CONVERSATIONS ON JEFFERSON AND JEFFERSONIAN POLITICS
Historian Joseph Ellis Falsifies His Past
Ellen Goodman (Boston Globe) [In a column dated June 26, 2001, "I Talk With Joe Ellis," (no longer available online) Ellen Goodman wrote wondering why Joseph Ellis would falsify his military experience, claiming to have served in Vietnam and to have been active in the civil rights struggle, plus other minor infractions of the truth. She noted that Ellis had accused Jefferson of lying, believing his own lies, and not being accustomed "to having his word questioned." Ms. Goodman then compares Ellis's falsehoods to those of others recently in the news, and wonders "When does creative license become a lie?"]
Eyler CoatesSince Ellen Goodman expressed an uncertainty about "How many chinks in whose armor add up to a fatal wound?" I would like to try to explain if I may.
A person's scandal and deceit amounts to a fatal wound when their actions go to the very heart of the public trust they purport to fulfill. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s plagiarism had no direct relationship to his service in the cause of civil rights. Bill Clinton's affair with Monica Lewinsky had no direct relationship to his conduct of the office of President. Bob Kerrey's actions in Vietnam had no direct relationship to his service as a U.S. senator. Ronald Reagan's claim that he was there when the death camps were liberated had no direct relationship to his conduct of foreign affairs. All of these actions were unfortunate, mistaken, even stupid. Nevertheless, they did not go to the essence of what was the man's job.
But a historian's stock in trade is his honesty and truthfulness about past history. Not every word a historian writes is footnoted and documented for verification. We reply upon them to be honest, and for them to betray that trust is to violate everything they stand for, everything they represent in the public eye.
As it turns out, Joseph Ellis not only lied about himself, he also distorted the truth about some of the history he reported on. In the Nov. 5, 1998, issue of the journal "Nature," he wrote, "Now, DNA analysis confirms that Jefferson was indeed the father of at least one of Hemings' children." That is an exaggeration and a misrepresentation of the facts. The DNA evidence demonstrated only that some Jefferson male (there were 25 living in Virginia at the time) likely fathered one of Hemings's children, not necessarily Thomas Jefferson. Professor Ellis was allowing his imagination to go further than the facts supported. He doubtless misled Ms. Goodman enough to write on November 10, 1998, "At last, scientists with DNA tests have proved the third president of the United States had an "improper relationship" with Sally Hemings." The fact is, the DNA tests proved no such thing, as a commission of distinguished scholars recently showed in their report on the matter. (See The Scholars Commission Report.)
But Ellis's other writings are suspect too. He calls Jefferson an "American Sphinx" and accuses him of duplicity and lying to himself. But the problem is well-stated by Mr. Kammen when he said. "The question that arises is: has he [Ellis] ascribed to Jefferson's character qualities that are not really his but more autobiographical in nature?" Professor Ellis has demonstrated that he is perfectly capable of doing that. He has violated the public trust in ways that the other mistake-makers did not.
June 27, 2001
Christopher Scalia, Columnist, in an article in the June 29, 2001, Richmond Times-Dispatch, W&M Speaker: Shocking News Hits Close to Home revealed that Professor Ellis's mendacity included delivering a commencement address at his alma mater, William and Mary, in 1998 that was plagiarized from a newspaper column by Mary Schmich.
Stephen Goode, Columnist, in an article, "the last word," in an issue of Insight Magazine, wrote:"Do his [Ellis's] lies as a man cast doubt on his veracity as a historian? Of course they do, and most directly on his role as a biographer of Jefferson. Ellis was coauthor of the 1998 story "Jefferson Fathered Slave’s Last Child" in which he, making full use of his prestige as a Jefferson biographer, affirmed that Jefferson indeed was the father of a child by his slave Sally Hemings.
"That time Ellis lied by saying DNA tests showed "beyond any reasonable doubt that Jefferson had a long-term sexual relationship with his mulatto slave." The tests showed nothing of the kind. What they did indicate was that the last child Hemings bore had Jefferson genes, likely from Jefferson’s brother or his nephews (see "The Fable of Tom and Sally," May 21). Still, the very political Ellis did not hesitate to use his "proof" of Jefferson’s guilt to mitigate former president Bill Clinton’s responsibility in the Monica Lewinsky affair, which was very much in the news when Ellis’ "report" was made public. If Jefferson had his way with a slave, Ellis averred, why couldn’t Clinton have his with an intern? "If Ellis were an average Joe, his pathetic lies about himself and Jefferson wouldn’t matter much, but because he’s celebrated as an influential historian -- and a teacher of the young at a prestigious college -- they do matter, and they matter a ggreat deal."
