Customer Reviews

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy

5 star:		(17)
4 star:		(10)
3 star:		(5)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(6)

 

 

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.

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).

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.

This is a very solid and well researched book. The author makes a very thorough and logical presentation to prove her case. Much in the manner of a courtroom argument. It is effective. I came away from reading the book convinced that Jefferson, in all reasonable liklihood, did father Sally Hemings five mixed race children.

Sally Hemings was 1/4 African in descent, 3/4's European. By all accounts, she was a picture of beauty. Jefferson was, apparently, unexpectedly presented with her youthful beauty when Sally accompanied his youngest daughter from his former, deceased wife to France where Jefferson was representing US government interests.

Some reviewers have referred to Jefferson as a rapist and a child molestor. I think that's a bit much. The "past is a different place" as some thoughtful historian once described it. Teenage girls in the 18th century--and for much of the 19th century--were seen as legitimate romantic interests and potential wives for middle aged men of substance. It, apparently, was not particularly frowned upon during that period. Gordon-Reed gives an example of this with Jefferson's friend James Madison who was hopelessly in love with a teenage girl. She rejected him for someone closer to her own age. However, he eventually wound up with a much younger Dolly Madison for a wife. And apparently was not socially condemned for it. The past is a different place. Not better by any means, necessarily, but different. Something to keep in mind....

The author makes the argument that Jefferson's real sin was not in loving a "slave girl." The real sin was his enslavement of other humans for his own financial benefit. He couldn't let go of the financial benefits and the ease of living that his slaves brought him. He could never close the distance between his high sounding and beautifully eloquent rhetoric about human equality, fraternity, and liberty and his actual practices--however relatively enlightened for the times--as a slave owner at Monticello.

It's far from inconceivable that Jefferson and Hemings might have been lovers and even married in a social environment with slavery extinct. She was, after all, the 1/2 sister of his beloved deceased wife. And as stated, she was 3/4's European descent. If one--or society for that matter--wants to set up a binary system of black/white, then it sounds like Sally Hemings would logically be more closely classified as "white." However, Americans, then and even now, subscribed to the slavemaster's logic of "one drop of African blood" means that the person must be "black." An artifical social construct, but one tune many of us still dance to. I think humans are far more complicated and multi-faceted than "racial fundamentalists" would have us believe.

Jefferson is guilty of being a slaveowner and of being a hypocrite given his political and philosophical idealism. However, if he did love and have affection for Sally Hemmings in the manner that the author implies and suggests, then I am in agreement with the author that that would be no crime. However, we'll never know for sure, because the probable relationship was so evidently carefully concealed, as best as it could be, from the prying eyes of future generations.

I first heard about the Sally Hemings "scandal" from Gore Vidal. He said that the conventional historians who defend Jefferson against the "abomination" of loving a slave girl argue this way:

Thomas Jefferson was a great man.
Great men do not live with their slave girls.
Consequently, Thomas Jefferson did not live with Sally Hemings.

This is the type of conventional idiocy that sometimes passes itself off as "history."

Annette Gordon-Reed's book is well worth the effort of reading if you're interested in the subject. I thought it a very well balanced and intellectually honest effort.

The Jeffersons'/Randolphs'/Coolidges' response to stories about their patriarch's relationship with Miss Hemings long had been to say that the Carr brothers actually had fathered the Hemings children. Sally Hemings, the typical account said, had (to borrow an image Gordon-Reed shows a famous historian using) lied about her children's parentage in much the manner that a nag's owner might lie about its being the offspring of a famous thoroughbred. Comes now the DNA evidence to back Gordon-Reed's strong proof that the Carrs were innocent of any such adultery, and the Jefferson family seems to want to blame yet another of its male forebears, Thomas Jefferson's brother. Why do they have such an emotional investment in Thomas's not having had black children? This is one of many interesting questions Gordon-Reed's book prompts one to consider. (For the history of historians' defense of Jefferson against this charge, see the essay by Ayers and French in _Jeffersonian Legacies_, edited by Peter S. Onuf.) Virginius Dabney, who was related to Jefferson on both sides of his family, is the outstanding example of a Jefferson flack in this regard, but there have been others. Kudos to Gordon-Reed for not losing her cool in wading through the insulting, demeaning, degrading things that historians have said about Sally Hemings -- whose personality remains obscure. Even those who detest Gordon-Reed must admit that the appendices to this book, which present the main primary sources regarding this question, are worth the book's price. If you care about Jefferson, race, public "education"/propaganda, or America, buy this book.

WHY WON'T THE PATERNITY PROPONENTS DEBATE?

This is an issue about which honorable people can disagree, but with the release of the Report of the Scholars Commission -- in which more than a dozen distinguished scholars from around the country agreed with but a single mild dissent that the story is probably FALSE -- it seems to me that the advocates of a Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings sexual relationship, such as Professor Gordon-Reed, need to step up and defend their claim. To date, they have repeatedly refused to accept the challenge from the chairman of the Scholars Commission to debate the issue on the merits. I've read the Report of the Scholars Commission and it shoots holes through the allegations of the proponents of Thomas Jefferson's paternity (including exposing some serious evidence tampering), so I understand why they seem unwilling to defend their scholarship. But, unless and until they do, I think the Report of the Scholars Commission has to be accepted as the definitive analysis of the issue. Thomas Jefferson was innocent of the charge.

~Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy~ is a less than erudite exposition on the allegations surrounding the third President of the United States. It merely echoes portions of Fawn Brodie's salacious idle conjecture in her 1973 psycho-biography of Jefferson. Gordon-Reed only attempts to polish away the more salacious aspects of Brodie's allegations, such as positing the affair started early in the life of Hemings in France. These allegations emerged when an embittered republican journalist James T. Callender embittered at being rejected for appointment as postmaster by Thomas Jefferson, then turned his ire at his former friend, libeling him in the newspaper with allegations of sexual indiscretions with one of his servants. The book further ignores exculpatory evidence, and instead weaves together a fanciful narrative of circumstantial evidence. This book's sole value really is drawing out historiographical issues pertinent to the allegation of the affair between Jefferson and Hemings. I would instead recommend the The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy: Report of the Scholars Commission edited by Robert Turner and In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal by William Hyland, Jr.

Annette Gordon-Reed's book should be required reading in graduate history programs across the country. Not because of its topic, but because it is one of the finest, most careful and critical reading of documentary evidence I've ever encountered. By providing an outstanding example of how professional historians should operate, it also exposes one of the tragic weaknesses of the discipline of History--it has for too long been among the least intellectually rigorous of all the disciplines. The recent publication by the "scholar's commission," sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society is a classic example of the problem. In finding Jefferson "innocent" of the charges, the commission ignores the most powerful arguments put forward in Gordon-Reed's book, and builds its authority mainly on the commission member's own pedigree (mostly aging white scholars from prestigious institutions). While the commission points out the real limitations of the DNA evidence, by ignoring Gordon-Reed's work, it fails to understand what an intelligent, open-minded reader of Gordon-Reed's work will quickly grasp: credible evidence pointing to Thomas Jefferson as the likely father of Sally Heming's children has been around for more than a century, but was until recently blithely dismissed by generations of historians who were prisoners of their own racist, and guild-protecting assumptions. Gordon-Reed raises the bar for serious historical inquiry in this book, and I beleive its importance will outlast the controversy it explores.

sloppy research...this lawyer presents ONLY the information which will support her case, rather than an unbiased review of the FACTS (one learns this technique in Lawyer Class 101) i would like to hear the response from the defense...the prosecution has presented its case, and unfortunately, there are millions who are convinced without hearing the other side...this author knew what she wanted the result to be, and proceeded to assassinate the character of President Thomas Jefferson...i will not speculate as to her motivation...do not let this book, or any other book by mz Reed be the only information you depend on for your opinion...

The author has done her homework and is well-versed on this particular subject. She goes into extreme detail, analyzing multiple pieces of historical evidence, both circumstantial and documented. The latest version of her book also has an introductory chapter on the light that physical evidence, DNA, has shed on what is already known.

While careful not to draw a definitive conclusion about whether or not Jefferson fathered the children of Sally Hemmings, the author very tactfully points to certain pieces of evidence and interjects her opinions, sometimes subtly, while other times being quite obvious. While this may be considered bias by some, in essence, she appears to be responding to what she considers ongoing extreme bias and prejudice in past biographies by Jefferson historians. This is really what her book is about, more than anything, is how historians have, in her view, edified Jefferson and chosen to ignore certain pieces of important evidence, downplaying and ridiculing some, while choosing to emphasize other.

This writing is a direct attack on the way American history has been controlled and propagated by white males at the expense of slaves and their descendants. Annette Gordon-Read is a well educated, African American historian/attorney, who is taking a stand, and she presents a compelling case. She feels the voice of blacks in history has been squelched and ridiculed, and on this particular subject she points out the shortcomings of historians who have glorified Jefferson while maintaining a stereotypical view of blacks.

On the downside, I personally felt the author came across too strong in labeling Jefferson a "racist". She could have presented the facts in this area and let readers make up their own minds, rather than coming across as harsh and judgmental. She also provides a lot of speculation throughout the book. She is careful, however, to avoid statements as fact when she cannot prove them (this is what she continually accuses her predecessors as doing). Perhaps much of this conjecture is necessary to counter the multitude of speculation that has been articulated by so many historians who have downplayed or disputed the likelihood (or to them, even the possibility) of the Jefferson-Hemmings affair. The author is also very repetitive. The book could have easily been cut in half and been just as effective. However, this repetition also drives certain points home and helps the reader remember certain key elements.

Overall, this is very interesting reading, and it is also very well-written. The author communicates extremely well and her writing flows nicely and is easy to understand.

If you have any interest in the (likely) Jefferson-Hemmings affair, this book is a must read. I gave it 5 stars, despite my criticisms, as 4 stars would not have given this book the credit is deserves (perhaps a 4.5?).