Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

OT: Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings


Recommended Posts

In the late 1990s a lot of work was done with DNA research regarding these two. Testers compared DNA of known Jefferson and Hemings descendants and determined one breakthrough fact: Either Thomas Jefferson or his brother had fathered children with his black slave, Sally Hemings.

 

Of course, at the time the children were fathered, Jefferson's brother was in Europe and Thomas was home with Sally. So, by circumstance we *know* Jefferson fathered children with his slave.

 

No on to my question: What do you think their relationship was like? Was Jefferson in love with Sally Hemings, or was their sexual union one of I-own-you-do-as-I-say?

 

Of course we'll never know, barring discovery of some unknown documents. But I'm leaning toward the former. Here's why:

 

1- Jefferson recognized that slavery had become a vital part of the southern economy, and couldn't bring himself to try to end the institution. However, he hated slavery and recognized it as a sin against mankind.

 

2- Jefferson's own writings on the subject reveal he saw blacks as equally intelligent to whites, a view that was not widely accepted at the time.

 

3- Hemings was a house slave, not a field slave. As such, she would have spent a great deal of time with Jefferson which would lend itself to developing romantic feelings.

 

4- After the death of his wife, Jefferson never remarried despite being one of the "most eligible bachelors" of his time. He probably had an affair with the wife of a French nobleman when he was in France, and continued to correspond with her throughout his life, but she was on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. Hemings was in the house with him.

 

5- Jefferson is never known to have been given to physical force or violence, preferring to be a philosopher and administrator more than a warrior. There are no known incidents of him ever becoming physical with anyone, including his slaves. He demanded that his slave masters not use corporal punishment, either.

 

6- Upon his death, Jefferson provided for Hemings and her (his) children quite nicely, assuring their freedom. He didn't emancipate them directly (there was some legal problem with this, the details of which slip my mind at the moment), but he set them up in a nice house in town and sold them to a friend, who promised to emancipate them (and did).

 

So what do you think? What was the nature of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings? Was she a willing participant in the union that created children with our third president?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the late 1990s a lot of work was done with DNA research regarding these two. Testers compared DNA of known Jefferson and Hemings descendants and determined one breakthrough fact: Either Thomas Jefferson or his brother had fathered children with his black slave, Sally Hemings.

 

Of course, at the time the children were fathered, Jefferson's brother was in Europe and Thomas was home with Sally. So, by circumstance we *know* Jefferson fathered children with his slave.

 

No on to my question: What do you think their relationship was like? Was Jefferson in love with Sally Hemings, or was their sexual union one of I-own-you-do-as-I-say?

 

Of course we'll never know, barring discovery of some unknown documents. But I'm leaning toward the former. Here's why:

 

1- Jefferson recognized that slavery had become a vital part of the southern economy, and couldn't bring himself to try to end the institution. However, he hated slavery and recognized it as a sin against mankind.

 

2- Jefferson's own writings on the subject reveal he saw blacks as equally intelligent to whites, a view that was not widely accepted at the time.

 

3- Hemings was a house slave, not a field slave. As such, she would have spent a great deal of time with Jefferson which would lend itself to developing romantic feelings.

 

4- After the death of his wife, Jefferson never remarried despite being one of the "most eligible bachelors" of his time. He probably had an affair with the wife of a French nobleman when he was in France, and continued to correspond with her throughout his life, but she was on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. Hemings was in the house with him.

 

5- Jefferson is never known to have been given to physical force or violence, preferring to be a philosopher and administrator more than a warrior. There are no known incidents of him ever becoming physical with anyone, including his slaves. He demanded that his slave masters not use corporal punishment, either.

 

6- Upon his death, Jefferson provided for Hemings and her (his) children quite nicely, assuring their freedom. He didn't emancipate them directly (there was some legal problem with this, the details of which slip my mind at the moment), but he set them up in a nice house in town and sold them to a friend, who promised to emancipate them (and did).

