On the other hand, were we not the ones who fought a war with ourselves to end slavery...?...you are welcome. Stop trying to punish the innocent for crimes they did not commit in a century they never lived....
1
It didn't take long for the "Get over the past" comments to find their way over to "another" Race piece in the NYT. Somehow, they always surface.
That Past many yearn to get-over, is my present; and the present of millions of black people in America.
That Past/Present is written all over my face. Like millions, I am that product of Rape-Mixing. I see it in old black & white family photos and current photos taken from iPhone pixels; the DNA lineage :
Who's that near-white guy with the keen nose standing next to the coal-black woman with the high cheek bones and deep crevices around her mouth? That's uncle so-and-so and his mother: Chocktaw, African and Irish or African and French; just follow the slave trail and some variation of my family photos will be part and parcel of millions of others'.
There is no 'getting over it' or letting the past-be-the-past.
12
"Of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research"...Malcolm Little. The transparency of history eventually exposes all sins of man. Jefferson was a consequential character in the history of our nation. He was also, a vile rapist that imposed his will upon the slaves that he viewed as property. Any part of the Hemings story that can be viewed in a positive light, was the result of S.Heming's cunning and intelligence. As other female slaves of her era, it took an inner strength, keen perception and innate wisdom to manipulate the "rapist" slaveholder in an effort to protect their children. Sally Hemings played upon every emotion in the human pysche to pressure Jefferson into protecting the lives of their children. Jefferson heaped an insurmountable weight of shame upon his family to this very day. The fact that they had to be dragged yelling and screaming into the sunshine of truth reflects their despair over the actions of their patriarch . However, I am not sure where that shame and despair eminates. Was it the overriding fact that their ancestor was a morally bankrupt rapist ? A man that used his tyrannical power, under the cover of law, to mentally and physically rape powerless women. Or, is it the fact that he produced "negro" or "mulatto" children whose ancestral line continues to this very day. Evidence, then and now, would suggest the latter. The "white"Jefferson family deserves no accolades for the truth coming home to Monticello.
7
I find it interesting that some many comments seem to "forgive" Jefferson for just being a "man of his times." That excuse has been used throughout history to provide cover for more atrocities that I can begin to count. However, the fact that so many other people during "the times" chose to see the humanity in Africans/African-Americans and the evil of slavery shows that people with moral courage didn't let the "times" define their behavior.
People who professed to be Christians conveniently looked the other way or used the Good Book to justify/condone their behavior toward their fellow men/women. The Bible tells us that we are ALL subject to the Judgment. I doubt if the "I was a man (or woman) of my times" defense will hold any sway with the Ultimate Judge.
7
The description here of the REPEATED, CONTINUOUS RAPE of a child but one of the founding fathers, as sickening as it is, gives me hope that bad, sinful men have been President before Donald Trump, and we managed to survive as a nation. Maybe we'll get through it again.
2
We look back 200 years and rightfully say slavery was terrible. In 2218 I wonder what they will think of us. I predict the reviews will be harsh.
7
Our collective past is so nauseating. The people who founded our nation were slavers. They didn't own 'enslaved people,' as per the byline, but slaves, whose descendants deserve reparations.
5
It's amazing how many are still unwilling to accept the reality of slavery in the United States. They insist that African-Americans should 'get over it', but get over what?
Black people have lived with proof of the rape of slave women for centuries. There have been light-skinned, blue-eyed Black people since the very beginning. We all know that skin and those eyes didn't come from Africa. We also know that there wasn't a lot of romance on plantations. Another person commenting here put it perfectly; plantations were labour camps. Forget the 'moonlight and magnolias' nonsense. Whenever I hear that someone got married at a former plantation, I wonder about that person. Would they get married at Auschwitz?
If White people want African-Americans to 'get over it' perhaps White people should finally admit that for hundreds of years White men (and White women) reigned over one of the most brutal 'institutions' in human history. And when it was finally over, they didn't want to give up the benefits of being slave masters so they created a system where African-Americans were terrorized and discriminated against as much as possible.
White people need to 'get over' the fact that they're not that nice or that superior. They're just more brutal. And Black people STILL survived. I don't think White people have ever been able to get over THAT.
23
It would be a really good thing if writers and historians would stop calling these places “plantations.” They were so such thing. They were slave labor camps were slaves commercially produced indigo, cotton, nails, sugar, rental labor, child care, meals, blacksmithing and slaves for sale and to be used as collateral, and lots more. I can understand if “plantation” is part of a proper name. But, this isn’t the case here.
17
So weird to think you could hide such things. Shoudn’t we know by now that lying just doesn’t work? The truth is there and burying it, when everyone knows that’s what’s happening, just makes it worse.
It is very hard to imagine the Jefferson household without feeling outraged. But I find many of the comments to be, well, what would be the word—anachronistic? I don’t think any of us in the 21st century can place ourselves in the late 18th-early 19th century and really understand that world. I just rewatched the film adaptation of “The Good Earth”. I was struck by how unapologetically it illustrated a woman’s worth in early 20th century rural China—have sons, work the fields, be sold into slavery if the family needed money, accept a concubine into the household if your husband wanted that—being married off at 16 would have been the norm. Throughout much of history, women have had little say in their destinies. And there are still many places in the world that haven’t progressed much beyond that.
Thanks NYT for the link to Madison Hemings’ memoir. I’m looking forward to reading this. I wish we had something in Sally Hemings’ own words. It’s notable that Hemings’ children by Jefferson were not freed until his death. Madison was 21 years old. Imagine being the child of the President of the United States and a slave.
23
When you go to Monticello and see the design of its entries and exits, there was a clear design to hide the entries of his slaves into and around the main house. The ways of entry were covered from the ground floor so anyone upstairs in the so called master area would not be able to observe the slaves coming and going with their work or movements to serve the house and the master family. And we all know who was the architect - Thomas Jefferson himself. Did he not want to see how his food was brought into and out of his living space or clean clothiñg and linens and water? I wonder why he hid the goings and comings of his slaves so he would never even see the daily work of his slaves. Was it so he could disconnect from the two worlds in which he was master and father, perhaps to forget about his own hypocrisy being the architect of so called freedom in the new world? We look out on the antiseptic design and ask why would he not want to see his slaves working around his house? It was intentional. Was he ashamed of his so called grand life? Could he have made a better design for his own home, where the subtlety is obvious that he could not handle seeing his own half black or quarter black family being treated in the system of the plantation as not free? Curious institution with one of the most intelligent men of his time.
15
Visceral resistance to the facts around them is a deep inheritance of this whole culture. There were some things they required themselves to not see, not know, never admit, so they could preserve for a few a lifestyle of self-mythifying in the luxury of obliviousness. You can see that schism expressed in their hearts and on their landscapes. These photos side-by-side of comfort and deprivation, speak volumes about the hypocrisy and blindness that dwelt in their souls.
What's happening at Monticello right now is what's happening inside the whole culture of Conservatism. They are confronting facts that many of them wish still to be not seen, not known, and never admitted because to do so threatens their myths of themselves, and to do that is to surrender.
13
This relationship proves that black history and white history in America are inseparable. Any attempt to teach white or black history separately diminishes both. Or as Morgan Freeman once stated about Black History Month, "Would you want a month?"
9
You can view all interracial relationships—up until quite recently—as exploiting the system, or defying the system. For those of us of mixed race, I prefer a tale of forbidden love.
8
It is interesting to read comments protesting the notion that actual relationships could exist between some owners and their enslaved people.
In reality, a large class of mixed race people had been developing since the early 1600's, just as it had with all other European colonies implanted in Africa and the Americas. They may have been referred to as melungeons or mestizos or creoles, but they represented a social and legal reality that was totally destroyed by the Dred Scott Decision, which made them henceforth "property".
The SCOTUS effectively "disappeared" all freed blacks, even those in free states, even those who were possessed citizenship in free states. That decision covered all the white or white-looking children who were being absorbed by another race. It covered lots of well-known people too, including the wife of Jefferson Davis himself.
It is worthy of argument whether the author of Declaration of Independence was serious, or was exposing a hidden case of intellectual euphoria and self-absolution when he evoked a society that he hoped was already engaged in a slow genetic process of rectifying the crime of slavery. But there is no room for arguing that the entirety of the USA approved the suicidal principle that a society could be both equal and democratic even though the new Federal union permitted some States to be free and some States to be slave.
7
The best result of this piece is the conversations it has started. It has more replies to comments than I have ever seen before. It is worth reading both.
10
American history is certainly more complicated and often more negative than was taught to me in the 70s, or even my offspring a few years ago. How many true facts are being taught in our schools?
7
Why is somebody who is one quarter or one eighth African in background called African and not Caucasian?
Indeed why is Barack Obama, who is 50% black and 50% white, called a "Black man" and not a "white man"?
This seems like it ignores any value of the caucasian background while emphasizing the black background. It is not objective, and it is not symmetrical. It is , in fact, wierd.
16
A person with any degree of black ancestry was considered black in the "good old days."
Barack Obama considers himself to be black despite having a white parent, so it is polite to call him what he wishes to be called unless you feel he has no rights that you are bound to respect.
6
Please Google "The One-Drop Rule and American Slavery".
4
The real and 100% evil mark against Thomas Jefferson is that the great believer in freedom for “all” was so much a member of, slave culture (which considered white women half-slaves as well), did not manumit his human property when he died.
Someone in the Jefferson line, likely Tom or his brother, maybe Dad or all three played “marry a white virgin - slaves are toys to be (only the strongest two epithets belong here the printable one is raped) at will.
If they multiplied, hey, that meant big bucks.
Slave sale posters of the day list the price of a human at between $350 and $700.
You can add between 5 and 7 zeros if you want to know slave prices today. The most expensive pieces of farm and home machinery.
We’re talking fun and big bucks if they spawn, lighter skin preferable ‘round the house.
That was the disgusting attitude of the day.
It is vile that Tom J. a believer in “universal” freedom that he, brilliant polymath and free-thinker - an agnostic at least, “deist” for political reasons, like most of the founders; could not think of slaves, or dark-skinned people in general, as human.
Sure, he could smash a lot of other “truths” of his day, from the “certainty” of a god to the tail end of the divine right of kings.
But he couldn’t or wouldn’t see some people as people.
The name of the father of Sally Hemmings’ kids is unknowable.
As a “Jeffersonian Democrat” it sickens me to know he could commit the near-ultimate crime against humanity at the end of his life.
14
I challenge the NYTimes and readers to provide the name of the perfect person. Jefferson, Davis, etc. lived in a time when slavery was legal. Child abuse was legal. Domestic abuse was legal. Animal abuse was legal. Doesn't make it right, doesn't mean we shouldn't realize that civilization was pretty rough for a lot of people around the globe for thousands of years. Fine to understand history, but it was history and I'm tired of the race card, tired of identity politics, and tired of the fact that the NYTimes and progressives, and black leaders acting as if any and all that were born more than 30 years ago are racist by definition of people that lived 200 years ago. And I'm real tired of pretending that whites are bad, blacks are good, women are perfect, men stink, and anyone that isn't of white European background should be exalted.
8
This was a pretty plain piece that illuminates a history that has been repressed. It’s not an indictment unless you feel it should continue to be repressed.
16
You are tired think about how tired we are when you use the race card every single day. You get preferred treatment and accept it as normal.
10
Readers should also learn about the Ona Judge/George and Martha Washington affair. Judge was Martha's personal valet who ran away from the executive mansion in Philadelphia and escaped to freedom in Portsmouth, New Hampshire until her death in 1848. It should be noted that "Father of His Country" abused his presidential authority by forcing the Portsmouth customs agent to try and re-capture his wife's escaped slave. See Erica Armstrong Dunbar's book, "Never Caught," to learn about this story not found in public school history textbooks.
17
For those interested in this topic, I suggest Master of the Mountain by Henry Wiencek. It discusses not only Sally Hemmings but also Jefferson's use of young boys in his nail making business. Sadly, he realized he got a greater "return on investment" from these children rather than owning adults. So the boys would be put to work and those that cooperated would be taught a trade; those that did not would sold or sent to the fields. All of this was done because Jefferson was constantly in debt due his continual remodeling of Monticello. So it seems that in later life he could not live up to all the fine words he wrote as a young man.
