A strong presentation, as usual. And I agree, this country does deserve a great history. But what is that, exactly? Isn't history an account of what our ancestors did & why?

I think what you've written here isn't history, but commentary. Offering contemporary judgments about events & the actors that made them. Nothing wrong with that, either. It just history per se.

I also think you do dance around several facts re: Jefferson & Hemmings. First, there's no hard evidence that Jefferson engaged in sexual conduct with her before she was 16. Still too young? Maybe. But there's also the implication that she lacked consent; she couldn't say no. Yet while in France she wasn't a slave. Jefferson paid her a regular wage. When it came time to return to the US she refused, according to her son, Madison's account, until Jefferson granted her concessions: privileges for her & freedom for their children upon their majority.

You say Jefferson only manumitted two slaves after his death. I believe he manumitted two of their children prior to his death (the two you refer to), but freed the rest of their children in his will. Given that they were born in 1801 - 1808. Jefferson died in 1826. So they would have just come onto their majorities, which accorded to his agreement with Sally.

I've debated this point with others because I believe the drive to vilify Jefferson as a hypocrite & rapist robs Hemmings of agency. I try to imagine the courage & maturity it took for her to negotiate with this middle-aged & powerful man.

Let's don't take that from her.

Regarding the "good master" vs. the "bad master", I thought that was a concept slaves used among themselves. It's only human nature, of course, to seek to reduce one's misery.

Of course the only good master, is freedom.

We today don't have to think in those terms, but we should understand that people once did & we should try to understand why. That is history.