 

So what do you think? What was the nature of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings? Was she a willing participant in the union that created children with our third president?

 

 

Because i am a romantic I believe they were in love. I think the times would not allow that type of relationship, so they simply lived the way they did to protect both of them and the children. But then you have to understand that I believe love conquers all. I also believe marriage is the best institution we have, so I disagree with them living together without commitment all those years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From everything I've read or heard about this TJ treated her as his wife and acknowledge the offspring as his children. Ignoring all the slave/master rhetoric of today, TJ's contemporaries probably treated her as such.

 

Keep in mind, that except for the occasional union of settlers and Indians, interracial marriage was virtually unknown. It would have been political (as well as social) suicide for a formal marriage. TJ's actions after his death regarding Sally Hemmings, providing a house and emancipation through a third party, lends credence to him regarding her as his common law wife.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From everything I've read or heard about this TJ treated her as his wife and acknowledge the offspring as his children. Ignoring all the slave/master rhetoric of today, TJ's contemporaries probably treated her as such.

 

Keep in mind, that except for the occasional union of settlers and Indians, interracial marriage was virtually unknown. It would have been political (as well as social) suicide for a formal marriage. TJ's actions after his death regarding Sally Hemmings, providing a house and emancipation through a third party, lends credence to him regarding her as his common law wife.

 

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

 

I agree with most of what you're saying except one thing: Jefferson vehemently denied being the father of Hemings' children, at least in public and in correspondence with family and friends. The accusation was first made public by a political hack hired to slander Jefferson (interestingly enough, Jefferson had once hired the same hack to slander John Adams during their race against one another for president). And Jefferson ignored it for a time until he was compelled to answer it. I have no doubt he consciously acknowledged his fatherhood, as both of us have pointed out his rather good treatment of them, but he always denied it in public.

 

I totally agree that a black-white marriage would have been political suicide at the time. It could have been a physical suicide, too. Folks of that era were not just cold to such a notion, they were violently opposed to it and may have taken it upon themselves to lynch our third president and / or his wife Sally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read a fact I didn't know before making my first post: It is reported and entirely plausible that Sally Hemings was the half-white, half-sister of Jefferson's late wife. That means any children he fathered with her would have been 7/8 white!

 

Of course, the "one drop rule" was in effect in those days, which said if a person had so much as one drop of black blood they were considered black. So even though Sally and her children (especially the children) must have exhibited a lot of white physical characteristics they were still considered black.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Churchill is repoted to have said that a "statesman must first be a politician." Jefferson was living this rule long before Winnie was gleam in his daddy's eye! :)

 

This means that while he may well have lived with and treated Ms. Hemings as his "wife" (even in the presence of friends) he would have denied it in public for obvious reasons. That as his "public" star declined he might have been more open about his relationship with her is not a surprise. There would have been no need to keep the "secret."

 

There's a display at the Kingsley Plantation that discusses inter-racial marriage. It seems that it might not have been as rare as we assume, but it was certainly not PC in the day. Zephaniah Kingsley is interesting because defended slavery, but wanted the new state of Florida to follow the Spanish practice of recognizing free blacks, persons of mixed race, and allowing inheritance by those persons and permitting mixed marriage. He was married to, possibly, as many as four women (including a slave he purchased when she was 13). Florida did not accept his proposals and he ultimately relocated to Haiti, where he died in 1843.

 

Jefferson was a man of his time, and a man well beyond his time. I consider him the most interesting of all the Founding Fathers.

 

SQQ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read a fact I didn't know before making my first post: It is reported and entirely plausible that Sally Hemings was the half-white, half-sister of Jefferson's late wife. That means any children he fathered with her would have been 7/8 white!

 

 

3/4???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having visited Monticello during my Army times, I found it one of the most fasinating places in the East. It was not much intrest of me at the time of this Sally Hemmings. It does seem others give it some thoughts. Here is a good read from the foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3/4???

