| Episodes |
Gordon-Reed's take on Presentism [AGR 114-16]
Nelson Calero
with comment by Casey Hollawell
[1] One question has always lingered through the minds of those who have studied the Jefferson-Hemings controversy: did Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings truly love each other? Fawn Brodie seems to think so; she embraced Jefferson's relationship with Hemings and defended her factually-supported assumption that Jefferson genuinely loved her. Douglas Wilson, a Jefferson defender, disagrees with Brodie's assumption. Wilson accuses Brodie of presentism, which is making a historical analysis based on present-day ideas and possibly distorting interpretations of the past. Annette Gordon-Reed disagrees with Wilson, posing the question, "Is Brodie's inference unreasonable and can it be considered presentism?"
[2] One point Gordon-Reed brings up is Jefferson's promise to free Sally. Gordon-Reed's argument here is split into three parts: the amount of time passed, the Callender attacks, and the promise being kept. Jefferson promised Sally her freedom upon his death almost forty years before he passed. Keeping this sort of a promise after such a long period of time, Gordon-Reed reckons, was a bit odd. If Jefferson truly had no feelings for his slave, why would he keep such a promise? The Callender attacks that the relationship had to face during the forty-year time period only heightened the suspicion that Jefferson cared for Sally Hemings. Gordon-Reed writes: "The fact that it [the alleged promise] was carried out and done so under circumstances that could cause great distress to people whom Jefferson loved, all might lead at any point in history to an inference that the man in question cared about the feelings of the woman to whom he had made the promise" (115).
[3] Jefferson, "the family man," would not risk his family or friends thinking any less of him if he did not feel the ends justified the means. So why take that risk? Gordon-Reed sees the worthwhile risk is in the name of love. Are the rules of love considered presentism? Gordon-Reed merely sees this as a natural attachment that transcends any social rules of a time period. This is one of Gordon-Reed's strongest arguments in the section, as the inferences she makes can indeed be deemed reasonable and strictly takes into account the historical facts that drive her assumptions. Who says Thomas Jefferson was a saint? Does the biased opinion of family and friends necessarily make these assumptions on Jefferson's character true?
[4] Gordon-Reed further supports Brodie's original inferences of love by taking into account Jefferson's character. Jefferson has always been placed on a pedestal when spoken about by family, friends, and historians. Gordon-Reed defends Jefferson in the following passage: "A historian in any era who believed a subject to have been extremely sensitive, disinclined to engage in open conflict, inclined to make deep and lasting attachments, and fearful of rejection might infer that such a man would not have been in a thirty-eight-year relationship with a woman unless she welcomed him . . . he would also be too thin-skinned to take the humiliation of continually presenting himself for body-to-body contact when he knew he was not wanted . . . other loved ones might be hostile, since their disapproval would have given him additional excuse to exit the relationship" (115).
[5] Gordon-Reed claims that Jefferson, the compassionate and kind slave owner, would never force himself upon a slave. If Jefferson felt he was unwanted by Sally Hemings in any way, he would have backed off immediately because of his kindness and sensitivity to the feelings of another human. Again, Gordon-Reed points out that Brodie's inferences are not a form of presentism, because Jefferson is merely a subject who "is extremely sensitive, disinclined to engage in open conflict, inclined to make deep and lasting attachments, and fearful of rejection" (115). But does Gordon-Reed have a strong point with her claims? Gordon-Reed simply presents a generalization of Jefferson's character without much to back it up. She speaks of Jefferson's sensitive and warm nature without giving specific examples or taking into account the accusations Jefferson's enemies make about him. Jefferson was indeed a white slave owner through and through. Without much evidence to back her claims, her argument seems weak.
[6] The last point Gordon-Reed makes is the fact that Sally Hemings never conceived a child while Jefferson was away for an extended period of time. Sally Hemings has always been described as a beautiful woman by those who have encountered her. A woman of that caliber of beauty could have easily been involved with other men. Sally Hemings, however, didn't conceive any children while Jefferson was not at Monticello. With this in mind, Gordon-Reed suggests that the feelings that must have existed between the two does not engage in presentism, as this love can exist in any age. But do Jefferson's long absences from Monticello suggest "monogamy on her part" (115)? Children cannot be considered a visible sign of love. Must children be produced through every sexual encounter? Gordon-Reed also fails to touch neither Sally's character nor whether or not she loved Jefferson. Her point feels a bit weak and incomplete, and there is more to be said about this specific topic.
[7] Gordon-Reed draws out very interesting and convincing inferences from historical fact. But, like Callender, Gordon-Reed has an agenda of her own. She obviously strongly feels that the relationship did indeed happen and wants to present a case that seems flawless in all aspects. (see comment by Casey Hollawell) Although she does succeed in making strong arguments, some of her arguments contain holes in them that cannot be overlooked. In the smaller scheme of things, however, she does successfully disprove Wilson and supports Brodie. Brodie's claims do not engage in presentism.
Comment
Nelson, the only problem I see within your piece is the assertion that "Gordon-Reed has an agenda of her own." Gordon-Reed examines several points in which "Brodie's inferences may not have been correct," which she would not have done if she were more concerned with fact than disproving Wilson's assertion that Brodie's inferences were derived from presentism. Gordon-Reed clearly poses the main question within her essay, "One must ask whether Brodie's inferences would be unique to the time in which they were drawn." Then clearly answers, "They would not be." One such instance we see Gordon-Reed examine is when describing the situation of Jefferson freeing all of Sally Hemings's children. She suggests that because Jefferson freed Sally's children, that it can be inferred, "in any age," that he must have cared for them in a particular way. She then explains that "It may be an incorrect inference . . . but it is, in fact, an inference that draws upon sensibilities that would exist in any era." Here Gordon-Reed proves to us that she is ill-concerned with the facts regarding the scandal and rather mainly concerned with the fact that many of the inferences drawn from such facts could, unlike Wilson's assertion, exist in any era, not just that of Jefferson and Hemings. So to say that Gordon-Reed possesses an agenda seems rather false in many instances throughout her piece.