13
Thomas Jefferson was, perhaps, the seminal Founder of our Democracy. He praised the common man and said, with elegance, that this was what we should strive to become - a nation of equal independent men. He spoke eloquently against the concept of inherited nobility.
He was also a weak hypocrite who apparently could not countenance the thought of living a life as anything less than a man of seemingly entitled wealth; and that required him to enslave his fellow humans, and to sell them as slaves.
Intellectually, he could attract perhaps the foremost natural scientist the West has produced, Alexander von Humboldt, who started out happily helping him with detailed knowledge of the lands recently acquired, The Louisiana Purchase. Then he could repel the same man with his morally outrageous position on his own Slaves.
Few public men have been as brilliant, or flawed.
Thank you for helping to balance the story.
17
Great story which shows that the relationships between the races were more complicated and complex than normally described. A huge number of Americans are of mixed race and this is rarely acknowledged. It always struck me as odd to call Obama "black" which doesn't square with the fact that his mother was white and that he was raised by her and her family. Michelle Obama is also of mixed race and so are many, many other Americans.
4
President Barack Obama is called 'Black' because he identifies as a Black man.
I think that CHOOSING to be Black is President Obama's original sin. So many people can't understand choosing to be Black and resented Obama for not begging the White race for acceptance.
President Obama never denied his White heritage. In fact, he was very honest about being raised by his White family while having little to no contact with his Black father. But President Obama knew that his White family wouldn't do him any good if he was stopped by a police officer on a dark night. So he made his choice.
His second sin was marrying a beautiful, brilliant, amazing DARK-SKINNED Black woman and showing the world just how crazy he was about her. I think a lot of people would have been happier if he had been married to a Beyonce look-alike.
A lot of people will never forgive President Obama for choosing to be a Black man.
6
Clearly the people who assert that at sixteen years old in colonial America, Sally Hemings was a "child" know little or nothing about thistory. In the vast majority of cultures throughout history, males and females became men at women at puberty. If a female didn't become the property of a male by the age of twenty, she was condemned as without value. In much of America until about the 1920s, the age of consent was about 13.
10
Revisionist history of the worst kind. Sally's children were most likely the off-spring of the President's brother...
2
Based on what facts? Your intuition?
3
Try reading the facts: https://www.monticello.org/site/blog-and-community/monticello-affirms-th...
2
Sally Hemings was enslaved, she could not give or withhold consent for sex and therefore what happened to her was rape, full stop. She may have been a victim of Stockholm Syndrome or, as the article implies, she may have acquiesced to Jefferson’s advances as a long term strategy to benefit her children. In either case, it was still rape. Jefferson was a founding father and we Americans owe him a debt of gratitude, but he was a human being that also owned and exploited other human beings. It does history a disservice to ignore either fact.
14
I've often wondered if Sally Hemings had a lot to do with the rift between Adams and Jefferson. Adams was a fierce abolitionist. He (and Abigail) would have known all about Jefferson's assault of a young slave girl. He would have known that she had been free in France and somehow Jefferson coerced to come back to America (and slavery). Adams must have been so disgusted.
16
I know the US had slaves. Peoples were sold by their own people to those that offered money (or whatever was traded) and then put on boats to be sold in another land to different people. Appalling. Unacceptable. HOWEVER, throughout the history of man, we've had slaves. We do today, all over the world. Millions are involved, abused, mistreated, and it's appalling. Far more than the Africans brought to the US 200+ years ago. While slavery is outrageous, and on-going, the African Americans in the US today are not slaves, did not suffer the atrocities that they far away ancestors suffered, and are NOT victims, but mostly hardworking people like those of any color. If we want to talk victim, let's remember that black men got the ability to vote long before women. However, even that is a red herring as women alive today have had the ability to vote their entire lives. So, I'm not going to attack men because they were in charge. I'm not a victim. And when men leer at me or try to touch me inappropriately, I'm not going to say 'males' are evil or should somehow provide reparations for their mistreatment of my grandmother.
4
You might feel differently if some people or institution had profited from your grandmother’s forced labor without recompense to her, or by the sale of your grandmother as is the case with several universities.
5
Reading the memories of Madison Jefferson (in the link) made this a most fascinating read today. Well done!
6
There is so much wrong with this that one is unsure where to start.
Gordon-Reed, the principal writer for this scandal, is not trained as an historian but as a lawyer. Her bio does not list any historical training, yet Harvard took her anyway, Lawyers argue a case on either side without strict loyalty to the truth as well all know. In addition, she has personal motives to want this to be true, because to her denial of the story would look bad for the folk history of black people. Having a personal motive should disqualify anyone from participating.
Readers deserve to know that other trained historians do not accept this story. It has all the attributes of bias.
1
Attempting to discredit this article by attacking Annette Gordon-Reed is a useless strategy. As an American historian myself, I know that she is well qualified and well respected in academia. She is certainly not the only historian that has produced abundant evidence of Jefferson's relationship to Sally Hemmings. You might ask yourself why, in the face of all the evidence, you persist in your refusal to accept the facts. Who here is biased?
We are fortunate that the foundation that owns Monticello has finally accept the validity of the relationship and has updated the history that visitors learn as they tour this remarkable site.
37
And still, the denial runs deep.
14
Sorry to disappoint you, rkthomas13, but the entire story has been proved true. The article is factual and in no way biased.
20
Our lesson from this is that truth doesn't die and facts are important. Republicans should think about this as they add credence to Trumps lies.
18
Sally Hemings had three white grandparents, and probably could have passed for Spanish (it happened, especially in New Orleans). Her children by Jefferson had seven white grandparents, and by appearance (though not by law) were as white as anyone.
They were enslaved, but they were not black.
11
By tradition and by culture, yes they are.
I have similar family history with family member who had maybe 1 grandparent who was Black. Guess what? They're Black. Regardless of the they look like. Because in this country we have made Octoroons (the distasteful title for such a person) Black.
Folks have tried to label themselves other ethnicities (Spanish, Portuguese, Arab) to pass but as long as the 1 drop rule was in effect and taught to us, it still applies.
Even now, many Caribbean based Latinos are coming to terms with the fact that their race is no their ethnicity, hence the term Afro-Latinx(o/a).
Blackness pervades this country on levels people do not want to accept. From trying to lighten Beyonce's skin tone on magazines to saying Obama is really Black because his mom was White.
however, as the saying goes with Black people "You can be light, bright and damn near White but you're still Black."
15
Spanish is not a race. A person with any degree of black ancestry was considered black by law in the "good old days." Accusing a "white" person of being black was a common means of delegitimizing (is that a word?) wives, political opponents, business rivals, etc.
3
Thank you soooooo much for the 1st 2 paragraphs of your response. As a black woman, I find the recent attempt by numerous sources to suggest that sex between white slaveholders and their black female slaves was anything other than rape as hideous and disturbing revisionist history. I have not only seen the whitewashing with this article and far too many of its comments, but there seems to be an insidious, ubiquitous effort at mainstreaming the idea that black women had consensual relationships with their owners, thereby further victimizing the tens of thousands of black female rape victims of the slave era, denying and ignoring their pain, while elevating the image of their repeat attackers because they were white men. This is twisted fallacy that should end. In the era of the #metoo movement, don't we know that enslaved women could NOT consent. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of rapes were meted out on defenseless black women by white men of all classes for centuries with impunity. The article does not mention rape and does not mention consent. I find this article repugnant in the way it uses language of "family" to minimize the fact of the horror of a woman being raped over and over and over and over because she was a black woman-- and because he was white man. I wonder if this article would have had the same problematic tone had it been written by a black woman...
32
Just to add: The author of this article, Brent Staples, is a well known African American writer and essayist. One of his books is An American Love Story and Parallel Time: Growing up In Black and White.
2
Please note, my first sentence thankful of the response was for this prior post, ML Princeton, N.J. wrote:
"I had difficulty getting past the first sentence "(Slaveholders) conscripted black women as sexual servants". Enslaved women were not "servants" they were slaves. Sally Hemmings was a slave child raped and impregnated by a man thirty years her senior. The article implies she consented to the relationship, saying blithely that she might have stayed in France, without addressing how a 16 year old black mother with no assets or education could have survived alone in France.
A 46 year old man raping a 16 year old girl is not and never has been morally ambiguous. Sally Hemmings knew the limitations of her condition and did the best she could under the circumstances. But it is wrong to imply that she was his "second wife" or that she consented to the relationship. A slave cannot consent; she has no power to refuse.
...
4
I completely agree, whether Sally Hemings may have chosen not to physically resist, as an enslaved woman she could not consent nor withhold consent. It sounds as if she was able to leverage her position as an object of Jefferson’s affections for her children’s freedom, playing a long term strategy, but that doesn’t negate the fact that what happened to her was rape.
6
Hemings's story, passed down by her descendants, was widely discounted and dismissed by respected historians as recently as the 1980s. We need to listen attentively to oral traditions and family tales. Americans are born of courage and brutality, idealism and intolerance. Celebrating our achievements doesn't have to mean erasing our failings.
25
Jefferson promoted the Act Prohibiting Importation of Slaves of 1807, which took effect in 1808.
Thereafter, thrifty slaveowners sired children in order to sell them.
6
According to Jon Meacham's biography, "Thomas Jefferson: the Art of Power," Thomas Jefferson made two unsuccessful attempts to abolish slavery. First, as a delegate to the Continental Congress, and then as Governor of Virginia from 1780 to 1782. Both efforts failed miserably. I'm not saying this to redeem him or to justify his behavior, but to complete the record.
Another commenter complained that Jefferson did not manumit his slaves in his will, as did George Washington. Jefferson was bankrupt at his death. Any manumission would have failed. Finally, Jefferson kept the promise that Sally Hemings extracted from him as a condition of returning from Paris to Virginia to free their children at the age of 21. It is likely that milestone was passed for each child long before Jefferson's death on July 4, 1824.
I recommend highly Mr. Meacham's book for those who wish to know more about Thomas Jefferson. I also recommend the 15+ years of regular correspondence between Jefferson and Adams that ended when each of the two men died on July 4, 1824.
2
This should surprise White people only, as it most certainly doesn't surprise Blacks.
We've all heard these stories. Passed down from elder family member to the current. No one believed us but we knew who did what.
There as also been murmurs for years about famous people who were passing for White based on the 1 drop rule. Eisenhower's mother was "mulatto" (a very out of fashion turn of phrase) and Clarke Gable were very light skinned Blacks who lived as white.
White America has been in denial of this obvious fact for so long it actually tragic.
This is a classic story of slavery of any peoples, going back to biblical times. To act as if this wasn't happening is ludicrous - of course it did. To make matters even more complicated many Blacks went on to lead double lives passing as white because Whiteness was such a a valued commodity.
I'm sure if many American as doing the Ancestral DNA they will see how they have small percentages of Black blood. You can thank the passing Black person who married into your family for that sample.
This is why Black folks shake their heads in frustrating acceptance; White folks tell us to get over it but ya'll can't even address it.
26
An interesting fact in the article, seemingly glossed over (probably not intentionally), is that Sally Hemings was Thomas Jefferson's wife's half sister. That's a fact I never knew before.
11
Some people here have criticized this opinion piece as a 'hit job' and another example of how the NYT and supposed 'liberal' media in general is driving voters into the arms of trump. Self censorship and refusing to tell hard truths because they might offend the sensibilities of bigoted and close-minded Americans is cowardly and unpatriotic. Yes, unpatriotic. It also smacks of nationalism, and another "-ism".
Let's get one thing straight: this isn't 'revisionist' history, this and other pieces like it are stripping away the white washing of our nation's shameful history of slavery. Something that should've been done long, long ago.
34
I do not understand why this is being celebrated.
Women were second class citizens.
Female slaves weren't even citizens.
