One of the new additions to “Blog, or Die.” will be periodic guest posts by fellow historians. Our first candidate and I have collaborated for years over at The Jefferson Project and The Free Lance-Star Town & County. His name is Chris Williams and he is a graduate of VCU, very active politically in the African-American community, and a contributing writer to such award-winning publications as Street Report Magazine. Chris is also an R&B songwriter and producer. His specialty is correlating early American history to today and he has penned several outstanding pieces on Black History Month.

Chris and I have a sincere respect for one another and we often have difficult discussions over issues like racism and historical memory. It was his interpretations of the Founding Fathers that initiated the TJ Project. We don’t always agree, but we glean wisdom from each other’s views and our work is far better for it. Chris recently suggested that we construct some pieces regarding race from the Old America to the New America and in a recent email to me he wrote, “Race is a topic that is almost a societal taboo to speak on, but I have no problem expressing my opinions on it because it's something that we all deal with every day in different ways.”

I asked my friend if he would allow me to share a piece he penned on the origins of the White House. In it he brilliantly integrates the history of the building with the historic presidency that dominated the attention of the day. This article ran just before President Obama’s inauguration and is incredibly fascinating. As the issue of race has become a regular topic here, I can’t think of a better way to kick-off our guest posts than sharing this seldom discussed piece of American history.

THE WHITE HOUSE AND OBAMA
By Chris Williams
FLS (T&C), January 17, 2009

Since its inception, the White House has been a representation of liberty, democracy and independence. What many Americans don't know is how the actual building was constructed and the correlation it has with the heritage of our incoming president, Barack Obama, whose inauguration is Tuesday.

Obama's heritage has intrigued both Republicans and Democrats, but in researching the history of the White House I found striking similarities between the ancestral lineages of the people who designed and built it and of the man who will be residing there next week.

As the story goes, in 1790 the first U.S. Congress approved the Act of Residence to create the permanent seat of the federal government. The act empowered President George Washington to locate America's capital along the Potomac and Anacostia rivers.

It designated Philadelphia as the temporary capital for 10 years until the completion of a presidential residence and a capitol in Washington.

George Washington had a grand vision for the buildings. They would be emblematic of the democracy that America acquired just nine years earlier with the surrender of British troops in the Revolutionary War.

Pierre Charles L'Enfant and Benjamin Banneker devised the original plans for the city of Washington, but those plans were held in abeyance until an architect was found.

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson proposed that a national design competition be held to determine the designer of the president's house and Congress' house--the "capitol," the term Virginians used for their statehouse.

The winner of this competition was an Irish architect named James Hoban. Through happenstance, he had met George Washington a year earlier in Charleston, S.C., when Washington was visiting personal friends. Little did they know that a year later they would be joining forces to bring Washington's vision to fruition.

The buildings Hoban designed directly reflected the 18th-century Georgian neoclassical style of the house of the Duke of Leinster in Dublin, Ireland. These designs stood out to Washington because he was fascinated by edifices located in Europe.

"In the last part of the eighteenth century, Americans and the Irish had the same political convictions along with shared strategies in economic development for their countries," according to William Seale, author of "The White House: An American Idea."

It is not known whether this played a role in Washington's choice of Hoban, but his plans were approved in the autumn of 1792 with changes forthcoming a year later.

To proceed with the implementation, the U.S. government planned to import workers from Europe, but recruitment yielded abysmal results. The government then sent out a request for 100 slaves to begin the arduous task of constructing the White House.

The laying of the cornerstone took place on Oct. 13, 1792.

There was a Fredericksburg-area connection to the original construction of the White House. In 1793, enslaved and free blacks from Virginia and Maryland began clearing the forest for the White House and Capitol, digging trenches and ditches and bringing sandstone piece by piece on boats from the Aquia Creek quarry in Stafford County.

They also began hauling lumber and other materials from White Oak Swamp in what is now King and Queen County, and placing cut stones for the walls of the White House.

According to Seale, "City commissioners of the project were concerned that this local source of sandstone couldn't provide the sufficient quantity necessary to produce the White House and the Capitol so they decided to downscale the size of the White House to keep the plans intact. Due to the reduction in size, the White House now in a sense was 'Americanized' because of the loss of the most obvious reference to the Leinster House, which was the high base, but Washington demanded to keep the ground dimensions of the enlarged plans."

Brickmasons worked hand in hand with the stone-masons to provide stability for the structure of the White House.

"The credit for carving the stone for the first White House belonged to two groups of Scottish immigrants who were stonemasons that faced a moratorium from the building industry in England due to the war with revolutionary France," according to Seale.

These two groups of immigrants consisted of members of the Masonic order in Washington and two brothers, John and James Williamson (who were not related to the chief stonemason, Collen Williamson, also from Scotland).

By 1795, Williamson and Hoban no longer saw eye to eye and Williamson was replaced by an English mason, George Blagdin. But it was another Englishman, Benjamin Henry Latrobe, along with Thomas Jefferson, Dr. William Thornton and James Hoban, who saw through the completion of the original White House and Capitol.

Once the construction was finished, the porous sandstone walls were coated with a mixture of lime, rice glue, casein and lead, giving the house its familiar color and name. The first president to inhabit the residence was John Adams in 1800.

Hoban and Latrobe were also responsible for overseeing the reconstruction of the White House after it was burned by the British during the war of 1812.

OBAMA CONNECTION

In this research, I came across some surprising similarities between the lineage of James Hoban and that of President-elect Barack Obama.

Hoban's lineage traces back to the province of Leinster; Obama's great-great-great-grandfather on his mother's side, Falmouth Kearney, also was from the province of Leinster.

Hoban was from County Kilkenny, and Falmouth Kearney was from nearby County Offaly.

It has been well documented that Obama is a distant cousin of President Harry Truman, Vice President Dick Cheney and former British Prime Minister Winston Churchill through their common ancestor, Mareen Duvall.

Obama's English and Scotch-Irish roots can be traced back to the 1650s to Duvall, a wealthy Huguenot merchant who immigrated to Maryland during the mid-17th century.

The fact that Obama's father was African brings into the equation the role of African-Americans in constructing the White House. Their work alongside the Scotch-Irish immigrants was pivotal in laying the foundation and molding the designs for what was variously called the President's Palace, the Presidential Mansion, the President's House, the Executive Mansion and, as it was to be named later by Theodore Roosevelt, the White House.

Each of these disparate groups contributed to crafting a building that will be home to one of its own after the swearing-in of our 44th president on Tuesday night.

President-elect Obama's African, English and Scotch-Irish background make him an anomaly in the sphere of American politics. His election will go down in the time-honored annals of the White House.

