| Episodes |
Jefferson as Slave Master: A View from the Letters (2)
Danielle Heymann
For a mini-lesson in the construction of history compare the essays by Heymann and Ingrassia on the same subject and drawing on the same pool of sources.
[1] The notion of a "good slave master" seems like an oxymoron. Yet it has been used to let Thomas Jefferson off the hook for not freeing his slaves, for not putting the revered principle that "all men are created equal" into action in his own backyard. And it has even been used to clear Jefferson from charges that he would take sexual advantage of young Sally Hemings. Yes, it is said in his defense, the architect of American democracy did indeed own slaves, but, after all, he was a good slave master. Testimony abounds from both sides of the plantation. Slave Isaac termed Jefferson "a mighty good master" and "very kind to servants." Slave Israel happily remembered "presents from [Jefferson's] hands." Slave and possibly son Madison Hemings pictured Jefferson "the quietest of men . . . hardly ever known to get angry." Long-time Monticello overseer Edmund Bacon felt "No servants ever had a kinder master than Mr. Jefferson," a master who "did not like slavery." Why, the notion of Jefferson's benevolence to his human property is so pervasive, so accepted that it finds its way into the script of the 1995 film Jefferson in Paris, in which Jefferson's daughter Patsy proudly proclaims "He's the best master in all of Virginia."
[2] But how exactly would we know a good slave master? On what basis would we judge a slave master good or bad? How can we test the validity of the seemingly universal approbation Mr. Jefferson has received? How might we get past the personal experiences and possible agendas of the various voices making these positive claims? What specific evidence is there? Let's use as a working hypothesis that a good slave master, among many other things, of course, would educate the young, discipline fairly, support family stability, and care for the elderly. And let's take a crack at answering the above questions of relevance to the Jefferson-Hemings controversy by looking at Jefferson's own words about slave mastering in his private letters.
[3] First, a good slave master would educate his young slaves and acknowledge their ability to grow intellectually. In a November 1793 letter to Mrs. Church, Jefferson discusses educating the slaves, writing that "no body wishes more ardently to see a good system commenced for raising the condition both of their body & mind to what it ought to be, as fast as the imbecillity of their present existence, and other circumstance which cannot be neglected, will admit." Educating the younger slaves would help their minds grow and give them the chance to learn that they wouldn't otherwise have, and Jefferson must have recognized that it would bring about a healthy increase in their pride as well. Jefferson also writes to Messrs. Thomas, Ellicot, and others in November of 1807, "Both duty and interest then enjoin, that we should extend to them the blessings of civilized life, and prepare their minds for becoming useful members of the American family." This is an interesting exchange precisely because it sounds like Jefferson wants to give slaves the tools that help them progress with the rest of American society and contribute to its growth.
[4] Next, it's likely that a good slave master would give appropriate discipline. Discipline that is too harsh will wash away self-worth, but the appropriate amount of discipline has a sensible, positive effect. In an exchange with Jeremiah Goodman during July of 1813, Jefferson discusses a suitable punishment for a runaway slave, Hercules, who had been in jail and was just discharged. Jefferson writes, "[t]he folly he has committed certainly justifies further punishment, and he goes in expectation of receiving it," but he continues by acknowledging that "I believe however it is his first folly in this way, and considering his imprisonment as a punishment in part, I refer it to yourself whether it may not be passed over this time, only letting him receive the pardon as from yourself alone, and not by my interference, for this is what I would have none of them to suppose." While Jefferson understands that Goodman may want to punish Hercules further, he tries to explain that it was Hercules' first big mistake and that Goodman should have some mercy. This seems like a decent way to handle the situation.
[5] We could also agree that a good slave master would recognize love between slaves and support stable family life. When a slave reaches the point of marriage and having a family, staying together as a family unit becomes a priority. One of Jefferson's slaves, Brown, gets married to a slave of John Jordan. Although Jefferson was at the time "endeavoring to purchase young & able negro men for [his] own works," which would be "exactly counter" to selling Brown, he was "always willing to indulge connections seriously formed by those people [that is, to have slave husbands and wives living together], where it can be done reasonably." In a letter to Jordan written in December of 1805, Jefferson agrees, "however reluctantly," to sell Brown to Jordan so that Brown can be with his wife. Also, in a letter to Randolph Lewis written in April of 1807, Jefferson writes, "[n]obody feels more strongly than I do the desire to make all practicable sacrifices to keep man & wife together who have imprudently married out of their respective families," because Jefferson intends to buy the family of his slave Moses so that they can be together. Jefferson continues, "I had accordingly told Moses that if it should be your pleasure to sell his wife personally, I would buy her when I could with convince," though noting that he is "pressed for money" and not doing well financially. Jefferson concludes by asking Lewis for "the lowest sum you will take for the women & her children." Even in a weak economic situation, then, Jefferson proactively tries to connect Moses to his family. The strength that a family has by being together boosts their faith.
[6] Finally, a good slave master would be caring towards his elderly slaves and make sure that they are not overworked or cast off at the end of their lives. In a July 1787 letter to Francis Eppes about leasing slaves, Jefferson discusses the treatment of elderly slaves. Perhaps other slave masters didn't care much for elderly slaves and worked them beyond the point that their energies would allow them. Jefferson seems to be pretty fair with his elderly slaves. He describes a lease of land and slaves, stressing the importance of "retaining rigorously the clauses which had for their object the good treatment of my slaves, particularly that which denied a diminution of rent on the death of a slave" (b). This would encourage the renters of his slaves to either treat them well or suffer a penalty. But then he writes in a July, 1788 letter to Nicholas Lewis, "[t]he negroes too old to be hired, could they not make a good profit by cultivating cotton?" (c) A little shift in tone, this voice comes across as one interested in profit, yet still caring that the elderly are treated fairly and not responsible for difficult, strenuous tasks. Furthermore, in a letter to Joel Yancey written during January of 1819, Jefferson conveys his concern with the high mortality among the negro slaves, which "is still more serious as involving more as well as interested considerations." He continues by acknowledging, "[t]hey are well fed, and well clothed, & I have had no reason to believe that any overseer, since Griffin's time, has over worked them." The basic provisions of food and clothes as well as a reasonable work schedule would lower the mortality rates among the elderly, which was what Jefferson intended to accomplish.
[7] So, although we have used only a small selection of letters from Jefferson's vast collection, and although the letters themselves are only one of many angles from which to view Jefferson as slave master, it would seem that, indeed, Jefferson might very well deserve the title of "good slave master." It is refreshing to hope that in this controversy in which all claims are suspect and agenda-ridden, we might have something to agree on without a rhetorical pitched battle.
