| Episodes |
The Scholars Respond to Gordon-Reed
Katie Prosswimmer
[1] Annette Gordon-Reed's Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy was a revolutionary book that caused a complete reevaluation of the history of Jeffersonian scholarship. In her preface, Gordon-Reed discusses the implications of past historians' declarations that the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings was impossible: "In order to sustain the claim of impossibility, or even to discuss the matter in those terms, one has to make Thomas Jefferson so high as to have been something more than human and one has to make Sally Hemings so low as to have been something less than human. It is the latter part of the equation that has prompted me to write this book" (xviii). Fueled by this motivation, Gordon-Reed produced a power-house book that brought to light the racism and bias that previously directed the course of Jeffersonian scholarship by applying hard logic to the most prevalent pieces of evidence in the controversy. Because of its revolutionary approach to the controversy, Gordon-Reed's book was met with an onslaught of responses. After an intensive cross-analysis between many of the reviews, it became evident that several topics came to the forefront of discussion, all of which had positive and negative reactions. Of these seven or eight topics, four seemed to have the most significance: the Madison Hemings memoir, Gordon-Reed's status as a lawyer, Sally Hemings's history, and the Carr Defense. By looking closely at the negative approaches to these topics, it becomes evident that Gordon-Reed's dissenters' arguments are weak and insupportable, rendering almost all of the opposition against her findings as ineffective.
Madison Hemings's Memoir
[2] One of the most consistently prominent topics discussed in reviews of Gordon-Reed's book is the evidence of Madison Hemings's memoir. This testimony submitted by Sally Hemings's son to the Pike County [Ohio] Republican on March 12, 1873, included Madison's claim that he was told by his mother that Thomas Jefferson was his father. Her discussion of this piece of evidence is the most highly praised section of her book and is used as an example of Gordon-Reed's strong persuasive skills. Martha Hodes describes the strength of this section, saying, "Gordon-Reed's analysis of Hemings's memoir and its treatment by biographers stands on its own, a forceful essay on racism and the credibility of various voices in the enterprise of historical interpretation." While not all other reviewers make assertions this definitive, there are several instances in which Gordon-Reed's Madison Hemings memoir section is featured. Both Jewel L. Spangler and Winthrop D. Jordan summarize Gordon-Reed's arguments on this topic and use it as a featured example of some of her most compelling work. Because this section is so strong, however, it is also targeted by negative critics in an attempt to undermine the effectiveness of Gordon-Reed's work. Among these critics are Robert A. Rutland, who attempts to discredit Gordon-Reed's work through a comparison to Joseph Ellis's writings, and Douglas R. Egerton, who tries to discredit Gordon-Reed by presenting her sources as inadequate and strategically misrepresentative.
[3] Comparing the work of Gordon-Reed and Ellis, Rutland focuses specifically on Gordon-Reed's discussion of the Hemings memoir in an attempt to discredit her work. Rutland begins by introducing her as motivated by "vengeance" in comparison to Ellis's "spirit of inquiry" (1051). He also accuses Gordon-Reed of treating past Jefferson scholars in a way that "borders on contempt," while Ellis describes them as "resembling a hero-worship school of history," a scholarly assertion that establishes Ellis as a reputable academic (1051-52). By providing specific examples of Ellis's seemingly mature and scholarly approach and simply belittling Gordon-Reed by calling her vengeful and contemptuous with no physical support for these claims, it becomes obvious that Rutland is focused on discrediting Gordon-Reed's work.
[4] After setting the precedent that Gordon-Reed is petty and vindictive, Rutland continuously pokes jabs at Gordon-Reed's investigation of the Hemings memoir. He asks, "is there really a need for more flaying of a dead horse? In short, if Jefferson did have a slave mistress and his freeing of certain slaves and not others is proof of this indiscretion, should Jefferson be consigned to a historical dustbin alongside Franklin Pierce and James Buchanan?" (1052) This implies two things: first, that Gordon-Reed's aim is to defame Jefferson by proving he had a relationship with one of his slaves, and, second, that Gordon-Reed harps on the refusal of Jefferson scholars to accept Hemings's memoir as legitimate evidence. In the first claim, Rutland is completely off base. Gordon-Reed says, "The horror is not at the thought of the defilement of Sally Hemings, but at the thought of Thomas Jefferson defiling himself by lying with Sally Hemings" (113). Gordon-Reed explores the idea that past historians have refuted the claim that Hemings and Jefferson had a relationship, often in an attempt to protect and uphold his reputation. She is thoroughly disgusted with the fact that the focus is on Jefferson lowering himself by sleeping with a slave rather than the potential rape of a woman stripped of her humanity. This demonstrates Rutland's misinterpretation of the focus of Gordon-Reed's book and the incorrect way in which he presents it in his review.