Today I had the pleasure of traveling to Baltimore’s Inner Harbor, where I dined on crab cakes in the shadow of the USS Constellation. Constructed in 1854, this vessel is known as a “sloop-of-war” and was the flagship for the U.S. African Squadron from 1859-1861. During this period she disrupted the African slave trade by interdicting three slave ships and releasing over 700 imprisoned Africans. Armed to the teeth, the Constellation boasts 16 × 8 in (200 mm) chambered shell guns, 4 × 32-pounder (15 kg) long guns, 1 × 20-pounder (9 kg) Parrott rifle, 1 × 30-pounder (14 kg) Parrott rifle, and 3 × 12-pounder (5 kg) bronze boat howitzers. Based on a 1797 frigate design, the USS Constellation was a Civil War–era ship.

I was so inspired by my visit, I am now working on a special post about “The Father of the American Navy,” John Paul Jones. Of all the officers that I have examined from the Revolutionary War, Jones ranks among the top of the list. His performance under fire is considered by many to be second to none and his tactics are still taught by the U.S. Navy today. Captain Jones also has family ties here in Fredericksburg and some of his relatives are buried here. Everyday on the way to the train station I walk past the corner of Lafayette Blvd. and Caroline Street, where a beautifully restored row house stands that belonged to Jones's brother, William Paul. Perhaps I will make some time to stop there one day and discuss the property’s legacy with its owner. Stay tuned for that JPJ post and be sure to visit the USS Constellation the next time you find yourself in Baltimore, craving crab cakes.

On a side-note, please look for my article in this Saturday’s Free Lance-Star Town & County on Mort Künstler’s newest release, The Angel of the Battlefield, as well as the release of my histiography written for the painting itself which depicts Clara Barton’s experience at Chatham. This will be the fourth FLS article I’ve penned on Mort and the fourth painting copy I’ve penned for Mort. He will be coming to town on the 20th for a print signing and I’ll be sure to take some photos to share with you here.

(Photograph by me, via BlackBerry)

ABOVE: Life of George Washington--The farmer. By Junius Brutus Stearns (Library of Congress).

As my newfound studies into the Revolution continue to expand, one subject that has caught my attention is the extraordinary life and legacy of George Washington. Most of my current reading has been done in preparation for my upcoming presentation on Mary Ball Washington for the VA Farm Bureau Women’s Convention, and for an article that I am writing for Patriots of the American Revolution magazine on Col. Washington and the VA Militia’s experiences in western Pennsylvania. Sources for these projects include Edward G. Lengel’s General George Washington and Washington’s Crossing by David Hackett Fischer. Both of these titles are excellent and I am gaining a tremendous wealth of knowledge on our nation’s first commander-in-chief.

Over the years, the majority of my work has focused specifically on the social, political, and religious aspects of our collective history. That is to say NOT the military ones. I have zero expertise in battlefield tactics and leave that subject up to real military historians like Eric Wittenberg and Brooks Simpson. In lieu of manly weapons and strategy, I have chosen to tackle the equally explosive issue of race. Just as my book on Fredericksburg’s churches and PAR feature on Race and Remembrance at Monticello dealt with the complexities and contradictions of slavery, so too are my latest studies into the Founding Fathers. I have written extensively on Thomas Jefferson’s attitudes on the institution of human bondage and I am now examining Washington’s perspective.

I do not consider myself ready to draw any concrete conclusions (yet) on Washington’s struggles over race. That said, I have found the obvious similarities and differences between Jefferson’s and Washington’s racisms to be most intriguing. Both Virginia planters benefited greatly from the institution in their own private enterprise while accumulating and maintaining their family’s wealth on the backs of their slaves. Washington however, ended his life with a mindset that differed from Jefferson’s. The slaves that Washington owned in his own right came from several sources. He was left eleven slaves by his father's will; a portion of his half-brother Lawrence Washington's slaves, about a dozen in all, were willed to him after the death of Lawrence's infant daughter and his widow; and Washington purchased from time to time slaves for himself, mostly before the Revolution.

David Hackett Fischer recently published a piece on Washington titled Born to Lead which contained an excellent sidebar describing this aspect of Washington’s life. Titled The Unapologetic Patrician, it presents a critical portrait of a social snob who begrudgingly maintained slaves until his death:

“Washington grew up among many inequalities, and he accepted most of them. He was very conscious of social rank. A sociable man among his peers, he was at his ease with others of his class and often in their company. From 1768 to 1775, he entertained 2,000 people at Mount Vernon, mostly “people of rank,” as he called them. He deliberately kept others at a distance and advised his manager at Mount Vernon always to deal that way with inferiors. “To treat them civilly is no more than what all men are entitled to,” Washington wrote, “but my advice to you is, to keep them at a proper distance; for they will grow upon familiarity, in proportion as you sink in authority.” Washington had been taught to treat people of every rank with civility and “condescension,” a word that has changed its meaning in the modern era. In Washington’s world, to condescend was to treat inferiors with decency and respect while maintaining a system of inequality.

His world was also a hierarchy of wealth, and Washington acquired a large share of it. When his brother died, he became the master of Mount Vernon at the age of 22, leasing it from his sister-in-law, then owning it outright. At 36, he married Martha Parke Custis, a very beautiful and gracious woman and one of the richest widows in Virginia. By skillful management and good luck, his property increased rapidly before the Revolution. Public service diminished his wealth, and he was forced to sell large tracts of land to pay the expenses of his presidency, but even with that burden, he built one of the largest family fortunes in America, with a net worth of more than a million dollars. In 1799, his and his wife’s estates included many thousands of acres and 331 slaves.

Part of his world was hierarchy and race. In his early years, Washington owned many slaves and actively bought and sold them. Before the Revolution, he shared the attitudes of his time and place and fully accepted slavery, but after 1775, his thoughts changed rapidly. He began to speak of slavery as a great evil, and by 1777, he wrote of his determination to “get clear” of it. After much thought and careful preparation, he emancipated all of his slaves in his will.” (Bold emphasis added.)

