CONVERSATIONS ON JEFFERSON AND JEFFERSONIAN POLITICS
Morality at Monticello
From the H-SHEAR, topic: "Hemings-Jefferson: a new approach":Doron Ben-Atar:
More disturbing even than the banal effort of some in the Jefferson industry to absolve him of fathering Sally's kids is the defense of Sally Hemings's sexual virtues. Those who agree to enter into the argument as to how many sexual partners Sally had, share a value-laden assumption with the defenders of TJ: i.e., that female sexual promiscuity is a bad thing.Originally posted on H-SHEAR, April 30, 2001.
Bob Arnebeck:
This debate is taking some interesting turns. Those arguing that Hemings had a monogamous relationship with Jefferson suggest that Monticello was, in that respect at least, an orderly place. Those arguing that Hemings's promiscuity thwarts any attempt to confirm Jefferson's paternity of her children, suggest that Monticello was a disorderly place, a far cry say from John Randolph of Roanoke's plantation where he took stern measures against even overseers who consorted with slave women. So the modern scandal mongers, if you will, in fact shine a kind light on Jefferson. I am reminded of the Quaker merchant Thomas Cope's discussion of Talleyrand's mistress in Philadelphia. He admired the French statesman for always sending mother and child money even long after he had returned to France. The supposed defenders of Jefferson's reputation now take the position that Monticello, a place where Jefferson ruled, was a moral sewer.Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 30, 2001.
Eyler Coates:
Bob Arnebeck wrote: "Those arguing that Hemings had a monogamous relationship with Jefferson suggest that Monticello was, in that respect at least, an orderly place. Those arguing that Hemings's promiscuity thwarts any attempt to confirm Jefferson's paternity of her children, suggest that Monticello was a disorderly place . . . " and adds "So the modern scandal mongers, if you will, in fact shine a kind light on Jefferson." He then concludes, "The supposed defenders of Jefferson's reputation now take the position that Monticello, a place where Jefferson ruled, was a moral sewer."
If Mr. Arnebeck means by "an orderly place" that Monticello was a plantation where all the sexual relationships between blacks and whites were monogamous, then he is apparently quite mistaken. If Sally Hemings were plucked out of the picture, we would still be left with the activities of other slaves on the plantation. It is an acknowledged fact that some of the slaves had children by some of the white workmen who were hired to work on Monticello. Hence, it seems a little unfair to call modern observers "scandal mongers" just because they note these recorded facts, and because they note that there are various pieces of evidence pointing to the belief that Sally Hemings herself had multiple partners.
Perhaps "moral sewer" is a rather harsh term for such activities, and perhaps Jefferson did "rule" at Monticello, though apparently not with an iron fist. When has anyone ever been able to exert a "rule" that prevented illicit sex from happening? Doron Ben-Atar wrote in a previous H-SHEAR posting, "Those who agree to enter into the argument as to how many sexual partners Sally had, share a value-laden assumption with the defenders of TJ: i.e., that female sexual promiscuity is a bad thing." But whether sexual promiscuity is a "bad thing" or not was never a part of the argument by "defenders of TJ," so whence arises this "value-laden assumption" except in the mind of the accusers of TJ? Who, after all, is suggesting that Monticello was a disorderly "moral sewer" if Sally Hemings was promiscuous? All the "defenders" did was consider the evidence that indicates that Sally Hemings had multiple fathers for her children. Why must we sling moral judgments around when we are only trying to make a determination based on the facts that would indicate whether Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson actually had an ongoing affair?
The above posting was submitted to H-SHEAR on June 5, 2001, and was held back
"not because there's anything wrong with it," but then the editor later decided not to post it.George:
It is amazing reading this exchange at the H-SHEAR. Mr. Arnebeck relates Monticello was a "moral sewer" for having sexual activity there, possibly between the overseers and the slave women. It is an inane argument. If Jefferson had a strict policy against such we would more than likely hear Mr. Arnebeck calling Jefferson some form of a dictator and tyrant for suppressing the slave females' sexuality. The fact that Jefferson had roughly 150-200 slaves on such a huge plantation, and was unable to monitor every little detail of life there is hardly surprising. Human beings have always found ways to become intimate in the most unlikely places, and I do not consider a large plantation with the intermixing of slaves and overseers unlikely.
