Mount Vernon Post 2

This past month I have been looking into how Mount Vernon has presented slavery in the past and how it has changed, so I could figure out how it could be improved. The first formal acknowledgement of the enslaved community at Mount Vernon was in 1928 when a memorial stone was place at the Slave Burial Ground by the Mount Vernon Ladies Association. This then progressed to the reconstruction of the Greenhouse Slave Quarters in 1962, but without much interpretation (Interpreting Slavery at Museums and Historic Sites, 23). In 1983, Howard University added a much more prominent memorial to the Slave Cemetery. The first Slave Life tour was then offered in 1995. According to my boss, however, the interpretation of both the Slave Cemetery and the Slave Quarters were neglected until a 2001 Washington Post opinion article, which mentioned that the Slave Quarters lacked interpretive signs and the cemetery was overgrown.

In Representations of Slavery: Race and Ideology in Southern Plantation Museums, Jennifer Eichstedt and Stephen Small analyzed the presentation of slavery in 122 former plantations between 1996 and 2001. Mount Vernon was one of the sites they visited, but they did not specify the exact date. Eichstedt and Small employed participant observation when they visited the plantations, so they did not engage the docents about slavery, they waited to see what would be included (Representations of Slavery, 18). Eichstedt and Small grouped the plantations into four different categories: symbolic annihilation, trivialization and deflection, segregated knowledge, and relative incorporation. Mount Vernon fell under segregated knowledge. Segregated knowledge is when slavery is presented, but the information is separate from the main, white-centric narrative. The house tour was very white-centric and seldom mention enslaved people. When it did, it was usually in the passive voice, for example, “the food was made here,” while in the kitchen. Slavery was discussed during the Slave Life tour, but these tours were only offered between April and October and required visitors to pay extra (174). Since the house tour was white-centric and the Slave Life tour was not included in the general admission price, visitors had to choose whether or not they were exposed to slavery. Eichstedt and Small found that only 10 to 20 percent of the total visitors take Slave Life tours (199).



When my boss started at Mount Vernon in 2008, slavery was still being presented as it was during Eichstedt and Small’s study. At the time, Mount Vernon was trying to find a new way to conduct the house tour and, in doing so, change how slavery was presented. Initially the house tour revolved around all of the items in the house and did not mention George Washington’s biography much. It then transitioned to focusing on Washington’s life, but neglected items in the house. It is now a combination of both, telling the story of Washington through the rooms and the items in the house. In 2013, my boss and the Director of Interpretation sought to incorporate slavery into the house tour as well. Historical interpreters are giving objectives for each room in the house, which they are required to discuss. My boss and the Director of Interpretation made one of the objectives for each room pertain to slavery. For example, in the kitchen, historical interpreters are required to mention the enslaved cooks, Hercules, Nathan, and Lucy. The Slave Life tour was also renamed the Enslaved People of Mount Vernon tour. Instead of being offered four times a day April through October, the Enslaved People’s tour is now offered year-round, four times a day April through October, and two times a day November through March. However, it is still not included in the general admission price. The original Slave Life tour was still very Washington focused. It discussed Washington’s relationship to slavery and how his actions affected the enslaved people. The current Enslaved People’s tour is much more focused on the individual stories of the enslaved. While Mount Vernon’s presentation of slavery has changed significantly, it still has a long way to go. I am curious to see if Eichstedt and Small would still put Mount Vernon in the segregated knowledge category, or if the changes have moved it towards relative incorporation.