CONVERSATIONS ON JEFFERSON AND JEFFERSONIAN POLITICS
Was Sally Hemings Promiscuous?
From the H-SHEAR, subject: "Hemings-Jefferson: a new approach":J. L. Bell:
On the question of Sally Hemings's monogamy or "promiscuity," it might be fruitful to examine the evidence before debating the value judgments that question implies.The firmest evidence of Sally's sexual behavior is her pattern of pregnancy. Monticello records indicate that she had four children from 1798 to 1808. Madison Hemings said his mother had two other children: one conceived in Paris and born in 1795 and the other born in 1799, both dying young. There are hints of the latter child in a contemporary document, while contradictory rumors and traditions surround the existence of the former child. To stay on firm ground, let's say that Sally had five children in the years 1798-1808.
Martha Wayles Jefferson, Thomas's wife and Sally's half-sister, bore six children from 1772 to 1782. Thus, Sally's child-bearing doesn't imply a sex life more active than a (presumably) monogamous woman had at the time. Other variables affected both women's pregnancies, but that evidence doesn't indicate "promiscuity."
On the more difficult question of how many men Sally Hemings had sex with, no nineteenth-century Jefferson "defenders" portrayed her as promiscuous. Instead, they all coupled her with one man: Peter Carr according to Henry S. Randall, Samuel Carr according to Ellen Randolph Coolidge, and an unnamed man who wasn't Thomas Jefferson according to Monticello overseer Edmund Bacon. If we accept these testimonies at all, everyone from Monticello saw Sally as monogamous.
We have no statements from Sally Hemings, except the stories relayed through her son Madison. He portrayed her as having had only one sexual partner in her lifetime. We also have no evidence that Randolph Jefferson sought extramarital sex with her or anyone else. The only person involved in this issue who we can say definitely tried to be "promiscuous" was Thomas Jefferson. His writings show that he made unsuccessful advances to two married women: Maria Cosway and Elizabeth Walker.
That brings us to the conjunction of Thomas and Sally. The WMQ analysis of Sally's pregnancies and Thomas's visits to Monticello in the early 1800s argues that the pattern was very unlikely to have resulted if Sally had had other sex partners. Regardless of whether one understands or accepts the math behind that paper, there's still no evidence for Sally's "promiscuity."
Finally, there's the question of why Sally stopped having children around the time Thomas retired to Monticello, when she was still in her thirties. That may have been due to: * early menopause * the marriage of Randolph to, in the words of the recent committee report, "a very controlling woman" [talk about stereotypes!] * either Thomas's or Sally's preference for another partner, or for no one * many other factors I haven't considered, plus chance Whatever the case, prolonged lack of pregnancy is certainly no evidence for "promiscuity."
Looking at the evidence from the 18th and 19th century about these particular individuals, therefore, I see not a single reason to believe that Sally Hemings was "promiscuous." That judgment doesn't depend on whether I value monogamy, promiscuity, chastity, or any other sexual behavior in any type of person. No evidence points to "promiscuity."
Nevertheless, the recent Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society report not only raises that issue but states, "there is no serious evidence that Sally Hemings was monogamous." Only by looking at the little evidence we have about Sally's sexual history can we see how strangely the report authors approached that question.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 1, 2001.
Eyler Coates
Mr. Bell suggests that "the firmest evidence of Sally's sexual behavior is her pattern of pregnancy," but the question naturally arises, How would a pattern of pregnancy indicate whether an unmarried Negro slave is promiscuous or not? Moreover, Bell determines "to stay on firm ground," by disregarding the first child, conceived in Paris and born in 1790 (NOT 1795, as Mr. Bell mistakenly suggests, since Sally left Paris with Jefferson in 1789). Mr. Bell also is confused on Sally's second child, Harriet I, which was born in 1795 and died shortly afterward. Sally also is thought to have had a child, Thenia, born in 1799, who died shortly after birth.