It appears that Washington’s conscience was deeply troubled in his later years. His determination to free his slaves was likely a way of easing the burden of guilt. Unlike Jefferson, Washington freed all of his slaves upon his (and his wife’s) death, making no distinction between them. Every one was granted liberty regardless of their age, position, or stature within the household. Jefferson only freed certain slaves when he passed away and many more were sold off by his heirs to cover the immense debt that he had incurred while building Monticello. One could even say that Jefferson relinquished his slaves because he had to, while Washington appears to have done so because he wanted to. Here is an excerpt from Washington’s will that frees his slaves and commends them for their service (Note: the < > denotes where text was illegible, but can be assumed):

<Ite>m Upon the decease <of> my wife, it is my Will & desire th<at> all the Slaves which I hold in <my> own right, shall receive their free<dom>. To emancipate them during <her> life, would, tho' earnestly wish<ed by> me, be attended with such insu<pera>ble difficulties on account of thei<r interm>ixture by Marriages with the <dow>er Negroes, as to excite the most pa<in>ful sensations, if not disagreeabl<e c>onsequences from the latter, while <both> descriptions are in the occupancy <of> the same Proprietor; it not being <in> my power, under the tenure by which <th>e Dower Negroes are held, to man<umi>t them. And whereas among <thos>e who will recieve freedom ac<cor>ding to this devise, there may b<e so>me, who from old age or bodily infi<rm>ities, and others who on account of <the>ir infancy, that will be unable to <su>pport themselves; it is m<y Will and de>sire that all who <come under the first> & second descrip<tion shall be comfor>tably cloathed & <fed by my heirs while> they live; and that such of the latter description as have no parents living, or if living are unable, or unwilling to provide for them, shall be bound by the Court until they shall arrive at the ag<e> of twenty five years; and in cases where no record can be produced, whereby their ages can be ascertained, the judgment of the Court, upon its own view of the subject, shall be adequate and final. The Negros thus bound, are (by their Masters or Mistresses) to be taught to read & write; and to be brought up to some useful occupation, agreeably to the Laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, providing for the support of Orphan and other poor Children. and I do hereby expressly forbid the Sale, or transportation out of the said Commonwealth, of any Slave I may die possessed of, under any pretence whatsoever. And I do moreover most pointedly, and most solemnly enjoin it upon my Executors hereafter named, or the Survivors of them, to see that th<is cla>use respecting Slaves, and every part thereof be religiously fulfilled at the Epoch at which it is directed to take place; without evasion, neglect or delay, after the Crops which may then be on the ground are harvested, particularly as it respects the aged and infirm; seeing that a regular and permanent fund be established for their support so long as there are subjects requiring it; not trusting to the <u>ncertain provision to be made by individuals. And to my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom; or if he should prefer it (on account of the accidents which ha<v>e befallen him, and which have rendered him incapable of walking or of any active employment) to remain in the situation he now is, it shall be optional in him to do so: In either case however, I allow him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life, whic<h> shall be independent of the victuals and cloaths he has been accustomed to receive, if he chuses the last alternative; but in full, with his freedom, if he prefers the first; & this I give him as a test<im>ony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War. <end>

A detailed listing of Washington’s slaves is also available online at The Papers of George Washington. More on this subject to come.

I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he [Christ] wished anyone to be; sincerely attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any other. - Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, April 12, 1803

Without a doubt, one of the most complex aspects of Thomas Jefferson’s life story is the subject of spirituality. From his authoring of the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom and Jefferson Bible, to the many letters that he sent to friends and associates touting the teachings of Jesus Christ, Jefferson’s religious beliefs remain a perplexing riddle to this very day.

As a practicing Christian and historian, I have spent a great deal of time examining this subject and my dream of penning that best-seller revolves around a book that presents Jefferson’s experiences here in Fredericksburg when he agreed to draft the official document that separated church and state. A recurring interest, Jefferson’s attitudes on faith were the focus of the inaugural essay that I wrote for The Jefferson Project, as well as the initial debate that I participated in at Jefferson Today.

Below is a portion of my rebuttal from Jefferson Today. You can also read my essay, titled Jefferson’s Religious Freedom, over at The Jefferson Project. Plans are to open this subject up for discussion in a future posting, while providing additional insights and sources from the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.

CHRISTIAN CONSCIENCE?

Jefferson rejected the “divinity” of Jesus, but he believed that Christ was a deeply interesting and profoundly important moral or ethical teacher. He also subscribed to the belief that it was in Christ’s moral and ethical teachings that a civilized society should be conducted. Cynical of the miracle accounts in the New Testament, Jefferson was convinced that the authentic words of Jesus had been contaminated. His theory was that the earliest Christians, eager to make their religion appealing to the pagans, had obscured the words of Jesus with the philosophy of the ancient Greeks and the teachings of Plato. These so-called “Platonists” had thoroughly muddled Jesus’ original message. Firmly believing that reason could be added in place of what he considered to be “supernatural” embellishments, Jefferson worked tirelessly to compose a shortened version of the Gospels titled “The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth.” The subtitle stated that the work was “extracted from the account of his life and the doctrines as given by Matthew, Mark, Luke & John.”

On April 21, 1803, Jefferson sent a letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, who was a fellow ‘Founding Father’ and devout Christian, explaining his own interpretation of scripture.

Dear Sir,
In some of the delightful conversations with you in the evenings of 1798-99, and which served as an anodyne to the afflictions of the crisis through which our country was then laboring, the Christian religion was sometimes our topic; and I then promised you that one day or other I would give you my views of it. They are the result of a life of inquiry and reflection, and very different from that anti-Christian system imputed to me by those who know nothing of my opinions. To the corruptions of Christianity I am indeed opposed, but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself. I am a Christian, in the only sense in which he wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to his doctrines in preference to all others, ascribing to himself every human excellence, and believing he never claimed any other. At the short interval since these conversations, when I could justifiably abstract my mind from public affairs, the subject has been under my contemplation. But the more I considered it, the more it expanded beyond the measure of either my time or information. In the moment of my late departure from Monticello, I received from Dr. Priestley his little treatise of “Socrates and Jesus Compared.” This being a section of the general view I had taken of the field, it became a subject of reflection while on the road and unoccupied otherwise. The result was, to arrange in my mind a syllabus or outline of such an estimate of the comparative merits of Christianity as I wished to see executed by someone of more leisure and information for the task than myself. This I now send you as the only discharge of my promise I can probably ever execute. And in confiding it to you, I know it will not be exposed to the malignant perversions of those who make every word from me a text for new misrepresentations and calumnies. I am moreover averse to the communication of my religious tenets to the public, because it would countenance the presumption of those who have endeavored to draw them before that tribunal, and to seduce public opinion to erect itself into that inquisition over the rights of conscience which the laws have so justly proscribed. It behooves every man who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist invasions of it in the case of others; or their case may, by change of circumstances, become his own. It behooves him, too, in his own case, to give no example of concession, betraying the common right of independent opinion, by answering questions of faith which the laws have left between God and himself. Accept my affectionate salutations.
- Th: Jefferson

IMAGE: Thomas Jefferson, aquatint by Tadeusz Koo Ciuszko

This morning I received an email from the good folks at the Virginia Farm Bureau and it appears that my talk on Mary Ball Washington for the VAFB Women’s Conference is being video-taped for future broadcast. The VAFB has its own television show on cable titled Down Home Virginia and perhaps it will air there. I will be getting a copy and promise to post the entire presentation, or at least a part of it (pending file size) here on my blog. A more detailed version of this speech, titled “Mary Ball Washington, The Mother of the Father of Our Country” will also be submitted to Patriots of the Revolution as a feature.