Eric Burns, Columnist, in a July 14, 2001, article, "The Ellis Saga: Journalists as Morality Police?" on FOXNews.com, wrote:"Ellis' books do not simply present facts, they interpret them -- and how dare you tell me that, as a reader of those books, a person who pays $26 apiece for them, I am not to know something about the author that might influence my interpretation of his interpretation? Ellis has had some controversial things to say about Thomas Jefferson's character; it is important to me, in evaluating those comments, to understand the character of the man who made the charges."
GeorgeIn light of the revelation that Joseph Ellis lied about his past, his role as a biographer and historian must be "re-interpreted." Dr Ellis is guilty of the very things he accuses Thomas Jefferson of: Duplicity, dishonesty, and disingenuousness. He calls Jefferson "paradoxical." Dr Ellis has revealed he is all of these things. He lied about his service record, his role in the Vietnam War, and his role in the Civil Rights Movement. He inflated his record into one of heroism, and moral supremacy, yet it was all hollow. All of his statements on Jefferson should be highly suspect. He has accused Jefferson of "buying" the election of 1800 against John Adams, with no proof. He has claimed there is conclusive proof that "Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings", even though there were about 7 to 8 other Jefferson males that could have just as easily been the father. He also continues to make the strange claim (as many historians do) that Jefferson was "paradoxical" due to his supposed contradictions and changes on topics as he grew older.
Jefferson was a progressive thinker who believed change was not only good, but natural and imperative as time moved forward. If an opinion of his made early in his life did not work at a later date, he readily discarded it. If circumstances of the moment (such as the Louisiana Purchase) dictated a deviation in opinion or principle, Jefferson did modify his views. The one thing Professor Ellis neglects to mention is that Jefferson never compromised his core belief that "nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man." You will not find a writing of his justifying or defending slavery. You will not find a writing condemning self-government.
Mr Ellis, so wrapped up in his own agenda and duplicity, fails to recognize the real Thomas Jefferson.
July 16, 2001
PatriotGeorge and Eyler have managed to capture the essence of this situation quite well, and Eyler has pointed out how Joseph Ellis has already abused our trust with his flawed scholarly work.
Thomas Jefferson was a man of values and morals which did not change with time, and he was a progressive thinker. Ellis has deceptively transferred his own weaknesses onto a personality he admired, Jefferson. Ellis has been deceiving the public and himself for so long, he may not recognize the differences between himself and Jefferson.
How sad it is that some of the most recent published Jefferson "historians" have been dealing with their own inner struggles which have prevented them from knowing the real Thomas Jefferson and have robbed America's youth of a true hero, one with imperfections but no less a great person. Annette Gordon-Reed's book reveals deep-rooted racial animosities. The serious mistranscriptions discovered in her book and other misrepresentations in her work are very disturbing. Another Jefferson scholar has been quoted as saying, "We don't need proof. We are historians. We write history the way we want to." The poor scholarship found in the history profession today is alarming, and apparently is guided by political agendas, executed by revisionists, and accepted by an apathetic public. We need accountability from these historians and teachers of our children.
July 23, 2001
GeorgeI must concur with Patriot. A man of such duplicitous character as Joseph Ellis cannot be taken seriously. Think about modern historians. Most cannot even begin to understand the level of revolutionary idealism, and progressivism of men like Thomas Jefferson. Most historians today are wrapped up in the cynical ideals of modern America: sex, money and wealth accumulation, dysfunctionalism, etc. Our country today is in big trouble. The obsession with these modern diseases of society will be our undoing if it's progress is not halted. Jefferson always looked forward to the future for change and progress. He knew that doing and reforming all is not always possible (e.g., slavery), and that the next generation would be more progressive and eradicate the evils his generation was unable to. This is the essence of a progressive mind. Mr Ellis cannot understand such idealism.
July 23, 2001
On August 17, 2001, in an open letter to the Mount Holyoke Community, Joanne V. Creighton, president of the college, after review and consideration by an Advisory Committee, strongly rebuked Professor Ellis "for his lie about his military experience in his course entitled 'The Vietnam War and American Culture' as well as with colleagues and others," and announced that "Professor Ellis will be suspended for one year without pay. In addition, he has agreed to step down from his endowed chair until such time as the Trustees may wish to reinstate it."
PubliusThe most interesting aspect is that she totally whitewashed his OTHER lies, such as claiming to have been a civil rights worker in Alabama, a peace activist at Yale, a football hero, etc. This does strike me as a sweetheart deal--he's probably been assured they will restore his chair in one year, when the "heat" blows over.