Slaves had it easier if they could be a "house negro" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Negro). Female house negro's who became sex slaves are not to be celebrated. They had no agency in slavery, but if they ingratiated themselves to become house negro's and then could make it even easier on themselves by acquiescing to sex slavery, THEY HAD NO AGENCY.
They were always acting under duress. Are we telling young boys and girls that this story lends dignity to the masters or the sex slaves?
5
Sally Hemings reportedly looked "white"-- her genetics would support this.
So Jefferson's "second wife" was a white slave.
If this makes her wrongful slavery more egregious to you, you are a closet racist.
The white slaves would be prized--to white supremacists--as "sexual servants." To many men this is the pinnacle male sexual fantasy. We still see it in "escort" advertising: "I'll be a slave to you."
But for many other males--more normal ones--ideal sex is wanting orgasmic play with someone wanting to play with you--willingly--as well as eagerly.
That's a bigger personal compliment than the ability to buy sex. Even Trump says about himself--"Do I look like a guy who has to buy sex?" Well yes! More fake news.
11
When Jefferson was very young he introduced a bill in the Virginia legislature to end slavery. The backlash he felt was so severe that in the future he always upheld the institution of slavery, whether he agreed with it or not. He realized that to oppose slavery was political suicide. The relationship between Thomas and Sally will captivate us forever for it is uniquely an American story. Did they love each other? Without evidence to the contrary, I hold on to the notion that they did.
2
Why hasn't Monticello and Mount Vernon closed yet? If we follow the rationale to date, both these monuments to slave owners should be closed immediately.
4
Both estates were built by enslaved and free artisans who were proud of their work. Telling the whole story honors the enslaved people, in my view.
14
You're confusing historical sites meant to educate people about parts of our history that until recently have been ignored and white washed, with statues that were erected in town centers as tacit but obvious symbols of white nationalism and as clear messages to black Americans that they were and would always be second class citizens.
The rationale you cite is the simplistic and incorrect one pushed by the potus and his propaganda wing at fox 'news'.
9
From my collection of slave documents, a deed of sale: "Negro slave named Betsey, to be held and enjoyed by...Stubbs and his heirs forever." [Francis Sardone, Sr to Stubbs, Spotsylvania County, VA, April 15, 1835.] "Enjoyed," common usage in the language of conveyance of property of any sort, but with odious implications when buying human beings. As with Sally's children by Jefferson, the light-skin was clear evidence of this exercise of white sexual privileges that "ran with the title" and was quite common. Surprising was the recent apparent fascination with President Obama as mixed-race, as if it were a rarity. The existence of biracial or mixed race people has never been unusual in America. But much like the plantation matriarchs of whom Staples writes, many whites are inexplicably unaware, in denial, and have been for generations. The US Supreme Court in the 1967 Loving interracial marriage decision pondered the "dilemma" of "all of these new biracial children," as if somehow, the Court granted greater license for having interracial sex. As with Betsey's sale, such license was explicit, and needed no special unfettered path as evidenced by the Hemings/Jefferson children and the countless other variations of skin shades in America. Clearly such license was excercised freely.
13
It would be so much fairer if, amidst all the constant "studies" of slavery at Monticello and Thomas Jefferson's duplicity on "all men are created equal," there was regular mention that faithless executor Jefferson had the money to free his slaves if he wished as a result of the bequest of Polish military leader Tadeusz Kosciuszko handing over his Revolutionary War pension for the purpose of freeing slaves (whom lawyer Jefferson turned into freeing "his" slaves and then never did). The truth is that the Monticello slaves never needed to be sold off after 1826 to pay TJ's debts but that, when after his initial rhetorical flourishes, TJ may have talked a lot but always kept his loyalties with the Virginia planter class.
7
I visited Monticello about 15 years ago. Our tour guide spoke freely of Sally Hemings and painted a picture similar to what is written in the article. She also pointed out that when the founders said "All men are created equal", they meant white men and they meant men literally not women. She said Jefferson son went to college. His daughters did not. Women weren't worth an education. I am happy we have evolved and our Constitution has evolved. It strikes me as ridiculous when some people talk about returning to the founders original thoughts when they created the Constitution.
13
People need to be judged in the context in which they lived. For its day, the concept that all men are created equal, was revolutionary, even though at that time it was not implemented in its fullest sense. In truth, it is an objective, even in modern times, which will never be completed. Rather it is the struggle toward that goal which defines, or should define, what it means to be an American.
3
As a black woman, I find the recent attempt by numerous sources to suggest that sex between white slaveholders and their black female slaves was anything other than rape as hideous and disturbing revisionist history. I have not only seen the whitewashing with this article and far too many of its comments, but there seems to be an insidious, ubiquitous effort at mainstreaming the idea that black women had consensual relationships with their owners, thereby further victimizing the tens of thousands of black female rape victims of the slave era, denying and ignoring their pain, while elevating the image of their repeat attackers because they were white men. This is twisted fallacy that should end. In the era of the #metoo movement, don't we know that enslaved women could NOT consent. Therefore, hundreds of thousands of rapes were meted out on defenseless black women by white men of all classes for centuries with impunity. The article does not mention rape and does not mention consent. I find this article repugnant in the way it uses language of "family" to minimize the fact of the horror of a woman being raped over and over and over and over because she was a black woman-- and because he was white man.
5
You need to read more about the relationship between Jefferson and Hemmings. It would seem to have been a bit more of a mystery than you have imagined.
2
So why is George Washington cut so much slack? Yes, he arranged for his slaves to be freed after his death, but his wealth and political influence were in part the result of slave-holding (he inherited several slaves when he was 11 years old and owned 123 slaves when he died).
Why are his monuments free of graffiti? What does the nation's capital still hold his name?
We have the founding fathers to thank for freedom from England and for our Constitution--yet virtually all of them were slaveholders (Washington was apparently the only Founding Father to free his slaves).
Surely the teaching of American history in our schools needs a thorough revamping to deal more thoroughly and openly with slavery.
14
My only hope is that our youth learn as much about the critical role Jefferson played in the founding of this country as they apparently will about his unusual (though not at the time) domestic arrangements.
3
...and yet we are shocked and outraged by the fact that we now have a racist,mysogynist president. Americans have been too comfortable with their "exceptionalism" for a long time. If we don't come to terms with our past, this president won't be the last...
11
Not a Thomas Jefferson fan, and never will be. If I had raped a minor child (or adult,) I'd be looking at life imprisonment at the least, a civil lawsuit for any assets I have, and the shaming of my friends and family.
Once again, I don't care whatsoever about the accomplishments of Thomas Jefferson.
3
It was a different world:
In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.[Wikioedia].
6
I transfer this well written article on Sally Hemings to our grand-daughter Rebecca Amsellem well known in France as a feminist who is interested in any inequality between man and women. She created the well known site "Les Glorieuses" [email protected]
1
Fawn Brodie's Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate Portrait is a must read along with anything on Jefferson and Sally Hemings written by Annette Gordon-Reed. White plantation owners sleeping with their female slaves was far more common than you think. I, for one, was incredibly naive before I began to dig below the surface. Jefferson's only wife Martha died bringing life into this world as so often happened during those times. Martha made Jefferson promise he would never marry another woman; Martha's unpleasant experiences with two of her father's wives. She did not want her daughters exposed to the parenting of a cruel stepmother. You can draw your own conclusions. One thing a will say about Jefferson, he was true to his word freeing not only Sally's children, but their mother too. Understanding Jefferson's mind is to comprehend a man who was the soul of complexity. What a story. And it happened in America.
4
Jefferson DIDN'T free Sally Hemings. He raped her for 40 years but he couldn't even give her that. He left her to his daughter (Sally's niece) with the option that SHE could free her, if she wanted.
2
Jefferson considered slavery to be wrong but unlike Washington he did not provide for the emancipation of his slaves upon his death. His finances were such that he could not, anyway, the slaves were assets in an insolvent estate and creditors could have stopped him. There was a melancholy in him that seemed to affect him by producing irrational behaviors which led to the financial difficulties. The loss of his wife and child in the same year seems to have caused a lot of this. Hemings being his wife’s half sister was probably a surrogate for the person he missed profoundly rather than a kindred spirit, and Jefferson’s ambivalence towards his family with her probably reflected some guilt about that as well as the fact that they were his slaves.
5
Poor man, so sad and conflicted he couldn’t keep from raping his slave and fathering slave children.
8
sedanchair ......Read more about Jefferson. Master/slave; rape/consent - not everything can be viewed as either profoundly back or white. Sometimes there are shades of gray.
While sexual relations between masters and slaves were most likely not with the consent of the slaves, people are people not characters in our imaginations, so some relations were likely to be with mutual consent. Hemings probably did feel close to Jefferson because of her relationship to his wife and he to her for that same reason. Remember, Jefferson was not one who defended slavery by claiming that the slaves were so because of God's will or natural inclination. He did not think the practice could be morally justified.
2
The existence and variety of slavery throughout history, surviving even today, testifies to its long-held and widespread approbation. Obviously, though many today's people think that slavery is an unmitigated evil, most of yesterday's people did not agree. I urge no moral relativism on this subject--I believe slavery of any kind to be evil--but I also urge historical relativism. We cannot understand Jefferson or Hemings or their society if we perceive them through our moral prisms and do not consider and respect them as individuals in their society, not ours.
One aspect of their relationship intrigues me. Jefferson had his choice of many slave women to serve as concubines, and, had he found none to his satisfaction, he could have purchased another (or others). Instead, he found one much younger woman entirely satisfactory. Why else take a "mere" concubine with him to France? Why else maintain a relationship with her for many years? I do not mean these questions to be either argumentative or rhetorical; I mean them to invite historical re-imagination of a different time and place.
5
All important questions to ask, but most people are unaware that slavery as practiced in America had particularly unique attributes.
While throughout history most slaves were soldiers or people who had come out on the wrong end of a war, or whose land was otherwise conquered, this was not so in America. The American slave trade - chattel slavery - was a strictly commercial venture, and property rights of slave owners were very clearly legally delineated. The rights of slaves, however, were non-existent.
Historically, slavery and who became a slave wasn't primarily based on a persons tribe or race, or even more generically, on the color of their skin. There were also generally more rules or laws around the humane treatment of slaves.
Finally, until American slavery, a slaves children weren't automatically born into slavery. This particularly cruel aspect is almost unique in slavery as practiced in our country. But since the U.S. had banned the importation of slaves way back in 1807, it's easy to see why it was so necessary to perpetuate the institution of slavery.
When thinking about this last inhumane fact about American slavery, it's safe to assume that most slaves wouldn't want to willingly have children, knowing that they would be born into that life of brutality. This assumption may also explain why so many slave owners 'had relations' (i.e. raped) their women slaves.
3
I think that Amy Sherald should be commissioned to paint a portrait of Sally Hemings for our National Portrait Gallery.
10
I'm done with treating Thomas Jefferson as some holy inspirational figure in American history. He raped a teenage girl when he was in his 40s. Sorry, I know some are trying to make a love story out of this obscene power dynamic of a much older man and his slave girl, but there's none to find here. If Jefferson promised Sally Hemings "extraordinary privileges" while enslaved, just 16 and pregnant, what other course of action could she really take? He was her owner, does anyone really believe she had a choice to leave having been raised as property since birth? Time to call Jefferson's "flaw" as it should be called, like other slave masters who sexually assaulted their female slaves: rape.
15
As I have delved into my ancestors, I’ve found that my family (New Jersey) owned slaves. Wills from the 1600 and 1700’s detail their transfer on death of the “owner”. (I shudder at that. I don’t even say I “own” my cats.)
It was shocking to me, but then I found that my ancestors (Dutch) commonly held slaves.
I think it is important for all Americans to acknowledge our past.
11
This could have been a long-term rape. It could also have been something else. The times were very different to today. The only way we can know for sure is await the Time Machine and have a look and listen for ourselves. Its interesting they seemed to live in some sort of harmony; yet today America has kept the bad part of interracial life. White America sorely needs to shake off this prevailing racism towards all 'different' people and get with the times. Some non-whites need to recognise all whites are not racist. Lets pray our youth will prevail.
