Columns, Society

The Truth About Madison and Slavery

Below is my column in the Washington Times responding to the controversy over changes at the home of James Madison. While I have not been to Montpelier since the reported changes, I wanted to respond to the condemnation of Madison as “an enslaver.” He was indeed an enslaver but the truth is far more complex than presented by critics.

Here is the column:

If there is one concept that captured the brilliant vision of President James Madison for government, it was his statement in Federalist 51: “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” The use of checks and balances to prevent the concentration of power was key to the stability of the constitutional system that he created. Indeed, his own home at Montpelier may now be an example of what happens when there is such a concentration of power and no check on its excess.

Recently, billionaire David M. Rubenstein gave $10 million to renovate and repair Montpelier. Mr. Rubenstein has given generously through the years to preserve historical documents and buildings. However, he has been accused of unleashing a newly formed, activist board on the property, which has transformed into what critics view as an ideological mission. It is a trend that we have seen at other historical sites, including the National Archives.

Last May, the National Trust for Historic Preservation reportedly pushed the board to accept a new slate of board members with a new agenda. Board member Mary Alexander, a descendant of Madison’s slave Paul Jennings, objected that the new members set out to transform Montpelier into “a black history and black rights organization that could care less about James Madison and his legacy.”

The exhibits now emphasize Madison “the enslaver,” and visitors have complained that there is little comparative attention to his contributions to political theory and institutions.

Visitors are greeted with a sign saying that the estate “made Madison the philosopher, farmer, statesman, and enslaver that he was.” Other exhibits discuss how every one of the nation’s first 18 presidents benefited from slavery, including anti-slavery figures like John Adams and Abraham Lincoln.

As a Madisonian scholar and devotee, I have long discussed the contradiction of slavery and the views of the founders, including Madison. It is an important element to highlight for visitors to estates like Monticello and Montpelier. However, history is often more complex than simple condemnations and Montpelier is an example of how the true history of Madison and slavery can be lost to serve current political interests.

Some of the information at Montpelier appears to reflect the claims of the highly controversial 1619 Project led by former New York Times Magazine reporter Nikole Hannah-Jones, which claimed that racism was the driving force behind the entire American political system. The claim has been challenged by academics and even one of the key fact-checkers at the Times. Historians objected that “matters of verifiable fact” that “cannot be described as interpretation or ‘framing.’” They objected that the work represented “a displacement of historical understanding by ideology.”

While the project has commendable elements, the view that the Revolution was primarily fought to further slavery is revisionist tripe. However, while it does not fit the historical evidence, it fits perfectly with contemporary politics.

Whatever the merits of the criticism over these exhibits may be, it is inaccurate and ahistorical to reduce Madison as just another “enslaver.” The true story is far more nuanced and frankly intriguing.

Madison had slaves, and that is a great stain on his legacy.

However, Madison also opposed slavery and sought its elimination. His views often put him at odds with other Virginians. Even during the Revolution, Madison opposed a proposal to offer recruits free slaves for their service and instead proposed giving slaves their freedom in exchange for their military service as “more consonant to the principles of liberty which ought never to be loss sight of in a contest for liberty.”

While Madison wrote early in his career to Edmund Randolph that he wanted “to depend as little as possible on the labor of slaves,” he never made that break with the infamous use of such labor.

Before the Constitutional Convention, Madison wrote a publication entitled “Vices of the Political System of the United States,” which declared that “where slavery exists the republican Theory becomes still more fallacious.”

Madison, however, would forge a compromise with pro-slave delegates in the infamous provision that set representation in one house be based on the number of free inhabitants in each state plus three-fifths of the number of slaves.

Madison would continue to work with those resisting slavery, including the dispatch of an extraordinary letter in 1810 to the American minister to Great Britain, William Pinkney, supporting the British condemnation of an American slave ship — even suggesting arguments to facilitate such condemnation. As president, he pushed Congress to end the slave trade.

The compromise captures much of the conflicted background of Madison and slavery. He often chose compromise while seeking to nudge the country toward banning slavery. He met in his home with abolitionists and free slaves to discuss ending slavery.

Madison resisted selling slaves and sold off property to support his estate instead. In his will, Madison asked that the slaves not be sold and instead be allowed to remain on the property until their deaths. (Dolley Madison would later sell the property and the slaves due to the towering debt).

