| Episodes |
Fatherly Love [AGR 127-33]
Kevin Campbell
with comment by Raphael Khallouqi
[1] Most of us bear at least a few fond memories of our fathers. We generally tend to believe that we were loved and cared after by them, but many that have been raised with a father figure notice that their fathers are not perfect people. The argument that the Jefferson defenders try to make is that it would be impossible for Jefferson to have had a relationship with Sally Hemings since he loved his children and grandchildren too much. Annette Gordon-Reed goes right out in the "The Father and the Grandfather" (127-33) section of her book and tags this notion as a result of value judgment, claiming that "a person making this assertion is revealing his or her own values more than Thomas Jefferson's" (127). In this section Gordon-Reed will debunk the character defense of Jefferson by pointing out all the flaws in believing that loving one's children while having "such involvement" with Sally Hemings to be impossible for a man of Jefferson's standing.
[2] First and most importantly, Gordon-Reed tears Jefferson down in a way. She asks the reader: "Are we to consider Jefferson's capacity to love as greater than what we would expect from an average person just because he had the ability to express his love through his many elegantly written letters to his family?" (127) Gordon-Reed calls out not only the defenders of Jefferson but everybody and makes them realize that although we have renowned Jefferson so much as Americans, "there is no reason to believe that his genius made the character, depth, and nature of his love for his family any greater than those of a person of more modest capabilities" (127-28). It is common knowledge that slave masters often took black mistresses. Jefferson, although a great man who did great things, is not so far beyond the average human that he would be beyond their normal emotions and desires. Since such acts were widespread in those times; it would not have been abnormal for Jefferson to have had a slave mistress. There are no complications of his love for his family. Gordon-Reed makes it quite clear that it was entirely possible for a man to love his family and have a mistress on the side. She takes Jefferson down to eye level here and makes the judgment of Jefferson take place on a level playing field, where everyone is equal and Jefferson is in full light.
[3] An important argument that Gordon-Reed makes is about the family's reception of Jefferson's behavior. She says we cannot "assume that his family's love for him was so shallow that it could only have been sustained if he remained a picture of perfection in their eyes" (128). The proposal to the contrary, taken up by many Jefferson defenders, or the thought that Jefferson loved his family too much (as both go hand in hand as far as preposterousness is concerned), is a very distressing thought. The defenders make claims to miscegenation being an aberration, out of the norm, and something that is looked down on. Gordon-Reed connects the dots in the defender's arguments and comes to this conclusion: "If it is true that only masters who did not love their families engaged in sex with slaves, then sex with slaves must have been rare, since most people believe (or want to believe) that most men love their children and grandchildren" (128). She then goes on to state a well known fact of slavery: miscegenation was both prevalent and inevitable. It was hidden from view most of the time, and it might merit a slight embarrassment, but it was not a rarity in those days. Besides, Jefferson's family had a history of its own in the who-slept-with-what-slave area.
[4] It's accepted historical fact that Jefferson's father-in-law, John Wayles, had six children with a slave mistress -- one being Sally Hemings herself. Martha, John Wayles' daughter and Jefferson's wife, was Sally's half-sister. Jefferson's wife grew up in a house full of mulattoes and on her death bed actually gave Sally a present. Jefferson defenders suggest that Martha did not know that Sally was actually her half-sister, but that seems unlikely: "Thomas Jefferson could know of the Wayles and Hemings connection. The slaves on the plantation could know, Thomas Turner, the Virginian who wrote of the Hemings matter in 1805, could know. But not Martha Wayles, the person who lived in a household with John Wayles and Elizabeth Hemings and would have had the most interest in the matter" (129). Gordon-Reed shows how ridiculous the thought of Martha not knowing was and in doing so shows that the family, if not necessarily encouraging it, did not hate Jefferson or withhold love from him just because of his affair with Sally. (see comment by Raphael Khallouqi)
[5] Jefferson was a man who loved his family. We can see this clearly from his many letters written to various family members. There is no chance of his family casting him out for his actions. On one hand, his family already has that history. On the other hand, the chances that his family didn't know when it seemed everyone else did are so improbable it is hardly worth mentioning. Gordon-Reed is up to bat here and is lobbed a ball. Naturally, being well read and an expert on Jefferson, she winds up for it and slams this ridiculous argument out of the ball park. There is little to no evidence supporting the defenders of Jefferson in supposed belief that one can not have a mistress and love his own flesh and blood. There is, however, ample evidence to the contrary, which Gordon-Reed used to finish foolish argument and put it in its grave.
Comments
I'd like to add here that Gordon-Reed also calls upon the unrealistic characterization of Southern belles as "too delicate" to know about the dark truths of the world and disputes the validity on the grounds of being too naïve and idealistic. Gordon-Reed attributes the female gender with greater ability to interpret implications of unspoken communication and, with this, argues that it would be preposterous for anyone to assume a lady living right in the middle of miscegenation would not know about it on some level.