9
"hamilton" nailed this:
There’s a letter on my desk from the President
Haven’t even put my bags down yet
Sally be a lamb, darlin’, won’tcha open it?
10
I am shocked at this whitewash of the practice of raping enslaved women. Jefferson's "second wife"? Is that how men treated their "wives"? By keeping them in slavery? In slave huts?
Mr Staples claims that this sort of racial mixing made it "impossible to draw clear lines between black and white." But that is exactly what the racist South did: if anyone had just "one drop" of Negro blood, he was considered a Negro and subjected to all of the humiliations of slavery and then Jim Crow.
And Elizabeth Hemings was Wayles' "enslaved lover"? How in the world is a sex slave termed a "lover"? And not a single honest reference to "rape", which is what these relationships were?
It's time to tell the whole truth, not this safe and sanitized one.
11
Thomas Jefferson is one of the most colorful personalities of America. He should be taken as the full measure of colonial America. He was a genius and he had his dark side.But visit Monticello and look down on Charlottesville.Here he founded the University of Virginia.We will never know why and how he loved Sally.....
Contrast, now we have a president who paid off a porn star and separates children from immigrant parents---and he has no appreciation for claret.....or a violin concerto...
The sage of Monticello died on the 4th of July--perhaps ahead of equal opportunity?
6
Can we stop treating Thomas Jefferson with kid gloves? He forced sexual relations upon a teenager whom he held in bondage. He was a sexual predator! ...and don't give me the "tenor of the times" argument...integrity know no time frame! Jefferson had no integrity!
3
"and don't give me the "tenor of the times" argument"....And why not if it is happens to be valid? There are any number of examples of things we view differently today then was the norm 250 years ago.
4
Bully for the truth.
But the sanctimony?
Yuk.
2
I think it bears mentioning that while in France, Sally Hemmings was 16 while I believe Thomas Jefferson was 44.
3
Are we to raze the Jefferson Monument ?
1
Somewhere I read that a visitor to Montebello was struck by the fact that house slaves resembled Jefferson.
3
It is ridiculous to call these women the "lovers" of the white men. They were slaves, not lovers.
9
We need to do away with the euphemistic, far too kind agrarian, romance novel implication laden term "plantation" to describe these hell holes and torture centers. Let's be clear these "plantations" were forced or slave labour camps that produced a lot more products than cotton. The big pillared house at the centre wherein Scarlett fretted about Bret covered a bloody violent soul destroying lie. In another era Jefferson and his compatriots would be indistinguishable from the Nazi commandant enforcing the casual cruelty torture and murder of his work camp by day then playing his violin and dining with his wife and children over fine porcelain by night. It's not pretty but it's what happened and it should never be romanticised.
8
Too little, too late.
Slavery is one of the greatest perversions a human being can profit from. If Jefferson and Madison and Washington were part of a gang of child sexual abusers, they would be taken from history as horrible people.
But, instead, they held fellow human beings in slavery, for their own profit. They strutted about the plantation, and Washington, able to live "above" their fellows, because they treated people as cattle, and beat them if they didn't perform.
No, I personally don't honor those "founders" who were simply miserable human beings. They have no excuse, it was as bad then, as it is today, if Jefferson's white wife were taken as a slave, they would hunt down and kill the person who did such an act. But for the simple fact a child's skin was black, the child was stolen from the parents, put on a block and sold.
Jefferson, Madison, Washington and the other slavers were evil human beings. Their names should be taken off all public buildings.
Hugh Massengill, Eugene Oregon
4
"No, I personally don't honor those "founders" who were simply miserable human beings."....So what you are saying is that it is impossible for good people to also do some bad things? I wonder sometimes what we regard as normal and proper today that in 250 years our descendant will view as abhorrent. Be careful. We don't yet know everything.
2
Frankly, I would rather see Sally Hemmings on my five dollar bill than a Slave master who we all know at the end of the day raped her. Finally, history gives her a proper place on the land which she and her offspring endured a better than most but still unbearable circumstance compared to his white family and other slaves. Her proper portrayal as one who was able to manipulate her ordeal to ensure freedom for her children is long overdue.
6
This spring my wife and I visited the homes of Washington, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe and found a great change from our visits forty years ago. Back then, slavery was barely acknowledged and then it was mostly portrayed as a benign institution of happy servants. Now at all these places, slavery’s role in maintaining the presidents’ lifestyles and the harsh conditions of the institution are stressed as well as the moral conundrums the presidents felt. Montpelier has an especially thought-provoking exhibit. I wrote about these changes and issues, as well as the importance of Annette Gordon-Reed in bringing a new focus to a consideration of enslaved people in Jefferson’s life, ameliasdad.blog on March 21, May 14, May 23, and June 20.
12
Hanging on my father's wall is a picture of my great grandfather, a blue eyed, man who could have easily passed for white. My daughters hair would turn a bright red from the summer's heat. On my maternal side, we would walk in front of a house in Town where white folks lived and my grandmother would whisper your aunt lives there.
The only thing amazing and unusal about the Hemmings story is how historians got away with the lie so long.
19
It's complicated:
(Betty Hemings was Sally Hemings mother)
From Wikipedia (edited for space)
According to the oral history of her descendants, Betty was the daughter of a "captain of an English trading vessel" and "a fullblooded African" woman. Madison Hemings in his memoir said the surname of the captain was Hemings; the family tradition was that he had tried to buy Betty when he discovered his daughter had been born.
Elizabeth "Betty" Hemings (c.1735 – 1807) was an enslaved mixed-race woman in colonial Virginia. She had six children with her master, planter John Wayles, over a 12-year period, including Sally Hemings; they were three-quarters white and, following the condition of their mother, all were enslaved from birth and half-siblings to his daughter Martha Jefferson. After Wayles died, the Hemings family and some 120 other slaves were inherited, along with 11,000 acres and £4,000 debt as part of his estate by his daughter Martha and her husband Thomas Jefferson.
Betty's daughter Sally Hemings had six children fathered by Thomas Jefferson over a period lasting nearly four decades. Jefferson freed all four of her surviving children when they came of age, two of them by his will. His daughter Martha Randolph gave Sally "her time," an informal freedom allowing her to live with her sons during her last decade
8
Evaluating historical events with 21st century mores is flawed. Women, white or black, had no legal standing in this country or Europe for centuries. Even today, women in many parts of the world are second class citizens, or less.
Why Jefferson choose his wife's half sister, why he maintained a decades long relationship, why he choose never to marry again may remain unanswered questions. The tangled relationships of men and women outside of traditional marriage, and the consequences of those relationships are a whole subset of history.
Let us celebrate the Hemings family, let us learn to be less judgmental as a society. Perhaps that should be Sally Heming's real legacy.
15
And what of the mores of the time expressed by Quakers, abolitionists and many of the “founding fathers” who balked against Southerners retaining slaves during the crafting of the US Constitution? Their warnings of dark days to come as a result of chattel slavery were moral and prophetic. Our experience today is an end product of morality losing to greed and profit. Americans have recycled the failed understanding of an important lesson. Detachment as suggested by your remarks is a significant part of the problem of a lesson not learned.
7
Some think it's a negative to talk about Jefferson's shortcomings on the 4th of July.
I see it as a positive that we're now able to talk about the full scope of a man, rather than a mythic, almost saint-like creature.
26
I am in disbelief that even today people won't talk about what really happen. She was 16, 17 and a slave. He was 34 and she was his property, to even suggest that their relationship was one of equals, is ludicrous.
31
Given the relationship lasted till Jefferson passed away after 40 years, there must have been something more then slave owner taking liberties with a slave woman. For Hemmings, slavery was about survival in an white dominated world. She made the best of what was a bad situation. She obviously was an intelligent woman and made it work for her and her children. Its her story, not Jefferson.
1
Given that he owned her, why "must" there have been something "more"?
Its very sad to see how some things are the same now as back then. Jefferson and his piers looked at non whites as non people, beasts of burden to do the hard work whites didn't want to do. Today Trump, his pals and many in the GOP still look at non whites as non people to be put in cages and do the work that whites don't want to do. I expect Jefferson was excepting slavery because of the finical gain it gave him the sane as politician's today have sold out for the love of money.
16
Why did white historians and scholars conspire to discredit Madison Hemings? Why were they claiming, well into the 1980's, that Thomas Jefferson could not possibly have fathered the children they knew very well he had fathered? They were lying. Historians that lie are the lowest of the low. These historians and the whole Jeffersonian establishment in Charlottesville should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for maintaining for decades the lies.
They are the true villains and should be called out by name and discredited.
14
None of this is new.
Fawn Brodie's "Thomas Jefferson: an Intimate History", tells the story of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. It was first mainstream biography to do so. It was written in 1974 and so does not contain newer information we have now. (It gets a lot of negative votes on sites such a "Goodreads", but I have to wonder how many came from those who would not accept that Jefferson had a long, well recognized relationship with Hemings?)
DNA testing, done in the late 1990's show the relationship: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/01/us/dna-test-finds-evidence-of-jeffers...
Anti Jefferson political propaganda from the early 19th century stated he had a Black "concubine". See: http://thefederalist-gary.blogspot.com/2012/10/thomas-jefferson-and-poli... about the anti Jefferson political writings of John Adams and others.
Brodie, a Mormon, was excommunicated for her biography of the Mormon leader Joseph Smith.
15
"A recently opened exhibit at Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia estate gives new recognition to Sally Hemings and the role of slavery in the home — and in his family."
In THEIR family.
32
From Wikipedia:
Sarah "Sally" Hemings (c. 1773 – 1835) was an enslaved woman of mixed race owned by President Thomas Jefferson of the United States. A consensus of historians believe Jefferson was the father of her five children,[1] born after the death of his wife Martha Jefferson, and that he had a long-term relationship with her. Four children survived to adulthood.[2] Hemings died in Charlottesville, Virgina, in 1835.[3]
Sally Hemings came to Jefferson's home as an infant with her siblings and her mixed-race mother, Betty, as part of his wife Martha's inheritance of slaves from her father, John Wayles. Hemings was the youngest of six children Betty Hemings is thought to have had with Wayles. If true, she was three-quarters European and a half-sister of Martha Jefferson.[4] In 1787, Hemings, aged 14,[1] accompanied Jefferson's youngest daughter Mary ("Polly") to London and then to Paris, where the widowed Jefferson, aged 44 at the time, was serving as the United States Minister to France. Hemings spent two years there. It is believed by some historians[who?] that Jefferson began a sexual relationship with Hemings in France or soon after their return to Monticello.[2] Hemings remained enslaved in Jefferson's house until his death. In 2017, a room identified as her quarters at Monticello, under the south terrace, was discovered in an archeological restoration. It is being restored and refurbished
11
If institutionalised discrimination and control through feudal and caste practices have defined the premodern past of India, it is race and slavery that have been the bane of American society in its early phase. Interestingly self-serving justifications have been offered in both the cases.
16
Sally Hemings could have started the Me Too Movement. I doubt her relationship with Jefferson was consensual. A teen-age slave girl did not have the power to reject the advances of her 40-something-year-old owner. Later, she had to use sex to win the freedom of the children she had with Jefferson once they became adults. I am glad these exhibit is available to the public. I am sure the tourists will have these same questions about the Hemings-Jefferson "relationship."
9
"this exhibit"
Sharon, The dominance of men over women has a long history, far more than that of Sally Hemming's. Men have been at this since before the Bible was written, and probably before the first humanoid creatures came down from the trees. It's a long tortured story that we are now only beginning to shine a light on. I'm hopeful that it will be the Women who will lead all of us forward to a more perfect Union. It has begun!
3
If she were white, he would have been able to marry her. She would have received all the benefits that position brings. Their children would not have been slaves.
