I'd say that Jurretta hits a number of nails on the head in her post, and
does so eloquently, again.  By laying out so clearly the differences between
21st- and 18th-century world views/social/racial views, Jurretta implicitly
warns us of the dangers of presentism.  We can't just go back and try to
separate sheep from goats by our lights, nor should we, as Mr. Dixon puts
it, hang a bull's-eye on anyone's back.

Jurretta makes a subtle but all-important distinction regarding GW: he freed
his slaves but in all likelihood viewed them as inferior social and
political beings.  But GW's breakthrough was this: he knew that there would
always be people at the bottom of society, but those people should not be
enslaved.  And I think that the "education clause" in GW's emancipation is
striking.  When he stipulated that the freed children be taught to read and
write he wasn't just talking about the favored few, the house servants and
their offspring; he was talking about the children of field hands.  I think
that's remarkable.

Phil Morgan and I disagree on a number of points.  In some instances I think
he has misread my book.  He and I had a lively and friendly email exchange
about his article (he was kind enough to send it to me in advance of
publication) and we recently appeared together as speakers at a Mount Vernon
seminar.  I stand in admiration of Prof. Morgan's distinguished body of work
but I also stand by what I wrote.

Henry Wiencek
Charlottesville

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html