--------------------------------

 

Among the unresolved matters is the genealogy of Sally Hemings. According to Madison Hemings, Sally's mother, Elizabeth Hemings (1735-1807), was the daughter of an African woman and an English sea captain. By Madison's and other accounts, Sally Hemings and some of her siblings were the children of John Wayles, Thomas Jefferson's father-in-law. If so, Sally Hemings would have been the half-sister of Jefferson's wife, Martha Wayles Jefferson (1748-1782). Elizabeth Hemings and her children lived at John Wayles' plantation during his lifetime, but there are no documentary records relating to Wayles' possible paternity of any Hemings children.

 

Also unknown are the precise nature of the relationship that existed between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings; whether a child was born at Monticello shortly after they returned from France in 1789; and whether there is anything to connect Jefferson, Hemings, and Thomas C. Woodson.

 

Although the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings has been for many years, and will surely continue to be, a subject of intense interest to historians and the public, the evidence is not definitive, and the complete story may never be known. The Foundation encourages its visitors and patrons, based on what evidence does exist, to make up their own minds as to the true nature of the relationship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the first place I would recommend reading a good biography of Mr. Jefferson such as that provided by Albert J Nock. After reading this you will feel as though you know the man.

 

Following that you might review some of the stories.

 

Bear in mind that Mr. Jefferson provides some of the best guidance to Liberty and Freedom available and for that reason he is despised by those who oppose Freedom and Liberty. And we know those people have been known to resort to slander.

 

There is this as well ( a quick search found the original gone but a copy of it here )

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=11073

 

the above was originally published back in 2000; I picked it up from a reference from WorldNetDaily to Insight Mag. I still have a personal copy of the original essay.

 

You can read stories like this and you can read others which try to disparage Mr. Jefferson. In the end you have to decide for yourself. And you have to decide what to teach your children. Which is why I recommend Mr. Nock's biography to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sister in law??? I'd bet that if it was today, they'd get on the Jerry Springer Show........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would have to say their relationship was like a newspaper.

 

Black & White & Read all over.

 

 

 

I'm sorry..going back to my hole now to hibernate some more..Oso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the first place I would recommend reading a good biography of Mr. Jefferson such as that provided by Albert J Nock. After reading this you will feel as though you know the man.

 

Following that you might review some of the stories.

 

Bear in mind that Mr. Jefferson provides some of the best guidance to Liberty and Freedom available and for that reason he is despised by those who oppose Freedom and Liberty. And we know those people have been known to resort to slander.

 

There is this as well ( a quick search found the original gone but a copy of it here )

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?read=11073

 

the above was originally published back in 2000; I picked it up from a reference from WorldNetDaily to Insight Mag. I still have a personal copy of the original essay.

 

You can read stories like this and you can read others which try to disparage Mr. Jefferson. In the end you have to decide for yourself. And you have to decide what to teach your children. Which is why I recommend Mr. Nock's biography to everyone.

 

I always appreciate a good historical read, and I've read several bios of Jefferson. None of the ones I read would touch the Sally Hemings issue with a 10 foot pole, however.

 

Your statement that I boldfaced gives me heartburn, though. As an historian, I was trained to objectively investigate and report the facts. Any speculation is just that -- speculation -- and needs to be identified as such AND backed up with known facts. A great example is my opinion of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings. It is pure speculation, identified as such, and backed up with facts. It is, essentially, a logical argument that can neither be proven nor disproven.

 

What I'm getting at, is that it violates every tenet of the unwritten "historians' creed" to engage in hero worship or demonization for the purpose of solidifying one's views. We can't treat the Founding Fathers as infallible, perfect beings because we agree with them and believe in their philosophies. We also can't demonize them for what we consider imperfections, or because we might disagree with their philosophies.