August 17, 2001
PatriotThe statement by Eric Burns in the July 14, 2001 article on FoxNews.com, "Ellis' books do not simply present facts, they interpret them...." should alert us to the power exerted by historians through their teachings, books, and public appearances. Their interpretations may not always be determined strictly by historical documentation, but may also be guided by personal or political agendas. Regardless of how insignificant a statement may seem to most readers, it could be very significant to future researchers, and lead to misinformation becoming established.
A number of commentators have gone on record as saying "Professor Ellis' scholarship is not an issue," including the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the trustees of Jefferson's home. His scholarship has been questioned concerning his presentation of the DNA tests, and there are many other flaws in Joseph J. Ellis' scholarly publications, including the following examples.
Following the announcement of the DNA study results in November 1998, Ellis revised his award-winning book about Thomas Jefferson, American Sphinx. Ellis noted in the revised version that in his original edition he felt "the likelihood of a Jefferson-Hemings liaison was remote, offering several plausible readings of the indirect evidence (i.e., Jefferson's voice in his letters to women; the reasons his enemies doubted the charges) to support my conjecture. No matter how plausible my interpretation, it turns out to have been dead wrong." He goes on to explain that "the results of a DNA comparison between Jefferson's Y chromosome and the Y chromosome of several Hemings descendants demonstrated a match between Jefferson and Eston Hemings."
Actually the test participants were descendants of Jefferson's uncle, Field Jefferson, and they were compared to just one descendant of Eston Hemings and numerous descendants of Thomas Woodson. There was a match between Eston Hemings and the descendants of Field Jefferson, but there was no match with Thomas Woodson's descendants, thus suggesting a high probability that one of more than a dozen Jefferson males could have fathered Eston Hemings, but that Thomas Woodson was not the son of a Jefferson.
The Carr line tests yielded negative results, thereby proving they did not father Eston Hemings or Thomas Woodson. Ellis felt this evidence discredited the history of Jefferson's white descendants, but that it partially supported the history of the Hemings descendants. The only match was for Eston Hemings. Therefore, the Carrs and the rest of world have not been ruled out as possible paternity candidates for the rest of Sally Hemings' children.
Ellis wrote that "...the Eston match is the crucial new evidence and really all that matters ..." and decided since Jefferson was 64 years old when Eston was conceived, it was unlikely this was a one-night stand. He ended his new appendix with, "The likelihood of a long-standing sexual relationship between Jefferson and Hemings can never be proven absolutely, but it is now proven beyond a reasonable doubt." I am not an attorney, but I have been a juror and was instructed about "reasonable doubt." His statement and his explanations are inconceivable.
The conjecture documented in the original edition of American Sphinx is certainly more reasonable. Not one of the more than a dozen senior scholars on the Scholars Commission who studied the evidence in the Jefferson-Hemings matter agreed with Ellis' revised viewpoint.
Ellis clearly states in the revised edition of American Sphinx, that Madison Hemings gave an interview to the Pike County Republican newspaper "claiming that his mother had identified Thomas Jefferson as his father and, in fact, the father of all her children." Ellis confirmed this same information in a 1998 New York Times interview when he stated that he changed his mind about Jefferson being involved with his slave because of the DNA tests results and "Madison saying late in life that his mother told him." This is absolutely false. The interview never revealed Madison Hemings' source for his information. In fact, the Hemings interview contains so many false statements and unsupported claims and so much information that could not come from Madison's own knowledge, it cannot be considered credible.
In his revised book, Ellis has credited Dumas Malone with providing the most tangible piece of new evidence to support the charges by demonstrating that Jefferson was at Monticello nine months prior to the birth of each of Sally's children. This is hardly new evidence, and Dumas Malone was not the first to provide it. Winthrop Jordan introduced this theory back in 1968, a number of years prior to Malone's chronologies which were published in the 1970s. In fact, Malone's chronology for 1807, the year Eston was conceived, does not list the dates when Jefferson was at Monticello. Malone only noted the dates Jefferson left and returned to Washington. He did not note when Jefferson arrived and departed Monticello or the dates of his trip to Poplar Forest during this period.
