On October 16, Farrar, Straus and Giroux published Henry Wiencek’s third book, Master of the Mountain: Thomas Jefferson and His Slaves. His previous works both dealt with slavery, most notably his well-received An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America. By contrast, his latest work has come under fire from leading Jefferson scholars around the country. Within days of the book’s release, highly critical reviews by academics appeared in online magazines. These reviews started online exchanges that have played out over the last two months and continue to do so.

Historians much more up to the task than myself—including Annette Gordon-Reed, Jan Lewis, and Lucia (Cinder) Stanton—have called into question Wiencek’s use of sources (both primary and secondary), his overall interpretation, and his motives. Therefore, I will not recapitulate all of them here. I have included a chronology with links to all the relevant articles below, with J.L. Bell’s posts at Boston 1775 providing excellent summaries of the most contentious points. Instead, I want to touch on two things: the main part of Wiencek’s argument and how it reflects his broader approach to history and the effects of Wiencek’s treatment of the historiography, both having to do with the larger relationship between popular and academic history.

In Master of the Mountain, Wiencek argues that in the early 1790s Jefferson changed his earlier anti-slavery views and became an avid supporter of the institution, particularly after realizing how profitable slavery was. He also stresses that Jefferson authorized the use of violence at Monticello in an effort to reap the greatest profit possible from his slaves, an aspect of Jefferson which he argues historians have suppressed. Hence, Wiencek argues that Jefferson’s “views and practices on slavery evolved not in moral terms but in commercial ones.” Finally, he adds that Jefferson began to “see slave labor as the most powerful and most convenient engine of the American enterprise” and subsequently “formulated a grand synthesis by which slavery became integral to the empire of liberty.”

…

An article summing up plenty of the controversy over Wiencek’s book Master of the Mountain, with links to other sources. Go check it out.

Really, I’m not sure what to think of someone who apparently takes a calculation Jefferson made for someone else showing that slavery was profitable and turns it into an epic turning point in Jefferson’s life, where he realized slavery was personally profitable. I mean, you think he didn’t realize slavery was profitable before…? What? And you’d have to be blind to have not to noticed all the historians taking Jefferson to talk on slavery.

yourthomasjefferson:

Given the penetrating exploration of history evinced by my enlightened coterie here, in this modern iteration of The Republic of Letters, I will venture with some certitude that everyone reading this has experienced annoyance comparable to my own, and possibly even headaches of the like, when suffering the barrage of misattributed, mutilated, or outright fabricated statements which are not only falsely credited to my own provenance, but which are rapidly disseminated by party enthusiasts more concerned with bolstering their own preconceived notions than with enlarging their incomplete understanding. By way of antidote, as well as candle in the darkness, I offer you the work of Mistress Anna Berkes. She is the research librarian at Monticello’s International Center for Jefferson Studies (or “Me” Studies, as I sometimes like to say…). She continues to augment her library of “debunked” quotes, unshackling me from the reckless ignorance indulged in by certain ardent spirits. This article in the Wall Street Journal presents Mistress Berkes’ project with the solemn respect that is due her diligent service. I have relied on her work many times over the last few years, because, at 269 years of age, I cannot possibly hope to remember everything I said and did not say without some help.