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