The Jefferson - Hemings ControversyHistory on trial Main Page

AboutTime LineEpisodesJefferson on Race & SlaveryResources
Episodes
>
>
>

Gordon-Reed on Jefferson the Gentleman and the Problem of Miscegenation [AGR 108-11]

Keiko Akamine

[1] Annette Gordon-Reed's attempts to disprove the claim that "Jefferson the Gentlemen" would never have an affair with a slave by dissecting various aspects of the opposing argument and arguing them from an alternative point of view (108-11). Gordon-Reed presents a logical, yet slightly biased, analysis of the claims made by Jefferson's defenders. She explains the intentions of historians who perpetuate the idea of Jefferson as a rapist and poses questions and unconventional scenarios that voice her understanding from the viewpoint of an African American woman.

[2] Jefferson's supporters argue that "Jefferson's status as a gentleman would have precluded a liaison of this nature" (108). Historians who support this belief contend that there is no way that Thomas Jefferson would ever "overreach" himself in such a way, since "engaging in a sexual relationship with a slave was an abuse of power by the master." Jefferson was not an abusive person, so a sexual liaison with a slave would be out of the question.

[3] Gordon-Reed counters this argument by finding the weaknesses in its implications. The argument of "Jefferson the Gentlemen" centers on the idea that if we were to agree that an affair with a slave would have been beneath Jefferson's gentlemanly morals, this claim would also extend to other slave-holding, Southern gentlemen. This would mean that all gentlemen would have been able to "maintain a clear demarcation between the types of exploitation" that is involved in slavery. Since slaveholders regularly do things like force their slaves to work from sunrise to sundown and sell their children, husbands, and wives, Gordon-Reed points out that an affair between a master and a slave would not seem too far-fetched.

[4] In specific regard to Jefferson, Gordon-Reed also points out many facts that are purposely overlooked by his supporters. For example, she highlights the contradictions in Jefferson's views on slavery in order to convince the reader that they were not as clear as some historians portray them to be. Gordon-Reed argues that, on one hand, "Jefferson wrote that slavery was an abomination. On the other hand, he seldom freed slaves. On the one hand, he argued that slaves could not be freed because they were like children. On the other hand, he saw to it that many slaves on his plantation became skilled craftsmen . . . . the truth is that Thomas Jefferson can be cited to support almost any position on slavery and the race question that could exist" (108-9).

[5] Gordon-Reed also addresses the claim that the Jefferson-Hemings relationship was nothing more than rape. She explains that historians purposely create a scenario "so heinous that it could only have been carried out by a depraved individual" (109). The Jefferson-Hemings affair is portrayed more along the lines of rape and child molestation than a consensual relationship. Gordon-Reed claims that historians do this in order to "make any conception of Jefferson's actions so bad that no one would, or would want to, believe that it could be true" (109). Gordon-Reed makes an interesting point in the rhetorical questions she poses. She asks if it can be believable that over the entire course of slavery that existed in the United States, there could have never been a mutual sexual or emotional relationship between master and slave. When framed this way, the rape scenario seems highly unlikely.

[6] Lastly, Gordon-Reed deals with the idea of powerlessness as conceived by both whites and blacks. It is obvious that many whites liked the idea of a powerless black race, but Gordon-Reed puts the reader in the shoes of the black population who condoned this powerlessness in order to "make the slave system worse" (110). She explains, "saying that there were instances where blacks had room to maneuver can be taken as an attempt to minimize the horror of the slave system" (110). By perpetuating this idea of total powerlessness, blacks are able to evoke white guilt to some extent. Although it makes sense, this explanation is unconventional and seems to be saying, "you could only understand if you were black as well."

[7] Though Annette Gordon-Reed presents a logical counter-argument to the claims of Jefferson's supporters, she uses her insight as an African American woman to do so. It is clear that she is not writing from a neutral standpoint but rather as a supporter of the possibility Jefferson and Hemings shared a mutual relationship. Nevertheless, her argument is presented in a rational and believable manner.