Nevertheless, in spite of all this confusion, Mr. Bell proceeds to draw a comparison between Sally's child-bearing and that of Jefferson's wife Martha, concluding that "Sally's child-bearing doesn't imply a sex life more active than a (presumably) monogamous woman had at the time." Of course, by disregarding the first child, Bell avoids an explanation for the period from 1790 to 1795, when Sally bore no children at all. But the real question is, Why would a pattern of births indicate conclusively whether a woman was monogamous or promiscuous? Mr. Bell seems to be suggesting that because Sally bore five children between 1798 and 1808, and Martha bore six children between 1772 and 1782, therefore Sally was every bit as monogamous as Martha. Bell offers no evidence for this conclusion, other than these two anecdotal comparisons, and we presumably are expected to take as proof that, because one woman was monogamous and had six children in ten years, another woman who had five children in ten years must also be monagamous. Besides the fact that Mr. Bell disregarded the births of two of Sally's children in order to reach this hypothesis, it is difficult to discern any rational basis for this hypothesis whatsoever.
Mr. Bell says that Ellen Randolph Coolidge "coupled" Sally with one man, i.e., Samuel Carr, but this is not so. Ellen explained that her brother, Jefferson, told her about Peter Carr's confession that "the old gentleman had to bear the blame of his and Sam's (Col. Carr) misdeed." Then Ellen added, "There is a general impression that the four children of Sally Hemmings were all the children of Col. Carr." A "general impression" refers to what most people around the plantation thought. It is obvious from this that neither Ellen nor anyone else at Monticello was absolutely sure who the father of Sally's children was. If, indeed, Peter Carr confessed that he AND Sam did the "misdeeds" that were blamed on Thomas Jefferson, it appears that he is suggesting right there that she was promiscuous with respect to both of them. Thus, Mr. Bell is totally incorrect when he says that no nineteenth century "defenders" portrayed Sally as promiscuous. According to that story, Peter Carr himself so portrayed her.
Mr. Bell assumes that Sally Hemings portrayed herself as "having had only one sexual partner in her lifetime" to her son Madison, but Bell has no evidence whatsoever that Madison got his information from Sally. In fact, there is good evidence suggesting that Sally never said any such thing. (See The Children of Sally Hemings) The fact that we have no evidence that Randolph Jefferson sought extramarital sex with Sally or anyone else arises from the fact that we have almost no evidence of any kind regarding Randolph. As we saw above, Peter Carr provided evidence that he and his brother Sam were promiscuous with Sally. Therefore Thomas Jefferson, who did confess to offering, when young, love to a married woman as the only true charge lodged against him, was NOT the only person involved in this issue who definitely "tried to be promiscuous."
The WMQ statistical study which Mr. Bell refers to is seriously flawed in two respects. It ignores the fact that all visitors to Monticello were likely to be there only when Thomas Jefferson was there as well. The study also states that any other candidate would need to have the same arrival and departure dates as Thomas Jefferson, which is an absurd requirement, since any other candidate would only need to be at Monticello when Sally conceived.
Mr. Bell raises the question of why Sally stopped having children after Thomas Jefferson retired from public life to Monticello. After producing several possibilities from his imagination, Bell concludes that lack of pregnancy is certainly no evidence for promiscuity. Of course, he fails to mention that no one has ever suggested that it was. What has been suggested is, if she and Thomas were truly having an affair, it seems strange that her pregnancies would suddenly stop when the President was finally back at Monticello full-time.
Mr. Bell finds it strange that some people might feel there was no evidence for Sally Hemings being monogamous. But why is that strange when (1) there is DNA evidence that she had one child (Thomas Woodson) by one father who was proven not a Jefferson family member, and had her last child (Eston) by a father who was a Jefferson; and when (2) there is evidence that Peter Carr confessed that he and his brother Sam were responsible for fathering children by Sally and having it blamed on Thomas Jefferson, their uncle. Whatever one may think of that evidence, all of this is nevertheless "evidence," and taken all together it suggests that Sally was not monogamous. There is nothing strange about that approach at all.
July 29, 2001
Eyler Coates, Sr.:
J. L. Bell notes that "no nineteenth-century Jefferson 'defenders' portrayed her [Sally] as promiscuous," thus cleverly avoiding the fact that the primary Jefferson "accuser," James Callender, called Sally a "slut common as the pavement." But then, it is true: he was not a Jefferson "defender."Bell goes on to state that there is no evidence to indicate promiscuity, but first he eliminates the child reportedly conceived in Paris and born in 1790 (not 1795, as Bell states), and he does this in order "to stay on firm ground." That also is a clever evasion, since the strongest oral tradition indicates that 1790 child was Tom Woodson, and DNA tests demonstrate beyond a rational doubt that Tom Woodson was not the son of any Jefferson. Thus, there is indeed evidence, though somewhat ambiguous, that Sally's first child and her last child were fathered by two different men. And the fact that there is some evidence of multiple fathers means it is reasonable to consider the possibility that Sally was promiscuous. But if part of that evidence is arbitrarily eliminated, then it does tend to indicate that there is no evidence for Sally's promiscuity.