BTW: This afternoon I attended the United States Marshals Service’s 2010 African-American History Month program, which featured excellent speeches by the Honorable Alexander Williams, U.S. District Court for the District or Maryland, and Maudine R. Cooper, President and CEO of the Greater Washington Urban League.  This year’s theme focused on "The History of Black Economic Empowerment." As a historian, it is a privilege to work with an agency that takes an active role in recognizing the history and heritage of its employees.

As Black History Month comes to an end, I can't think of a better post to share today than the extraordinary story of the "Black Loyalists in New Brunswick." Without a doubt, one of the most highly controversial and contested subjects in today's historical studies (both in the public and academic arena) is the questionable history of Black "Confederates" during the American Civil War. In recent months this subject has been debated ad nauseum across the blogosphere and I touched on the subject in my recent book on Confederate encampments in Spotsylvania County.

The quarrel of course is why anyone would willingly take up arms on behalf of a cause that sought to keep them in bondage - vs. - the notion that many Africans fought beside their masters in order to protect their state's from Federal occupation. Those of you who read Campfires at the Crossroads may recall that I found the examples of black Confederates whom I cited to be slaves acting in the capacity of servants, not soldiers. The letters that I included testified to that conclusion.

Although that argument will continue for generations it seems, America's first revolution did, IN FACT, find blacks fighting alongside their white counterparts.

At the time of the Revolutionary War (1775-1783), it is estimated that there were over a half million African-Americans living in the thirteen colonies. As the rebellion's patriotic call to fight for liberty grew, the British government sought to undermine the expanding Continental Army by soliciting slaves who ran away from their masters. By promising to grant them their freedom and security, the Redcoat ranks were able to boost their manpower on the battlefield instead of constantly relying on the importation of additional troops who took months to travel to the Americas from England. Some of these all-black units even flourished as in the example of the Royal Ethiopian Regiment and later, the Black Pioneers.

According to the Atlantic Canada Virtual Archives website Black Loyalists in New Brunswick: "In November 1775, Virginia Governor Lord Dunmore, hoping to bolster the British war effort, encouraged slaves and indentured servants of the Patriots to join His Majesty's army. Many did so. When the British evacuated their army from Boston to Halifax in 1776, a "Company of Negroes" was part of the entourage. British Commander-in-Chief Sir Henry Clinton extended the policy of appealing to African Americans in his Phillipsburg Proclamation of 1779 in which he offered security behind British lines to 'every negro who shall desert the Rebel Standard.'"

Following the British Army's surrender, it is estimated that nearly 35,000 loyalists fled the United States to settle north in the provinces of Canada including the maritime regions of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Nearly 3,500 free black loyalists were among them including many who had fought alongside the Redcoats on behalf of the English crown. New Brunswick saw thousands of African-Americans settle in as new citizens and many went on to fight again for Britain in the War of 1812. Despite their service to the king, many black loyalists and their families still faced racial discrimination, although it paled in comparison to the institution of slavery that continued to thrive in the southern United States.

For a complete history, visit Black Loyalists in New Brunswick 1783-1854. This outstanding project is a digital collection hosted by the Atlantic Canada Virtual Archives and features document and petition transcripts, rare images, as well as lesson plans and resources for teachers.

The National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) is a charitable 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization which exists to provide life-affirming pregnancy help centers the best legal education, consultation, and training possible. In addition to donating some signed books I am offering a unique experience to one winning bidder:

Item Number 157: Personal tour (up to 4 guests) with historian Michael Aubrecht. In the Steps of Stonewall: This one-of-a-kind experience will take guests to local sites tracing the last days of Confederate Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson. The 4+ hour tour includes: Chancellorsville Battlefield sites, Jackson's wounding Trail and Monument, Jackson's arm burial-site at Ellwood, Jackson's Ambulance Route, and the Stonewell Jackson Shrine. Additional stops may be added as time permits. Guests may also purchase copies of Michael's books. Date/time to be determined. BID HERE

As my studies of the American Revolution continue to evolve, I find myself becoming fascinated with the flags that were used to rally both citizens and soldiers to the pursuit of liberty. The title of this blog for instance, comes from the famous “Join, or Die.” flag, based on a well-known political cartoon, created by Benjamin Franklin and first published in his Pennsylvania Gazette in May of 1754. Another flag that has caught my fancy is the “Don’t Tread on Me,” otherwise known as the Gadsden flag.

That standard in particular has become a popular symbol of Americana. I have both of these banners hanging in my cubicle at work and have seen them plastered on everything from t-shirts to bumper stickers. Those of you familiar with my editorials on the Confederate flag know that I’ve never been a fan of flags being turned into imagery on merchandise. That said, I do find it interesting that we have embraced the spirit of the Gadsden flag and made it a modern brand. It has been woven into the fabric of our culture and today we fly “Don’t Tread on Me” in celebration of our past and in dissatisfaction with our own government.

The Gadsden flag was designed by and is named after the general and statesman from South Carolina named Christopher Gadsden. In 1775, the then Colonel Gadsden, presented his design to the Continental Congress to be used as a standard by the commander of the navy. The image was immediately striking with a bright, yellow field, a graphical representation of a rattlesnake in the posture of striking, and the words "Don't Tread on Me” underneath.

As the fight for independence grew closer, the snake began to be used frequently as a symbol of the colonies and their cause. It appears on several variations of flags and one of its biggest champions, Benjamin Franklin, published an essay under the pseudonym “American Guesser,” in which he suggested that the rattlesnake was a perfect match for the American spirit. He wrote:

I recollected that her eye excelled in brightness, that of any other animal, and that she has no eye-lids—She may therefore be esteemed an emblem of vigilance.—She never begins an attack, nor, when once engaged, ever surrenders: She is therefore an emblem of magnanimity and true courage.—As if anxious to prevent all pretensions of quarreling with her, the weapons with which nature has furnished her, she conceals in the roof of her mouth, so that, to those who are unacquainted with her, she appears to be a most defenseless animal; and even when those weapons are shewn and extended for her defense, they appear weak and contemptible; but their wounds however small, are decisive and fatal:—Conscious of this, she never wounds till she has generously given notice, even to her enemy, and cautioned him against the danger of treading on her.—Was I wrong, Sir, in thinking this a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America? (Source: Franklin, Benjamin. Pennsylvania Journal. December 27, 1775)

Chris Whitten, a fellow Libertarian and Internet entrepreneur, has developed an excellent web site that deals with the complete histories of Christopher Gadsden , the Gadsden flag, and how his snake image is celebrated in our modern culture.

BELOW: Gadsden variation used by the 6th North Carolina Continental Line Regiment. (Photo by Me. "A Day in the Life of Spotsylvania," Belvedere Plantation, 2007.)

