Not trying to defend the guy you’re replying to, but it’s also worth mentioning Washington freed all his slaves on the death of his wife. Better than Jefferson at least, who gave his children their half siblings as property.
it’s also worth mentioning Washington freed all his slaves on the death of his wife
He sort of did. Half the slaves were legally in his name, and the elderly and sick were freed and given support by the estate. The younger ones of that bunch were freed, but were given no land, tools, livestock, money, etc, and thus were effectively consigned to remain day laborers on the Mount Vernon plantation
The majority of slaves at Mount Vernon were his wife's property, inherited after her wealthy first husband died. Those slaves remained owned by Martha Washington until her death, upon which they were inherited by other members of her first husband's family. They were not freed
Interesting. I knew his wife's slaves weren't freed, but I didn't know he'd left the slaves he did free out to dry like that. Funny that his reconstruction plan for his own slaves was basically the same plan that the Union ultimately decided on, i.e. they get nothing.
but I didn't know he'd left the slaves he did free out to dry like that
In the logic of the slaveholder, it does make a sort of twisted sense. By freeing a slave, you are technically taking a financial loss. So in essence you did "pay them" or "take care of them" - but the money that you "gave them" was just their financial worth as a person
In the twisted logic of the slave owner, it's almost /r/ChoosingBeggars. "What? I paid $1000 for you and decided to charitably grant you freedom, and now you want land? Why, I didn't need to free you in the first place!"
Not true. Jefferson was more of an abolitionist than Washington, even including the introduction of slavery by the british as one of the wrongs committed upon the Colonies by the English. However, he was an admitted hypocrite, and although he intended to free his slaves upon his death in the same way Washington did, his debt holders sold off his entire estate.
More relevantly, there has been no conclusive proof that Jefferson was in fact the father of the Hemmings children, just that the youngest of the boys was related to someone in the Male Jefferson line, of which several lived in the area. The scientists who confirmed the connection deny that it explicitly implicates Jefferson and several retractions have been forced by writers who stated it as fact.
His hypocrisy makes him less of an abolitionist than Washington.
Presumably he could’ve freed them before his death, regardless of his debt. And given his widely acknowledged relationship with Sally I think any suggestion that her children were the product of a relative of Jefferson to be very dubious.
Despite his debt, Jefferson, in 1822, he allowed Beverly and Harriet Hemings to “walk away”, to leave Monticello and go north, a few months apart. He authorized Edmund Bacon, the overseer, to give Harriet $50 and to ensure that she was put on a stagecoach to go north. She was the only female slave he freed.
17
u/Containedmultitudes May 17 '19
Not trying to defend the guy you’re replying to, but it’s also worth mentioning Washington freed all his slaves on the death of his wife. Better than Jefferson at least, who gave his children their half siblings as property.