Bell also notes that none of the 19th century defenders ever accused Sally of being promiscuous. "Instead, they all coupled her with one man," even though that one man sometimes varied from defender to defender, and even though DNA evidence indicates yet another man not named by any of the 19th century defenders. Thus, by begging the question and assuming that only one man of all those named could be the father and ignoring the possibility that all of the defenders might be partly right, promiscuity is eliminated.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 29, 2001.
J. L. Bell:
In his posting, Mr. Coates credits me with a "clever evasion" because I don't think the Woodson tradition represents "firm ground," and therefore started my comparison of how often Sally Hemings and Martha Jefferson became pregnant with each woman's first clearly documented child. Mr. Coates is welcome to add a much earlier child for Hemings to that analysis. The result will show the supposedly "promiscuous" Hemings as pregnant less often than the presumably monogamous Martha Jefferson. I must confess to having been clever enough to see that before. I chose to give the case for Hemings's "promiscuity" the benefit of the doubt.Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 30, 2001.
Eyler Coates
Mr. Bell continues to assert that the fact that Sally Hemings was pregnant less often than Martha Jefferson during a ten year period has some significance to the question of promiscuity, but he does not explain the nature of that significance. It should also be noted that Sally's "first clearly documented child" was Harriet I, born in 1795, not Beverly, who was born in 1798. But since adding or subtracting childbirths seems to have no noticeable effect upon Bell's ambiguous theory, that fact is also probably not significant.
July 30, 2001
Annette Gordon-Reed:
I don't think it's the case that everyone who is concerned about portrayals of Sally Hemings's sexuality are merely following along with outdated notions about the merits of sexual virtue for women.What outrages me about this latest move is that it is a blatant attack on the integrity of the Hemings family. It is a mean spirited strategy that relies not upon any evidence, but upon stereotypes about black women that have been imposed totally from the outside. This is not an academic or abstract argument about theories of sexuality. The "black woman as slut" has called forth concrete policies that have done real and substantial damage to black people from slavery until today. Black women have suffered in measurable ways from this depiction. These folks know how powerful this is, and that's why they go there.
In the end, what really bothers me is that it undermines this particular black family's attempt to define itself. Who wouldn't be outraged to have strangers (on the basis of no good evidence) blithely assigning different fathers to the children in our families, especially when that is done to protect the "integrity" of another family. It's beyond revolting.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 2, 2001.
Richard E. Dixon:
Annette Gordon-Reed wrote: "What outrages me about this latest move is that it is a blatant attack on the integrity of the Hemings family."It is recognized that pregnancy was sometimes forced on slave women, although many relationships were consensual. We can find an immediate example in Sally Hemings' mother of the slave woman with children by multiple fathers. The issue whether Sally Hemings was monogamous cannot be brushed away as an unwarranted attack on black women.
Her monogamy became a key inference drawn by the Monticello Staff Report. First, the Report concluded that "evidence of the sort of sustained presence necessary to have resulted in the births of six children is entirely lacking," which assumes, without proving, that no man (other than Jefferson) had a "sustained presence" for at least the fourteen years (if we omit Tom Woodson) over which the pregnancies occurred. Second, the Report concluded that the Hemings children were all of the full-blood, because of the "closeness of the family, as evidenced by the documentation of siblings living together and naming children after each other," which assumes, without reference, that empirical support exists that children of the half-blood will not be close and name their children after each other.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 29, 2001.