Anyone interested in Thomas Jefferson's life & influence should visit his retreat, Poplar Forest. It is situated in Bedford County, VA, approximately an hour south of Monticello (In Jefferson's time this was a 2-3 day trip). It was Poplar Forest that sheltered Jefferson & his family for a time during the Revolution (he was a wanted man and narrowly escaped capture by the British), and it was Poplar Forest that became his retreat from the incessant visitors at Monticello after his presidency. The property came to him after the death of his father-in-law, John Wayles, along with some of the crippling debt that haunted him for the rest of his life. Although the house at Poplar Forest is built in the same Palladian style as Monticello, it is a much simpler version. It is well-worth a visit.
7
No written records or images. All fiction made up. Sally Hemings is a mystery. This is all FAKE HISTORY.
1
Nonsense. The DNA studies show a clear connection between Sally Hemings’ descendants and Jefferson’s descendants. Unlike people, the genes don’t lie. I suspect your DNA would show a few descendants that YOU might be ashamed of.
9
You deny DNA evidence?
8
Except of course for the DNA evidence which proved that descendants of Jefferson and Hemings share a lot of DNA. But then again, you know, science.
14
I read Fawn Brodie's book when it was first published in the 1970's and it seemed entirely plausible to me then that Thomas Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings was more than just master and servant. It was not surprising that a substantial portion of the descendants of Jefferson denied the paternity of their ancestors slave offspring for so long. After all, it did not serve their interests to have to acknowledge that their famous ancestor was not the perfect man our history books have so often portrayed. What has been surprising, and most welcomed, has been. the move over the past 20 years or so, of a portion of the Jefferson descendants to accept and acknowledged their common bond with the Hemings family, members of which have been quite outspoken about their common lineage with the white Jeffersons. This move by the foundation is key to the acceptance by all of the common bond of paternity between the two groups and, in a larger sense, between all of us who call ourselves Americans.
Jeffersons and the Hemings
10
I lived in Charlottesville for several years in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Monticello was our go-to place when we had visitors, and there was certainly no mention of Sally Hemings there.
However, it was common knowledge in the area, and African Americans with red hair were considered to be possibly descended from Jefferson.
To have this part of our nation's history officially acknowledged is an important development that should change our sanitized view of plantation life.
25
Hemmings was enslaved. Thus:
- She was Jefferson’s property
- She had no autonomy over her body in a legal sense
- She could not consent
This was not a hidden 2nd marriage. This was rape. Fanciful, extended, repeated rape. But rape nonetheless.
To paint it any other way is to repeat the sins of omission that have been committed for so long.
32
Did Sally Hemmings have a choice as an enslaved little girl whether to reject or to submit to the sexual advances of the man who owned her? To those who say we should no dwell on American slavery: was reparations ever paid to the descendants? Has America atoned for its barbarous past?
21
To say Jefferson was in a relationship with Hemmings is correct: a slave-master relationship. That's it. We cannot in any way, implicitly or othrwise, pretend Jefferson was honorable in his decision making, like hi she decision to free his children (who still were slaves before adulthood) or giving Sally Hemmings "special privileges." She was property he did not want to loose. She was still a slave! And the fact she was mixed tells us arguably more about whiteness and societal definitions of beauty, desire, and power structures between men/women and white/POC (including mixed people at this time- "one drop rule") than any kind of holistic foreshadowing of what it meams to be of mixed race in America.
Let us never let people, especially those in political power, off the hook for the injustice they perpetuate. Jefferson's legacy is one of a slave master, plain and simple, and should not be minimalized.
21
The idea that this is a sudden and fresh revelation RE Jefferson and his deceased wife's half-sister and their children is very strange. Especially since one of their children published an article in an Ohio newspaper giving the bare facts, my recollection is, in the 1860's. I was raised north of Boston in the 1930s lost in admiration of Abigail Adams, who remarked upon it in was it the 1790s? This is news, in 2018??
13
"The evil that men do lives after them; the good is oft interred with their bones." Pretty much sums up the current trend of racism and the decline of democracy in our country. Heroes are for underlings whose fault lies not in their stars. Resist!
4
Jefferson was a great man and heroic figure to this country regardless of this relationship and connection to slavery......they were different times.
We don’t durn witches anymore either.
3
A dear friend actually cried when the DNA evidence supported Jefferson's fathering of Sally Hemmings' children. Then she said that perhaps it was Jefferson's brother who fathered the children. OMG Do we really put human beings on such high pedestals? Jefferson's choices are totally consistent with context of his social life.
17
Vineyridge:— "...difference between the status of a white wife and that of a slave. Once the wedding vows were said, the wife had no control over her body or "her" property, her children belonged to her husband, and marriage was a "union" that was harder to break than the emancipation of a slave."
That is huge and well said. Thank you.
14
If only white men from Northern states had volunteered to fight to eradicate the Confederacy and end the slavery the British brought to North America. if only we had men like that today to end dictatorships in their own countries around the world.
1
What about Uriah P Levy, who purchased it at auction in 1836. His family lived there for almost 100 years.
1
That’s a three point shot for historical revisionism — not only does the article weave together a more accurate history of the Jefferson- Hemings families it also breaks down the racist veil that vaunted southern institutions like Monticello have used to conceal the true facts of life in Virginia. We would be remiss not to include the University of Virginia among these vaunted southern institutions that have participated over centuries in a campaign of massive and sustained resistance to recognition of African American rights and truths in Charlottesville Virginia.
The Foundation that owns the Monticello estate should now include several members of the Hemings Family in it’s Board of Directors. Institutions at UVA like the Jefferson Scholars Foundation should change their name(s) to the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Foundation and realign their respective missions to express a new dimension of excellence that the recognition of Hemings represents.
21
Interesting article, and a long-overdue development at Monticello.
4
Bret, every once in a while I begin my comment at your columns with, "Thanks to the other Bret, here you are at your best" and that applies to this column. I hope to make time to follow up some of your leads. Reason? Along with comment writer Blackmamba I am virtually alone in systematically filing comments noting that there is only one race, the human, and that the American "races", particularly those called black and white were politically constructed starting in 1790 to put blacks in ther place in a racial order.
I add a present example to your review. MacArthur Fellow Jesmyn Ward writes in her fine essay in her book "The Fire This Time" that she became deeply conflicted when her 23andme results came back telling her that her genome is 43 European (note geographic nomenclature, not race). In order to deal with this conflict she finally decided to do what is perhaps being done with Jefferson and Hemmings, recognize the truth that genomically we are basically the same but thanks to infinite mixing and environmental influence we are individuals in a multidimensional continuum. In other words, reflect on her genome.
Thanks again for providing momentary respite from the steady flood of trouble from the other side.
Only-NeverInSweden.blogspot.com
Citizen US SE
5
Let us hope that Sally Hemings actually liked Thomas Jefferson. She was apparently sixteen when their intimate relations began, and he owned her. On the other hand, he was a handsome man, smart and powerful; let's hope she had a crush on him, and that what passed between them was a relationship, rather than a rape. It's hard to know. I suppose then one might forgive Jefferson for the relationship and its disparities in light of the time and place. What I find difficult to forgive is the fact that Jefferson knew that slavery was an absolute wrong, and yet he did not free his slaves upon his death, as Washington did. Instead, his slaves had to be sold when he died, except for the Hemings slaves, because he left his financial affairs in a mess. I guess maintaining the beauty of that lovely house was more important than the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness of the human beings he owned.
26
I wonder if Sally Hemings would or could agree with the assignment of her designation as a "sexual servant" or if the language of "second families" here is really as precise as it should be. The power dynamic between master and slave is not such that she could pick another duty; and this being the sensitive topic that it is, I understand why you wouldn't want to just say that there was a history of masters raping their slaves. However, these euphemisms obscure the heart of the sadistic reality at the center of discomfort that remains around discussions related to race and slavery in America which is that wealthy white men -- the gatekeepers and arbiters of patriarchal power and status in the U.S. -- decide whether or not someone is human, property, slave or free. A relationship that is "negotiated" has in it elements of free will that Hemings did not have. Her humanity was canceled out by her status as property. Biologically, she and her descendants have been made visible in a way, yes. But this is more about educating other white people and less about extending freedom to her and her descendants or restoring her to her full humanity in death.
15
This article omits details that would greatly enhance an understanding of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings. Sally had three white grandparents, and regardless of law and convention, it's likely that she very greatly resembled Tom's wife, who before dying at 33 made him promise not to remarry because she didn't want another woman raising her children. Tom's psychological motivations and perhaps resentments would be a fruitful mine for any psychiatrist.
But we don't know, do we, if Martha actively urged Tom to emulate her own father? Perhaps she felt Sally might be used sexually but could never truly replace her as a lawful white wife would undoubtedly do. Maybe Tom was thrilled to have an almost twin of his wife but one whom he was not obliged to treat with as much respect.
Since Sally came with Martha as a wedding present, Martha and Tom's children would have known her all their lives and their feelings about her were undoubtedly terrifyingly complex too. An aunt who looks just like mom but is an enslaved woman not entitled to be called "aunt" or to be loved as one?
Perhaps Sally genuinely loved her half-sister's children. In a painful and unstable life always at the mercy of others, one clings to the familiar. She'd have been free in France but would always be an outsider. Human beings cling to the familiar even when it's awful.
These people's lives were more than the ugly outlines we know.
22
History is written by its victors, although irrefutable facts may sometimes insert themselves if they are too big to hide.
The Civil War continues, and this is a battle finally won by the side of truth (yes, Jefferson had a slave concubine who bore him a second family) but generally, the myth makers and face savers sustain their armies and continue to win battles- they essentially run our nation right now.
The battle is not drawn solidly between north and south and denial of the systemic racism that still renders the descendants of our slaves as economic second class citizens is generally ignored and denied by the vast majority of white Americans. Most believe that black economic problems are the entire responsibility of black Americans and are not interested in any data or history that punctures this myth.
Meanwhile our schools teach our history so poorly that the majority of white Americans don't believe the central issue of the Civil War was slavery- forget about them understanding the influence of racism in our current political reality. Why exactly did southern states join the Republican party shortly after they were forced to integrate by the hated federal government? Who cares, the point is to use the passions of the little people to get our government to do what the big people want.
17
Jefferson asked Washington how, since he had spent his life as a soldier, he had amassed his great wealth and Washington replied The old fashioned way — I married it. Jefferson followed suit. Lincoln considered Jefferson his political mentor but found his personal life despicable. And to be clear, in his only statement in such matters pertinent to our moment, Jefferson famously said Now and again the tree of democracy must be watered by the blood of tyrants and patriots. Ironically his remark has been a call to arms for white nationalists for decades. And now?
1
Imagine, for a moment, if we had installed in the White House a President who would actually venture to Monticello for this particular exhibit, and use it as a teachable moment for Americans to better understand and reckon with our complicated, tortured racial history. Imagine if there never existed a Donald Trump.
13
Several commenters, bots maybe, are having a hard time with this part of Jefferson’s legacy. They want to keep his relationship with Hemings private while simultaneously denying Jefferson had a relationship with Hemings. Either way, it’s clearly an insult to Jefferson that he’d be romantically connected to one of his slaves. Can’t we just move on from that?
But we have to acknowledge this part of our history because our legacy comes from Jefferson. The way he treated his slave Sally, the fact that Sally was the half-sister of Jefferson’s first wife, is practically an American parable. These two groups, European whites and African slaves, brought together through the greed and violence of the whites, built this nation. The benefits flowed disproportionately to the whites, their legacy, leaving little or nothing left. Acknowledging Sally Hemings is a small, very small, attempt to expand her legacy and provide recognition that’s long overdue.
21
Thomas Jefferson's children were enslaved until they were adults. Thomas Jefferson negotiated to free his own children.
4
Even if Jefferson wished to marry his wife's half-sister, likely the law would not have allowed it in the U. S. Sally could have remained in Paris and she and her child would have been remained free. She apparently chose to go back and have more children with him. We'll never know the entire story of their relationship, but it sounds like more than the relationship between a powerful slaveholder and a powerless slave to me.
6
Yes, when I first read that not only was Jefferson distraught and nearly inconsolable upon the death of his beloved young wife Martha, but that Sally Hemmings was Martha's half-sister, it did seem as if Jefferson might well have fallen in love with Sally Hemmings, and that it might have become, emotionally at least, a "real" marriage within the horrific and cruel constraints of their time.
