Henry Wiencek

This is an excellent study of not just George Washington's views and actions regarding slavery, but also an examination of the larger culture he was a part of and the complex family relationships that curtailed Washington's ability to emancipate slaves. Furthermore, the author has done extensive work to understand the kind of labor enslaved people were engaged in, how the arrangement of Washington's farms and plantations would have impact their family life, and using limited documentation to show more piece together individual stories of just a few of the people enslaved by the Washington family. A compelling history and one that permits a deeper understanding of Washington, the people who labored on his plantations, and the world they both inhabited. show less

Just as engaging and more wide-ranging than Annette Gordon-Reed's take on Jefferson and his slaves, Wiencek's work underscores and reiterates the hypocritical tension between Jefferson's professed views on slavery and his actions on slavery. Jefferson can claim to want to free his slaves, then plead poverty as to why he can't; he can claim Black people do not have the rigor to function in society, while training his slaves as chefs and artisans, and dismiss Phillis Wheatley and Benjamin show more Banneker. And, the letter written by his own slave Hannah. His chapter on Sally Hemings is more sedate and even-handed than Gordon-Reed's too. Wiencek demolishes the mythos of the saintly Jefferson, but in a way that does not come off as a screed or philippic. You can still see redeeming features in the times, in the Founders, and the American experiment. You can wince at the bad while still recognizing the good. show less

Wiencek confronts the paradox that has long attached itself to Thomas Jefferson: How to reconcile the author of the Declaration of Independence, a man of the Enlightenment, with the slave owner? Not satisfied with the familiar contrivances excusing Jefferson—he was a product of his time, he had misgivings, he did what he could under trying circumstances, he was nice to his slaves—Wiencek uses family letters, genealogies, oral histories, farm records, and the archaeology of Monticello to show more reveal the dissembling behind the high-flown rhetoric.

Thomas Jefferson was the master of a plantation. He profited and lived comfortably for decades from the labor of long generations of slave families held as his property. The labor and profit he extracted from his slaves depended on a system of routine violence that Jefferson well understood and encouraged. The book is no hatchet job, yet what comes through most clearly here is Jefferson’s own disregard for the humanity of people he owned. The times do not excuse him; many others refused to participate, or repudiated the institution and freed their slaves, or courageously worked and fought on behalf of that fundamental human dignity that Jefferson could only write about. show less

This is well written and very interesting. It's a bit dated as so much more has come to light about say Oney Judge. None the less readable and interesting.
The author considers George Washington to have not been racist and a benevolent slave owner. Which is a bit like a compassionate rapist. A oxymoron.
He then follows up with GW violating the Federal Slave Act as sitting president. Followed by detailed methods he used to oppress the Enslaved Peoples on his many estates.There is no show more benevolence in these actions. In addition the idea that black folks owe free service is racism all on it's own. The author details the daily lives of most of GW's Enslaved population on multiple Washington and Custis Estates: they left home before light, worked until dark, were provided a single meal a day. They were expected to grow their own food, keep their own chickens and hunt and fish. In the small amount of down time they were alloted. In addition they were inadequately clothed unless in service where visitors could see them. Yet the author makes repeated references to slave theft. I guess they were just supposed to nobly starve and freeze to death. GW was the thief. He stole their labor they were surviving. He's the thief not them. He also references common slave resistance techniques and then uses that as a reason that GW 'had' to punish them, as if owning humans was something he had to do. As if humans being oppressed have none of the rights of liberty that GW felt entitled to. I appreciate the effort by this author but GW's actions can not be excused. They absolutely are representative of who he is and they taint his image for all posterity. Period. show less