Eyler Coates, Sr.:
Annette Gordon-Reed writes that the suggestion Sally Hemings may have been promiscuous "is a mean spirited strategy that relies not upon any evidence, but upon stereotypes about black women that have been imposed totally from the outside." But that is false, misleading and stands the process that actually occurred on its head. Jefferson defenders did not begin by trying to prove that Sally had children by different fathers, much less that all black women were promiscuous. Instead, they found good DNA evidence that Sally had one child by some member of the Jefferson family, and good evidence that she had one or more children by other fathers: Peter Carr and a third father if Tom Woodson is actually Sally's son. In addition, Monticello overseer Edmund Bacon provided an eyewitness account stating he had often seen a man leaving Sally's room early in the morning, and this man was not Thomas Jefferson. Based on that, if Sally was monogamous, it was with someone other than the President. The conclusion that Sally may have been promiscuous naturally derives from a consideration of all this evidence, and does not rely in any way upon "stereotypes about black women."In fact, there is no direct evidence that Sally was promiscuous any more than there is direct evidence that Thomas Jefferson fathered any of her children. In both cases, there are only accusations and inconclusive circumstantial evidence. And the accusation that Sally was promiscuous was first made publicly by James Callender, not by today's Jefferson defenders. Callender, the notorious racist, who also made the first public accusations that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally's children, described Sally as a "slut common as the pavement" and alleged that she had "fifteen or thirty" lovers.
To charge that Jefferson defenders are relying upon the "black woman as slut" superimposes racial categories upon what was nothing more than a reasoned and reasonable examination of the evidence.
Prof. Gordon-Reed may be outraged because she feels that this "is a blatant attack on the integrity of the Hemings family," but that outrage also has no foundation in reason. The fact is, Sally's mother and several of her sisters each had children by different fathers. So, it appears that if Sally did not have children by more than one man, she was possibly the only adult female in her family at that time who did not. How, then, is it a "blatant attack on the integrity of the Hemings family" to allow for the possibility, as indicated by such evidence as exists, that Sally, like her mother and sisters, also may have had multiple sexual partners? Would her doing so embarrass the Hemings family any more than her mother and her sisters embarrass them? It is not necessary to point to stereotypes about black women in order to establish this possibility, nor is it necessary to make a moral judgment on Sally's behavior; it is only necessary to look at the evidence and realize that Sally could have had multiple sexual partners just like her mother and her sisters. It is patently unfair to accuse persons of using racial stereotypes when they are simply investigating possible explanations suggested by the evidence available to them.
The outrage expressed by Annette Gordon-Reed suggests a bias that arises from a failure to see beyond the racial elements in this story, which is then expressed, disguised, and translated into the sophisticated terms of historical revisionism. But it is a mistake to approach this controversy only in terms of slavery and race. For one thing, Sally's children, assuming the father of each was white, were technically only 1/8 black and would have been considered white if free. The fact that Madison supposedly was darker than the other children, and that the vast majority of his descendants are black, is one more piece of circumstantial evidence suggesting that Madison might have had a different father than the other children.
Sure, this suggestion of promiscuity is assumed by many to be degrading to the image of Sally Hemings, but cannot much of this be laid to the institution of slavery itself? We cannot decry the human degradation produced by slavery and portray blacks as having been victimized by it, while at the same time pretend that slavery had no degrading effects on its victims, and that slaves of that time should never be depicted as anything but sterling characters. Moreover, the suggestion that having multiple sexual partners necessarily made Sally "promiscuous" may be premised upon the false assumption that she always had a right to pick those sexual partners. Not all slave women did. At any rate, promiscuity is not the issue; the identity of the father or fathers of her children is.
But even more importantly, why should the sexual activities of ancestors who lived 200 years ago undermine "this particular black family's attempt to define itself," the examination of which activities Prof. Gordon-Reed finds "beyond revolting"? Why should anything that someone's ancestor did 200 years ago define who and what people living today are? Millions of Americans alive right now lead happy, productive lives, and do not have the slightest idea who their ancestors were 200 years ago, much less who they went to bed with. And most of us couldn't care less.
In truth, in this as in other statements by Prof. Gordon-Reed, there is an ingenuous depiction of what she feels this Jefferson-Hemings controversy is really all about. As quoted recently in a column by Ellen Goodman (April 20, 2001), the professor said,
"Why do we go on and on about this? It's Jefferson and it's race. But I think it's about who gets to say what's true and what's not. And it's a battle about who is accepted as family."
Notice that it is not a question of whether the accusations are true or not; it is about who gets to say what is true. And since the "who" in that statement is only a thinly disguised reference to the different races, one wonders how any person could get away with making such an obviously racialistic remark and have it distributed in the national media. In effect, it is like saying that it is not a question of whether Thomas Jefferson really was the father of Sally Hemings's children, but rather which race -- black or white -- gets to decide if he was! Is this indeed what historiography has come down to? Is it a matter of "black truth" and "white truth," to be decided not on the basis of fact and evidence, but on what promotes the social goals we desire to impose upon society at any given time?
