"The Only Unavoidable Subject of Regret": George Washington, Slavery, and the Enslaved Community at Mount Vernon

by Mary V. Thompson

George Washington’s life has been scrutinized by historians over the past three centuries, but the day-to-day lives of Mount Vernon’s enslaved workers, who left few written records but made up 90 percent of the estate’s population, have been largely left out of the story.

In "The Only Unavoidable Subject of Regret", Mary Thompson offers the first comprehensive account of those who served in bondage at Mount Vernon. Drawing on years of research in a wide range of sources, Thompson brings to life the lives of Washington’s slaves while illuminating the radical change in his views on slavery and race wrought by the American Revolution.

Thompson begins with an examination of George and Martha Washington as slave owners. Culling from letters to financial ledgers, travel diaries kept by visitors and reminiscences of family members as well as of former slaves and neighbors, Thompson explores various facets of everyday life on the plantation ranging from work to domestic life, housing, foodways, private enterprise, and resistance. Along the way, she considers the relationship between Washington’s military career and his style of plantation management and relates the many ways slaves rebelled against their condition. The book closes with Washington’s attempts to reconcile being a slave owner with the changes in his thinking on slavery and race, ending in his decision to grant his slaves freedom in his will.

Genres: History, Biography, American Revolution, Race, American History

480 pages, Hardcover

First published January 18, 2019

Reviews

[Erik · Rating 5 out of 5]

Mary Thompson is a historian and librarian at Mt. Vernon, so it's no surprise that her book on his connection to slavery is full of detail from historical documents and other research sources. In "The Only Unavoidable Subject of Regret," the reader will learn about Washington and his enslaved people, and will also gain much context that is helpful to put the main story in perspective.

Thompson's book is a veritable primer on the economic and social life of the community at Mt. Vernon, both black and white, in the second half of the 18th century, covering such subjects as crops grown, farming innovations, white indentured servants, overseers (both white and black) and changes in the economy.

It's all to tell a story of George Washington different from what you'll see on social media these days -- as one post put it, that the first president was "an evil slaveholder."

I'm sure the commenter would not allow the existence of such a thing as a "good" slaveholder, but according to European visitors, former slaves and members of the Washington family alike, George Washington combined expectations for long, hard work and results on the one hand with a care and concern for his workers, both free and enslaved, on the other that was far above and beyond the average Virginia landowner of his day.

For the last 25 years of his life, he pledged not to buy any more slaves because he did not want to commit himself further to an institution he began to hate. Even when he was in financial straits and was selling off assets for ready cash to pay debts, Washington resisted selling off enslaved people from Mt. Vernon as he thought it cruel to separate families. In planning to free the enslaved people that he controlled, Washington also came up with a plan to free the Custis dower slaves living at Mt. Vernon to keep families together. But the cost to reimburse the Custis heirs was too high, working out to equal several years of income from all of Mt. Vernon's crop sales.

As to the common criticisms leveled at Washington today for alleged abuses of enslaved people, Thompson deals with them all. For example:

Yes, Washington did use teeth from enslaved people in his dentures. He bought them from those willing to sell, a gruesome but common practice for poor people of all races in the 18th century (that persisted at least into the 19th, as readers of "Les Miserables" can attest).

Did Washington free any slaves in his will? Yes and no. It's true that only one enslaved person, William Lee, who served as attendant to Washington during the Revolution, was freed on Washington's death in December of 1799. But more than 100 others were granted freedom in his will to be realized on Martha's death. Following advice from friends, Martha freed all these people while she was still alive, about a year after Washington's death.

Even if he did free slaves in his will, why did Washington wait until he was dead to do it? According to Thompson, it wasn't greed or hypocrisy but lack of funds that prevented Washington from acting on his documented desire to free slaves during his lifetime. After the Revolution, during which he worked for eight years without a salary, Washington came back to a farm operation at Mt. Vernon with failing crops and mounting debts. As he worked to fix his finances, he also planned various plans to transition his enslaved workers from slavery to freedom. His will proved to be the best instrument to accomplish the emancipation project he'd planned for more than a decade.

