|
I. The Early History of the Story · II. Madison Hemings Speaks III. The "Modern" History of the Story · IV. Post-DNA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Within the community of Jefferson specialists, there seems to be a clear consensus that the story is almost certainly not true. . . After five years mulling over the huge cache of evidence that does exist on the thought and character of the historical Jefferson, I have concluded that the likelihood of a liaison with Sally Hemings is remote. (Read Ellis's full "Note")After the publication of the DNA evidence, Ellis, who wrote of himself as "one of those students of Jefferson who previously questioned the possibility" of a relationship with Hemings, made plain his belief that the matter had been "proved beyond any reasonable doubt". Many of the Jefferson historians who had written so dismissively of the Hemings story--often cruelly so--were no longer alive. But what did it mean that so many of these eminent historians had been so decidedly wrong for so long? Now, a new generation of historians has largely accepted the truth of Jefferson-Hemings, and moved on to ask a new set of questions about the nature of the relationship and its significance. But what can be learned from the two hundred-year history of the Jefferson-Hemings story before DNA--and before the more sympathetic reconsideration of the story that followed? One thing is clear: early in this history, Jefferson's "secret" became a lie about Jefferson's nephews, the Carrs, having fathered the Hemings children. The lie about the Carrs was invented by Jefferson's white relatives, and passed along by generations of historians who seemed to take little interest in proving the matter one way or another. How did this happen? Why was the oral history of one side of a family listened to as truth and the oral history of another side of that family dismissed as gossip and libel? Why did it take outsiders to the historical profession--a law professor and a retired doctor, among others--to finally untangle truth from lie, and to spill the original secret?
In this report, FRONTLINE re-reads the long record of claims and counterclaims on Jefferson and Hemings, illustrating the major episodes in this history with text and special video
reports. Retrace the tortuous trail of this story in greater detail on FRONTLINE'S "History of A Secret" chronology.
Jefferson never responded publicly to Callender's charge--or to any of the rumors that surfaced before and after Callender's 1802 articles. But, for years, Jefferson's detractors and political enemies among the Federalists made use of the story to defame him. A number of popular rhymes lampooned the president and "Dusky Sally." Politically, however, Callender's story never had much effect on Jefferson, who easily won a second term as president in 1804 in a landslide election which scarcely included mention of the Hemings story. Callender, perhaps, suffered the worst of it, bitterly disappointed that Virginians did not turn on Jefferson as a result of his reports. "Callender misunderstood white attitudes toward interracial sex in Virginia" historian Joshua Rothman concluded, "and thus failed to foresee that although his allegations might embarrass Jefferson and his white family, they were unlikely to provoke any larger consequences for his career or standing." Why this might be the case, Rothman found, had everything to do with Callender's manner of relating the story -- he was criticized for his immodest and "graceless" peek behind the curtain of a Virginia gentleman's private home. Rothman concluded: "Callender never understood that in Virginia and in other parts of the South there were honorable and dishonorable ways of sharing information about the interracial sexual affairs of elite men. Consequently, he never foresaw that even people who believed Jefferson's sexual behavior was less than admirable might very well feel that Callender's own behavior in publishing the story was at least distasteful."
Callender proved thoroughly vulnerable to attack, but, Annette Gordon-Reed reminds us, historians exploited Callender's vulnerabilities to undermine the reliability of a story they did not want to believe was true: "To discredit a Jefferson-Hemings liaison, it is necessary to discuss James Callender as though he invented the story and as though none of Callender's contemporaries looked into the matter and, in their view, substantiated the charges," Gordon-Reed writes in her exhaustive and rigorous analysis of the history of the story. "This characterization makes it easier to present the story as something so fantastic and without foundation that it is unworthy of a second thought." In the years following the Callender story, rumors persisted about Jefferson and Hemings, but they did not again come into public focus, and they forced no explicit comment from Jefferson. By the early 1830's, both Jefferson and Hemings were dead. By the 1860's, a number of people added comment on the story. One seemed to offer confirmation: John Hartwell Cocke, a close friend of Jefferson's, mentioned the former president's "notorious example" in a discussion of sex across the color line. But a growing number of commentators--relatives, a former Monticello slave overseer--began to point the finger away from Jefferson to his nephew, Peter Carr, as the father of Sally Hemings's children. The story about Peter Carr would then be written into history as the last word on the subject for more than a century.
Just as the Peter Carr story was being set in stone as true, however, an elderly black man in Ohio asked by a newspaper reporter to tell the story
of his life, quietly made a surprising claim: that Thomas Jefferson was his father.