As Prof. Gordon-Reed states in the conclusion of her book on this controversy (Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy), "Sally Hemings has come to be seen as a metaphor for the condition of blacks in American society." (p. 234) Presumably, anything perceived to be an attack on Sally Hemings becomes an attack on all blacks living in America. And as for Madison, Sally's son, Gordon-Reed wrote "Whether we think he was telling the truth or not, he, black people, and all Americans deserve better." Whether he was telling the truth or not??? Since when should a liar deserve consideration? Have we completely abandoned a search for what is true when we examine our history? Is this what the teaching of history has come down to?
What we see in all this is not an attempt to determine historical truth, but a consideration of historical events with an eye towards their significance for racial considerations today. Because there exists some evidence suggesting Sally may have had her children by more than one father, any consideration of this possibility is then viewed as a mean-spirited reliance on stereotypes about black women. But this controversy is about one woman -- Sally Hemings. It is not an attack on the Hemings family. It is not even an attack on Sally Hemings. It is merely a matter of trying to coordinate different pieces of circumstantial evidence, and that process requires that we not rule out the possibility that there was more than one father.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 29, 2001.
Eyler Coates
When Annette Gordon-Reed writes, "It is a mean spirited strategy that relies not upon any evidence, but upon stereotypes about black women that have been imposed totally from the outside," and also "These folks know how powerful this is, and that's why they go there," she is not just making statements that are demonstrably false; she is making false and malicious accusations about honest and honorable people who happen to disagree with her. There are many pieces of evidence indicating that Sally Hemings had various fathers for her children, and this evidence has been listed in these pages. But to accuse people who merely consider this evidence that lies before them of basing their deliberations, not on the evidence, but on some preconceived notions that consider the "black woman as slut" is what is beyond revolting, if anything here is beyond revolting.
July 30, 2001
Richard B. Bernstein:
In response to Eyler Coates, Sr., I note that a careful examination of the evidence he relies on -- the claims about Peter and Samuel Carr by Jefferson's daughter, Martha Jefferson Randolph; his grandson by Martha, Thomas Jefferson Randolph; and his overseer Edmund Bacon; as well as the 'official' biographer Henry S. Randall -- ALL point to one of the two Carr brothers as the SOLE father of Sally Hemings's children. The witnesses on whom he relies NEVER identified Randolph Jefferson as the father or as a candidate for being the father.Given that, for nearly 175 years (since Thomas Jefferson's death in 1826), both sides in the historical controversy over the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings have assumed that Hemings had one lover, the shift by Jefferson "defenders" to a claim of multiple lovers for Hemings is notable and requires some explanation.
Given further that, as any student of the history of white attitudes towards African-Americans over time could testify, accusations of promiscuity and family instability have been prominent features of white racist caricatures of African-Americans, it seems naive if not disingenuous for Mr. Coates not to recognize the relevance of that sad history of racialized demonization to the controversy over the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings, or to the characterization of women of the Hemings family as promiscuous.
Mr. Coates's attempt to distinguish away considerations of race and slavery are puzzling in the extreme, given his own citation of Virginia law making Hemings's children "white by law" and his own attempt to invoke the nature of slavery to support his enterprise of acquitting Jefferson of this charge.
Indeed, Mr. Coates chooses not to recognize that for descendants of Sally Hemings, who have for nearly two centuries sought without avail to establish their blood relationship to the Jefferson family, due to the blinkered opposition of those who argued that no such thing could have happened, it is indeed a matter of, first, family, and, second, of who says what is true and not.
By the way, even if Mr. Coates and his allies are correct -- a whacking big "if" -- that Peter Carr or Samuel Carr and Randolph Jefferson were the fathers of Sally Hemings's children, does that not ESTABLISH their claims to be members of the Jefferson family? And, given that Professor Annette Gordon-Reed and the other contributors to the volume edited by Jan Ellen Lewis and Peter S. Onuf [SALLY HEMINGS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON: HISTORY, MEMORY, CIVIC CULTURE (University Press of Virginia, 1999)] accept that Sally Hemings's children would be 7/8 white and thus white by law, why is Professor Gordon-Reed's eloquent defense of the Hemings family deemed a racialist remark?