There's no evidence that George Washington fathered any children by his enslaved women. Mixed-race children at Mt. Vernon were fathered by white overseers, tradesmen and workers on the estate or else by white men living in the neighborhood.

Washington did hunt down Martha's enslaved lady's maid Oney (or Ona) Judge, quietly enlisting government officials to locate her in New Hampshire to which she had fled, and urge her to return. Washington did not pursue Judge out of spite or greed. Other slaves who had escaped from Mt. Vernon were sought with far less vigor than Judge. Her case was special because Judge was Martha's favorite and also because Judge, as part of the Custis dower slaves that Washington held in trust for the Custis heirs, he and Martha stood to suffer a large civil penalty if they lost of the dower slaves.

Washington's views on slavery changed as he matured, and his respect for black people grew as he had contact with them in different situations including as soldiers in the Revolution. After the war and during his presidency, Washington supported an end to slavery -- gradual and legislated by government rather than immediate and done by individual slaveowners. He feared that slavery would destroy the American union, and wanted the troublesome institution gone. But if the country did split into sections over slavery, though he was born and raised in the Virginia gentry, Washington said he'd side with the North over the South.

Criticism today of Washington's participation in and views about slavery seems misplaced based on the careful evidence of Thompson's research. No founding father had entirely clean hands when it came to slavery. Even Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, famous for denouncing the peculiar institution, both made compromises with the slave economy in their own work as attorneys. And of course, these two along with all signers of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution from the North acceded to the compromise with South Carolina and Georgia necessary to keep the nation together. It was a reluctant compromise though, not just for northerners, but also for George Washington, who applied the natural right of freedom to both whites and blacks and wanted slavery put on the road to quick extinction.

In a famous eulogy on Washington's death in 1799, Rev. Richard Allen, a formerly enslaved churchman in Philadelphia who would later found the African Methodist Episcopal (AME) Church, recognized Washington as a leading ally for black freedom, "Our father and friend." For freeing his slaves in his will, despite popular opinion, Washington "dared to do his duty, and wipe off the only stain with which man could ever reproach him...he let the oppressed go free...and undid every burden...the name of Washington will live when the sculptured marble and the statue of bronze shall be crumbled into dust -- for it is the decree of the eternal God that 'the righteous shall be had in everlasting remembrance.'"

Thompson shares Allen's admiration for the figure she refers to as "one of the greatest" men who ever lived, but her book is written in a sober prose style that cites abundant historical evidence that Washington may be an unsung hero of abolition and civil rights.

[Lindsay Chervinsky · Rating 5 out of 5]

A phenomenal work of history that will be *the* definitive source on Washington and slavery.

[Ellen · Rating 2 out of 5]

I interpret this book to have been written from the perspective of a George Washington scholar. I feel it would have been more just and more interesting to center the black historical figures.

[Kusaimamekirai · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an incredibly comprehensive and fascinating look at the complex relationship between George Washington and the slaves forever to work his plantations, as well as a detailed look at what went on at these estates.
When I say comprehensive, perhaps I’m not doing it justice. The author covers seemingly every facet of what life looked like for the enslaved people at Mount Vernon.
Love, marriage, daily routines, the backbreaking labor, social lives, diet, among other painstaking details. I don’t think I’ve ever come across a book that paints such a complete picture of plantation life.
If I have any quibble with the book (and it is a small one) it’s that the author, being affiliated with the Mount Vernon estate, does at times seem to give George Washington the benefit of the doubt where perhaps he doesn’t always deserve it.
From all I’ve read, including this book, Washington was a relatively benevolent figure toward the enslaved people on his estate (although to the author’s credit she does point out Washington’s sanctioning of violence toward those he considered “lazy” as well as his aggressiveness in pursuing runaways).
He fed them relatively well compared to the bread and water rations of other plantations, but still was adamant that they receive no more and no less than the minimum requirements to keep them working.
He clothed them but in his letters indicates that they are to receive clothes only made from inferior materials:

“Let the breeding wenches have baby cloths, for which you may tear up old sheets or any other old linen”

