| Episodes |
A Letter Written for Posterity
Samantha Christal
[1] Ellen Randolph Coolidge, granddaughter of Thomas Jefferson, addresses her husband, Joseph Coolidge, in the letter that becomes vital in the history of the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. Written on October 24, 1858, this letter details Coolidge's response to the allegations made against Thomas Jefferson and, by extension, her family's reputation. She uses such rhetorical strategies as the "character defense" and the "other man defense" to uphold her grandfather's innocence. In doing so, she encourages readers to take what she says as fact by painting a picture of her and her grandfather as religious and benevolent people. She uses real-life experience to prove her points and discredit African American oral tradition. Her word choice and repeated use of certain words are also relevant to an analysis of this piece. While this letter was "intended" to be for her husband as a personal letter relaying a conversation she had with her brother Thomas Jefferson Randolph, the way Coolidge presents her arguments makes it clear that this was a letter she knew would be published one day and could possibly save Thomas Jefferson's reputation.
The Argument
[2] In an attempt to defend her grandfather, Coolidge upholds his reputation as "eminently a kind master." She details Jefferson's practice, which she claims to know of her "own knowledge," of allowing any slaves that could pass for white to do so freely. They could slip away from the plantation, and Jefferson would not make any grand effort to find them or have them brought back to Monticello. She in fact challenges the allegation that Jefferson "had a coloured mistress [and] coloured children and that these children [were] sold as slaves." Seemingly out of frustration, she asks why her grandfather, someone who was known to be such a benevolent master, would "treat [slaves] barbarously only when they happened to be his own children." By defending Jefferson's reputation as a master, Coolidge sets up readers to have a preconceived notion of the kind of person Jefferson was. She presents the controversial liaison early on but immediately addresses a different issue pertaining to his ethics in selling his slaves by auction, or at all for that matter. By focusing first on the latter part of the accusation, Coolidge makes it seem as though it is of weighty importance and must be addressed. It is as if she is saying that Jefferson's reputation as a moral slave owner is more important than the easily disproven theory of his miscegenistic relationship.
[3] When she finally addresses the controversy surrounding "dusky Sally," Coolidge discounts it as a "moral impossibility." She recognizes Sally's relation to the family as the lady maid to Jefferson's daughters and as the person who accompanied Jefferson's youngest daughter on her journey to Paris but slights the idea that a relationship could have existed. She asks her husband if it is "likely that so fond, so anxious a father, whose letters to his daughters are replete with tenderness and with good counsels for their conduct, should (when there were so many other objects upon whom to fix his illicit attentions) have selected the female attendant of his own pure children to become his paramour?" This is an interesting strategy on Coolidge's part. She asks a rhetorical question, which places readers in a position to be told what they should believe rather than presenting evidence and allowing them to make their own judgment. She asks readers to ponder why Jefferson, a man of high social status and intellect, would choose "dusky Sally" as opposed to another eligible woman of similarly elevated status or upbringing.
[4] Additionally, her use of the word "paramour" is striking. By definition, a paramour is an illicit lover or mistress. This word certainly has a negative connotation to it, and Coolidge's word choice ignores the fact that Jefferson became a widower long before any possible relationship with Sally. If this liaison were to have happened, would Sally really be considered the mistress of a married man? To put Sally in this light would make it near impossible for readers to believe that the relationship happened. In essence, Coolidge elevates Jefferson's character, while at the same time debasing Sally's. Coolidge's characterization of Jefferson as a kind master and as the source of moral guidance to his "pure" children and "good counsels for their conduct" serves to defend Jefferson's character against the reputation-tainting accusations made towards him that caused her to write this letter.
[5] Finally, Coolidge's explanation of her brother's defense of Jefferson serves to round out the real-life experiences that create the structure of this letter. She includes her brother's opinion that "he never heard the smallest thing which could lead him to suspect that his grandfather's life was other than perfectly pure." She details the architecture of the house, mentioning that Jefferson's "apartments had no private entrance not perfectly accessible and visible to all the household." In her mind, this would make it very unlikely that Sally and Jefferson had a romantic or sexual relationship. While Coolidge's brother mentions that "no female domestic character entered his chambers except at hours when he was known not to be in the public gaze," does that really rule out the idea that Jefferson and Sally, his chambermaid, could have had a relationship brewing? Although the point seems strong, it takes a deeper look to realize that these are facts based on limited evidence. Coolidge again challenges "any fair mind to decide if a man so admirable to his domestic character . . . would be likely to rear a race of half-breeds under [his family's] eyes and carry on his low amours in this circle of his family." This statement is loaded with bias and again allows for limited interpretation. Readers have no choice but to believe what she says because of the confidence with which she relays her "evidence." Sally's reputation is further degraded when her children are referred to as "half-breeds" and a possible liaison with her is considered an illicit love affair or "low amour" for Jefferson.