I have already apologized for my confusion of the two publications sponsored by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, Inc. I have read Mr. Coates's symposium with care and note, for example, its flagrant abuse of Michael Durey's WITH THE HAMMER OF TRUTH (University Press of Virginia, 1990), a cogent and dispassionate life of James Thomson Callender. For Mr. Coates and his coadjutors, Callender is a vile, drunken slanderer and libeler ... EXCEPT when his claims of facts bear out their assumptions, at which point they accept his claims of fact without question and dismiss the rest. It is notable that Durey, who has no axe to grind, notes that Callender tended to get his facts right when they were matters of fact, but that he allowed his blind racism (which led him to make all sorts of charges about black promiscuity and sexual immorality) to take over in his characterization of Sally Hemings.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 29, 2001.
Eyler Coates, Sr.:
Professor Bernstein examines the evidence that he says I rely upon -- that of Jefferson's daughter, his grandson, and his overseer -- and concludes that it all points "to one of the two Carr brothers as the SOLE father of Sally Hemings's children." But alas, he cites only a part of the evidence I rely upon, and is in error on some of what he does cite. Prof. Bernstein's statement that "The witnesses on whom he relies NEVER identified Randolph Jefferson as the father or as a candidate for being the father" is not quite correct, because the name of the person identified by Bacon was scratched out, and it could have been Randolph or some other person other than Thomas Jefferson. We don't know who Bacon identified.Prof. Bernstein also fails to mention the most extraordinary recent DNA evidence which is also an important element and which identifies, not one of the Carr brothers, but some Jefferson male as the father of Sally Hemings's last child. Thus, we have some evidence identifying one of the Carr brothers, some evidence identifying some Jefferson male, and some evidence that does not identify the father, except to say it was not Thomas Jefferson.
It is frequently the case that DNA evidence points to new suspects that had previously escaped notice. Why not here? Why are we limited to only those suspects named two hundred years ago? After all, a sexual encounter is something that almost always occurs in secret. Third parties can only guess that an encounter took place, such as when Bacon saw someone coming from Sally Hemings's room on several mornings. And even if early 19th century observers thought they knew, from confessions or observations, who was getting together with Sally Hemings, that does not mean that the person they identify must necessarily and forever remain the only suspect. Sometimes information becomes available later that was not known to many people living at the time, such as the fact that Randolph had been invited to come to Monticello just days before Eston was likely conceived.
But Prof. Bernstein says that "both sides in the historical controversy over the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings have assumed that Hemings had one lover," and therefore this shift to multiple lovers "is notable and requires some explanation." The explanation is very simple: It's the Evidence. If there is evidence that a woman had a relationship with one man, and also evidence that she had a relationship with another man, one is not forced to choose one or the other. If anything, one is forced to consider the possibility she could have had a relationship with both. But Prof. Bernstein seems unable to accept the fact that there could be new evidence that bears on an historical event that occurred 200 years ago, or that modern investigators could re-examine all the evidence, both old and new, and reach a different conclusion from that which has previously been held.
The fact that, as Prof. Bernstein states, there have been "white racist caricatures" involving accusations of promiscuity against those in the black community, and therefore Jefferson defenders who suggest that Sally Hemings had multiple sexual partners are guilty of the same is just a red herring. This is not a question about race, but about paternity. This accusation might indeed have some relevance if defenders made general "accusations of promiscuity and family instability" concerning black women and then tried to use that as evidence, accusing Sally Hemings of fitting the same profile. But that is not at all the case when we are talking about one specific person and when there are specific facts indicating multiple partners. Are defenders forced to ignore those specific facts simply to avoid being tarred with the racist brush?
This is hardly to "distinguish away considerations of race and slavery." Rather, it is to reject the accusation of racism when there is no basis for it, when there is valid evidence being considered. Sally Hemings was a slave. She was considered a Negro. But because of that, we are not compelled to call certain behavioral facts off-limits because some racists in the past have generalized such things about all blacks. For proponents to place such evidence off-limits is for them to hide behind accusations of racism in order to deflect attention from the facts of the case. Indeed, it suggests that they have no real case, and must rely on innuendo and insinuation instead of addressing real pieces of evidence which they don't like.
Prof. Bernstein begs the question when he insists that this is and always has been "a matter of, first, family, and, second, of who says what is true and not," because he assumes that the question of Thomas Jefferson's paternity of Sally Hemings's children is settled, and then tries to infer that those who do not accept this as settled are doing so for reasons related to family and who is going to decide. But those persons are not accepting it as settled because the evidence suggests otherwise to them. And in making the assumption that it is a matter of family and who gets to decide, it is Prof. Bernstein who is not dealing with the evidence, but is trying to make it a question of race.
