The Jefferson - Hemings ControversyHistory on trial Main Page

AboutTime LineEpisodesJefferson on Race & SlaveryResources
Episodes
>
>
>

Gordon-Reed's Presentism to a Different End [AGR 116-19]

Christopher Hall

with comment by Kiernan McGinnis

[1] Annette Gordon-Reed uses the notion of "presentism" to strictly scrutinize the historiography surrounding the Jefferson-Hemings controversy in her book Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. She specifically argues that the lens that many historians use to look at the controversy is warped by their views of our own present time. Gordon-Reed argues that our present time comes with a set of moral standards and preconceived notions that are in no way the same notions or expectations of the early to mid-nineteenth century. She specifically calls out Douglas Wilson's flawed presentism: "If he [Jefferson] did take advantage of Hemings and father her children over a period of twenty years, he was acting completely out of character and violating his own standards of honor and decency. For a man who took questions of morality and honor seriously, such a hypocritical liaison would have been a constant source of shame and guilt. For his close-knit family, who worshipped him and lived too near him to be ignorant of such an arrangement, it would have been a moral tragedy of no small dimensions" (116).

[2] Wilson's assumption that Jefferson would have suffered "a constant source of shame and guilt" is wrong to Gordon-Reed. A person so deeply rooted in the South's peculiar institution at the time would have been completely unaware of the "moral tragedies" that were unfolding in his very own backyard. Gordon-Reed argues that Jefferson's rationalizations, immunity to the shame and guilt, and his ability to have illicit relationships is a by-product of the presentism of the nineteenth century.

[3] According to Gordon-Reed, Wilson's presentism gives him the ability to call Jefferson a hypocrite, since the moral obligations under this form of presentism would give Jefferson conflicting moral ideals. Surely a man of such intellectualism and understanding would be torn between his notion that slavery is an unjust and immoral institution, while at the same time allowing himself to be a slave owner, participant, and therefore proponent of slavery. Gordon-Reed points out Wilson's obvious flaw: "Thomas Jefferson kept slaves primarily because he needed them to help him live the way he wanted to live. He knew very well the moral issues at stake with respect to slavery. As a lifetime participant in that system, he had to make rationalizations every day his life about how he could be a part of it and remain honorable, decent, and moral" (117). (see comment by Kiernan McGinnis)

[4] Wilson's historiography and thus his interpretation of Jefferson's feelings towards the issue would be and are blatantly wrong. Gordon-Reed then suggests that Jefferson would not feel any animosity or hypocritical regard about his affair with Sally Hemings, because during the 1800s it was acceptable for a master to have sexual relations with his slaves. Jefferson was able to rationalize daily his decision to take Sally Hemings as a concubine and thus incapable of feeling the "shame and guilt."

[5] Additionally, Gordon-Reed reaches the conclusion that Jefferson was in fact a dictator in his own regard. She specifically goes on to call him a "despot" for being a man of enlightenment and not following through with his own principles: "Jefferson, for all his understanding of and stated appreciation for democratic institutions, was a despot in his own realm. He may have been a benign despot, but he was a despot nevertheless. Women and children were cherished and indulged, friends were deeply appreciated, but in the final analysis they did not rule; he did" (117).

[6] Here was Jefferson, a man of enlightenment, the author of The Declaration of Independence, and a politician nonetheless creating laws for the people but not following his own laws he set forth. He was thus a hypocrite to his own preached morals. According to Gordon-Reed, Wilson's presentism gives him the ability to call Jefferson a hypocrite, since the moral obligations under this form of presentism would give Jefferson conflicting moral ideals. Surely a man of such intellectualism and understanding would be torn between his notion that slavery is an unjust and immoral institution, and he would know what he was doing with Sally was unjust and immoral. However, since Jefferson was a "despot" as Gordon-Reed cleverly concludes, he would therefore have no such inner conflict and thus suffer absolutely no "shame and guilt." Jefferson did what he wanted, when he wanted to.