"My mother became Mr. Jefferson's concubine, and when he was called back home she was enciente (sic) by him. Soon after their arrival [back in Virginia] she gave birth to a child, of whom Thomas Jefferson was the father. . . She gave birth to four others, and Jefferson was the father of all of them. . . "
Though historians found Madison sufficiently trustworthy on all sorts of matters (the Wayles family, domestic life at Monticello), they would
attack and denigrate him for his claims about his mother and
Jefferson. A week after the publication of Madison's testimony, John A. Jones,
the editor of the Waverly Watchman, a rival to S.F. Wetmore's Pike County
Republican--bitterly dismissed Madison as a puppet of Wetmore or as just
another "colored" person laying claim to illustrious parentage, "rather than to
acknowledge that some field hand, without a name" had parented him. In December of 1873, Wetmore tracked down Israel Jefferson, another man who had been a slave at Monticello during Jefferson's time, and published his memoir. Among other things, Israel corroborated Madison's statements about Sally Hemings and Jefferson. In the pages of that same day's newspaper, however, Israel was attacked as untrustworthy by Thomas Jefferson Randolph, the president's grandson, who denied the charge, asking rhetorically, "What is the meaning of such calumnies?" In 1874, James Parton, a prominent nineteenth-century Jefferson biographer, dismissed Madison Hemings as "misinformed" and repudiated the claim of a Jefferson-Hemings relationship as "impossible." In the same passage, Parton endorsed the theory that one of the Carr brothers had fathered Sally Hemings' children. What was Parton relying on for this conclusion? A report of a conversation between Thomas Jefferson Randolph and Henry Randall, an earlier Jefferson biographer and descendant of the president, and a letter from Ellen Coolidge, the president's granddaughter. "Nowhere can historians' double standard for assessing evidence in the Jefferson-Hemings controversy be plainer than in the promotion of the idea that one of Thomas Jefferson's nephews, Samuel Carr or Peter Carr, was the father of Sally Hemings's children," writes Annette Gordon-Reed. "The chief qualifications that the Carr brothers have for this designation are (1) neither one of them was Thomas Jefferson, (2) neither seems to have been a very good guy, so that they can be cast as having engaged in miscegenation, and (3) neither man means anything to the American public."
Just a few years after the publication of his memoirs, Madison Hemings died at his home in Chillicothe, Ohio. With the Carr brothers firmly in place as the fathers of the Hemings children, the story slipped into the back pages of newspapers and into the quiet realm of settled history, where it remained largely untouched through the middle of the next century. In the early 1950's, the story returned--some say as part of a larger re-examination of race in America during the early years of the civil rights movement. A number of primary sources key to piecing together the Jefferson-Hemings story were "re-discovered" in archives around the country: Henry Randall's 1868 lett to James Parton turned up in some papers at Harvard; Jefferson's Farm Book, with detailed notes on his slaves, was rooted out from items donated to the Massachusetts Historical Society in 1898; and the testimony of Madison Hemings, which once so-incensed Jefferson's grandson and his 19th century biographer--but then went missing--was unearthed by an archivist at the Ohio State Historical Society. Several popular accounts of the Jefferson-Hemings story were published in black magazines or scholarly journals of "negro history," but the story gained little currency with Jeffersonians. In 1960, Merrill Peterson, the great University of Virginia historian, offered this summary of the fate of the story from Madison Hemings's time to his own: Upon the flimsy basis of oral tradition, anecdote, and satire, [some] avowed their belief in Jefferson's misecegenation. . . [but] when there was little but Jefferson's own history and the memories of a few Negroes to sustain it, the legend faded into the obscure recesses of the Jefferson image. . .
And, here, the story would remain, until a biographer with a special interest
in the paradoxical private lives of "great men" turned her sites on Thomas
Jefferson. She soon found herself at Monticello asking questions about Sally
Hemings.
It was a kind of automatic denial, in the written record, that this slave woman and her children were important to him. . . The denial was accepted too, though in a different fashion, by the slave who was genuinely loved. Here the slave was peculiarly deprived of the right to, and even the desire for, emancipation, because freedom meant loss of the love relationship.
