| Episodes |
Ulterior Motives Abound [AGR 93-96]
Thomas Potenza
[1] In Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, Annette Gordon-Reed seeks to substantiate the relationship between Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. She approaches the matter with the mindset of a lawyer. Instead of making personal conclusions, she objectively looks at existing arguments and theories and discredits or reevaluates their validity. In "Motivations All Around" (93-94), she raises suspicion regarding Jefferson's most vehement defenders, his family, and how they benefitted from the non-existence of the controversy. In "Slave Narratives and Slave Masters" (94-96), she draws attention to the disparity in credence offered to slave and slave owner narratives.
[2] To begin here, Gordon-Reed discredits the very people who defend Jefferson. She vehemently argues that each friend or relative of Jefferson who came to his defense "had reasons for putting forth their version of the story that are as great, if not greater, than those of Madison Hemings or S.F. Wetmore" (93). The primary subjects of her initial attack are Jefferson's own grandchildren, namely Thomas Jefferson Randolph and Elizabeth Randolph Coolidge. Prior to Jefferson's death, his extravagant spending has caused him to fall deeply into debt. Upon his death, very little of his once vast fortune was left for his grandchildren to inherit. His name and reputation, however, was a substantial legacy to them in its own right. "To the extent that the stories might tarnish that reputation," Gordon-Reed argues, "one can understand why they may have been willing to do or say anything to prevent that outcome (94).
[3] Gordon-Reed shows how every argument defending Jefferson offers different reasons for his innocence, many of which contradict each other:
In one of their versions, Peter Carr is the father of the Hemings children. In another, Samuel Carr is the father. In one recounting, Samuel and Peter break down and cry when considering the subject. In another version, Peter Carr laughs about the situation. To one person Randolph said that he was alone when he confronted the brothers and they confessed. To another person, Randolph said that he and a companion overheard one of the brothers admit responsibility. (94)
The contradictory nature of so many of the retellings of the scandal casts doubt on the validity of each of them. Even if the Randolphs are not thought to be intentionally lying, these contradictions do effectively reinforce that "neither T.J. Randolph nor Ellen Coolidge knew who fathered Sally Hemings children" (94). If between their stories the grandchildren are unable to specify whether Peter or Samuel Carr fathered Sally's children, then with what validity can Thomas Jefferson be eliminated from the potential fathers?
[4] Second, Gordon-Reed turns her attention to the validity of oral tradition, one of the primary resources in discovering the history surrounding the controversy. In particular, she addresses the popular bias toward oral tradition passed down by slave owners over that of slaves themselves. She argues:
Why should the words of T.J. Randolph and Ellen Coolidge, despite their motivations to tell the stories they told and despite the serious flaws and ambiguities in their accounts, be given such credence and Madison Hemings's statement be dismissed out of hand? The answer brings us back to the problem of stereotypes in historical writings. (94)
Her criticism now has moved from those involved in the controversy to the historians themselves. Why are the narratives of slaves denied credence that is afforded to slave-owners? Allegedly, this is because of "characteristics of the person giving the statement -- the person is old, uneducated, and has a motivation to stretch the truth," but Gordon Reed argues that the lowered status of slaves is responsible (95).
[5] The subject of racial prejudice unfortunately haunts these narratives, as a much greater level of scrutiny is invested in these slave narratives than in the narratives of slave-owners. "If slave narratives are problematic because they offer the opportunity for error, family histories are equally problematic," Gordon-Reed argues (96). If there is concern that slaves will alter their recounting of the story to suit their needs, then an equal concern must be shown for the validity of their white owners' accounts. As Gordon-Reed asserts, "It is not unheard-of for members of a family to conceal information or to lie in order to protect other family members -- for their own sake, or for the sake of the family's image" (96). And especially in the case of Jefferson's grandchildren, as his legacy was all they inherited from him, it seems reasonable that they would seek to defend it.
[6] From the suspicious ulterior motives of close Jefferson descendants to the prejudices surrounding the race and status of narratives, Gordon-Reed thoroughly explores numerous issues with Jefferson's defense. In these passages in particular, she raises a very real concern regarding bias in the scandal: why should the word of a slave-owner be trusted more than that of his slave, when he too has sufficient motivation to alter the truth? Gordon-Reed concludes that, in a situation where everyone involved benefits from furthering his or her own opinion, each side will bend the truth to suit its arguments. Consequently, she viciously attacks Jefferson defenders for criticizing slave narratives for this very bias, while ignoring its presence whenever a slave-owner offers it or whenever it benefits Jefferson's image. Ultimately, Annette Gordon-Reed effectively argues throughout this excerpt about the presence of significant bias and disinformation surrounding the controversy. While she does not directly argue in support of the relationship, she criticizes and discredits the opposing arguments on numerous accounts, indirectly furthering her stance.