[7] Furthermore, Jefferson did not feel any burden regarding his relationships. It is well documented that Jefferson made a promise to his dying wife that he would not ever marry again. Jefferson knew he would never remarry but soon became sexually starved and in need of companionship with another women. Gordon-Reed says historians commonly point to Jefferson's involvement with Maria Cosway and other married women as Jefferson's attempt at a romantic relationship, but one that would not break the promise of his late wife. The historians usually ascertain the notion that Jefferson would not break the bonds of marriage or cuckold a husband, so he turned to the next solutionâ€"carrying out a long romantically-involved relationship with his slave who would not leave his side and who would reside under the same roof. It is only fitting that an intellectual such as Jefferson would choose the ideal solution and therefore maintain his deceased wife's promise. Gordon-Reed argues the presentism gave Jefferson a moral pass on any illicit relationship with a white woman: "To them, the thought of Jefferson perhaps cuckolding one his neighbors and running the great risk of having small Jeffersons living under the roof of an unsuspecting husband is more comforting than the notion that the widowed Thomas Jefferson would have bound himself to the unmarried but inconveniently one-quarter black Sally Hemings. The former transgression would be understandable (and forgivable), the latter not so "(118).

[8] Jefferson would again, by this argument, feel absolutely no "shame and guilt." We even have evidence from John Hartwell Cocke, a representative of the eighteenth century, that Jefferson would feel no remorse from his questionable relationships by today's standards: "In an 1853 entry Cocke complained about what he said was the common practice of unmarried slave owners keeping a slave woman ‘as a substitute for a wife.' "In Virginia," he wrote, "this damnable practice prevails as much as anywhere--probably more--as Mr. Jefferson's example can be pleaded for its defense" (119).

[9] Here is Cocke, a friend and coworker with Jefferson, remaining and continuing to be friends with Jefferson despite the allegations of Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings. By today's presentism, Cocke would be so conflicted with the moral context of the situation that he would most likely not remain friends with Jefferson. This only further clarifies that Jefferson would not be suffering from any "shame and guilt" since his decision to have a relationship with Sally had no adverse consequences.

[10] Annette Gordon-Reed successfully calls out the inaccuracies of the common historiography surrounding Jefferson's particular emotions pertaining to his affair with Sally Hemings. She is correct in using the notion of presentism to accurately decide which frame of reference or lens should be used to scrutinize Jefferson's actions. Under the institution of slavery and the expectations of the 19th century, such actions by Jefferson were justifiable by the people and by Jefferson himself. His intellectualism did not conflict with his morals, which as a result rules out any accusations of Jefferson feeling "a constant source of shame and guilt" (116). The presentism allowed Jefferson to justify having Sally Hemings as a second wife with no adverse reactions and no broken promises to his late wife Martha. However, because Annette Gordon-Reed successfully argues that Jefferson is in fact a "despot," she unknowingly throws out all possibility of any love Jefferson could have had toward Sally Hemings. This is a critical flaw in her argument. Most evidence points to the fact that Jefferson loved her like a second wife and that Sally loved him equally in return. However, Gordon-Reed is unbiased in arguing that having the correct state of presentism affected and disproved many historians' interpretations of the Jefferson-Hemings affair.

Comment

Kiernan McGinnis

I have often wondered if great men are limited by their time or themselves. I went to a school for children of severe social and economic need that was founded by confectionery capitalist Milton Hershey. Nowadays the school serves males and females of any race or creed, but back in 1909 when the school was founded, it specifically only served "poor, orphaned, white boys." We all still hail Hershey as a hero and genuine philanthropist, but was he not also a racist? How can we judge the behaviors of people from the past? The same circumstance applies to Thomas Jefferson. If there was an affair between Jefferson and his slave Sally, there is no way in the confines of our modern morals and values that we can justify such an occurrence. Instead, just as stated in the Bible, "lean not on thine own understanding," and accept the fact that while in modern times slavery is an abomination, during the eighteenth century, abolition was an abomination. If we discredit all of our heroes by their faults, we have no one else left to revere!