Yesterday I completed my talk and slide show for the Virginia Farm Bureau Women’s Conference Brunch on “Mary Ball Washington: Mother of the Father of our Country.” This 30-minute speech was a real challenge, but I went the extra mile on research and came up with what I think is a very solid portrait of a very complex woman. As this is to be considered a Sunday morning “devotional”, I had to write an opening prayer and find a balance between portraying Mary through a religious and secular narrative. After two drafts I was able to find a nice balance in which I present a fairly standard history lesson, while referring to documented interpretations of Mary’s spiritual-side. I enjoyed the prep-work on this one immensely and although I state no personal assumptions in my speech, I personally believe that Mary was a strong-willed and stubborn woman with a deep sense of faith. 

Following the March 21 engagement, I will be sending a modified (and more scholarly) version to the folks at Patriots of the American Revolution for publication in an upcoming issue of their magazine. Last week I compiled some excellent reference for my article on George Washington and the VA Militia in western Pennsylvania, and I finally started reading Jefferson at War for an upcoming PAR book review requested by our friend Eric Wittenberg. As I will be focusing much of my time and energy on these larger pieces, I plan to post some shorter ones here on my blog. Upcoming topics include: Tar and Feathering and Loyalists. As you may have noticed, the new mantra here at “Blog, or Die.” is quality – not quantity. Stay tuned…

In order to understand the experiences of the historic churches of Fredericksburg, one must first look at the locality and the important role that organized religion played in the town. Today, the town is known as “America’s Most Historic City,” while the neighboring county of Spotsylvania is referred to as the “Crossroads of the Civil War.” Both are literally saturated with landmark homesteads, museums, plantations and battlefields that draw thousands of tourists each and every year. Churches remain among some of the most coveted attractions for their historical significance and architectural beauty.

Fredericksburg has also been referred to as a “city of churches,” as its silhouette is dominated by a plethora of bell towers and steepled roofs. Today there are over three hundred congregations spread throughout the surrounding region. Clearly, anyone walking through the town can see the important role religion played in the day-to-day lives of the town’s inhabitants. Chartered in 1728, the settlement served as the surrounding area’s political, social and economic center. As it was conveniently located on the banks of the Rappahannock River, Fredericksburg quickly became a bustling metropolis, with taverns, lodging and commerce. Both eighteenth- and nineteenth-century industries such as mills, shipping and transportation helped to establish the town as a commercial beacon on the ever-expanding map of central Virginia.

Despite a widespread disenchantment among America’s first settlers with the Church of England, religion remained a precious keystone in colonial life. Many of the area’s first citizens still retained their belief in God and brought the deep desire to practice their faith with them when they came to this new land. It was the freedom to pursue that faith in a variety of forms that separated the early Protestant and even Catholic churches from their European counterparts. Therefore, churches were significantly important institutions in the foundation of any settlement in the New World.

The original English settlement of Fredericksburg had been clustered in a fifty-acre area along the west bank of the river. It was originally engineered in a grid-like pattern, with wide streets that were named after British royalty. The initial plot consisted of sixty-four equally sized lots with two extra spaces for a church and a market. As the population increased, Fredericksburg found it necessary to expand the municipal boundaries. By 1759, the city had tripled its physical size, opening the door to both new merchants and settlers alike. Eventually, the boundary line was pushed westward toward the area known as the “Sunken Road.” This hallowed ground witnessed the brunt of the Battle of Fredericksburg and is a national military park today.

Historically, the town of Fredericksburg is especially noteworthy with regard to all American faiths. It was here, at an establishment known as Weedon’s Tavern, where Thomas Jefferson met with his political contemporaries in 1777 and agreed to author a bill for religious liberties in America. Today, the Religious Freedom Monument stands as a testament to that event. The simple marker was first unveiled in 1932 and consists of a small obelisk made of hewn stone blocks. It is a tribute to Jefferson’s words, which resulted in the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom:

VIRGINIA STATUTE OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM

SECTION I. Well aware that the opinions and belief of men depend not on their own will, but follow involuntarily the evidence proposed to their minds; that Almighty God hath created the mind free, and manifested his supreme will that free it shall remain by making it altogether insusceptible of restraint; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, but to exalt it by its influence on reason alone; that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that very religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminals who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that the opinions of men are not the object of civil government, nor under its jurisdiction; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

SECTION II. We the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

SECTION III. And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right.

The statute, enacted in 1786, separated church and state and gave equal status to all faiths. It became the basis for the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, giving Americans the freedom to practice the religion of their choice or none at all. Jefferson himself proclaimed this bill to be one of his three proudest achievements, alongside authoring the Declaration of Independence and founding the University of Virginia. In fact, these three accomplishments are the only ones that he deemed worthy to inscribe on his grave marker at Monticello.

Excerpt taken from "Historic Churches of Fredericksburg: Houses of the Holy" by Michael Aubrecht (History Press, 2008).

Yesterday I humbly accepted an invitation to speak at the Virginia Farm Bureau Women’s Conference next month. I will be addressing 350+ ladies from all over the Old Dominion following their Sunday breakfast at the Fredericksburg Hospitality House. In addition to the invite, I was granted free license to select whatever subject matter I wanted. As my new focus is entirely on the Colonial-period, I felt it appropriate to offer something fitting for both the occasion and audience. I will be presenting the life of Mary Ball Washington, a local woman of historical note and the mother to our first president. I am titling my talk Mary Ball Washington, Mother of the Father of our Country.

I have already begun my research by contacting the George Washington Foundation. I do hope that some of the conference attendees will have an opportunity to visit Ferry Farm and the Mary Washington House. My plan is to present Mrs. Washington as the complex and virtuous woman that she is said to have been, while also acknowledging her rocky relationship with her son. As usual I will share my photos and transcripts following the engagement on March 21. I am also hoping that this study will become part of a future article for Patriots of the American Revolution.

On a slightly unrelated note, today I received a very complimentary email from William G. Hyland, Jr., a noted attorney and author of In Defense of Thomas Jefferson, The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal. Mr. Hyland was pleased with my article on race and remembrance at Monticello (see below) and offered to send me a copy of his controversial book for review. I must say that I am eagerly looking forward to reading the counter-argument to my favorite book of last year, the Pulitzer Prize winning The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family by Annette Gordon-Reed.

As I mature in my own research efforts, I am striving to read as many conflicting studies as possible when examining any topic. It seems that controversy and re-examination are the lifeblood of history today. I will be sure to post my thoughts on Mr. Hyland’s book. I just started reading Flight from Monticello: Thomas Jefferson at War by Michael Kranish for my first review in PAR. It seems that Mr. Jefferson is fast eclipsing Mr. Jackson in my private library. After reading 8 "TJ" books, I am still awed and perplexed by the man.

Above: View of the West Front of Monticello, c. 1827 by Jane Pitford Braddick Peticolas. (Monticello/Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, Inc.)