For Jefferson defenders, however, it is not a focus on race at all. It is a matter of the reputation of one of the greatest of our Founding Fathers, and it is entirely a matter of the facts and evidence related to the question of paternity. Race has nothing to do with whether the accusations are true or not. And yes: to reduce everything down to a matter of race does indeed define what is a racialist remark, whether said by Profs. Bernstein and Gordon-Reed, or by anyone else.
Prof. Bernstein asks, if Peter Carr and Randolph Jefferson both were fathers of Sally Hemings's children, doesn't that establish the descendants of those children as members of the Jefferson family? Of course it does!!! But it would not establish them as descendants of Thomas Jefferson, and that is the question at issue here.
We neither accept nor reject Callender's remarks per se. Anyone who studies those remarks carefully will find that he made wild accusations about not only Thomas Jefferson, but James Madison and several other persons of the day. We only accept the fact that he published those accusations, and that some of them may or may not have been based on fact. No careful researcher would accept anything that Callender wrote as settled fact without verifying it in other sources. At best, Callender's writings raise certain questions which lead the careful researcher to further inquiry.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 31, 2001.
J. L. Bell:
Eyler Coates writes: "Prof. Bernstein also fails to mention the most extraordinary recent DNA evidence which is also an important element and which identifies, not one of the Carr brothers, but some Jefferson male as the father of Sally Hemings's last child. Thus, we have some evidence identifying one of the Carr brothers, some evidence identifying some Jefferson male, and some evidence that does not identify the father, except to say it was not Thomas Jefferson."Mr. Coates's statement is, of course, incomplete. We also have evidence that says Thomas Jefferson was the father of all of Sally Hemings's children. That evidence includes, among other things, the memoir of Madison Hemings, one of those children. It's been in the public record since 1873. It's the only account of Sally Hemings's life which correctly forecast the results of the 1998 DNA tests on the Jefferson, Hemings, Carr, and Woodson lines. We must ask ourselves why Mr. Coates omitted that from his list of what he wishes historians to consider, especially when chiding a scholar for failing to mention important evidence on the issue.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, Jun 1, 2001.
Eyler Coates
In taking my statement out of context, Mr. Bell fails to note that I was not trying to make a complete list of all the evidence related to Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. The paragraph immediately preceding the section that Bell quotes says, "Professor Bernstein examines the evidence that he says I rely upon..." I was discussing with Bernstein the evidence that I rely upon in saying that there were indications that Sally's children may have had multiple fathers, and this was NOT a list of what I wish "historians to consider" with reference to the whole question. The "memoirs" of Madison Hemings add nothing to the point I was trying to make with Mr. Bernstein regarding evidence that indicates Sally may have had multiple sexual partners, and it would have made no sense for me to include it. Taking statements out of context may appear to make a point, but such actions do nothing to advance our understanding of the issues involved.
July 30, 2001
Richard E. Dixon:
J. L. Bell writes:"We also have evidence that says Thomas Jefferson was the father of all of Sally Hemings's children. That evidence includes, among other things, the memoir of Madison Hemings, one of those children. It's been in the public record since 1873. It's the only account of Sally Hemings's life which correctly forecast the results of the 1998 DNA tests on the Jefferson, Hemings, Carr, and Woodson lines."
The proponents of a Jefferson paternity by his slave Sally Hemings characterize the 1873 interview of Madison Hemings as a resource document because it is essential to the Jefferson paternity claim. To that end, Annette Gordon-Reed calls them "memoirs," to Fawn Brodie, they are "reminiscences" and the report of the Trustees at Monticello implies it constitutes "testimony" of Sally Hemings. All of these euphemisms are nothing more than literary devices intended to convert the third hand hearsay in the interview into probative evidence.
There are some items in the interview that are historically true, which is to be expected in a document written some fifty years after the event, but to credit it as "forecast"of the DNA tests is a stretch beyond any acceptable standard of historical review.