July 4, 2001
From the H-SHEAR, topic: "Hemings-Jefferson: a new approach":
Richard B. Bernstein:
With respect to Bob Arnebeck, the issue (as far as some of us are concerned) is not one of attacking or defending Thomas Jefferson. Those who stand against accepting the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings cast the question in that light.The rhetoric of denial is in and of itself a fascinating subject for inquiry. Those who argue that the relationship did not happen speak of it as a "charge" to be "refuted," and speak of "acquitting" or "convicting" Jefferson. They also speak of it as a "scandal" and of those scholars who accept it as "scandalmongers." They reproach these scholars for seeking to "besmirch" or "diminish" or "assail" or "traduce" Jefferson and/or his historical reputation. Their view of evidence is either "impeaching" or "exculpatory." They charge that those who accept the liaison "put Jefferson on trial."
To be sure, at least some reason for using this rhetoric has to do with the origins of public reporting of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings -- viz., the jeering articles of James Thomson Callender for the RICHMOND RECORDER. As Michael Durey points out in his 1990 biography, WITH THE HAMMER OF TRUTH, Callender published these articles as part of his larger campaign to shock the staid society of Richmond, Virginia; he was unearthing and publishing scandals right and left, with magnificent disdain for the niceties of partisan boundaries and sides. Moreover -- Callender, as Durey reports, himself was sickened and scandalized by the very idea of interracial sex, especially between masters and slaves, and this emotional response shaped his reporting.
With regard to the underlying issue, Bob Arnebeck has a very good point. Those who seek to refute, disprove, deny, dismiss, etc., any idea of a relationship between Jefferson and Hemings have long pointed to the possibility of another person or persons doing things under Jefferson's figurative roof that he would have found dismaying or appalling, based on his views (NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA) of the "most boisterous passions" released by "the commerce between master and slave." In sum, they argue that he did not have control of his own plantation. Maybe he did and maybe he didn't; his meticulous account books and the reports of his overseer and Madison Hemings and Israel Jefferson suggest otherwise -- that indeed he did, save for the ruinous state of his finances.
Prof. Paul Rahe, of the University of Tulsa, the lone dissenting member of the Scholars Commission assembled under the auspices of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, Inc., points out in his dissenting opinion that, whatever the case, bad things were happening at Monticello and Jefferson was either tolerating them or turning a blind eye to them -- which does not reflect well on him.
I conclude by noting one point that those who present themselves as defending Jefferson have yet really to address: The Hemings-Jefferson relationship (whether rumored or factual) highlights one feature of Jefferson's life that most [white] Americans have otherwise found easy to overlook ... that he owned slaves, that he owned them all his life, and that his entire life from beginning to end was based on his being a slave owner. It appears that, if he indeed had a sexual relationship with a woman who was one of his slaves, then his status as a slave owner can no longer be overlooked.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 31, 2001.
Eyler Coates
Richard Bernstein seems to have a problem with certain words in the English language. The words, "attack" and "defend" are perfectly appropriate terms to use when describing what is going on here. Even Bernstein's posting in response to Bob Arnebeck serves as an example. Bernstein does not enlarge upon anything that Arnebeck was discussing; rather he merely uses the occasion to attack Jefferson's so-called "defenders" and the common English words that they use -- a topic Arnebeck did not even broach.
Why are terms like "charge" such a problem? Isn't Jefferson being accused? Aren't such accusations properly called "charges"? Wasn't Callender a scandalmonger? Does anyone assert that he was a great journalist, and we should take seriously everything he said? If someone is accused of something which he and his family and friends deny, isn't defending that person a perfectly suitable description for what his friends do? One is left with the impression that Bernstein is scouring his arsenal for some kind of semantical club with which to pursue his attacks. He seems to think that by piling up a list of synonyms -- "refute, disprove, deny, dismiss" -- he will secure some kind of rhetorical advantage with wordy ridicule.
Is this a desperate grasping after straws in an attempt to find something about Jefferson and his supporters to ridicule, something ambiguous "which does not reflect well on him [Jefferson]"? Bernstein's assertion that Jefferson's defenders have overlooked the fact that Jefferson owned slaves and that "if he indeed had a sexual relationship with a woman who was one of his slaves, then his status as a slave owner can no longer be overlooked," is ludicrous. Who of his "defenders" has failed to notice that Sally Hemings was a slave? Such inane, empty comments only throw into bold relief the fact that Jefferson's accusers will grasp for any kind of accusations in order to attack him.
August 6, 2001