Welcome to the inaugural post of BLOG or DIE. This article appeared in the January/February 2010 issue of Patriots of the American Revolution and was complimented by a photo essay shot on the grounds at Monticello. I have received permission from the editors at PAR to repost the text portion of my piece here with hopes that you will check out their excellent publication. I have already signed on to pen future articles and our good friend Eric Wittenberg has been named PAR's first book review editor. This level of length, detail, and insight will be the new standard that you can come to expect from this blog. My next study will present Colonel George Washington's and the VA Militia's experiences in western Pennsylvania.

Race and Remembrance at Thomas Jefferson’s Monticello
by Michael Aubrecht (PAR, Jan/Feb 2010, Vol. 3 Issue 1)

HISTORY AND HYPOCRISY

Thomas Jefferson is remembered as perhaps the most exceptional charter member of the Founding Fathers. His contributions to the birth of our nation are second-to-none and his words have inspired generations of Americans to covet their freedom and liberty. At the same time, the author of the Declaration of Independence is criticized as the most hypocritical affiliate of that revolutionary generation. The largest point of contention in this Virginia planter's legacy is his lifelong practice of slavery and how it benefited him socially, politically, and personally. It is an emerging blemish on an otherwise brilliant existence.

Jefferson experienced the so-called "peculiar institution" of bondage directly, as Monticello's slave population was one of the largest in Virginia. His community of human property resided just over the hill from the main house, on what was referred to as "Mulberry Row." Often Master Jefferson would walk along the path tracing the 150-plus slave workforce community which included family dwellings, wood and ironwork shops, a smokehouse, a dairy, and a wash house and stable. "Mulberry Row" was the center of plantation activity from the 1770s to Jefferson's death in 1826. Five log cabin dwellings were also built near the site for additional household servants who did not fit in the basement-level dependency wings of the estate. Today, visitors can trace Jefferson's footsteps on the grounds of Monticello, although the outbuildings are no longer standing on Mulberry Row. The dependency wings are open to the public and the adjoining kitchen and sleeping quarters appear much the same as they did in Jefferson's time. Despite the initial appearance of a bustling plantation community, one cannot forget that it was populated by slaves. And regardless of the quality of life that Jefferson's servants appear to have shared over other Africans held in bondage, they were still held as property.

Like their proprietor, Monticello slaves maintained an arduous schedule. Most servants worked from dawn to dusk, six days of the week. Only on Sundays and holidays could they pursue their own affairs. These included prayer meetings and worship, spiritual singing, and night excursions, when wild honey would be gathered for their personal consumption. The supplementing of rations was also practiced as farm hands grew acres of vegetables, fished the river, and trapped game. Unlike many masters, Jefferson actually paid his slaves a monetary share for extra vegetables, chickens, and fish for the main house, as well as for special tasks performed outside their normal working hours. He also encouraged some of his enslaved artisans by offering them a percentage of what they produced in their shops. An extremely diversified man himself, Jefferson was most likely impressed by the skills that were cultivated by his slaves. In this respect, his treatment of them imitates a mutual respect for hard working individuals who cared about contributing to Monticello's well-being. Jefferson's very good friend James Madison also appreciated the vocations exhibited on Mulberry Row and purchased all of the nails used to enlarge his neighboring estate of Montpelier from Jefferson's nail foundry.

The conflict that existed between Jefferson, the slaveholder and Jefferson, the proponent of liberty is still being debated and examined to this very day. According to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, who is tasked with preserving and presenting the storied legacy of its namesake, Jefferson's words and deeds are contradictory on the issue of slavery. Although he drafted the words "all men are created equal," and worked to limit the stranglehold of slavery on the new country, he personally found no political or economic remedies for the problem, and trusted that future generations would find a solution. "But as it is," Jefferson wrote, "we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and self-preservation in the other."

For his entire life, Thomas Jefferson was surrounded by the practice of slavery. In 1764, he inherited 20 slaves from his father. Ten years later, he inherited 135 more from his father-in-law, John Wayles, who was involved in the importation of enslaved Africans into Virginia. By 1796, Jefferson owned approximately 170 slaves with 50 living on his property in Bedford County and 120 residing in Albemarle. Each residence was completely dependent on the use of forced labor, from the planting of fields to the daily operations of the house. Slave labor was also the economic force behind many of Jefferson's enterprises. It seems that his lifestyle demanded the practice, regardless of his prejudices against it.

Ironically, throughout his career, both politically and personally, Jefferson repeatedly voiced displeasure with the institution of slavery. He often referred to it as an "abominable crime," a "moral depravity," a "hideous blot," and a "fatal stain that deformed what nature had bestowed on us of her fairest gifts." He was successful in outlawing international slave trade in the Old Dominion, but continued to keep slaves on all of his farms in Virginia. This blatant contradiction illustrates the complexity that was Thomas Jefferson. One conclusion is that he believed that a practicable solution to this moral dilemma could not be found in his lifetime. He still continued, however, to advocate privately his own emancipation plan, which included a provision for colonizing slaves outside the boundaries of the United States.

Without a doubt, the most controversial issue, with regard to slavery and the legacy of Thomas Jefferson, is his relationship with Sally Hemings. Several books have been published that specifically deal with the subject, including the Pulitzer Prize winning book entitled The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family by Annette Gordon-Reed and the counter-argument entitled In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal by William G. Hyland Jr. A house slave, Sally was the half-sister of Jefferson's deceased wife, Martha. Not merely a modern scandal, rumors that Jefferson had fathered multiple children with Sally Hemings entered the public arena during his first term as president. It continued to hang over Jefferson's memory for many years. In 1998, Dr. Eugene Foster and a team of geneticists revealed that they had "established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last-known child born to Sally Hemings. There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time, and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello." The study's authors, however, said, "the simplest and most probable conclusion was that Thomas Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings."

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation's official statement on the matter declares, "Although the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings has been for many years, and will surely continue to be, a subject of intense interest to historians and the public, the evidence is not definitive, and the complete story may never be known. The Foundation encourages its visitors and patrons, based on what evidence does exist, to make up their own minds as to the true nature of the relationship." This adds an entirely new layer to the complexity of Thomas Jefferson's views, not only on slavery, but also on race in general.

To this day, the "Hemings Affair" remains a hotly contested topic among Jefferson experts and enthusiasts alike. It is inevitably a mark on the life of a man who ultimately helped to establish a nation built on the foundation of freedom. Ironically, the division over the matter is often rooted in conflicting racial perspectives. This has been expressed in a variety of ways over the years. Regardless of the color of their skin, some individuals do not feel comfortable with the idea of an interracial or intimate relationship between a master and his slave. Others are bothered by either the notion of an older white man taking advantage of a younger black woman, or the hypocritical practice of owning some African-Americans while simultaneously bedding another. Perhaps there is no clear conclusion to the mystery surrounding this relationship. Still it speaks to the idea that different people of different races look upon the matter in different ways.