[5] Secondly, Rutland portrays Gordon-Reed as refusing to let the Madison Hemings issue go. He says, "Madison Hemings's recollections after such a long period might be termed tertiary evidence in a court of law, but in the swirling controversy, an 1873 newspaper article has taken an evergreen quality" (1052). Rutland belittles the importance of the testimony, portraying Gordon-Reed as desperately holding on to a small, insubstantial piece of evidence. He later comes back for a fourth time to the Hemings memoir and says, "She wants the jury, still out, to find that Madison Hemings was ‘unfairly attacked' for saying what he believed to be true" (1052). By failing to present or fairly represent any of Gordon-Reed's arguments, Rutland effectively misrepresents Gordon-Reed's book and comes out looking petty himself. His unfailingly positive representations of Ellis's work juxtaposed with Gordon-Reed's negative representations suggest a relationship between the two. It can be inferred that, in an attempt to elevate Ellis, Rutland focuses on lowering the status of the one writer who caused the complete reevaluation of the history of Jeffersonian scholarship, specifically of the historians who were typically on the same side as Ellis. If Gordon-Reed could cast a shadow of doubt on the work of Douglass Adair, Dumas Malone, and Virginius Dabney, she could most likely cause some of Ellis's arguments to be questioned. By trying to undercut the effect Gordon-Reed's work had on the historical community, Rutland attempts to eliminate Ellis's competition, resulting in a shaky, insupportable argument against Gordon-Reed's book.
[6] Similar to Rutland, Douglas R. Egerton focuses on critiquing Gordon-Reed's section about Madison Hemings, but while Rutland works to discredit Gordon-Reed in order to elevate Ellis, Egerton attempts to portray Gordon-Reed as incompetent based upon the misrepresentative selections of sources she chooses to feature when exploring the Hemings's memoir. Egerton begins by assessing Gordon-Reed's use of sources, saying, "Gordon-Reed, however, often goes after easy prey when examples of weak analysis accord with her view that Madison Hemings was telling the truth but ignores poor scholarship when it does not" (349).
[7] Egerton's main evidence for this claim involves a focus on two works: Willard Sterne Randall's Thomas Jefferson (1993) and Fawn Brodie's Thomas Jefferson (1974). According to Egerton, Gordon-Reed focuses on Randall, despite his alleged lack of respect from the rest of the historian community, simply for the fact that he provides "weak analysis" and is "easy prey" in terms of the Madison Hemings evidence. Egerton fails to investigate the issue any further and merely relies on the strength of his pronouncement to support this claim, when, in reality, a review of the section in which Gordon-Reed addresses Randall's work demonstrates a blatant misrepresentation by Egerton. Gordon-Reed says, "Although Randall did not write extensively about the Sally Hemings story, what he wrote deserves comment, for his work is a telling example of what can happen when the desire to control the public's thinking about this controversy outstrips the desire to render a fair assessment and recounting of the facts" (48). Here, Gordon-Reed clearly acknowledges the fact that Randall is not an expert on the topic and aims to use him as an example of "what can happen when the desire to control the public's thinking" overrides the desire to fairly represent historical evidence. This is a representation of Gordon-Reed's efforts to reveal the bias of the past work of Jeffersonian scholars, which is essentially her thesis. Egerton's failure to recognize this demonstrates his inability to grasp the larger implications of Gordon-Reed's work.
[8] This failure is further exemplified through Egerton's assertion that "Fawn Brodie, a generalist who knew very little about the post-Revolutionary South, is treated as a leading authority" (349). This claim is negated even within the confines of Gordon-Reed's introduction. Early in her book Gordon-Reed discusses the failures of Brodie's style: "Unfortunately, Brodie also handed her detractors a club with which to beat her about the head and shoulders by employing Freudian symbolism to support her claims" (4). Gordon-Reed clearly acknowledges that much of Brodie's efforts resulted in a low opinion of her in the historical community and is critical of Brodie's "psychobiography" methods herself. But Gordon-Reed goes on to say that "a great deal of what Brodie cited as evidence has been neither refuted nor effectively analyzed" (4). Here Gordon-Reed aims to point to the positive contributions Brodie introduced in light of her less believable claims that set the standard for rejection of her evidence among the historical community. Among this evidence that has gone ignored is the Hemings memoir, which Gordon-Reed commends Brodie for re-introducing into the discussion of the controversy. Egerton exemplifies that which Gordon-Reed is trying to prove: his blatant misrepresentation of Gordon-Reed's work demonstrates his dedication to influencing the public's opinion rather than fairly evaluating the evidence presented to him in pursuit of the truth. It seems that he chooses the Madison Hemings section to discredit because of its obvious effectiveness, as demonstrated through the opinions of most other reviewers. Because of this, Egerton's critique is rendered almost completely ineffectual.