Madison Hemings claimed Jefferson was the father of four of his mother's children, but the DNA tests identified only the younger son, Eston, as having a Y haplotype common to the Jefferson male line (which included about 25 Jefferson's, eight of whom were in the Monticello area, including Thomas Jefferson). Ironically, the heirs of Madison Hemings are not interested in testing his son, whose grave has been identified at Fort Leavenworth. Madison claimed that his mother had a baby after her return from France, which "lived but a short time." There is no other record of such a baby, and this part of the interview is disputed by the Woodson family, who claim that the child Sally Hemings had was a boy, Tom Woodson. There is no record of him either, and the DNA tests eliminated a Jefferson male as his father, but the family persists in both the Jefferson paternity claim and that he was a son of Sally Hemings. The Carrs were eliminated by the tests as the father of Eston, but not of the other children of Sally Hemings, the daughter and the son who passed into white society, or Madison Hemings, whose son has not been tested.
Unless evidentiary standards are ignored and the hearsay portions of the Hemings interview are accepted, there is no source for the "treaty legend," that Jefferson persuaded Sally Hemings to return to slavery in Virginia on the promise he would free her future children. More importantly, there is no other voice, among the many Jefferson relatives and slaves who lived at Monticello, and the hundreds who visited there, to claim that Jefferson fathered any of Sally Hemings' children. The Trustees at Monticello, in a rebuttal to their Minority Report, offer no proof other than "Hemings would not have forgotten who his father was, no matter his age."
The most complete treatment of the "Madison Hemings Story" is a part of the recent Scholars Commission Report, which can be found at http://www.oocities.org/tjshcommission/
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, Jun 4, 2001.
Hal Morris:
Richard Dixon writes:"The proponents of a Jefferson paternity by his slave Sally Hemings characterize the 1873 interview of Madison Hemings as a resource document because it is essential to the Jefferson paternity claim. To that end, Annette Gordon-Reed calls them "memoirs," to Fawn Brodie, they are "reminiscences" and the report of the Trustees at Monticello implies it constitutes "testimony" of Sally Hemings. All of these euphemisms are nothing more than literary devices intended to convert the third hand hearsay in the interview into probative evidence."
"Memoir" and "reminiscence" are perfectly accurate and neutral characterizations of what Madison Hemings related in 1873. I see no grounds for calling them euphemisms. "Third hand hearsay" and the "treaty legend" might well be called MALphemisms. It seems that in Richard Dixon's mind, whoever will not use his pejorative language on these issues is being "euphemistic".
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, Jun 4, 2001.
Eyler Coates
The terms "memoirs" and "reminiscences" usually imply a narrative composed by a person relating his own personal experiences. This is not an accurate description of what has been called "Madison's Memoirs." This piece was not written by Madison Hemings, nor was it dictated by him. It was the result of an interview conducted by Samuel Wetmore, and it was written down by the interviewer. It does not attempt to replicate the words of the interviewee in the same way as, for example, Charles Campbell recorded the Memoirs of a Monticello Slave (included in Jefferson at Monticello by James A. Bear, Jr.). It is impossible to tell the extent to which Mr. Wetmore may have supplied information on his own that he may have thought logically necessary to complete the story. Calling the interview of Madison Hemings "memoirs" or "reminiscences" could hardly be considered a "perfectly accurate" characterization. In addition, unlike memoirs which relate personal experiences, this interview included much material that occurred long before Madison was born, and is quite properly called "third hand hearsay." Someone (1st hand) gave the information to Madison (2nd hand) who then related it to Wetmore (3rd hand) who wrote it down in his own words. Nowhere in this interview is it recorded who the person was who gave the information to Madison. Many have assumed it was Sally Hemings, but there is good reason for believing that she did not tell any of her children that their father was Thomas Jefferson. (See The Children of Sally Hemings.)
Why is it thought improper to designate the story about Sally being promised her children would be set free at age 21 as the "treaty legend"? The arrangement was in the form of an agreement or "treaty" and it was a story coming down from the past, which is the definition of a legend. If the arrangement was indeed made, it happened more than 15 years before Madison was born, hence a "treaty legend" seems a perfect designation and is not pejorative at all.
This kind of criticism elicited when a person uses ordinary language to describe certain events sounds like some kind of Newspeak, in which certain ordinary terms are loaded with additional meanings and designated as inappropriate. Mr. Dixon's terminology used in this matter merely employs words according to their definitions as found in any good desk dictionary. These terms may not conform to an approved politically correct party-line usage, but they are valid terms, used accurately according to any standard usage.
July 30, 2001