 

If you'll notice throughout all my speculation on the Hemings affair, I never placed any value judgement on anything. The fact is that evidence is conclusive he fathered the children, and the social mores regarding race relations of the time are well-documented. I never said whether any of this is good or bad -- it happened, an as an historian my job is to examine facts and determine what happened, then report them (it's a lot like being a cop, in that regard).

 

So I would caution you about relying only on sources that engage in either hero worship or demonization (in this case, worship). The writer of these types of pseudo-histories always has an agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

STEAMY !!!!! :wub:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just ask BMC..........He was der!!! :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always appreciate a good historical read, and I've read several bios of Jefferson. None of the ones I read would touch the Sally Hemings issue with a 10 foot pole, however.

 

Your statement that I boldfaced gives me heartburn, though. As an historian, I was trained to objectively investigate and report the facts. Any speculation is just that -- speculation -- and needs to be identified as such AND backed up with known facts. A great example is my opinion of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings. It is pure speculation, identified as such, and backed up with facts. It is, essentially, a logical argument that can neither be proven nor disproven.

 

What I'm getting at, is that it violates every tenet of the unwritten "historians' creed" to engage in hero worship or demonization for the purpose of solidifying one's views. We can't treat the Founding Fathers as infallible, perfect beings because we agree with them and believe in their philosophies. We also can't demonize them for what we consider imperfections, or because we might disagree with their philosophies.

 

If you'll notice throughout all my speculation on the Hemings affair, I never placed any value judgement on anything. The fact is that evidence is conclusive he fathered the children, and the social mores regarding race relations of the time are well-documented. I never said whether any of this is good or bad -- it happened, an as an historian my job is to examine facts and determine what happened, then report them (it's a lot like being a cop, in that regard).

 

So I would caution you about relying only on sources that engage in either hero worship or demonization (in this case, worship). The writer of these types of pseudo-histories always has an agenda.

 

I am sitting here scratching my head on this one. I have a History Minor to go along with my Political Science Major, and I agree with pretty much everything you say regarding the need to be essentially neutral in our historical research and presentation. However, in looking at the linked site, which references a 500 plus page rebuttal to the notion you accept as "conclusive," I am left baffled by your statement. If the summary of that evidence said to be put forth by a number of noted historical scholars is accurate, I couldn't get a court to agree by a preponderance of the evidence, let alone say it is conclusive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sitting here scratching my head on this one. I have a History Minor to go along with my Political Science Major, and I agree with pretty much everything you say regarding the need to be essentially neutral in our historical research and presentation. However, in looking at the linked site, which references a 500 plus page rebuttal to the notion you accept as "conclusive," I am left baffled by your statement. If the summary of that evidence said to be put forth by a number of noted historical scholars is accurate, I couldn't get a court to agree by a preponderance of the evidence, let alone say it is conclusive.

 

Look at who runs the site that was linked -- it's a group of people who currently own Monticello (Jefferson's estate), make money off of tourists, and have every reason to spur the controversy on. More controversy, more discussion = more interest in visiting Monticello and spending money.

 

The fact is, as I said in the opening post, the DNA evidence proved that either Jefferson or his brother fathered the children. BUT the brother was out of the country at the time of conception. This is a classic case of circumstancial evidence proving something beyond a reasonable doubt because it is combined with physical evidence (i.e. the DNA). Interestingly enough, I toured Monticello about a month ago and the tour guide admitted this to me (not the part about stirring up controversy, but the part about the conclusivity of the research).

 

Unbiased historians no longer dispute the evidence, but folks who stand to make money off the controversy want it to continue.

 

Either way, we've drifted far from my original question. I wanted to discuss the nature of the relationship between TJ and Hemings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Look at who runs the site that was linked -- it's a group of people who currently own Monticello (Jefferson's estate), make money off of tourists, and have every reason to spur the controversy on. More controversy, more discussion = more interest in visiting Monticello and spending money.