Annette Gordon-Reed as Lawyer
[9] Many reviews feature Gordon-Reed's educational accomplishments. Her status as a lawyer whose work on Jefferson is primarily historical, though she has no credentials as a professional historian, is the source of many discussions. For the majority of reviewers, Gordon-Reed's training is a positive thing. Hodes, for instance, commends Gordon-Reed for her original approach: "First and foremost, this is a book about the craft of history, and to prove the Hemings-Jefferson liaison false at some later date would not discredit the arguments in these pages" (510). Similarly, Kathleen Brown says that "Most of the flaws in Gordon-Reed's study are tiny and do not weaken her argument. She is not well versed in the wide array of historical literature on slavery and family life in eighteenth-century Virginia, although, ironically, this may be why she is capable of such analytical independence" (901). As Brown says, Gordon-Reed's law background gives her the ability to evaluate the evidence in the case with cold logic, objectively weighing the possibilities of the resulting implications.
[10] For a few commentators, however, Gordon-Reed's lack of historical background is a definite detriment to her credibility. Egerton leads the criticism again, asserting that, "although she has clearly mastered the evidence regarding a possible Jefferson-Hemings liaison -- perhaps better than anyone who has written on the issue -- she appears to know very little about slave law or perceptions of race in the early republic" (349). Egerton goes on to provide examples of her ignorance, almost all of which are consistently based on incorrect assumptions and his failure to grasp Gordon-Reed's focus on investigating the way in which historical investigation was carried out in the past. He displays his own ignorance on the subject, in fact, by attempting to highlight Gordon-Reed's ignorance of slave laws. Egerton criticizes Gordon-Reed's assertion that by slave law, all of Hemings's children were white, citing, "Had Gordon-Reed read Jefferson's entire letter to Francis Grey, in which he discussed the difference between Virginia statue and his own biologically-based interpretation of race (instead of citing a fragment quoted in a recent article) she would have known that children of slave women were slaves, regardless of the number of white male ancestors" (349).
[11] Egerton implies here that in order to be a slave, one had to be considered black. He completely misses the point of Gordon-Reed's discussion. She is not attempting to say that the Hemings children were not slaves, an idea she is obviously aware of based on the existence of an entire section in her book dedicated to discussing the implications of their freedom in the will of Thomas Jefferson. Gordon-Reed discusses the implications of Jefferson's children, who were legally considered white by state law, being imprisoned within the confines of slavery (53), and Egerton himself later discusses the specifics of the law: "Only octoroons had been purged of African blood; to employ Jefferson's terminology, Sally was but a ‘quarteroon,' and therefore, still black" (350). Here Egerton effectively discredits his previous point. He proves that the Hemings children, all of which are "octoroons," are considered to be white, the point for which he just criticized Gordon-Reed. This profession of state law is presented in conjunction with the intent of disproving another of Gordon-Reed's statements, specifically referencing Sally's complexion. Egerton references Gordon-Reed's discussion about that idea that Sally's extremely light complexion may have made it possible for Jefferson to separate his racial biases from his feelings about Sally (Gordon-Reed 134-35). He tries to discredit this idea by saying, "for Jefferson race was based not upon appearance, but upon the percentage of ‘pure negro blood' that one carried" (Egerton 350).
[12] Here Egerton falls victim to his own criticism by failing to reference pertinent historical documents that are directly related to this point. Jefferson's Notes on the State of Virginia has an entire section dedicated to describing the physiological differences that separated the African American race from the Caucasian race. Egerton goes on to assert that Jefferson "regarded [Hemings] as physiologically African" (350). However, according to his writings in Notes on the State of Virginia , Hemings didn't fit any of the physiological characteristics that Jefferson believed marked African Americans as a separate race. By failing to acknowledge this work, Egerton undermines his own argument, effectively strengthening Gordon-Reed's legitimacy. This ultimately eliminates any credible criticism against Gordon-Reed's lack of formal historical background.