The fact is that there were better men when it came to slavery. General Marquis de Lafayette was a better man. The fierce abolitionist visited Madison and viewed him as a kindred spirit, but noted the continued presence of slaves on the property. Madison’s aide, Edward Coles, was a better man. With Madison’s praise, Coles freed his slaves shortly after Madison retired from the presidency and gave each of them some land in Illinois.

Madison did not believe that freed slaves could live and thrive in a country given “the prejudices of the whites, prejudices which … must be considered as permanent and insuperable.” He proposed instead the funding of a colony in Africa for freed slaves.

Madison always viewed slavery as the thing that would tear the country (and his Constitution) apart. He would be proved correct in 1861. However, his efforts to compromise in favor of incremental progress sacrificed principle to politics.

That is a far more interesting and instructive history than the misleading portrayal created at Montpelier. Just as Madison too readily yielded to politics in his life, the new board has done so today in this revisionist account of this great but complicated historical figure.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law for George Washington University and served as the last lead counsel during a Senate impeachment trial. He testified as a witness expert in the House Judiciary Committee hearing during the impeachment inquiry of former President Donald Trump.

125 thoughts on “The Truth About Madison and Slavery”

  1. I didn’t own a slave, did you? My family never owned slaves did yours? I’ve never held any slave down from advancing, for that matter I’ve never held anyone down from advancing, have you?

    Could be my ancestors were slaves as my family is from Rome and you know how hungry lion’s were then, who do I complain to? History indicates that African tribes enslaved each other and sold them off to Portuguese and Spanish traders, why is there no anger at them, the tribe’s.

    White Americans fought and died to abolish slavery in the United States, why are you mad at them? Are you a slave, were you a slave? Don’t tell me about your great great aunt she has nothing to do with where you are today, that’s on you.

    You keep looking back and I guarantee your going to fall going forward.

    1. Margot claims:

      “White Americans fought and died to abolish slavery in the United States”

      A classic example of hagiography.

        1. and yet Jeff said he was an atheist. Atheists do not believe in Saints. clearly he is a believer !

          🎶 Kyrie Eleison!!! 🎶

  2. Madison was flawed. Washington was flawed. All the founders were flawed, some maybe even evil. So what? Look at what they gave us. Of course, the woke crowd want to destroy what we have and, so, they attack the founders. And what do they offer as the alternative? They offer social justice, the same stale formula that always leads to oppression and slavery to the state.

  3. Another nuance that Madison’s critics seem to overlook is this: Madison was born into a family with slaves. At some point he came to realize or was taught their unique relationship in the estate. James Madison Sr owned the slaves; Junior could no longer release a slave than he could sell his fathers favorite carriage without permission. Madison married in 1794 and now had a wife and young adopted son to support. James Madison Sr. died February 27, 1801 at age 77 and the ownership of Montpelier’s slaves, for the very first time, passed to “Jemmy.” James Jr. was now 50. For the first time in his life he had literal control over the lives of Montpelier’s slaves. But he also had a family to sustain and an estate to maintain and he was also the Secretary of State of the Unites States, living in Washington, D.C. Immediately freeing all of Montpelier’s slaves was clearly not a viable option. In fact, what good options did the man have? If Madison can be faulted at all, it can be for not devising a plan to slowly and carefully free his slaves in a way that did not destitute himself and his family. The slaves would need skills and “stake money” to establish themselves as independent, free citizens. They would be released into an oftentimes hostile culture, at least in the South. How many of us today could devise a plan for freeing these unfortunates that would work: i.e., a “win-win” solution?

    1. Oh please, Gary. Enough of your well-reasoned, careful and thoughtful approach to Madison’s situation. Better he should be made destitute and the slaves freed to be captured by someone else! It’s the “right” thing to do. Never in the history of the world has the plight of one minority so dominated the business of the majority of citizens. And the irony is it’s not the minority doing the dominating but their unsolicited representatives who have no real interest in their plight. It’s madness.

  4. The American Revolution was faught to end the slavery imposed on all Americans by the British or what we called The Redcoats.
    “Kill The Redcoats!”

  5. Congress ended the trans-Atlantic slave trade effective January 1, 1808, the earliest time permitted by the Constitution. Turley says Madison worked as President to end the slave trade. By the time he became President, the trans-Atlantic slave trade had already been outlawed. Does Turley mean that he worked to end the local trade in slaves? What evidence for that is there?