[6] Coolidge's word choice throughout her writing, in addition to her repeated use of certain words, sets the tone for the letter and serves as an effective rhetorical strategy in getting her points across. While readers are set up to see Coolidge as a religious woman by the first few sentences she writes, she also intersperses the word "pure" throughout to describe Jefferson and his children. She begins her letter by mentioning that she has just come from church; but this was not just any church, this was "a church originally planned by Grandpapa." It was there that she heard "a good sermon from an Episcopalian clergyman." She not only puts herself in this religious context but also places Jefferson in a religious light by mentioning that the church was, in fact, something planned by him. This makes both of them out to be honest, moral, and pious people who would not do wrong in God's eyes. Although it relates very little to the rest of the letter, this could be her smartest move yet. Readers will remember this part of the text and carry this characterization of Jefferson with them as they continue reading, especially those who have always viewed him as nothing less than a statesman and politically professional man.
The Deflection
[7] After spending so much of her time defending Jefferson's character, Coolidge sends the final knockout punch by placing the blame on the Carr brothers. Interestingly, both Peter and Samuel Carr are Ellen Coolidge's first cousins once removed. So why would she be so willing to defend one family member, while throwing two others under the bus? Wouldn't the "low amour" taint their reputation as well? When she reveals this information to her husband in the letter, she asks that it be kept in confidence; however, the rest of her letter would indicate her knowledge that this document would one day become public. Can we believe Coolidge because her brother overheard Peter say that Jefferson "had to bear the blame of his and Sam's (Col. Carr) misdeeds"?
[8] Coolidge additionally mentions in her introduction of Sally that she was "notoriously the mistress of a married man, a near relation of Mr. Jefferson's, and there can be small questions that her children were his." Coolidge is quick to deflect attention from her grandfather and place blame on both an unidentified "near relation" of her grandfather's and even other members of her family! She uses her own uncertainty as a tool to send readers on a similarly confused path to determine who fathered Sally Hemings's children. The end of her letter accuses the Carr brothers and provides very little other information. She explains that she has "written in great haste" and spends the last few sentences saying goodbye. The crux of this letter was written in defense of Jefferson and is framed by the image of Coolidge as a religious woman at the beginning and the accusation of men other than Jefferson as the father of Sally's children at the end. This strategy allows her to highlight the two most important points of the letter: 1) she should be considered credible because of her devotion to religion and, therefore, 2) there is a fairly general understanding that the Carr brothers fathered all four of the Hemings children.
The Structure
[9] So why would she structure the letter this way? Was there a reason behind the order of her arguments? And does this set us, as readers, up to respond to her in a certain way? Looking at the letter as a whole, it has somewhat of a rhythm. In each of the paragraphs in which she addresses an accusation about or claim towards Jefferson, Coolidge presents a counterargument rife with examples of his moral character and closes with a rhetorical question. She builds readers up to see very positive attributes of Jefferson as a man and leaves them with a rhetorical question, making it hard for people to be convinced that the relationship could have even happened. This can be seen, as mentioned previously, when Coolidge addresses Jefferson possibly placing his "coloured children" up for auction, as well as in the account of her brother whose first-hand "observations" substantiate Coolidge's view that her grandfather would never stoop so low as to partake in a romantic liaison with one of his slaves.
[10] Coolidge even admits, in reference to the possible Jefferson-Hemings relationship, that "many causes existed which might have given rise to suspicions, setting aside the inveterate rage and malice of Mr. Jefferson's traducers." She mentions how often the Irish workmen who build Monticello "had children of whom the mothers were black women," but "these women were much better pleased to have it supposed that such children were their master's." This places Jefferson in the middle of what she alludes to being a big misunderstanding. After all, "there are such things as moral impossibilities." Including this claim in her letter rounds out both her defense of his character and her deflection of blame to others, whether known or unknown.
[11] Coolidge outlines her letter as if it were an essay, presenting the background of a situation, the reasons why it could not be true, the reasons why people could believe it was true, and she closes with an accusation that will drive her point home. One has to wonder why she tries so hard to convince her own husband of the strength of Jefferson's character and defend his innocence against the alleged miscegenistic relationship. Doesn't it seem as though your husband would be the last person you had to work hard to convince? It is everyone else that is the problem! The tone and force with which she attempts to guide her audience's thinking leads us, as analytical thinkers, to believe that she wrote this letter knowing that it would be read by future generations of people.
[12] Bringing this document into conversation with the rest of the controversy, we have to discuss the current issues that have kept the subject alive: racial biases. We have to ask ourselves what it is/was about this letter that made it so convincing to readers. Is it who Ellen Coolidge is that makes her writing so powerful? Is it her effective command of the English language in getting her points across? While both of these reasons are possible, it is sadly much more telling that Coolidge is a white person. This can be compared to the responses to the Madison Hemings memoir, in which critics comment on everything from his young age at the time the stories were told to him to his use of the word enciente to describe his mother upon her return to Monticello. What makes Coolidge's oral history any more credible than Madison's? In fact, Coolidge is even one generation further away and spent a similarly small amount of time with Jefferson before his death in 1826. Where these two articles differ is in the fact that Coolidge spends just as much time bashing Sally and other slaves as she does exalting grandfather Jefferson. Madison's memoir simply relays the facts told to him by his mother and offers an explanation of where the other children ended up.
[13] While the Madison Hemings memoir was written fifteen years after the Coolidge letter, it is clear that the two documents come to represent the two opposing sides in the battle between the black and white families. It is oral tradition against oral tradition. After thorough analysis of the Coolidge letter, specifically her use of the "character defense," the "other man defense," and other rhetorical strategies, it can be concluded with fair certainty that this was a letter written for posterity.