 

No offense intended, but how closely and fully did you read the linked article? It seems you stopped about midway through the second paragraph. Let me provide a couple of excerpted quotes from the link. All emphasis will be my own. It seems you stopped shortly after this top paragraph:

 

The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, which owns and manages our third president’s home, Monticello, in Charlottesville, Va., came to a startling conclusion in January 2000, just as it was about to announce a $100 million capital-gifts campaign: Jefferson was a man who secretly conducted a sexual liaison with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, and fathered her six illegitimate children— a sordid affair covered up by a conspiracy of silence on the part of Jefferson and all of his legitimate descendants. The implication is that he was not the man of high probity and moral principles portrayed by historians.

 

The report issued by an in-house committee at Monticello seemed clear enough. The committee said its review of the subject “indicates a high probability that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings, and that he most likely was the father of all six of Sally Heming’s children appearing in Jefferson’s records.” Rather than being embarrassed by the new twist, the authors concluded that “the implications of the relationship between Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson should be explored and used to enrich the understanding and interpretation of Jefferson and the entire Monticello community.” Thus was born a new Jefferson for a new age. Shortly thereafter, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation dropped the word “Memorial” from its name.

 

* * *

 

But now after a year of study and deliberations a committee of 13 distinguished scholars — the cream of U.S. historical researchers — has released a 565-page report demonstrating in a gentlemanly way that almost all of Monticello’s presumptions are thin at best and based on shoddy scholarship, improbable assumptions and even doctored documents. The report was unanimous, although one professor expressed several minority reservations.

 

* * *

 

University of Virginia law professor Robert Turner, chairman of the distinguished scholars committee (the committee that prepared the rebuttal-Doc), is a man who cares deeply about such things. “For a few weeks, I thought the Monticello report was right,” he tells Insight. “But I went to a luncheon, and as we went around the room everybody said it was a poor piece of work. Then I downloaded it from the Web, and it read like an advocacy piece. I’ve been studying Jefferson for close to 30 years and I thought he deserved a fair hearing.”

 

Then Turner began to put together the group of Jefferson scholars to examine the evidence piece by piece —authors mostly with several Jefferson books to their credit, history department chairmen, directors of graduate studies. “We had a diverse group,” says Turner. “I wanted people of exceptional ability. But I also wanted people of courage. I told them I don’t care what you think, but you must agree to pursue the truth.”

 

The scholars examined the evidence individually, then got together for 15 hours of face-to-face meetings. “We have found most of the arguments used to point suspicion toward Thomas Jefferson to be unpersuasive and often factually erroneous,” they wrote. “Not a single member of our group, after an investigation lasting roughly one year, finds the case against Thomas Jefferson to be highly compelling, and the overwhelming majority of us believe it is very unlikely that he fathered any children by Sally Hemings.”

 

The fact is, as I said in the opening post, the DNA evidence proved that either Jefferson or his brother fathered the children. BUT the brother was out of the country at the time of conception. This is a classic case of circumstancial evidence proving something beyond a reasonable doubt because it is combined with physical evidence (i.e. the DNA).

 

Are you sure about that? If you had read further, you would have found information on that regard:

 

If Sally did bear a son named Thomas, no record exists. But after five years she began a childbearing career of six children with no acknowledged father. During those years, Jefferson was away from Monticello approximately half the time during his career of public service to the nation. He kept meticulous records in journals of the days he left and arrived back. The Monticello committee pounced on a study purporting to show Jefferson’s arrivals at Monticello coincided with the time of the conception of Sally’s children.

 

But, as Murray has shown, the use of statistics in that study is deeply flawed. Moreover, other critics have pointed out that Jefferson’s arrivals also coincided with inundations of his friends and relatives, such as those nearby suspects, Randolph Jefferson and his sons. Indeed, it was noted at the time that Randolph, a man far simpler than his genius brother, often sat up late in the slave quarters in Monticello playing the fiddle for dancing. Jefferson seldom recorded the familiar visits of his relatives, so the Monticello committee says that there is no documentary proof that Randolph actually was visiting at the mansion during Sally’s conception window.