    1. The International Slave Trade was only ended as a form of protectionism to increase the price of domestic-bred slaves. The production of domestic slaves was the result of forced breeding and rape.

  6. From the Department of Defense: “ We also examined the actions the DoD took before January 6, 2021, that were independent of the D.C. RFA. We looked for a role or responsibility for the DoD to act preemptively to prevent or deter what later happened at the Capitol. We found none. On the contrary, we found restrictions that limited the DoD’s roles and responsibilities in planning and providing support for domestic civil disturbance operations (CDO). The Mayor of Washington D.C. turned down the offer of help from the DoD.” The Mayor and the Democrats in congress knew that there was a possibility of violence but turned down any help to prevent it from happening. One might suppose that violence is what they wanted to happen. See Ray Epps. https://justthenews.com/sites/default/files/2022-07/DODIG-2022-039%20V2%20508.pdf

  7. For ideologues, compromise, nuance and “complicated” simply do not exist. They have no arguments to support their positions so they depend on ideological rhetoric. People still quote Marx as though his exact words still apply more than 150 years later and a continent away. These non-thinkers are trapped inside that rhetoric, which is why you can ask 10 ideologues the same question and you’ll get the exact same response. Conformity is their guiding light.

  8. Oh wouldn’t it be great if the country had sprung up all-knowing and perfect from the get-go, like the perfect individuals now attempting to rewrite history. “Growth and change” are highly overestimated.

  9. when is the Democrat Party going to pay for the CIVIL War Number 1 and the current #2?

    Democrats have fought to keep good people on their plantations for the entire history of THEIR PARTY!

    The Democrats Party need to be abolished….and every person involved in the Russian Hoax from OBama and Hillary down to the front line FBI and DOJ TRAITORS….need to be jailed or worse!

  10. “Madison had slaves, and that is a great stain on his legacy.”
    slavery at that time was legal, this is an example of historic presentism in action. in fact slavery had been in existence around the world for thousands of years. focusing our attention upon only one aspect of an individual’s life does nothing more than ignore everything else that he did. The same has been done to people like R.E.Lee

  11. Americans should follow the genius of Christian minister Martin Luther King, Jr. King understood that many of the Founding Fathers were highly flawed, some were actually bad people. King also understood that if any minority group made a “constitutionality” argument in court, that the U.S. Constitution was a tool to EXPAND rights and freedoms of minority groups.

    In other words the Framers were flawed but the U.S. Constitution they created was near perfect because it could be amended through “constitutionality” court cases. The goal was to expand rights and freedoms.

    It should also be noted that the Founding Fathers worded the Constitution making it nearly impossible to end slavery. Instead they used primarily ambiguous vague wording – so a future plaintiff at a future time could end slavery, advance women’s rights, etc. The Framers basically gave a vague wink & nod to slave states but left it open to future amendment. If they had actually used the terms “slaves” or “slavery” in the original Constitution it would have been much harder to amend.

    What is so concerning today is we have a U.S. Supreme Court where some justices seem to want to take away rights and freedoms (in violation of the 9th Amendment). Courts are supposed to uphold the constitutional rights of unpopular minorities when attacked by the “tyranny of the majority” (James Madison’s warning).

    1. Has there ever been a time in the history of the Supreme Court that this has not been so? It depends on whose ox is being gored.

    2. “Americans should follow the genius of Christian minister Martin Luther King, Jr. King understood that many of the Founding Fathers were highly flawed, some were actually bad people.”

      I find it hilarious to use a person such as King, whose “genius” was Marxist training, plagiarism, and rape of white women (and perhaps other races). It’s almost as bad as using George Floyd as a black martyr for goodness.

      Using “bad people” to criticize “bad people” seems like a disconnect.

  12. “The fact is that there were better men when it came to slavery. General Marquis de Lafayette was a better man. The fierce abolitionist visited Madison and viewed him as a kindred spirit, but noted the continued presence of slaves on the property. Madison’s aide, Edward Coles, was a better man. With Madison’s praise, Coles freed his slaves shortly after Madison retired from the presidency and gave each of them some land in Illinois.”
    *******************************
    Montpelier is just another woke swamp who’s only value is to demonstrate the utter peevishness of the capitalist SJW crowd. The only reason to go is to confront the zombie guides on what they don’t know but why humor the mob by “hunting the flies” as the ancient Romans might say. The point is that being a slaveholder isn’t a litmus test for anyone given its legality, prominence among other nations and Biblical approval. In the standards of the time, it was an accepted if “peculiar” institution. One of the detestable things about post-modern man is the maniacial desire to judge every past action by contemporary standards of morality. Anyone knowing the history (or as Nietzche might say the geneology of morality) understands the fluid nature of the notion and the utter siliness of applying current approbrium to most anything in the past. Sadly, James Madison is not spared the lash of these know-nothing post-modern Puritans with an Iphone education.