“…the better sort of linen be given to the grown people, and the most deserving; whilst the more indifferent sort is served to the younger ones and the worthless”

The “worthless” presumably were to be judged by Washington.
For me however, no matter how well you may treat your slaves, you are still compelling people to work for you against their will. Yes, this was the norm amongst the Virginia aristocracy and to free your slaves would probably result in social ostracism and certain financial ruin, but as Washington’s diaries indicate, he knew what he was doing was wrong.
Taking all this into account, what are we to make of Washington’s will where he freed the men and women he owned upon his death (his wife Martha’s slaves from a previous marriage were beyond his legal power to free)?
Leaving aside the obvious troubling fact that he owned human beings at all (for those who argue that ‘it was a different time’ there was an acute awareness and uneasiness among slaveholders and critics even then about the practice that is well documented), he decided to keep them for his personal use as long as he could due to his own financial troubles. Literally until the day he died.
Even after his death, he would stagger their release by age. If you were over 40 you were pretty lucky and could leave.
Less lucky if you were anywhere from 16-40 (the majority) as you had to work 7 more years, presumably for the benefit of his wife. Under 16? Not getting your freedom until you turn 25.
So yes, Washington in theory freed his slaves. In practice, he freed a few, and kept the rest in bondage for as long as he could.
There’s no doubt that Washington was a complex personality whose slaves received better treatment under him compared to the abject brutality they received on other plantations.
Yet, he still stole their hours, their private lives, and any ambitions they may have had and replaced them with long hours of backbreaking labor.
Despite this, my main take away from this book is that this people, despite their harsh surroundings, were still able to fall in love, make families, laugh, and carve out social lives with the people around them. Some would even manage to escape and for the first time in their lives, be their own master.
Rather than think about whether Washington was a benevolent if perhaps misguided man, or simply a common slave owner with the same prejudices as those around him, I prefer to think of the men and women to rose above whatever hardships he may have thrown at them, and tried to live the best and most fulfilling lives they could.

[Robert Muller · Rating 4 out of 5]

On the good side, this book is by far the most complete rendering of everything known about enslaved people at Mount Vernon and Washington's interactions with them. The details are there, and they're heavily referenced to accessible sources, so you can easily get context if you're curious. There isn't that much that is really "new" here, but it's all in one place and thoroughly documented. Also, Thompson has resisted the common historian's flaw of speculating about what we don't know. There are a few instances where she goes beyond the facts, but thankfully few.

On the bad side, this is an encyclopedia, not a story. Thompson's strategy was to organize the book and each chapter into topics, then distribute her research into them. While that may sound like a logical way to present the facts, it doesn't lead to a readable book. Dry as toast, in fact. You can find little gems of storytelling, but you have to struggle.

So, are facts and thoroughness and good history without excessive "interpretation" more important than readability? This is up to each reader to decide. It's on my bookshelf permanently, but I won't be reading through the whole thing again, I'll just be using the excellent index to find specific facts.

As for things like mixing references to "slaves" versus "enslaved persons," I will leave it to other readers to decide whether that makes bad history. For me, it doesn't. This book does not "whitewash" the facts about Washington and the enslaved people at Mount Vernon, it presents them for inspection as a reference work.

[Chris · Rating 3 out of 5]

An excellent contribution to the history of Mt. Vernon and certainly the definitive account of the lives of the enslaved persons at Mt. Vernon - but also a little esoteric as a result. Someone familiar with the grounds of Mt. Vernon can better understand certain aspects of the book than someone who hasn't been there and the book is also very detailed about farming practices and the like (appropriately but perhaps boringly so).

Perhaps the biggest knock is that the book is almost entirely Mt. Vernon-focused. There is never sustained attention to Washington's views of slavery outside that context. There is still a lot there but most of what we came to know about Washington's views on slavery is through the lens of life at Mt. Vernon.

This book is for the more hardcore Washington fans, i.e., Mt. Vernon fans (which I am).

[Karrie McMillan · Rating 5 out of 5]

Excellent and highly researched account of Washington's slaveholdings. For those who want our Founding Father to be a "good master," (whatever the heck that is) - prepare to be disappointed.