| Episodes |
Jefferson the Racist [AGR 133-37]
Jenna Goldenberg
with comment by Jennifer Markham
[1] What we see or hear may not always be true. In order to view and weigh all sides of an argument, we must take a middle-ground between using cynicism and believing everything. Historians have varying opinions on topics that we must analyze carefully. Annette Gordon-Reed examines exhaustively the historiography of the Jefferson-Hemings scandal in her book Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy. The real scandal is not of Jefferson and Sally's affair, she claims, "The real scandal here is the way previous investigations have taken place" (Gallagher podcast). Gordon-Reed feels these investigations are seen through a white perspective and trouble the African community. By exposing the historians' racial interpretations, she shows how the construction of history has led her to discredit these historians. She gives an African American perspective on this controversy by viewing Sally in the context of a human being rather than just a slave who is part of a problem. However, we must test what Gordon-Reed says, similar to how she tested other historians. For instance, in one section of her book she argues against the common belief of historians that Jefferson was racist and therefore would not have had an affair with Sally Hemings (133-37).
[2] Gordon-Reed attacks the historians' defense that Jefferson was "too racist to have touched a black woman." Although Jefferson is seen as a very positive figure in American society, historians believe he had a deeply ingrained negative belief, which was his racism. In his Notes on the State of Virginia he wrote, "amalgamation produces degradation to which no one . . . can innocently consent" (134). This comment by Jefferson may lead one to believe that Jefferson would never have had an affair with Sally. However, Gordon-Reed's strong answer is that Jefferson had a contradictory nature. For instance, she points out that he attacked tyrants in the Declaration of Independence, yet he acted as a tyrant as he kept his slaves in bondage. People's beliefs differ from their behaviors.
[3] First, however, Gordon-Reed questions whether racism trumps sexuality. Historians suggest that a white man's racism would overcome his inclination to engage in sex with a black woman. Gordon-Reed thinks this belief of historians shows a nature of racism that is seriously flawed in the United States: "It should be clear to all by this point in history that what some slave masters said they felt about the idea of sexual relations with black women and what they did were often two different things" (134). Slave masters' actions can be very different than what they say they actually believed in. After all, during this time, it was ingrained in people's minds that blacks were inferior to whites. Furthermore, Gordon- Reed points out that interracial attraction can operate independently from the hatred of race as a whole. While it is true that there had to be some racist white men that would not have sex with black women, these men were most likely in the minority. The majority of men no doubt would instinctively overlook the color of a woman's skin when it comes to their sexual needs. It should also be noted that Jefferson was a widower and his needs may have been intensified even further. Thomas Jefferson's physical attraction to Sally Hemings, leading him to engage in sexual relations with her, may have had no effect on his view of the black race.
[4] Second, there's the specific issue of Jefferson's racism. Jefferson's documented appalling views of blacks have caused some historians to believe that he was too racist to have had an affair with Sally Hemings. Jefferson's writings, especially in the Notes on the State of Virginia, discuss how whites are more physically attractive than blacks and how blacks lack the ability to reason. However, suggests Gordon-Reed, we cannot take everything that Jefferson says to be true. There are two ways of thinking about these Jefferson writings. One is that Jefferson may have felt the need to succumb to the views of the society that he represented. This may have been necessary to maintain his popularity and ascend to the Presidency. A second idea is depicted in the following quote: "Jefferson's extremist comments about blacks were part of his justification to those who might expect better from him for his involvement in a system he knew to be wrong" (135). This rationalization allowed Jefferson to continue the institution of slavery even though an informed public would have expected him to adhere to the ideals that all men are created equal.
[5] "Jefferson greatly feared the idea of living with blacks who were not directly under his control," says Gordon-Reed (136). But he accepted race mixing during slavery while blacks were under his control. He even facilitated the relationship between a slave master, Thomas Bell, and his former slave, Mary Hemings. Thomas Bell and Mary Hemings were lovers and had two children together. Jefferson agreed to sell her and her two children to Bell. This exemplified that Jefferson might not have had the disgust towards miscegenation that historians contend. After emancipation, Gordon-Reed believes that "it is likely that the real horror of horrors that Thomas Jefferson saw if slavery was ended with no deportation was the possibility that white women and black men could do more easily what white men and black women had been doing up until that point" (137). He feared the relationship between a white woman and a black man would occur if there was no racial separation. This goes along with the double standard of society. Jefferson saw it as rightful for him, as a white man, to have sexual relations with a black woman. However, if it was reversed, with a white woman having an affair with a black man, it would be highly condemned.
[6] While history has taken on some dark views of our third President regarding his beliefs of slavery, one must dig even deeper to find the real truth. I believe his relationship with Hemings, his facilitation of the Bell/Hemings relationship, the respect he gave to his slaves, his need for popularity as a politician, and the inability to observe him in an emancipated America, are indicative that Jefferson may not have been racist at all. (see comment by Jennifer Markham)
Comment
Be careful, Jenna: I would not trust Gordon-Reed's arguments so readily. Despite Gordon-Reed's best attempts to maintain her lawyerly, objective treatment of the evidence, it isn't difficult to see that for her the race wound is still very much agape. As she analyzes Jefferson supporters' common claim that the third president of the United States was too racist to have had a relationship with a black woman, her obvious distaste for this line of defense illuminates her frustration with race relations in the United States. For example, she discredits their thinking as "seriously flawed" and slams the theory as "quaint." She specifically notes his harsh judgments about blacks' mental competence and physical appearance, citing them as "horrific," which is undoubtedly true. However, the explicit outlining of his racist beliefs seems almost counterintuitive when she is trying to debunk the historians' theory. Wouldn't allowing readers to see the flagrant prejudice of these remarks sway them closer to the historians' side and make the affair seem even more unlikely than it was before? Even though she goes on to try to provide possible explanations for Jefferson's brutality that would reconcile the existence of an affair, it is still difficult to forget the sting of his words. Is this what she intended? Did she just mention these views for sympathy and to garner support for her anti-Jefferson stance? Throughout history the Jefferson-Hemings controversy has morphed into an issue largely centered on race, and if Gordon-Reed is incapable of looking at that issue with an impartial eye, to me her judgments on the affair are moot.