    There may have been “better” men on the issue of slavery but that’s not the point. What we honor Madison for is that there were no better men on the issue of freedom and self-government than Madison and perhaps another now-villified Virginian residing about a 20-mile carriage ride away in Albemarle County.

    There’s a special place for those who forget history and who lack perspective. That’s Ground Hog Day. There’s an even worse place for those who intentionally wipe it away in a juvenile rant of self-loathing. Most historians call that the former land of the vanquished.

    2. Well said, mespo. The insistence on defining Madison’s legacy chiefly by reference to his status as a slaveholder is asinine, not to mention ahistorical. It’s a little like arguing that we should remember Lincoln chiefly as a victim of D.C. gun violence. In other words, this has little to do with history, and far more to do with the pursuit of a contemporary political agenda by the woke and the ignorant, but I repeat myself. Understanding history is an arduous task, which demands reading, study and critical thinking. Why bother, when it’s so much easier to espouse the lazy and unthinking catechisms of political correctness?

  13. I have had similar experiences at museums, such as the Getty in Los Angeles. Precious, historical artifacts utterly taken out of context to serve agendas by younger, woke staff, with any opportunity for education through nuance and understanding destroyed. The placards at this particular exhibit read like something out of high school, and even that might be too kind. Most were pretty turned off.

    The levels at which people are being permitted to broadcast their personal ignorance is just jaw-dropping at this point. I used to think every blue state would end up like Detroit, but that was when elections and law were still relatively stable. Now I suppose they will more greatly resemble Moscow circa the 1980s, or modern day China. And yes, I know there are many very ignorant people that believe that would be a positive turn of events.

      1. She places the well-being of the country over remaining in office. She’ll do fine out of office, and history will treat her — and the women she lauds — better than the cowards like Meadows and Trump.

    2. There are far more videos, in spite of Youtube removing them, of BLM ANTIFA Anarchists Democrat Brownshirts (aka Friends of Cackling Kamala) looting, burning, killing Americans from 2020 forward. Lets see how many you will find of elitist White Democrats preening versus blacks, hispanics, asians and whites losing everything they once held dear

    3. Yea, thats the ticket, repetition, yea repetition
      In the meantime, NY Governor Hochel sent another assassin out to kill her political rivals.

  15. Prof, Thanks for the history lesson. What the leftist fail to understand, this “experiment” would have failed miserably, without negotiation, and both sides of an issue, to advance the greatest nation on earth. Abortion is such a great example. One side demands abortion while the baby is in the birth canal, and the other extremes wants laws against masturbation, because it kills sperm. As our history shows, those in the extremes are willing to see total failure of society to advance their warped views. Governing by the people for the people, as close to the people as possible, is the negotiation in the middle that allows “the People” to grow and flourish.

    An other analogy.

    Madison could not see his way to function as a land owner, without slaves, so instead set out to incrementally address the issue, instead of freeing his slaves into a hostile environment, threatening the Slaves very life and existence, as a culture. At the same time collapsing his enterprises that sustained his family and community.

    Today, the climate hoaxers, want to eliminate evil fossil fuels(slaves?) with no thought of the cost to every man woman and child on the planet. You can support phasing out fossil fuels, but not without understanding what will replace those tools, that have grown mankind into the most prosperous population the planet has ever seen.

    Negotiation is the only solution. Not top down decrees from a very few at the top. Biden want to claim a climate emergency….because Congress does not see the same problem as the President. Biden’s failures to form a coalition of the like minded, is not an emergency.

    Madison was a brilliant man. With flaws, that do not cancel his accomplishments. I wonder when Martin Luther King Jr will be subjected to same unfair focus on a mans flaws rather than his brilliance.

    1. ” I wonder when Martin Luther King Jr will be subjected to same unfair focus on a mans flaws rather than his brilliance.”