Beyond the bounds of his estate, Jefferson, like many powerful Southerners, benefited greatly in the political spectrum through the ownership of African-Americans. Many experts have argued that Jefferson's election, as the third President of the United States, came solely due to the South's augmented representation in the Electoral College, which included a 60% census of slaves who were counted as 3/5 of a vote. At the time, detractors of his election referred to Jefferson as "the negro president" and criticized the clause in the Constitution that they believed enabled him to achieve victory. This factor was part of a compromise put in place to maintain a balance of voting power between the northern and southern states. As metropolitan communities in the north were more densely populated, Southern representatives demanded to have a portion of their slaves counted in the overall census. This would enable them to close the so-called "voter's gap" at the ballot box by increasing their numerical representation. The result was a more aggressive importation of Africans that ultimately secured more power for the slave states.

In his book entitled "Negro President" Jefferson and the Slave Power historian Gary Wills explains the monumental affects of the slave-clause: "In the sixty-two years between Washington's election and the Compromise of 1850, for example, slaveholders controlled the presidency for fifty-years, the speaker's chair for forty-one years, and the chairmanship of House Ways and Means Committee [the most important committee] for forty-two years. The only men to be re-elected president - Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and Jackson - were all slaveholders. The men who sat in the speaker's chair the longest - Henry Clay, Andrew Stevenson, and Nathaniel Macon - were slaveholders. Eighteen out of thirty-one Supreme Court justices were slaveholders."

MEMORIES AT MONTICELLO

Today, the largest monument to the memory of Thomas Jefferson can be found at his beloved plantation. There stands one of the most celebrated and recognizable houses in all of America. It is the only private residence to be featured on U.S. currency and is heralded as a masterpiece of both form and function. Each year, millions of visitors traverse the rolling hills of Virginia to walk in the footsteps of a man who accomplished more in his lifetime than most. Upon arriving at Jefferson's estate, many feel a sense of awe at the magnificent architecture, beautiful gardens and the breath-taking view of the valley that surrounds Monticello Mountain. Inside the main house, they remain in astonishment of Jefferson's boundless creativity, ingenuity and practicality. Every room and every item appears to have a distinct purpose. Beneath the dependency wings, visitors can also appreciate the daily contributions of the house staff, from the baking of bread in the kitchen to the ingenious preservation of perishable goods in the icehouse. A visit to the nearby museum reinforces the notion that few men were as intelligent or as creative as Jefferson and that few households in the Commonwealth were as productive as Monticello.

One of the most welcome and recognizable additions to the site can be found in the vastly improved interpretation of slavery and the inclusion of more African-American perspectives. As the subject of slavery is certainly an uncomfortable one, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation should be applauded for its renewed commitment to expanding the stories of those who experienced slavery firsthand. Five major parts of the Monticello experience now recall the institution. These include the newly expanded visitor's center and gallery, the house tour, Mulberry Row, the visitor's guidebook and the slave cemetery.

VISITOR'S CENTER

This year marked the grand opening of the Thomas Jefferson Visitors Center and Smith Education Center at Monticello. There are two main galleries at this location (along with a theater, café, gift shop, and research library). Both exhibit halls feature specific displays dealing with slavery and the labor force at Monticello. Both sections appear dedicated to recognizing the contributions of the African-American community. In the upstairs gallery there is a biography card on Issac Jefferson who had served as a blacksmith, tinsmith, and nailer. Issac's memoirs were recorded by an interviewer and remain among the most insightful narratives about the day-to-day lives of Monticello's inhabitants. Isaac held a sincere affection for his owner and was reported as saying, "Old Master was very kind to servants."

Next to Issac's display are matching bios of John Hemings, a tremendously skilled woodworker who crafted much of the interior woodwork of Jefferson's house at Poplar Forest, as well the most famous of all Monticello's slaves, Sally Hemings. In addition to these bio cards, artifacts that include some of the black artisans' handiwork are on display. The craftsmanship that these men demonstrated is even more impressive when considering the lack of technology that exists today. In many instances, slave labor equaled skilled labor.

In the downstairs gallery, a large display titled "Those Who Built Monticello" presents the tradesmen, free and enslaved, as well as the tools they used to construct Jefferson's magnificent estate. According to the plaque, "Jefferson required highly-skilled workmen to realize his vision for Monticello. In Philadelphia in 1798 he engaged James Dinsmore, an Irish house joiner, to take charge of the ongoing construction in his absences. Dinsmore worked closely with enslaved joiner John Hemings to create much of Monticello's fine woodwork. The team of joiners also included James Oldham (1801-04) and John Neilson (1805-09), and another enslaved man, Lewis..."

It continues, "John Hemings, the son of Elizabeth (Betty) Hemings, apprenticed under Dinsmore and hired joiners. He became an accomplished craftsman, succeeded Dinsmore as head joiner in 1809, and trained other slaves in his trade, including his nephews Madison and Eston Hemings. A Monticello overseer recalled that Hemings ‘could make anything that was wanted in woodwork.' He made fine furniture, a landau carriage, and much of the interior woodwork at Poplar Forest. Jefferson freed Hemings in his will and gave him all the tools of his shop. Continuing to work for the Jefferson family, Hemings lived for several more years at Monticello with his wife, Priscilla."

MAIN HOUSE AND DEPENDENCIES

Nothing major has visibly changed noticeably at the top of the hill, although the guided tours are now more open to discussing the institution of slavery and how it was a crucial element in the construction, maintenance and operation of Monticello. Some guides are known to immediately make a point of presenting Jefferson as a typical Virginia plantation owner who had established his lifestyle on the benefits of slave labor. Others quote Jefferson as saying that he abhorred slavery and believed that he looked at his slaves with a paternalistic view; that they were children who required his supervision; then counter that notion by saying that dozens of Monticello's slaves had been gifted and/or sold off by Jefferson; and that if one judged him by his deeds and not his words, slavery was something that benefited him greatly.

Underneath the house, there remain several displays in the center alcove presenting the servants' quarters, artifacts, and slave lifestyle, including that of Issac Jefferson. The kitchen areas in particular present how Jefferson had his slave cooks trained by French chefs in the traditional dish preparations of the time. Adjacent quarters present the life of a slave named Joseph Fossett. The plaque reads, "Joseph Fossett (1780-1858) was the grandson of Elizabeth (Betty Hemings) and the son of Mary Hemings Bell, who became free in the 1790s while her son remained a slave at Monticello. According to overseer Edmund Backon, Fossett, a blacksmith, was ‘a very fine workman; could do anything it was necessary to do with steel or iron.' Joseph and Edith Fossett had ten children, from James, born in the President's House in 1805, to Jesse, born in 1830. Although Joseph Fossett was freed in Jefferson's will, his wife and children were sold at the Monticello estate auction in 1827. He continued to work as a blacksmith and, with the help of his mother and other free family members, was able to purchase the freedom of Edith and some of their children. They moved to Cincinnati, Ohio, in the 1840s. In 1850 their son Peter, who left a number of recollections of his life, became free and joined his family in Cincinnati, where he was a prominent caterer and Baptist minister."