2
And how was Sally, a 16 year old black single mother, with no friends, assets or education to stay in France in 1787, just two years before the storming of the Bastille? This is just another example of how the telling of history leads us to false narratives supporting the supposed benevolence of white masters and the "happy" lives of their slaves. Sally had been Jefferson's property since she was 2 years old. It is hard to imagine any realistic scenario in which she could survive and raise a child alone in a poverty stricken foreign country on the verge of violent revolution.
Her son chose to frame his emancipation by his own father as a supreme sacrifice by his mother, returning to slavery for the benefit of her children. She may well have been a brave, extraordinary woman, and she was able to obtain eventual freedom for her children, but she had no real choices, she was in fact a "powerless slave"
12
I considered Jefferson as one of the great Presidents until I read also the Biographies of Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Franklin. Allof them fascinated me. What great visionaries.
Maybe as a Politician and later as a President he earned Merits; possibly his biggest Achievement: The Louisiana Purchase. During the Revolution he was rather passive, while the other Founding Fathers were actively engaged in the Liberation and the Establishment of the new Nation. One often gives him credit for the Declaration of Independance. Yes he was involved in the formulation, but the brain of this Document was John Adams. Besides, the Declaration was surely important at the time, but it was not a complicated act in comparison to the Constitution, which followed some years later. Besides it lead to a long and bloody war. Yes he was influential, but
during his tenure as Sec.of State and Vice President he gave many headaches to his 1st and 2nd Presidents, as well as to his Co-Founders. He was one of the biggest Manipulators of his time, scheming out of sight and using obedient young Madison as the Executor of his unproductive Intrigues.
These historical Facts plus his private life as slaveowner and the relationship this article is all about, leaves in my mind a big questionmark on Thomas Jefferson as a human being.
8
My first visit to Monticello was in 2002. No mention was made of Sally Hemings was made on the main tour, and on a side tour of what was then the Mulberry Row section, the tour guide was clearly irked when asked questions a reasonably informed tour guide should be able to answer.
My visit last week was vastly different. The house tour began with a detailed explanation of Jefferson's complex and contradictory views and his slave/mistress relationship with Ms. Hemings was cited as evidence of what "many claim to be hypocrisy"
Then there is the Heming's exhibit which offers detailed evidence in a sensitive and compelling narrative replete with music and visual effects.
For the harsher critics of Jefferson, telling the truth about the Hemings/Jefferson will not be enough. But, after all, Monticello was Mr. Jefferson's house, and his ghost still largely guards the narrative in a way that would satisfy him more than disappoint him.
Finally, there is no single place in America where the evils of slavery, the idea of intellectual promise, and faith in democratic ideals clash as loudly and brilliantly as they do at Monticello.
35
My parents took us to see Monticello when I was about ten years old. My Dad took one look at the house and said, "Jefferson didn't build that". Having built our home a few years earlier largely by himself, he knew one man couldn't have built such a building. This was the early sixties. At Monticello, there was no indication whatsoever of the presence of a small army of slaves and no real mention of them, other than the fact that we knew it had been a southern style plantation. I remember being struck by the architecture and innovation, but also remember coming away with a large blank space with regard to what life and industry at Monticello consisted of. I see nothing wrong in telling the whole story, which makes it even more interesting.
32
Do the times make a person or does the content of character make the man or woman? Or his or her courage? As a genealogist, I found stories in the colonial era of men and women who defied slavery -- especially in their relationships. Denial of America's racial history have deep roots, like a recurring weed. We have to weed out the deniers and focus on the strength of character to reveal the true history.
I found Early American documents revealing the relationships between my black and white ancestors that reveal their character. The family of my Scottish ancestor owned a building in Fredericksburg Virginia where they traded tobacco, and the building still stands today, so I contacted the city’s cultural leaders. They did not respond because I am African American. When I sent my ancestors’ birth documents to Scotland, the Scots asked what I wanted on my coat of arms – my Scottish ancestor was a nobleman related to the monarchy. I asked them, what is a coat of arms? The Scots and the Queen reviewed the birth documents and granted me an inherited blended coat of arms from my ancestors. My coat of arms is inherited from white and black ancestors, and it shows character. This is the comment of a heraldry expert about my genealogy.
https://blog.appletonstudios.com/2011/04/heraldry-in-news_28.html
Acknowledging the history of the races can help us deal with modern relationships between the races. Let us all keep researching genealogy and telling historical truths.
34
I am glad you have searched all this out and presented the link here. Recently, PBS did a documentary on (from memory) the Montiers of Philadelphia. You can find the marriage portraits of their biracial ancestors in the Philadelphia Museum of Art. It was a rare case of African Americans having the means to commission paintings of themselves.
4
Thank you so much for the reminder. I read about the exhibit, and having gone to school in the Phila area, I will visit. Yes, it is rare that African Americans had the means to commission paintings and the access to church records. They were banned from leaving their children's records or marriage documents in the civil records, but as is mentioned in several comments here, some of these ancestors were blended black and white, and had powerful and wealthy European fathers and grandfathers who were plantation owners, so those who had family character left records of their children and their black relatives. Some like my ancestor who was a land surveyor who was denied his commissions by plantation owners because his plantation surveys included designs of the plantation house and the houses designed and built by enslaved people, left records -- left the maximum amount of money the law allowed him to leave to his mixed-race descendants.
Interestingly, the debates then were not unlike the debates about moral, ethical and empathetic human issues now. His brother owned 640 slaves, including some of his own children and his relatives, so my mother always asks what those family discussions must have been.
How many inner contradictions governs each (or many) of us today? It is easy to look dispassionately through the lens of history and discern the inner conflicts of one noteworthy man (Jefferson), than to discern our own. Can't even be sure what they all are. But they're present.
8
Jefferson promised his wife on her deathbed that he would not remarry. He didn't; instead he had a long-term relationship with his wife's half-sister. Fair-skinned Sally Hemings may well have resembled his beloved wife in looks, voice and gesture. What she felt for him is unknown, but once they were back in the United States he held all of the power. Those who still doubt that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally's children should read Annette Gordon-Reed's books on the subject. As for those bothered by bringing up Jefferson's failings on the 4th of July--when better given the current exhibition? After all, he was principal author of the Declaration of Independence and died on its 50th anniversary. I first visited Monticello in the 1960s as a teenager, when the guides spoke of "servants." I was enormously impressed by Monticello's thoughtful design, humanly scaled and beautifully sited. I am still impressed, but now I also see that slaves were kept out of sight by design, their quarters beneath the house, the dumbwaiter and shelved service doors minimizing their visual presence. Jefferson lived well beyond his means, a lifestyle that required slave labor--and cognitive dissonance on his part. We should face the good and bad in our history. We aren't children, to be fed fairy tales.
141
Thomas Jefferson was a giant among our forefathers, but like most people he had feet of clay. On the positive side of his ledger as a family man, he honored Sally's wishes that her children become free at ages 21, his intimate relationship did not begin until after his wife's passing, Sally was his deceased wife's half sister, and he chose not to remarry or apparently have children by other slave women. So far as I know, he seemed content to have her as his sole consort for the remainder of his life.
On the other hand, he did not give Sally's offspring his family name, per Madison Hemmings' account (and a very compelling read linked in the article) he was kind but less devoted to his mixed race children and grandchildren than his white descendants, and he only bequeathed freedom to Sally's children.
Sally, for her part, seems to have made the best of her lot in the 18th century rural south. She was treated well by a man with an even temperament. She did not bear children fathered by other slaves, and probably obtained the best outcome for her children under the circumstances.
This speaks to the human dimensions of these people in those times. We can certainly look back and criticize one aspect or another, but perhaps everyone made the best of their circumstances under the prevailing customs.
Thomas Jefferson's main fault to my mind was his acceptance of slavery as a fact of life and that he did precious little to move the nation away from this despicable practice.
50
I agree with all that is said here in the Tyndall letter except that the last paragraph. In fact Jefferson was greatly conflicted on the issue of slavery and it is fair to say that his thoughts on the subject evolved over time. One needs to remember that Sally while in France was a free women. She could have remained. She chose to return. Why is unknown.
On the issue of slavery Jefferson understood that the entire southern economy was dependent on the institution but he firmly believed that his fellow southerners would -over time- come to see slavery for the what it was and reform their economy and end slavery. Jefferson was a firm believer in the wisdom of his fellow citizens. He was obviously incorrect on this score.
Thomas Jefferson altered human history - the world is a difference place because of his writings and life. He was imperfect by our standards today. We must measure him -as all should be measured - by the times in which he lived.
We must recognize that each of us are creatures of the time in which we live and that we are imperfect.
Using this fair measuring stick who can doubt his contribution to human civilization. Let’s not through the baby out with the bath water.
5
Al, I concede that Jefferson's public views on slavery evolved and he did meaningful things to stem the practice. On this latter point I stand corrected. Like most things, his efforts were complicated. He never freed Sally Hemmings, but he did free several trained slaves who could support themselves. On the other hand, he had significant debts and couldn't afford to free large numbers. 130 were sold at his death to satisfy those debts.
In 1778, Jefferson led efforts to ban slave importation in Virginia. He was a lifelong advocate of ending the trade and as president criminalized international slave trade by law in 1807.
In 1779, as a practical solution to end slavery, he supported gradual emancipation, training, and colonization rather than unconditional manumission. In 1784, he proposed federal legislation banning slavery in all new territories after 1800 (it failed by 1 vote). In his 'Notes on the State of Virginia' (1785), he wrote that slavery corrupted masters and slaves alike, supported colonization of freed slaves, suspected slaves had inferior intelligence, and that freeing large numbers made slave uprisings more likely.
In 1824, Jefferson proposed to end slavery by government purchase of slave children, training them in occupations of freemen, and sending them to the country of Santo Domingo.
Jefferson saw slavery as a problem, wrote and acted on this publicly, but largely kept his own slaves in bondage and wanted to send most freed slaves out of the country.
1
Jefferson only wrote one book, referenced in this article. Worth reading. He was a surveyor who believed that wealth came from the land. He down played tradesmen, merchants, as not being that essential. He disparaged education as provided by the Anglican Church as inferior from his own personal experience.
His political achievements were enormous. The Declaration of Independence was adopted with only one phrase altered. He represented the new U.S./Colonies in Europe during the revolution. At the Treaty of Paris, he doubled the size of the United States. He did that again with the Louisiana Purchase. He chased the Spanish out of Florida.
He was a master architect and builder. His slaves and plantation, if i'm not mistaken, came to him via his wife's family. We don't know the details of his personal life with Ms Hemings, though the appearance is they both made the best out of a bad situation (the times), or a good situation (their feelings for one another)--depending on how you look at it.
According to Hannah Arendt, in later years, when asked how to keep the spirit of the American Revolution alive, he stated it would be through elections, throwing an entire government out when necessary. Let's hope we're seeing that today through March For Our Lives and carried into the next election.
Walk students through the voting process in high school. Know that the fireworks today celebrates our Independence and the Right and the Duty to vote.
33
But do go back and read what he said about black people in that one book he wrote.
3
junewell: i read it. the taught opinion at the time that also supported slavery. Recall also that cigarettes were once sold as "doctor approved", with little questioning, though the cruelty of American slavery couldn't be missed.
Sadly the duplicity continues as the current fake president denies the descendants of people harmed by slavery and racism--equal and fair access to America's opportunities in education, housing, environmental protections, and more.
78
Wonderfully rendered comment.
2
What an excellent article. Well done, Mr. Staples. And, many thanks to the Monticello Foundation, for this very fine, and timely Show, of America's real History.
Beyond any speculation, and beyond any kind of pattern of behavior that existed between Slave Baron Men and their enslaved Women, .... how can any of us know the real communication, or any of the day-to-day, or ANYTHING about the bond of love that existed between Jefferson and Hemings ? How can any of us really know what happened between this man and woman ? I believe that the two of them felt genuine love, and saw a better future for everyone from the union of that love.