      You must have missed his entire adult life while living. He only became a martyr well after death.

    2. Today, the climate hoaxers, want to eliminate evil fossil fuels(slaves?) with no thought of the cost to every man woman and child on the planet. You can support phasing out fossil fuels, but not without understanding what will replace those tools, that have grown mankind into the most prosperous population the planet has ever seen.

      Iowan, that is an excellent example that needs to be repeated. I’m sure your analogy of slavery and fossil fuels will offend those unable or unwilling to understand the greater point. Clearly the slave owners like Jefferson and Madison believed the institution of slavery needed to end. The question was how and when. They didn’t have the luxury of a “functioning” government to conduct social or economic experiments. Had they announced an accelerated transition to the end of slavery was the only way the future republic would exist, there would have been no future republic. They had to compromise to get the constitution ratified. Unlike today, the founders were strategic thinkers. They set out with a vision for this country (DoI) that did not include slavery. Strategically they had to first unite the states under one federal constitution and then begin the slow, arduous process of transitioning the country toward that vision. The only observable strategic thinking of today’s political class is for power and control. They are actively breaking the bonds that tied us together. In short, they are reversing the process that united us into this constitutional republic.

  16. I had planned to visit both Monticello (again) and Montpelier in the next year. Not now. I have for the past few years donated to Monticello, along with Mt, Vernon and the Reagan Library. No more money to Monticello. I hope that the marketplace shows those people that, although the Founders may not have been perfect, they were worthy of respect for the good that they accomplished

    1. I’ve been to Monticello and through the fees paid I contributed. It’s worth a visit though the history told by the guides is slightly misleading. They refer to the 400 enslaved people that once lived there without mentioning the other 200 at other locations. The tour takes you by the well-maintained cemetery with monuments while not mentioning the separate cemetery for the enslaved without markers that people are allowed to walk over the graves (there were plans to upgrade the slave cemetery and there is a sign for those that happen to notice).
      The tour guides mention the dichotomy of Jefferson’s views and actions. There is a Sally Hemings exhibit that suggest a romance. Go, but maintain an open mind.

      1. Thanks for the link. I did not there was a book written on the subject. I am not surprised one way or the other if there is a family legacy.

      2. I think with any tour, you have to take it with a grain of salt. Tour guides want to give everyone a nice time and not get into heavier discussions. I have personally toured more than a few and winced on occasion. My suggestion is to be educated on the subject and enjoy the sights.

        Always keep an open mind.

  17. Two points:
    1) Never trust anything or anyone that refers to or depends on Nichole Hannah Jones for historical perspective;

    2) Why is it that the same people foisting the ruination of historical places such as the home of Madison and Jefferson and the National Archives over historical horrors committed in our country (and yet remedied) never, ever condemn China, a government that uses slave labor today?

  18. The first legal slaver in the new world was black. Most, if not all black slaves brought to the new world were enslaved and sold by blacks.

      1. “Most slaves in the US were born into slavery in the US.”

        Was that true in 1776? If not, it proves you not credible.

      2. The key point by BMan is “brought to the new world”. So of course, slaves born in the U.S. are not included in that statement. Both statements can be corrrect.

          1. Best evidenced based data ever

            PROTESTERS To Jill Biden: “Your husband is the worst President we ever had, you owe us gas money”

            Jill Biden: “Thank you” (while waving)

            🤭

    1. Trump deplorables would never seek out something that they do not want to read or hear, what’s left of their minds just will not accept the truth or facts. But thanks for trying enigmainblackcom.

      1. your reply is clearly shows that you are unable to carry on a civil discussion without introducing ad hominem attacks against those you disagree with

      1. I agree with you. DNA would have gone a long way toward proof but the male family member that could help settle the issue won’t comply. He originally agreed but I guess the pressure to maintain the image got to him.
        For a long time, there was only oral history (and six children) to support claims about Jefferson. Though some here can’r accept it, that ship has now sailed.

    4. You do know that Kearse had her DNA tested against several women who were certified descendants and there was absolutely no intersection at all found. Her response was to say that she still “felt” that she was related.

    5. “there is as much oral history of Madison having a child with a slave as Jefferson“

      Is that as accurate as the the oral history of Liz Warren?

  20. Any organization that is not structured and operated to be specifically conservative, will ALWAYS devolve into a leftist cabal.

Comments are closed.