MULBERRY ROW

Perhaps the most direct display of slave life at Monticello is the stops along Mulberry Row. In addition to traditional placards, brick ruins mark the areas of significance. Named for the mulberry trees planted along it, Mulberry Row was the center of plantation activity at Monticello from the 1770s to Jefferson's death in 1826. Five log dwellings for slaves were located on Mulberry Row in 1796. The Mulberry Row cabins were occupied mainly by household servants who did the cooking, washing, house cleaning, sewing, and child tending. According to Monticello's website, "Not all slaves lived on Mulberry Row. A small number who were household servants lived in rooms in the basement-level dependency wings of Monticello, and others lived in cabins located elsewhere at Monticello and outlying farms." It is estimated that in 1796 there were over 110 African-Americans living on the 5,000-acre plantation, with almost half of them being children.

Stops along the way include slave dwellings, a workman's house, a storehouse, a blacksmith shop, a nailery and a joinery. Some people may not be aware that all building materials including Monticello's bricks and nails were made on-site and they will most certainly be surprised to learn that white workers lived along this section of the estate. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation states that, "A blacksmith shop was built on this site about 1793. Here Jefferson's slaves Little George, Moses, and Joe Fossett shoed horses, repaired the metal parts of plows and hoes, replaced gun parts, and made the iron portions of the carriages that Jefferson designed. Neighboring farmers brought work to the shop as well, and the slave blacksmiths were given a percentage of the profits of their labor. In 1794, Jefferson added a nail-making operation to the shop, in an effort to provide an additional source of income. Nail rod was shipped to Monticello by water from Philadelphia and was hammered into nails by as many as fourteen young male slaves, aged ten to sixteen." The crumbled foundation of a typical Mulberry Row slave cabin remains. According to the plaque, the structures were approximately 20 ft. x 12 ft., constructed of logs on a stone foundation, with a wood chimney and earth floor. These buildings overlooked the main produce gardens. Today there is a special Plantation Tour available that covers the slave community and its daily contribution in more detail. Mulberry Row is a main focal point of the walking tour.

VISITOR'S GUIDEBOOK

As with most of the nation's historical sites, Monticello also provides a quality guidebook along with each ticket purchase. This includes both an adult and a child's version. In the past, some patrons have criticized the child's pamphlet as it contains "cheerful" illustrations that explain the day-to-day life at Monticello by depicting slaves happily cooking in the kitchen and playing with the Jefferson children around the fish pond. No doubt slave-master relationships like this existed, but these representations can be viewed as illustrating complacency. Both sides of this argument are understandable as little children are perhaps too young to understand or comprehend the issues of slavery, yet these candy-coated drawings gloss over the issue altogether.

The adult guidebook that is currently distributed features two large spreads dealing with slave labor. The first is titled "Mulberry Row" and includes an illustrated map of the grounds and photographs of artifacts. Once again Issac Jefferson makes an appearance (clearly the most exhibited slave on the premises). A section on the storehouse states, "In 1796 Jefferson recorded that the log building here was used for storing iron and nail rod for the blacksmith shop and nailery. It also served over time for tinsmithing and nail manufacture and as a dwelling. A slave named Issac Jefferson, trained as a tinsmith in Philadelphia, briefly operated the tin shop."

The second spread is titled "The Plantation" and deals specifically with the institution of slavery. It states, "Most of Jefferson's slaves came to him by inheritance - 20 from his father and 135 from his father-in-law. In 1782, he was the largest slaveholder in Albemarle County. For most of his life he was the owner of 200 slaves, two-thirds of them at Monticello and one-third at Poplar Forest, his plantation in Bedford County." A photograph of Jefferson's record of slaves complements the copy and a sidebar deals directly with the subjects of enslaved families.

It states, "Enslaved Families: A number of extended families lived in bondage at Monticello for three or more generations, facilitating Jefferson's operations as farm laborers, artisans, tradesmen and domestic workers. Among them were the children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren of Elizabeth Hemings, David and Isabel Hern, Edward and Jane Gillette, and James and Cate Hubbard. Nights, Sundays, and holidays provided the only opportunities to socialize and nurture their connections that united them as a community. Like their fellows across the South, Monticello slaves resisted slavery's dehumanizing effects by filling this time with expressions of a rich culture: gardening, needlework, music, religious practice. They were part of a cultural and spiritual life that flourished independent of their masters."

SLAVE CEMETERY

One additional area that befits the attention of this study is the small African-American graveyard that is located on the grounds of the estate. According to the sign, this cemetery is the final resting place of 40+ blacks who lived in slavery at Monticello from 1770-1827. It adds that although the names of Jefferson's slaves were known, it has not been possible to identify any of those buried here. This is perhaps one of the most telling of all the exhibits, as a separate burial plot personified the society of segregation that, even in death, existed at Thomas Jefferson's home.

Thanks to these new expansive interpretations, visitors to the new Monticello are more likely to come away with a more complex perspective of the man, as well as new conclusions. Many will acknowledge that the Thomas Jefferson we recognize today was a man who may very well have held a sincere paternalistic fondness for his slaves, but at the same time, he held them in the chains of bondage. And despite the fact that many of his servants received specialized training and developed trades that resulted in the creation of great things, they were simultaneously denied the basic principle of freedom. This is where the contradiction of the patriot who penned the most famous call for liberty lies. Thomas Jefferson was an extraordinary man whose contributions to this country cannot be denied, but he was also a man who adhered to the racist views of the period. This is an undeniable truth.

Thankfully, the folks at Monticello are not shying away from this aspect of Jefferson's life and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation has made great strides to include an African-American presence in its presentation. This effort not only fills the void of a far-too-neglected history, but it also makes Thomas Jefferson human. Visitors today will more likely leave Thomas Jefferson's Monticello with a broader understanding of this remarkable, yet flawed Founding Father.

Sources:

Jefferson at Monticello, Recollections of a Monticello Slave and a Monticello Overseer. (Edited by James Adam Bear, Jr.).

Monticello A Visitor's Guide (Thomas Jefferson Foundation Inc.)

"Negro President" Jefferson and the Slave Power by Gary Wills (First Mariner Books Edition, 2005)

The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family by Annette Gordon-Reed (W.W. Norton & Co, Sept. 2008)

Thomas Jefferson Foundation: Monticello website: www.monticello.org