It is possible to argue that attachment with Sally represented a final happy resolution of [Jefferson's] inner conflict. . . Sally Hemings would have become Becky Burwell [an early romantic attachment] and the bitter outcome of his marriage erased. Unsurprisingly, his repulsion toward Negroes would have been, all along, merely the obverse of powerful attraction. . .But Jordan did not endorse the idea of a love relationship between Jefferson and Hemings; he merely laid out a possible argument for how it could be true. Then, he quickly pulled back from it, saying the matter was not significant even if it were proved true: "The question of Jefferson's miscegenation, it should be stressed again, is of limited interest and usefulness even if it could be satisfactorily answered." Fawn Brodie went much further when she passionately argued for the truth of a lifelong passionate romance between the Jefferson and Hemings. Though her chapter on Sally Hemings was but one of over thirty, this is what brought her popular renown--by the late Spring of 1974, Brodie's Jefferson was into its third printing and had secured a regular place on the New York Times bestseller list. But this is what also drew fire from book reviewers and historians who accused her of "groping" for evidence, and engaging in "historical gossip." Just as in earlier eras attacks on the story focused on the messengers-- James Callender; S.F. Wetmore and Madison Hemings-- the "modern" era of the story was marked by an attempt to make the story seem like the singlehanded re-invention of Fawn Brodie. Historian John Chester Miller wrote in a characteristic passage: "The 'Sally Hemings' story had, in fact, long been dismissed as a mere political canard until it was revived, refurbished, and given the gloss of verisimilitude by Ms. Brodie." (Read the the full excerpt)Garry Wills, the journalist and historian, penned perhaps the most intensely personal of the attacks on Brodie. His review of her Jefferson biography began cuttingly: Two vast things, each wondrous in itself, combine to make this book a prodigy--the author's industry, and her ignorance. One canonly be so intricately wrong by deep study and long effort, enough to make Ms. Brodie the fasting hermit and very saint of ignorance.Wills took particular issue with Brodie's characterization of the relationship as one of love. His Sally Hemings, instead, was, at best, "like a healthy and obliging prostitute, who could be suitably rewarded but would make no importunate demands. Her lot was improved, not harmed, by the liaison." Much of the "modern" history of the story, in fact, would be focussed on the nature of the relationship--locating it on the spectrum from love to rape. If Fawn Brodie wrote Hemings into the story of Jefferson's life in a way that had never before been done, Barbara Chase-Riboud, in her 1979 book, Sally Hemings: A Novel, treated Hemings herself as the subject, giving flesh, blood, and psychology, where the historical record could only say she was "mighty ne'er white." Chase-Riboud also offered the first fully-realized portrait of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings, with all of the psychological complexity and texture of relations between any two people who felt passionately for one another. Chase-Riboud even dared to imagine the first sexual contact between the two: I bent forward and pressed a kiss on the trembling hands that encompassed mine, and the contact of my lips with his flesh was so violent I lost all memory of what came afterward. . . At once he left me, surveying me from above with the yes of a man afraid of heights scanning a valley from a tower. Then his body tensed and rushed toward me as if he ahd found a way to break his fall. Thus did Thomas Jefferson give himself into my keeping.
If you do go ahead with the project, I would urge you to make it absolutely clear that you are presenting fiction. . . I do this not only on my own account, but in behalf of all persons who are concerned with the preservation and presentation of the history of our country.Later in January of 1979, historian Merrill Peterson followed up on Malone's letters, writing the CBS Chairman William Paley to reconsider lending his network's good name to "vulgar sensationalism masquerading as history." By February of 1979, Malone had gone public with his concernes, telling a Washington Post reporter: "Scandal and sex can be exploited to great financial advantage. The public will always believe the story. You can never get it back. You can never stop it." By December of 1979, plans for the mini-series were dead. Virginius Dabney, a Jefferson descendant and vocal critic of the Brodie biography and the Chase-Riboud novel wrote to Malone to say CBS "had lost all enthusiasm" for the story. "Enough damage has been done by Brodie and Chase-Riboud without TV," Dabney added. Though Dabney congratulated Malone for his role in killing the mini-series, Malone expressed regret that the matter had attracted so much publicity and worried that this would might not be the last effort to popularize the Hemings story: "We must keep our fingers crossed. Eternal vigilance will be necessary."
What did all of this say about the character of Thomas Jefferson? What did the long history of claims and counterclaims about "Dusky Sally" say about the way history is written? In March of 1999, Professors Jan Lewis and Peter Onuf quickly organized a conference at the University of Virginia inviting "historians to reflect upon and begin attempting to explain the significance of the liaison between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings." The organizers described it as a forum for a number of academics who had assumed the truth of the relationship before the DNA but had "not bothered to publish their thoughts."
"Although paternity cannot be established with absolute certainty, our evaluation of the best evidence available suggests the strong likelihood that Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings had a relationship over time that led to the birth of one, and perhaps all, of the known children of Sally Hemings."The report came like final confirmation that the story that the Hemings descendants had always known to be true could finally be acknowledged at Monticello, the place where it began. Now a new generation of historians, no longer exhausting itself in the exercise of denial, has begun to take up the challenges that have come with the story to deepen their understanding of Jefferson, his time, and lives of the men and women who were his slaves.
special video reports · discussion · links · quiz · chronology · gene map interviews · synopsis · tapes · teacher's guide · press FRONTLINE · pbs online · wgbh web site copyright 1995-2008 WGBH educational foundation | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||