Brothers, David McCullough’s John Adams and my own Undaunted Courage, about Lewis and Clark. There are others who believe that some of these men are unworthy of our attention because they owned slaves, Washington, Jefferson, Clark among them, but not Adams. They failed to rise above their time and place, though Washington (but not Jefferson) freed his slaves. But history abounds with ironies. These men, the founding fathers and brothers, established a system of government that, after much struggle, and the terrible violence of the Civil War, and the civil rights movement led by black Americans, did lead to legal freedom for all Americans and movement toward equality.
Let’s begin with Thomas Jefferson, because it is he who wrote the words that inspired subsequent generations to make the heroic sacrifices that transformed the words "All men are created equal" into reality.
In 1996 I was a visiting professor at the University of Wisconsin. The History Club there asked me to participate in a panel discussion on "Political Correctness and the University." The professor seated next to me taught American political thought. I remarked to her that when I began teaching I had required students to read five or six books each semester, but I had cut that back to three or four or else the students would drop my course. She said she had the same problem. She had dropped Thomas Jefferson’s writings from the required reading list.
"You are in Madison, being paid by the citizens of Wisconsin to teach their children American political thought, and you leave out Tom Jefferson?"
"Yes," she replied. "He was a slaveholder." More than half the large audience applauded.
Jefferson owned slaves. He did not believe that all were created equal. He was a racist, incapable of rising above the thought of his time and place, and willing to profit from slave labor.
Few of us entirely escape our times and places. Thomas Jefferson did not achieve greatness in his personal life. He had a slave as mistress. He lied about it. He once tried to bribe a hostile reporter. His war record was not good. He spent much of his life in intellectual pursuits in which he excelled and not enough in leading his fellow Americans toward great goals by example. Jefferson surely knew slavery was wrong, but he didn’t have the courage to lead the way to emancipation. If you hate slavery and the terrible things it did to human beings, it is difficult to regard Jefferson as great. He was a spendthrift, always deeply in debt. He never freed his slaves. Thus the sting in Dr. Samuel Johnson’s mortifying question, "How is it that we hear the loudest yelps for liberty from the drivers of Negroes?"
Jefferson knew slavery was wrong and that he was wrong in profiting from the institution, but apparently could see no way to relinquish it in his lifetime. He thought abolition of slavery might be accomplished by the young men of the next generation. They were qualified to bring the American Revolution to its idealistic conclusion because, he said, these young Virginians had "sucked in the principles of liberty as if it were their mother’s milk."
Of all the contradictions in Jefferson’s contradictory life, none is greater. Of all the contradictions in America’s history, none surpasses its toleration first of slavery and then of segregation. Jefferson hoped and expected that Virginians of Meriwether Lewis’ and William Clark’s generation would abolish slavery. His writing showed that he had a great mind and a limited character.
Jefferson, like all slaveholders and many other white members of American society, regarded Negroes as inferior, childlike, untrustworthy and, of course, as property. Jefferson, the genius of politics, could see no way for African-Americans to live in society as free people. He embraced the worst forms of racism to justify slavery.
Subscribe now for more of Smithsonian's coverage on history, science and nature.










Comments (22)
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
The serious problem in “education” is the greed and avarice of "higher education" professors at all levels. All college professors and administrators in the country have built their careers, pay and benefits on overcharging students and burying them under mountains of student debt. Student loan balances now exceed the total of all credit card debt and the educational elite know they are abusing these students because they fully supported the law that makes student debt not dis-chargeable in bankruptcy. They now abuse the country only as a ploy to direct student anger at the country and its history rather than at the the abusive professors themselves. They well know the "education" they provide cannot support the debts they created. Bill Gates recently said that by 2015 a world class University education with world class instructors will be available on line for $2,000. This nationwide theft in the name of education will soon come to an end, as it should. And students now struggling with that debt load should demand a full tuition refund.
