Erasing Washington’s Truth: How Mount Vernon and Nationalists Rewrite the Past

"To represent George Washington as a mythic, unambiguously virtuous founding figure is to erase his role as an enslaver of his fellow human beings. Authoritarian 'reclamations' of history are, by necessity, also erasures of vital historical information needed to understand a nation's past."

— Jason Stanley, Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future (2024), p. 163

Mount Vernon finally addressed a question about George Washington and slavery as part of its fitful "Ask George Washington" project. It combined two inquiries—a clear attempt to isolate the subject into a single response: "What were your thoughts on the Marquis de Lafayette's plan for slavery? Why did you not address the issue of slavery during your presidency?" This tactic allowed Mount Vernon to swiftly dispose of the entire subject that defined Washington’s life and his world—in just one minute and twenty-two seconds.

As expected, Mount Vernon’s response reflected both the long-standing priorities of its business—heritage tourism—and the new political imperatives of “patriotic education.” The response eerily mirrors the guidance of the 1776 Commission Report (available in our library here):

• The Founding Fathers, as a group, were “on the cusp” of a moral shift away from slavery, having even laid the groundwork for abolition. Moreover, the Constitution’s compromises with slavery were deemed necessary for national unity—a price the Founders were willing to pay because they believed slavery was on a path toward “ultimate extinction.”

• Regarding Washington, the report insists that while he enslaved people, he “came to detest the practice” and sought a way to abolish it. He freed the enslaved people in his will to demonstrate his moral opposition to the system. Overall, his story is an example of the fact that the Founders knew slavery was wrong but had to compromise in order to achieve the more valuable goal of forming a new federal government for the United States.

This narrative, drawn straight from the 1776 Commission Report and aligned with the patriotic education-related Executive Orders issued since January, is the central message of the video: Washington owned enslaved people, yet did not want to, and the circumstances of his time precluded any meaningful action against the institution—given the priority of strengthening the young Union. As for La Fayette’s plan, it was portrayed as noble but unworkable; with La Fayette’s African property confiscated during the French Revolution, the plan became moot.

The distortions and dismissals are obvious—do we even need to list them? Washington treated La Fayette’s plan as the ramblings of a child—a toddler attempting to reconfigure his backyard to capture a dinosaur. "That's a lovely idea. Let me know how it goes," Washington seemed to say. And the revolutionary government of France didn't confiscate La Fayette's property until 1796, well after the two stopped corresponding on the subject.

More broadly, Washington—and nearly all of his fellow enslavers—were unequivocal on two points:

1. Cost: Even gradual emancipation would be expensive, a direct threat to their wealth—one they refused to accept.

2. Security: Freeing Black people to live alongside whites was seen as a danger, an internal threat to the nascent nation. The United States, they believed, could never sustain a multiracial society.

In his early response to La Fayette’s plan, Washington stated, "To set them afloat at once would, I really believe, be productive of much inconvenience & mischief." This was why he refused to support any effort to create a free Black community during his lifetime—a key reason why the gradual manumission of his enslaved people, as stipulated in his will, would not begin until after Martha's death.

At this point, Mount Vernon can no longer be seen as an honest broker of history. "Heritage history" has long been a diluted version of academic and public history—shaped more by market priorities than by a commitment to authentic representation. Before 2025, heritage history was driven by commerce—the revenue from heritage tourism and the commodification of the past. With an audience that is overwhelmingly white and older, a destructive synergy emerged: you can only market a product that your main consumers want to buy and with which they wish to identify. That means their heritage product must be comfortable, welcoming, and unchallenging—something that affirms a positive national (and ethnic) identity.

But now, a more powerful force has taken hold: nationalism. First, erase history—then replace it with a "mythic past." We are in the "finding out" phase of that, and now see who stands for resistance—and who enables erasure. As Tim Snyder and Jason Stanley have noted in their insightful works, and as Marc Bloch's experiences remind us, authoritarians craft new realities to control the past. As Stanley notes in How Fascism Works, these new realities rely on mythic pasts to legitimize and entrench their vision

This is why we are witnessing swift efforts to dismantle the framework of American history—and to marginalize those who uphold it. We saw it in actions taken against the NEH, the NEA, and the Department of Defense. American history is increasingly framed as neither diverse, inclusive, nor equitable. What remains is a white, cisgender, male-centered patriotic fantasy—the new historical truth.

The trickle-down effects of these decisions are equally troubling. The Art Museum of the Americas has canceled exhibitions on slavery and queer identity after the State Department withheld funding for "DEI" efforts (Not, by the way, for the misplaced criticism of the now over-employed "obedience in advance" -- if they don't have the money, they don't have the money). The World Monuments Fund lost half of its funding in a single day—a budget earmarked for heritage projects in Sierra Leone, Algeria, and Ukraine (This has not been reported by any outlet that I can find. I was informed by a direct email from the WMF). Additionally, DOGE has canceled federal leases for many sites on the National Register of Historic Places and plans to target properties for sale, including the Montgomery Bus Station housing the Freedom Riders Museum and even Obama's temporary Presidential Library location. The temporary removal of the cancelled leases list is irrelevant. The regime’s pattern—ignoring court orders when inconvenient—makes clear this is about optics, not reconsideration.

The hits keep coming—either unreported or underreported—until media outlets and pundits latch onto a hook, such as the "Enola Gay" controversy, to distract from the broader pattern of erasure. While the spotlight is on minor issues, the regime advances its agenda without interruption, leaving the organizations entrusted with preserving our past as silent victims of inertia and, likely, fear, both of which lead to complicity.

Our resistance must operate on two fronts, as Stanley’s quote reminds us. For many in our community, our work is to reclaim history as it is being erased and replaced with a mythic past. As institutions like Mount Vernon increasingly align with the nationalist narrative, we must share honest history. Challenge distortions. Create—don’t merely react. Every post, on any platform, contributes to the historical record, especially on platforms like TikTok and YouTube, where many now seek information. By reclaiming history, we can shape a counter-narrative—an authentic alternative to the nationalist fantasy of what America is, who Americans are, and ultimately, what we might yet become.

The second front is at the heart of my book: identifying and applying the historical lessons of resistance movements. We are already witnessing the failure of institutions to counter the authoritarian surge—a failure that extends from compromised legacy media to social media commentators. The Enola Gay misdirection, for example, serves as a lazy but effective tactic to distract from real issues. While critics obsess over such imagery, the regime pushes its agenda unabated. This reveals a broader failure: the absence of early, accurate intelligence and a clear understanding of the enemy's strategies. Without that clarity, all we can do is react, as we have seen.

We must recognize this pattern and anticipate its next targets—likely the Smithsonian, the National Archives (already under threat), and the Library of Congress—as well as the cascading impact of funding losses on the historical resources that matter most to our communities.

Authoritarians, driven by dogma, are relentless—and no distraction on social media will deter them. Mount Vernon’s post is merely one example of a broader trend. It helps us identify these patterns so we can counter them with an authentic past. Reclaim that history as it is distorted, and watch for others who use digital media to propagate their mythic narratives.