Sally's History
[13] As she says in her preface, Gordon-Reed was motivated to investigate the controversy because of Sally Hemings's story. While there are few acknowledgements of the significance of Gordon-Reed's work in terms of humanizing Hemings, there are many indirect references that discuss Gordon-Reed's attention to her. Robert J. Allison's review is possibly the only work that acknowledges the progress Gordon-Reed made in the pursuit of exploring Heming's story: "Gordon-Reed's accomplishment is to shift the focus of inquiry from the Jefferson family to the Hemings family. Her chapters on Madison Hemings and Sally Hemings present each character as an individual with a life worth studying regardless of the reputed father and lover" (307). While many of Gordon-Reed's accomplishments are acknowledged in other reviews, few besides Allison truly give credence to Gordon-Reed's success at bringing the Hemings family to the forefront of the controversy and making their story important.
[14] Some critics, however, do give small mention to Hemings's story. Brown, for example, says that "[Gordon-Reed] offers a portrait of Hemings, in which she notes her beauty, the atypicality of her slave experience, and the opportunity for Jefferson to have fathered five of her six known children" (901), but Hemings doesn't get more than a small summary in her section on Gordon-Reed's book. The significance of her portrayal is completely ignored. As another example, Hodes says, "documentation of sex is almost always a casualty in the pruning of family papers. Yet even genetic proof of Jefferson's paternity could reveal nothing about the nature of a liaison with Sally Hemings, and for that matter even a descriptive document in Jefferson's own hand could not speak for Sally Hemings or for her children" (515). Here Hodes acknowledges there is some significance to the loss of the Hemings family's story, but she does not see Gordon-Reed's chapter on Hemings as a step forward towards justification. One review even criticized Gordon-Reed for "speculation." Spangler says that "Gordon-Reed often attempts to second-guess the motives and feelings of men and women long dead, when it might have been wiser to avoid insupportable conjecture in favor of her stronger suit, the lawyerly marshaling of hard evidence" (477). While Gordon-Reed did criticize previous Jeffersonian scholars for guessing about similar things, there is almost no documentation on Sally Hemings and very little about the rest of their family. In a situation with little to no evidence, the only thing left to do when exploring possibilities is form conjectures that may not be fully supported. However, Gordon-Reed's goal is not to prove anything but to simply analyze and investigate all aspects of the controversy fairly and objectively, including exploring the life of Sally Hemings.
The Carr Defense
[15] Much like Gordon-Reed's evaluation of the Madison Hemings memoir, her evaluation of the defense that one of the Carr brothers fathered Hemings's children was a commonly referenced point of discussion in many of the book reviews. Most of them are supplied as an example of Gordon-Reed's effective arguments, like in Brown's review: "In the final blow to the theory about the Carr nephews' paternity, Gordon-Reed points out the ludicrousness of believing that the Carr men, who lived near Monticello, were only fertile when Jefferson was at home" (901). In almost all of the reviews, this piece of evidence goes uncontested. However, one review raises flaws in Gordon-Reed's logic. Winthrop Jordan says, "Gordon-Reed does not consider the possibility that the excited joy and power of Jefferson's presence at Monticello might possibly have changed usual sleeping or scheduling arrangements in such a way as to leave Sally Hemings more available or more vulnerable for sexual intimacy with others" (318). Of all the criticisms directed at Gordon-Reed's book, this seems to be one of the few legitimate, believable critiques. By using the same strain of logic Gordon-Reed uses to show a flaw in her argument, it is easier to understand the critique in terms of the book. Also, by providing a specific example instead of simply saying the logic is flawed, an approach employed by many other critics, Jordan strengthens his argument and makes it clear and accessible to the reader.
Conclusion
[16] Through the exploration of the most common topics discussed in the reviews of Gordon-Reed's book, several things come to light. The first is that Gordon-Reed succeeded in reassessing one of the most popular American controversies through her pointed logical approach acquired through her training in law. The second is that, while there were many dissenting voices, much of the criticism Gordon-Reed received was misinformed, misrepresentative, and academically ineffectual. The third is that Gordon-Reed's goal of bringing to light the importance of the Hemings family as real people with significant stories was largely overlooked, though it was one of Gordon-Reed's major goals. Gordon-Reed continues to pursue this goal in the publication of her second book on this topic, The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family (2008). Regardless, it is plainly evident that Gordon-Reed succeeded in catching the attention of the historical world and significantly affected the approach to Jeffersonian scholarship.