 

More importantly, a very, very large presumption comes to play here as well, one that is fraught with the dangers of historical conclusion jumping:

 

Nor is there any evidence that all of Sally’s children had the same father, or that any but Eston carried the Y Jefferson chromosome. There is no basis for the assumption that Jefferson was “likely the father of all six.

 

Interestingly enough, I toured Monticello about a month ago and the tour guide admitted this to me (not the part about stirring up controversy, but the part about the conclusivity of the research).

 

I don't find that surprising at all, given the fact that the tour guide works for Monticello, the group that has purported the "fact" to be true. In fact, the article even mentions as much:

 

Dan Jordan, the president of the newly rechristened Thomas Jefferson Foundation, is unperturbed: “The group includes some fine scholars. I’m sure their opinions will be thoughtful. We are open to new evidence and we will review the report carefully,” he tells Insight. Meanwhile Monticello guides continue to tout the new Jefferson as gospel-truth to visitors.

 

Unbiased historians no longer dispute the evidence, but folks who stand to make money off the controversy want it to continue.

 

According to the article, your "biased" historians include the following:

 

Lance Banning

 

Professor of History,

 

University of Kentucky

 

James Ceaser

 

Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs,

 

University of Virginia

 

Robert H. Ferrell

 

Distinguished Professor of History Emeritus,

 

Indiana University

 

Charles R. Kesler

 

Professor of Government,

 

Claremont McKenna College

 

Harvey C. Mansfield

 

William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Government,

 

Harvard University

 

David N. Mayer

 

Professor of Law and History,

 

Capital University

 

Forrest McDonald

 

Distinguished Research Professor of History Emeritus,

 

University of Alabama

 

Thomas Traut

 

Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics School of Medicine,

 

University of North Carolina

 

Robert F. Turner (Chairman)

 

Center for National Security Law,

 

University of Virginia School of Law

 

Walter E. Williams

 

Professor of Economics,

 

George Mason University

 

Jean Yarborough

 

Professor of Political Science,

 

Bowdoin College

 

Minority Report

 

Paul Rahe (He agreed with the report, with minor reservations, per the article-Doc)

 

Jay P. Walker Professor of History,

 

University of Tulsa

 

I am using a slow wifi connection at the moment, or I would be tempted to pull up Curriculum Vitae for the above listed people, but my hunch is they aren't looked down upon or scorned in their respective fields. I know I recognize a few of the names.

 

Either way, we've drifted far from my original question. I wanted to discuss the nature of the relationship between TJ and Hemings.

 

I don't believe it is a drift at all. I consider the issue integral to the question of the nature of their relationship.

 

Edit: I should add that I am not saying that Thomas Jefferson wasn't responsible for fathering at least one of Hemings' children. I am saying, from what I have seen and read on the subject, it is certainly not conclusive, and that I would have no desire to try it as a case in a court of law. I may have to see if I can get my hands on the Monticello report and the rebuttal at some point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe there was no relationship.

 

You have started with the assumption that Tom was the father of Sally's children. The site you linked to stated this:

 

There is Jefferson DNA in ONE of Sally's kids. Not all of them, ONE of them.

 

Jefferson's daughter says Tom was not the father, but that two of her cousins (who, by the way, would have Jefferson DNA) were the fathers of all Sally's kids.

 

Quote "There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time, and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello."

 

So, twenty-five possible fathers, and you state that Tom is the father, and want to know about his relationship with her. By my math, that's a 4% chance of him being the father.

 

People assume that he's the father, because people enjoy thinking about celebrities doing "bad things". If President Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence, did it, it's a scandal. If Frank Smith, Jefferson's second cousin twice removed on his father's side did it, it's, "Yeah, so?". Not scandalous atall.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.