What I appreciate is that here, with Hemings & Jefferson, "here" was the beginning of some major Change, and a tipping point towards the better direction.
14
It is possible to appreciate the abject trajedy of Sally Hemings life and enslavement, but it is also necessary to remember that no matter how repugnant, this was the reality during that time. It doesn't excuse it, but it explains it. We are all prisoners of our own time.
Although this is a trivial example, one only needs to look at pictures of how people dressed decades ago so observe how "normal" changes over time. Once, bell bottoms were absolutely the latest fashion. If one were to wear bell bottom jeans with braid sewed to the bottom of each leg, you would look quite odd.
Who remembers phone booths? I remember a time when parents could board a flight to buckle in and send their child off by themselves to visit their grandparents. Who in their right mind would do that today, without an adult, unless you had made special paid arrangements with the airline? Nor would anyone be allowed past the security checkpoint without a ticket. Back then, you could do something like that. I know. I was the child, and if my memory is correct, I was about eight years old.
17
It was not a reality for every white American. There were plenty of white families and communities, mainly in the North, that abhorred slavery. People had a choice as to how to behave and sadly the weak people of the South chose to continue the venal and immoral activity of slavery.
4
Yes, so many kooky old fads--remember Hula Hoops? Remember slavery? Back in the day, white people LOVED it, but somehow you wouldn't catch anybody owning a black person as chattel these days, no siree! And did I mention Space Food Sticks?
3
Fascinating and important article. One part though is getting too little attention--Sally Hemings was SIXTEEN YEARS OLD when she was impregnated by Jefferson in Paris. She was a child. How old was Jefferson at this point? None of this speaks well for our founding father Mr. Jefferson. It does suggest though that Sally Hemings herself was a strong and brave character to survive and in some degree control someone who was rich, famous, much older than she, intellectually a genius, and legally her owner at a time when she was a minimally educated, enslaved, penniless child.
133
You do realize that people married much younger back then? As a separate matter from her position within his household and other issues, just saying the age is not so shocking.
19
16 years old was far from childhood in the and early 1800s. Like most cultures of that time a female was considered open to sex after she had gone through puberty. Many women were wed at 14.
6
Jefferson was 39 when his wife died and 42 years old when he went to Paris. Does that answer your question about sleeping with a sixteen year old?
Sally Hemming was born C. 1773, the same year John Wayle’s, her farther, died. Martha, her half sister, married Jefferson in 1772.
An important part of the history is the freedom granted their children, without it they may have been or very likely could have been sold at auctions after Jefferson’s death held to relieve his debts.
It’s all a lot to take in, even with historical context, Jefferson had great ideas and was a man of his time.
I cringe and wonder what generations 233 years from now will view our societies structures. No one is above judgement.
LOVED the article.
4
A very interesting column. I wonder how Jefferson, as well as his white family, rationalized his relationship with and ownership of Sally Hemings and their children, particularly since the latter had mostly white ancestry (Sally herself was 3/4 white), were both the half siblings and half first cousins of Jefferson's daughters.by Martha Wayles. An interesting question, too, is why, prior to the DNA evidence, many mainstream historians refused to accept that Jefferson probably fathered the Hemings children. (My understanding is that a similar resistance continues among many of Jefferson's white descendants).
60
It was generally accepted during his life time, being exploited by his political enemies.
2
...and i wonder how wide swaths of US families continue to rationalize their racism. Remember Obama, who is still described as "black". With 50% white, why is he not "white". And where are these 100% "white" citizens? Do they even exist?
In Jefferson's day it was considered scandalous to have children by a slave, so I can understand his desire to keep this secret. However, historians have an interest in uncovering the truth in the service of accuracy. There's no desire to denigrate Jefferson; simply to paint an accurate portrait of the man, with all his talents and inconsistencies. Jefferson had a complicated relationship with slavery, which he once described as a wolf whose ears you dare not release. He knew it was wrong, and he knew that there would be no Constitution and no United States without slavery because slave states would refuse to join. This was an issue on which the framers were unable to compromise, to our nation's great tragedy.
83
He was also dependent upon slavery for the luxurious lifestyle he coveted.
5
All of history is complex, Sandra H: -- it is usually the left that wants every narrative to be simple and every hero "pure". It was a different era, a very long time ago. People did not believe what we believe today.
From hundreds of comments here at the NYT, I gather most American liberals today would prefer there WAS no United States -- no Constitution or Bill of Rights -- no Founding Fathers. They'd rather we were a vassal state of Great Britain and bowed down to a Queen and of course, they want to erase the history of slavery.
I despise slavery as much as anyone -- but it is OUR history. History is about bad stuff as well as good stuff. No nation out there is "pure" the way liberals think! They all did bad things at one time or another. And all heroes are also complex; none of them are flawless. The same FDR who gave us SS and saved the world for democracy....put Japanese American citizens into detention camps.
Nothing is simple and nobody is ever "pure".
1
But they did compromise; they agreed to count each slave as 3/5 of a state resident, certainly one hell of a compromise.
1
Great article. Thanks for publishing. I appreciated the comments and only wished there were many more. I love The "failing" New York Times almost as much as I don't care for Trump, his family and associates.
78
Under the law, there wasn't a huge difference between the status of a white wife and that of a slave. Once the wedding vows were said, the wife had no control over her body or "her" property, her children belonged to her husband, and marriage was a "union" that was harder to break than the emancipation of a slave. The primary difference was that her children were born free, and if she outlived her husband, she was freed herself and regained control over any property that she brought to the marriage that her husband had not wasted.
The fact that Sally Heming was willing to forego her freedom "in exchange" for the eventual freedom of her children seems to me to indicate that she must have cared enough for Jefferson to be willing to return to Virginia; and that while there, she was in no worse position than any wife of the time.
77
There is one major difference. White women still had the power of her birth family to protect her, although I'll agree that was not much.
1
She may simply have been homesick and/or afraid to remain alone and penniless in a foreign country, having to raise a child alone as a 16 year old child.
8
This is a disingenuous comment. Sally Hemings was in bondage, she could not leave VA and travel to Maryland. She was not feted at balls and allowed to shop in the nicest stores. She did not have a father or siblings who would protect her. Many children who were the offsprings of slave owners and slaves were bought and sold. A “white wife” was not bought and sold at a slave market, she was not shackled. The kicker is, would the “white wife” change places with the slave. Your argument is a false equivalency.
16
It a shame that so many people are in still denial about the evils of slavery at this point in our history. So many people say it's over. Don't talk about it. Well the good things that Jefferson and the other Founding Father's did is also over but no one says that we shouldn't talk about that.
If we don't talk about the bad as well as the good then we're talking about propaganda instead of history!
229
I would love to know the name of someone of consequence who denies the evils of slavery. This is the definition of a straw man.
28
Well said!
Jim Symons
Fort Collins, Colorado
Bill O'Reilly (nearly 3 million Twitter followers): https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/28/business/media/bill-oreilly-says-slav...
McGraw-Hill, one of our nation's largest textbook manufacturers: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/06/us/publisher-promises-revisions-after...
Donald Trump, president of the United States: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-black-voters-slavery_u...
I could go on, but I think you get the idea.
I think this is a fascinating part of our history.
It is absurd to hide a truth. Is is supposed to
be politically correct to pretend that full
human relationships, some of a sexual nature,
did not exist? One empathizes with the
situation of the children in their lives. They
were innocent victims of social ostracism and
racism. Of course, we will never know what
Jefferson was thinking when he so eloquently declared
that “all men are created equal” whilst holding slaves.
Shine a light on the truth that we know.
54
...what Jefferson was thinking when he so eloquently declared that “all men are created equal”...
--------- obviously he thought that slaves were not "men" but a sub-human variety of humans . . .
1
I am excited about this monumental progression in historical recognition that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemmings' children. Monticello is only about half an hour away from Charlottesville where the infamous parade of alt-white men ended in the loss of life of one of the counter protesters. It was chilling to watch these carefully dressed men with torches chanting infamous racist slogans. Equally infamous was the equivocal response from the person who lays claim to the title "President of the United States".
142
american history, for all to see: the author of the declaration of independence bought and sold people as property, and enslaved his own children.
128
You talk about Ms. Hemmings persuading Jefferson. She was free in France! What is astounding is that he was able to persuade HER to return with him, for so little--freeing THEIR children. Of course, it made it easier that she was only 16.
97
yes, go see the film Jefferson in Paris.
Thandie Newton plays Sally Hemmings. In one scene, she got a bit sassy and Gwenyth Paltrow, playing Jerfferson's sister, gave her a slap in the face that seemed to come out of the screen and in the the audience.
I don't call that freedom.
There are clearly way too many people who want to mythologize and venerate the founding fathers and pretend that were shining examples of piety and honor, no question asked. We cannot know what the emotional relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings was, but pretending that an intimate relationship did not exist is a lie. History based on lies is propaganda, and ignoring the truth because it doesn't conform to the ideal is wrong. Disapproval doesn't change facts. Thank you Thomas Jefferson Foundation for historical accuracy, and thank you Brent Staples and New York Times for background to the historical perspective.
176
It would be nice if some of the commenters here read Annette Gordon-Reed's thorough and well-reasoned book.
2
The link to Madison Hemings published 'memoir' should be required reading in elementary schools across the country.
One cannot, should not, learn of the importance Thomas Jefferson holds for americans, while ignoring his family's history.
His WHOLE family.
Jefferson lived in an age where slavery was "normal" (!??) but he had enough decency to know this should not be.
I am thrilled Sally Hemings is front and center in Monticello. I applaud the foundations' decision, and sincerely hope most white southerners (trumpsters a whole lot of them), visit the exhibit, learn from it, and stop folowing the racist buffoon who now occupies the WH.
235
So why is George Washington cut so much slack? Yes, he arranged for his slaves to be freed after his death, but his wealth and political influence were in part the result of slave-holding (he inherited several slaves when he was 11 years old and owned 123 slaves when he died).
Why are his monuments free of graffiti? What does the nation's capital still hold his name?
We have the founding fathers to thank for freedom from England and for our Constitution--yet virtually all of them were slaveholders (Washington was apparently the only Founding Father to free his slaves).
Surely the teaching of American history in our schools needs a thorough revamping to deal more thoroughly and openly with slavery.
We shall overcome!
13
The only DNA proof is that a male Jefferson or Jefferson relative fathered Sally Hemmings children. There is no direct proof yet that Thomas Jefferson fathered any or all of her children. Lets get the proof out there before we claim facts.
3
And when combined with the timeliness, the answer is clear. Jefferson's brother and young nephews were not in Paris, where Sally's first child was conceived.
108
Adding to that genetic record is the proof of Jefferson's own word. He personally recorded the activities of the household, black and white, in considerable detail. The comings and goings of residents and visitors were kept in a daily log in his own hand. And during the periods when Sally Hemings' children could have been conceived, he was the only Jefferson male in residence.
Wishing your idol had been a symbol of purity does not justify pretending he was in the face of contrary evidence.
47
It's true that the DNA test only shows, as Hello claims, that a male Hemings descendant has the male Jefferson DNA.
But Hemings stayed at Monticello as Jefferson traveled. Records show TJ's presence at Monticello at the right times to have fathered SH's children. Other male relatives weren't there consistently at the correct times. The DNA evidence confirms what Madison Hemings claimed.
2
Sally Hemings was rightfully our third First Lady, and should be acknowledged as such.
Her story--and that of her relationship with her de facto husband Thomas Jefferson---is at the core of our national legacy.
Sally and Tom were lovers for nearly forty years. As a First Couple, they gave birth to more children while Tom was president than any other.
It's a great thing the reality of this marriage has finally been recognized. There will be much more to learn about it in the coming years.
96
harvey wasserman wrote: "As a First Couple, they gave birth to more children while Tom was president than any other."
I've spotted this ridiculous "they gave birth" several times in the past month.
No. While both Sally and Tom had children together, only Sally gave birth to them.
Let's honor the struggle and pain and WORK involved in labor and delivery.