Posted by CK JAGUAR on August 10,2011 | 09:38 AM
I do agree that Jefferson and Washington are "flawed" because they did own slaves. I think that they should be viewed by our standards, but who knows how this country would be without them.
Posted by Kristen on January 2,2011 | 10:13 PM
I agree MOSTLY with Ambrose. Washington and Jefferson were both raised in a society where slavery was perfectly fine. They should have been viewed as great leaders of their time to the people in their society. However, to us, now that slavery is unacceptable, we hear about Jefferson owning slaves and not setting them free and we automatically jump to a conclusion that he was a bad person. He was an extremely intelligent man that deserves to have credit for the many works of writing he did, but not necessarily credit for being a good leader. Washington, on the other hand, isn't viewed as quite a bad person because he set his slaves free and he was also a spectacular leader that pretty much won the Revolutionary war for us. Theses two men are not seen as being horrible people, I mean they're ex-presidents! Even though these two guys had their fair share of mistakes, whether it was with slavery or not, they are still seen in our society today as brilliant leaders and individuals.
Posted by Bails on December 30,2010 | 06:55 PM
I disagree with Ambrose as the founding fathers should be viewed by their own society’s standards. They were raised in an environment in which slavery was the norm and we cannot judge them when their entire society accepted slavery. It is their choice to support slavery or not and it would be unfair to judge them by our standards as we were raised in a slavery-free environment and they weren’t.
Posted by Eric H on December 19,2010 | 06:10 PM
I thought that this article was very good but i did think that the author was bias toward george washington, i felt like the author liked george washington more then he did Jefferson. I know that jefferson treated his slaves very terribly but that doesn't mean that washington was any better even if he freed his slaves, he could have not had slaves in the first place.
Posted by Daisydot on December 15,2010 | 05:19 PM
I agree that our founding father were flawed, everyone is. I, also, agree that they should be judged by there own society's ideals because these men don't know today's higher standards because back in their time slavery wasn't all horrible at it is today. Nothing can ever justify slavery, but we can't judge someone's actions when they were slightly less magnified in their time.
Posted by Victoria E. Kjellander on December 14,2010 | 09:26 PM
I'm confused, Nexus. Did you understand the piece? The author is ruing the fact that people are making bad decisions like not teaching Jefferson because he was a slave-owner. He says that he thinks Washington is the greatest president notwithstanding his other flaws. He's NOT discrediting them, he's honouring them, saying that even though they had flaws they were great men.
Posted by Reaper on June 10,2010 | 05:38 AM
In regards to this article it's all fine and well to point out the short comings of these great men in comparison to their achievements, but to do so without providing accurate thought or context to the political, economic, or industrial state of our fledgling country at the time does them a great discredit.
Nor does the referencing towards Abraham Lincoln and the civil war really fit in this article. The emancipation proclamation was largely drafted and enacted with the hopes of creating rioting and further economic turmoil in the Confederate States during the war, while it was widely accepted in the North, some areas such as New York City had riots (The NYC Draft Riots) simply because as Jefferson believed and stated, much of the Country wasn't ready to recognize Africans as equals. Oh and shouldn't we mention that the Civil War was initiated due to unfair taxation, just like the American Revolution, and Lincoln preformed multiple Un-Constitutional acts during it most notably declaring Martial Law in the South, and suspended the right of habeas corpus.
I'm not justifying slavery, but I am saying that this article without proper context is misleading. At the time of the American Revolution a large portion of what would become the United States depended on slavery for it's economic and industrial engine, freeing slaves as a nation at that time not only may have destroyed the newly created country, but would have been an injustice to the former slaves. What rights would they have had? Simply putting it in writing would not have guaranteed them wealth, prosperity, or an accepted place in society. Even after the Civil War it took around a century for the descendants of the slaves that were freed to no longer be considered "Separate but Equal". I'm all for Civil Equality, but I'm also steadfast in my belief that facts of History should be given in proper context, not as a satirical imagery to incite emotion and inaccurate ideas.
Posted by Nexus on January 19,2010 | 02:45 AM