In an undated piece Ellis wrote for Encyclopaedia Britannica, he accurately credited Winthrop Jordan with discovering the theory based on Jefferson's presence at Monticello every time Sally Hemings conceived. But after comparing Jefferson to former presidents Harding, Kennedy, and Clinton, Ellis erred in his statements concerning rumors about miscegenation at Monticello that circulated several years prior to Callender's 1802 allegations, which were supposedly based on the resemblance of Sally Hemings' children to Jefferson. In fact, in 1802 Sally had only two children, a four-year old boy and a one-year old girl. Rumors existed in 1796 when French visitors wrote about the yellow slave children of mulatresses and hired white workmen or country men who were living together openly. These were Hemingses, but they could not have been Sally Hemings' confirmed children. Sally's one-year old baby girl who died in 1797 would not have been seen by visitors in 1796. If by chance the Woodson family's oral history is accurate and Thomas Woodson was born to Sally Hemings in 1790, it is possible he was on the mountain, but it is not likely he would have resembled Jefferson because the DNA has definitely eliminated him as a Jefferson descendant. It is quite possible rumors existed about the yellow slave children from the time the Hemings family arrived at Monticello in the early 1770s, but these could hardly have been Sally's children.
The William and Mary Quarterly, January 2000 issue, which published articles by the historical revisionists about Jefferson included a piece by Ellis. He wrote derogatory statements about Jefferson supporters who had rebutted the DNA findings by offering Jefferson's younger brother and one of his sons as alternative paternity candidates, and Ellis alleged that this was a desperate appeal. According to Ellis, "No one had mentioned Randolph Jefferson as a possible alternative before the DNA study. He is being brought forward now because he fits the genetic profile. This belated claim strikes me as a kind of last stand for the most dedicated Jefferson loyalists."
First of all, the fact that the Jefferson males who were in the vicinity of Sally Hemings when she conceived Eston did fit the "genetic profile" and the fact that they had opportunity is very significant. New historical documents are always being discovered, and historians should be open to evaluating new evidence whenever it is introduced if it could have some bearing on true history.
As for Ellis' statement about no one ever mentioning Randolph prior to the DNA study, he is dead wrong. Pearl Graham, a Hemings family sympathizer, wrote to Julian Boyd at Princeton in 1958 that Randolph Jefferson was a possible paternity candidate, and she also wrote that she had been told by a Hemings descendant that Randolph Jefferson had "colored children." This letter is in a collection at the University of Virginia along with Monticello correspondence, and it is entitled, "Genealogical data pertaining to the Hemings family of Monticello." Also a playwright, Karyn Traut, came to the conclusion that Randolph Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings' children and produced a play in 1988 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, based on her research.
It's easy to see that Ellis has accepted other writers' works as gospel, when in fact, some of their works have been poorly researched and/or have misrepresented evidence in order to arrive at their predetermined results. Ellis has definitely given too much credence to Madison Hemings' interview published in the Pike County Republican in 1873. Dumas Malone realized the flaws in Madison Hemings' published interview, but today's historians use it because it supports their revisionist agenda.
Because of Joseph J. Ellis' lies about his personal history, the issue of poor historical scholarship has been brought into the forefront, but by no means are Ellis' military exploits the only instance where he has distorted the past.
Many other historians are guilty of inventing history too. There is a growing problem within the historian profession to write "feel-good" history or "psycho-history" or just plain falsehoods based on distorted evidence in order to support a desired result. Historical scholarship is being corrupted by negligent and/or unprincipled persons. One observer recently wrote, "By contemporary standards, historians are encouraged to 'elaborate' and to use their imagination to fill in the blanks in the evidence. It is that sort of thing that Ellis was doing in his Vietnam stories." Fortunately for us, there are some historians who are accountable and practice objective standards in evaluating history.
Perhaps we could learn from the writings of one such man and a Jefferson historian, the late Dumas Malone. He interpreted the evidence and wrote the following passages about Jefferson's thoughts on recording history.
"His major concern, as he himself expressed it, was to keep the record straight and he continued to believe that there could be no 'true history' without supporting documents." [Malone, Jefferson and His Time, Vol. 6, p. 219]
"While he never ceased to take political doctrine into account when evaluating historical writings, Jefferson maintained a deep respect for facts. He clearly perceived the danger that fable could pass for history, and in the last decade of his life he observed to John Adams that 'genuine history' was rare." [Malone, V-6, p. 213]
Jefferson, himself expressed it in a letter to William Wirt on 14 Aug 1814 concerning the condition of the records of the House of Burgesses and not keeping documentation of transactions: "... Hence history becomes fable instead of fact." "The great outlines may be true, but the incidents and coloring are according to the faith or fancy of the writer." Describing a book written by one of his contemporaries which contained "false copy of a record" rather than "true history," Jefferson wrote, "When writers are so indifferent as to the correctness of facts, the verification of which lies at their elbow, by what measure shall we estimate their relation of things distant, or of those given to us through the obliquities of their own vision?"
August 25, 2001