Also note that childbirth involves *risking one's life*, especially in the US of 2018, where maternal mortality rates have skyrocketed in comparison to other Western nations. We should be ashamed of this statistic.
1
We will never make peace with our past until we stop lying about it. We don't need to apologise forever for the sins of slavery but we can't whitewash our history and pretend it never happened either. We need the historical reminders that tells all of our story and not just the parts we're most proud of.
271
Agreed Ami, that is why either extreme is harmful, ie blaming today's whites for slavery or no pun intended whitewashing the whole issue like it never happened.
That is why I think Jefferson was not a great president, although he did great things like writing the declaration and being a founding father he did not rise to the greatest of a Lincoln or even Washington, because he not only did he have slaves he did not free them after his death, like Washington did and slavery was already starting to be considered evil as Ben Franklin and Hamilton were against it.
1
We should APOLOGIZE forever for the grave sins of slavery as much as we should apologize to Native Americans for their genocide and confiscation of their lands. A most offensive situation was the Homestead Act which gave away Native American dedicated lands in which Native Americans were prevented from participating. That is the ugliness of American history and the deceitfulness of the government that persists to this day.
7
Ami:
Our schools should be required to teach a semester or full year course on the history of the Atlantic Slave Trade and its ramifications. This could be given in middle school or early high school.
Too many public school textbooks concoct twisted mythologies about our history. We need to face these things head on, up through and including modern mass incarceration of people of color in this country.
3
Can we stop with the obsession with U.S. slavery when it has not affected anyone alive? Slavery was terrible. This has been acknowledged for decades. It’s time to move on. This story adds absolutely nothing to anything relevant to modern day America.
8
One of my ancestors owned slaves in 17th century Connecticut. There was one child born to a Haitian slave and a member of the family. DNA results show that descendants of that child live today. Some of them passed into white society, but others were, and are, treated as "black." How can you say that those people were not affected?
The whole idea that the color of skin reflects anything about a person is fraudulent. It's time to pare away that idea. Until we do that, the issue of slavery and Jim Crow and current discriminatory practices will not go away. Unfortunately, that's very relevant to modern day America.
120
I disagree. I think that this story adds to our understanding of Jefferson, one of our most important presidents by any measure. I also don't think that you can say that slavery has not affected anyone alive. Among other things, slavery surely was one of the roots of racism, and that is certainly very much alive and relevant in modern America.
172
Slavery hasn't affected anyone alive?
Try reading so many srticles - "driving while black", living while black", people calling police because a black teen is in the neighborhood?
You are way too uninformed!
29
I find it a bit of a shame that this article is about a part of one of our founding father's lives that he would have preferred remain hidden. Perhaps they loved each other deeply, perhaps he was using her...the truth will never be known. However, on this day of celebration for our Republic, maybe we should try to celebrate one of our founding heroes with less judgement upon their life choices. We all make mistakes, but not all of us could construct the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
Have a little respect for the man...please.
11
Yes, we all are fallible. However, there is nothing wrong with celebrating our Independence while furthering our understanding of the contradictory lives of our Founders.
27
One child is a "mistake." Four is a family.
100
Imagine yourself as Sally, with no agency of choice. Period. Yet you ask for respect of TJ's immoral choice to enslave human beings. Sorry. Slavery is reprehensible. There is no glossing it over.
I live near Philadelphia, where the Declaration was signed. I respect the document and recognize Jefferson was flawed. That, sir, is honest history.
8
Slavery was abhorrent. It is a scourge on mankind.
However, this is a hit piece, on July 4th no less, on the intellectual architect of one of the greatest democracies in world history.
If the NYTimes and its readers- myself included- want to know why conservatives and the Republican Party have a monopoly on patriotism, look no further than here.
I’m sure my comment will be met with derision, but ignorance of this sentiment is in part why Trump is selecting yet another Supreme Court Justice.
65
A, How is talking about this relationship a hit job?
B, it is absolutely a tale central to understanding the development of this country. Ignoring inequities in plain sight is a habit that has been handed down along with the partial histories of the founding fathers.
324
The fantastical claim that conservatives and/or Republicans have 'a monopoly on patriotism' lays bare the pretension of the writer as well as his lack of historical knowledge.
The Founders embraced the idea that competing, opposing approaches to national governance were not just unavoidable but healthy. Jefferson and Adams were both respected leaders, both became President. The idea that one party and its philosophy deserves to and is entitled to eradicate the other is profoundly un-American and is the polar opposite of patriotism.
42
What did Abraham Lincoln mean then, that we, the living, must strive for a more perfect union? And how can we know what "a more perfect union" means when we remain mute about those imperfections that still blemish our union today?
29
I don't know why anyone would read this account and come away with the idea that Sally Hemings had any love for the man who held her in slavery, or that she had the rights and freedom of white women of that time. Sally Hemings was BLACK and she was a SLAVE, and those factors didn't change because she was forced to submit sexually to Jefferson. In that age, her status was lower than that of the lowest white person, period. She may have been astute enough to manipulate Jefferson and his desires, but had she fallen out of his favor she would have been consigned to the labors of any other slave. Sally was obviously dedicated to her children and she used what power she had to their benefit. Any mother might have done the same.
202
The real story is the nearly two centuries of denial, the complicity of an entire society to maintain a fiction of American history and the institutionalization of effort to maintain the system of racism through Jim Crow, lynchings, oppression, harassment and denial of equal opportunity. What a huge cover-up. Institutionalized and continuing, we take small steps. I hope the millennials will be able to get the job done.
151
That is why I think Jefferson was not a great president, although he did great things like writing the declaration and being a founding father but did not rise to the greatest of a Lincoln or even Washington, because he not only did he have slaves he did not free them after his death, like Washington did and slavery was already starting to be considered evil as Ben Franklin and Hamilton were against it.
60
I have some difficulty viewing George Washington in much of a different light than Jefferson after reading, "Never Caught, Ona Judge" written by Erica Armstrong Dunbar.This is the story of his and his families relentless pursuit of a young, female slave. She was in hiding over 50 years and died in severe poverty. Well worth reading but it will not leave you proud of our first family.Property is property is what I get from reading about these people. George doesn't occur for me as such a hero any longer.
1
Yes, it certainly is too bad that one of the most brilliant minds of the 18th century was not a great president because he didn't free his slaves.
Do not judge 19th century others by 21st century morals.
He was a great man........flawed, just like YOU and me.
2
Jefferson is worth reading about in depth. He's a mess of contradictions and no one facet of his life can or should define him. Even he knew that slavery was wrong - which makes his slave ownership, and his enslavement of his own children, even more horrific. Having said that, the importance of his contributions to the founding of the country and to the early years of the Republic are difficult to overstate.
Washington shouldn't get a pass on slavery. Why is freeing his slaves after he was dead and didn't need them anymore any better than what Jefferson did? It's worth noting that Washington had no children to leave his slaves to (his wife's children inherited slaves from her first husband's estate). Washington could have easily freed his slaves in his lifetime and didn't.
6
I had difficulty getting past the first sentence "(Slaveholders) conscripted black women as sexual servants". Enslaved women were not "servants" they were slaves. Sally Hemmings was a slave child raped and impregnated by a man thirty years her senior. The article implies she consented to the relationship, saying blithely that she might have stayed in France, without addressing how a 16 year old black mother with no assets or education could have survived alone in France.
A 46 year old man raping a 16 year old girl is not and never has been morally ambiguous. Sally Hemmings knew the limitations of her condition and did the best she could under the circumstances. But it is wrong to imply that she was his "second wife" or that she consented to the relationship. A slave cannot consent; she has no power to refuse.
Jefferson, however brilliant, however grateful we may be for the freedoms he fashioned for us, will always be disfigured by his grotesque embrace of slavery, by satisfying his sexual lust at the expense of an enslaved child, by holding his own children in slavery.
Those who say it was acceptable at the time do not know history. The suffering of slaves, and particularly of enslaved women, has been clear since Adromache's lament in the Illiad, 2000 year earlier. Jefferson had a classical education, he must have read her lament expressing the pain of a woman held in sexual bondage, knowing that her beloved child would be a slave as well.
360
had Jefferson taken a white 16-year old girl as his second, legal wife, she would likely not have had any more say in the matter and no one would have batted an eye.
7
Well said, thank you.
It's complicated.
Sally Hemings was Martha Jefferson's half sister.
In 1880, the legal age of consent for marriage was set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7. (Wikipedia)
I'm not trying to justify Jefferson's actions
5
My great great grandfather on my mother’s side is a white man. My great grandfather on my father’s side is a white msn. I have light colored skin and my relatives are are light skinned with green, blue and gray eyes. I am African American and I also have Native American heritage as well. I am also a tenth generation descendant of acslave. It is sad how white America treats African Americans when as can be seen by many of us, white men had sexual relations with their slaves. It is sad commentary to say that we were 3/5ths human and yet, you raped black women. Were we animals then or were we human? I don’t know how white people can be held in so much esteem when they have been savages with regard to people of color. It sickens me.
181
So sorry for what happened to your family.
2
“you raped black women.”
Who are the “you?” These people have been dead for more than a century. There is no collective “white race” which you can now hold accountable, particularly since most “white” people are descended from immigrants who arrived long after the abolition of slavery.
Perhaps it’s also worth revisiting ones own victimhood if it’s based on events that happened hundreds of years ago.
Be sure that all white people are not racist. But I'm afraid that nearly half are according to a poll. Sixty years ago I had a History professor that said he believed in 50 years there would not be a single American family that didn't have Black members. It took our family 55 years but it now has a Black member. We all think it was about time.
2
Time for everybody to take a deep breath and consider why we honor Jefferson. It isn't because of his character or whether he was a nice guy. It's because he gave voice to the first real attempt to create a republic in history based on Enlightenment principles, and risked his life and fortune for doing so. In essence, he created modern democracy. We should honor great men for what they did, not who they are. Mythologists build them up as supermen, whether it's Jefferson, Washington, Hamilton, and then revisionists cut them down to human size. Jefferson himself would have admitted all of his failings as a human being, and would have been appalled by attempts to make him into either God or Satan.
122
"why we honor Jefferson". How about concentrating on why we honor what he did? After all, that is what matters. Right? We all have a bit of the divine in us. Some use and express it in different ways, some waste it. But it is that divinity instilled in us that should be acknowledged and honored. The vessel is ALWAYS flawed and may indeed be downright despicable. Separate the wheat from the chaff.
Maybe, but I think that goodness has proven to save the reputations of many powerful people. Washington stepped down from the Presidency when he was uncertain what would happen without him and he established a peaceful and orderly transfer of power that has lasted for centuries. Lincoln pressed for emancipation and later the abolition of slavery when it might have met opposition when he needed unity. Kennedy and Johnson supported the efforts to end segregation even though they knew it would split the Democratic Party. These were good acts motivated by people choosing to act contrary to what they knew was most favorable for them in terms of power.
1
In case anyone misunderstood the point of my previous posting, let me clarify. Let's stop deifying the person, ignoring all ugliness in order to prop up the myth of the "hero". Rather we should recognize the deed, as this is the spark of the divine ( however one defines that). That way we may not have to tear down monuments or scrape names off the sides of buildings when the "hero" is shown to have clay feet.
This article makes me sick to my stomach. Sally's mother wasn't John Wayles' 'lover'. She was his property and his victim. And her daughter suffered the same fate.
We know what Thomas Jefferson thought about Black people because he told us, over and over. So why does anyone pretend that there was any kind of relationship between Jefferson and Hemings other than exploitation? His wife had died, he wanted sex and she was there. He didn't have to worry about her feelings or her wants and desires. It doesn't matter how light her skin was.
America was built on slavery and slavery was built on rape.
116
And Sally was a child -- a young teenager - when Thomas Jefferson began raping her. Because what is 'consent' between an enslaved person and the one who enslaves?
8
Historian Annette Gordon Reed offered in these pages last August after the events in Charlottesville a more layered approach to considering Sally Hemings' agency in this context:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/books/review/sally-hemings-thomas-jef...