Most Helpful Customer Reviews
38 of 47 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Historical prospective, not detective work!, October 12, 2004
From the preface on, Annette Gordon Reed assures her readers that her intent is not to prove that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' four children. Instead, her thesis is to expose the racism that has clouded the argument for over 200 years; at that, she succeeds. Malone, Dumas, Wills, Adair - all have tried to paint "Dusky Sally" as a prostitute, and Jefferson as something akin to a saint. Using letters and their "intellectual imaginations" they surmise that someone as morally impeccable as Jefferson could not have been involved with a slave, although he evidently wasn't morally impeccable enough not to sell many of them on the auction block upon his death. I've always admired Jefferson for his contributions to American governance and culture - that he might have fathered children by Sally Hemings in a 38 year long affair only enhances his distinction for me. He was a man with needs - ok, a genius, but a man all the same. He promised his wife that he wouldn't remarry. And Sally, being the half sister of his wife, Martha, could have been the kind of arms he sought refuge in. Becoming lovers with a slave was not uncommon. Although it was rarely discussed in polite circles, "masters" often found that taking slaves as concubines limited their responsiblities, while at the same time helped fulfill their needs. One has to remember that many slaves looked very similar to their white "masters." Sally Hemings, for example, was 3/4 white, "with long, straight hair down her back." This doesn't negate her slave status, or make her more "acceptable"; rather, pointing out the "whiteness" of these slaves shows just how incredibly foreign the idea of slavery is to the natural state. Gordon Reed makes an excellent case in her book. She criticizes conventional (white, male) historians' views in that they did not look at all the evidence - like Madison Hemings' (Sally's youngest son) oral history - or found ways to dispute claims made by first-had accounts. For example, historians claim that Madison (by then living as a free man) supposedly pretends to be Jefferson's son to increase his social standing. Pray tell, just how could that be? He was still a black man, an old man, and had already the respect of the African American freedman community. I guess gaining respect of the white community just means so much more?! Read this book if you like a thorough discussion on historiography. Of course, bear in mind that Gordon Reed may have her own agenda (for one, she doesn't mention the Jefferson relatives living in the vicinity that might have been Hemings' lover). As usual, read evert book with a grain of salt, but read this book nonetheless - it'll open your eyes to the racism present in current historical discourse.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
35 of 44 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Gordon-Reed is Clearly a Lawyer, not an Historian, November 26, 1999
By A Customer
I found this book fascinating not just for its intelligent analysis of the Jefferson-Hemmings controversy, its exploration of American racism, past and present, but for the insights it offers about the meaning of history and the nature of the culture wars which are taking place currently in academia. Gordon-Reed is an attorney and this shows in her style of argument, and I don't mean that in a manner which is completely positive, she organizes evidence in the way an lawyer might, subjects what she finds to juridical standards of proof, and, I think it's clear, concludes that Jefferson and Hemmings had the liason which was alleged, hence her accusation that historians have covered this up, or paid insufficient attention to the question, for decades. The truth, unfortunately, is more complicated, and in an odd way this book hints at why historians are forced to use different standards. There is no compromise solution to this controversy, Jefferson either fathered these children or he didn't, some part of our regard for this important figure hangs in the balance, and yet there is no evidence which settles the matter conclusively, not even a perponderance of evidence which suggests that one outcome is more likely. What of the famous "DNA evidence"? It's a wash. Those who pay careful attention to what the article in "Nature" found will discover that this scientific evidence disproved a whole branch of oral testimony of alleged Jefferson descendants which, ironicly, had been the strongest evidence up to that point for the liason. Hemmings did not have a child by Jefferson when the two were in Paris, that has now been proven scientifically beyond all doubt, so some arguments in this book have been overtaken by events. And yet there is a genetic link between a child of Hemmings who was born years after Jefferson was president and a Jefferson. Problem, no one can prove which one it was. Oral tradition supports the argument that the father was Thomas but similar oral tradition was wrong in this other instance. Such evidence is interesting, perhaps compelling, but it's not conclusive. That is enough to keep the controversy alive, and yet Gordon-Reed, the good advocate she is, responds to thiswith lawyerly prose, makes the best case for the argument she favors, attempts to poke holes in the rebuttals of skeptics, I don't think historians are allowed to present intuition as conclusion. If this were a legal case I think it's clear the skeptics could establish reasonable doubt about whether there ever was a Jefferson-Hemmings affair, but that begs the question, it's not. Those who have strong passions on both sides, I'm sure, will continue to argue their beliefs while responsible historians are caught in the middle. How are historians supposed to write about an event which either happened or was a fiction concocted by political enemies? Sometimes the best conclusion is, "We don't know". Those who have any interest in this controversy will enjoy this book. Gordon-Reed leans markedly towards one side but she does an excellent job presenting her evidence and doesn't ignore the arguments of skeptics (though the book was written before the DNA evidence was presented, and this shows).
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
6 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Evaluates the historians as much as the evidence, November 22, 1998
By A Customer
While the presentation may be slightly outdated in view of the current DNA discussion, the presentation of the documentary, rather than scientific, evidence is clear and even-handed with one exception. Gordon-Reed paid little attention to the sensationalism that accompanied many of the statements concerning the liaison (such as those which asserted that Jefferson had sold his children). By ignoring how overblown some of the attacks were, she makes it harder to understand why several of Jefferson's defenders, such as Dabney, rejected the entire body of allegations.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
|
