Outraged critics accused President Donald Trump of “whitewashing history” on Friday after the National Park Service removed an exhibit on slavery at Philadelphia‘s Independence National Historical Park in response to his executive order “restoring truth and sanity to American history.” It was the site of the residence of both President George Washington and John Adams before the District of Columbia was created. The exhibit centered on the enslaved people that Washington employed there. The Visitor’s Center website singles this out:
“See the names of the nine enslaved members of President Washington’s household who lived on the site. One of them, Oney Judge, seized her freedom while the Washington family was eating dinner. With the help of the free black community and a white ship captain, she eventually made her way to a new life in New Hampshire.”
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE REMOVES SLAVERY EXHIBIT IN PHILADELPHIA
The plight of Washington’s enslaved servants was presented in three ways. First, in a panel labeled “Washington’s Deceit,” it claimed that Washington circumvented the Pennsylvania state anti-slavery law by rotating his enslaved workers every three months. Second, the exhibit links the plight of runaway slaves to the 1793 Fugitive Slave Act, which allowed for their capture and return. Third, the exhibit is critical of President Washington’s efforts to free the enslaved people on his Mount Vernon plantation.
Washington could have easily obtained dispensation from state anti-slavery laws, but chose not to ask for special privileges. The Fugitive Slave Act only allowed slaveholders to pay private individuals if they recaptured runaway slaves, but did not order states to help in any way. And Washington did not own most of the slaves at Mount Vernon, as they were the property of his wife’s family.
A panel documents Native Americans being driven out of the Northwest Territories by settlers. However, no panel discusses Washington’s role in the spread of religious freedom. If you want to read his 1790 letter to the Newport, Rhode Island Jewish community in which he unequivocally supported full religious liberty, you would have to walk a block to the National Museum of American Jewish History.
Most questionably, the exhibit created a vehicle to talk about slavery more harshly. It has a panel that claims rape and breeding were important reasons for the dramatic growth of the enslaved population after importation was disallowed, years after the capital had moved from Philadelphia. Rape was a feature of the antebellum period, but recent claims by Shannon Eaves that there was a widespread rape culture are unfounded.
Robert Fogel found that overseers were employed on only one-sixth of moderate-sized plantations with 16 to 50 slaves, and on 25% to 30% of larger ones. On three-quarters of plantations with no white overseers, there was only one white adult male; an environment that could not develop a rape culture. Any pattern of raping enslaved women would not have been conducive to the needs of these plantations for unsupervised enslaved workers to perform administrative and skilled crafts. Though she believes that there were indirect ways that breeding was facilitated, Aisha Djelid approvingly noted, “Twentieth-century scholars such as Robert Fogel, Stanley Engerman, and John Boles dismissed forced reproduction as an abolitionist trope.”
Rape and indirect breeding had little effect on population growth compared to the stable family structure that typified slavery. The vast majority of children were raised in long-lasting, two-parent households. Historian Heather Williams reported, “[Herbert] Gutman found that at the end of the Civil War, in Virginia… most families of former slaves had two parents, and most older couples had lived together for a long time.”
Robert Fogel documented that by almost any measure – diet, housing, health, and life expectancy – enslaved blacks fared better than English industrial workers. Rather than having teenage women die of tuberculosis, slave owners often hired Irish immigrants to do dangerous work, as the lives of enslaved workers were too valuable to risk. However, this evidence is suppressed. Instead, stressing the vicious treatment the enslaved endured is necessary because anything less would reflect an apologist stance.
In response to pre-WWII books that pictured slavery as a relatively benign institution, Stanley Elkins and Kenneth Stampp emphasized how owners used their unrestrained power to brutalize the enslaved. In Slavery, Elkins claimed that slavery was so brutal that it created child-like behaviors, underpinning the “Black Sambo” image that was widely accepted at the time.
In The Peculiar Institution, Stampp claimed that to counter the harsh oppressive regime, many enslaved blacks “feigned childlike behavior to sabotage production: shirking their duties, feigning illness, injuring the crops, and disrupting the routine.” For Stampp, terror and brutalization destroyed the strictly regulated family life and rigid moral code that had prevailed in Africa, so that sexual promiscuity was widespread.
For those holding these views, slavery was so brutal that the enslaved had no agency and, as a result, hopelessness bred poor work habits, widespread promiscuity, and no stable family structure. The perceived persistence of these behaviors led Moynihan and other liberals to believe that a legacy of slavery explained the poor employment and high out-of-wedlock birth rate of black Americans.
WHY BEHAVIORAL REQUIREMENTS ARE CRUCIAL FOR WELFARE PROGRAMS
In the 1970s, a group of left-wing historians countered this victimization thesis. Robert Fogel and Eugene Genovese were members of communist organizations at the beginning of their careers, though both would later abandon Marxism. They believed the power of the slavers was much less than either Stampp or Elkins believed, so that the enslaved had agency to improve their lives. These views were later joined by those of Herbert Gutman. Unfortunately, these historians are now ignored so that the extreme brutalization and the powerlessness of the enslaved are again pervasive, enabling rape and slave breeding to move to center stage.
This explains the choices made in the Philadelphia exhibit: undermine exalted notions of Washington and exaggerate the viciousness of slavery. Thus, there is every reason to make adjustments.
Robert Cherry is a recently retired Brooklyn College economics professor, American Enterprise Institute affiliate, and author of the forthcoming book, Arab Citizens of Israel: How Far Have They Come (Wicked Son Press, March 2026).
