| Episodes |
Creating the Legend: James Parton in Defense of Thomas Jefferson
Alexandra Neumann
[1] James Parton (1822-1881) was well known for writing memoirs of such prominent historical figures as Aaron Burr, Andrew Jackson, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson. Parton's biography of Jefferson was published in 1874 and set the stage for how we think of Jefferson today--a national hero, a "Founding Father," a man of great morals and integrity. "The new member from Virginia," coo'd Parton of this great man, "could calculate an eclipse, survey an estate, tie an artery, plan an edifice, try a cause, break a horse, dance a minuet, and play the violin" (165). One of Parton's chapters is titled "The Campaign Lies of 1800." Within this section, Parton addresses the rumors and criticism that Jefferson endured before and after he was elected President for the first time in 1800. For instance, in 1802 James Thomson Callender, a journalist who vigorously opposed Jefferson for personal reasons, spread the rumor in the Richmond Recorder that the President had fathered several children by his slave Sally Hemings, and that scandal persisted as a blot on Jefferson's image deep into the late 19th century. In the "Campaign Lies" chapter, however, Parton rebuts this issue as well as such other assaults on Jefferson's character as his hatred of the constitution and his atheism. Let's look at the latter two campaign lies first.
[2] The first "lie" that Parton rebuffs pertains to Jefferson's hatred for the Constitution. According to the rumor, Jefferson's agenda was to "begin by turning every Federalist out of office, down to the remotest postmaster. Then he would ‘tumble the financial system of the country into ruin at one stroke'; which would of necessity stop all payments of interest on the public debt, and bring on ‘universal bankruptcy and beggary'" (568). Following this, the President would disassemble the navy, steal pensions from the veterans of the Revolution, and ultimately the United States would be free to practice unlawfully. Parton names the Reverend Cotton Mather Smith of Connecticut as one of the infamous campaign liars. He quotes Mather as saying, "In short, good people, the election of Jefferson will be the signal for Pandora to open her box, and empty it upon your heads" (568). According to the Reverend, Jefferson was even guilty of gaining his estate by means of robbery and fraud. Parton's tone makes it clear that he believes these accusations to be self-evidently ludicrous and thus unworthy of more detailed rebuttal.
[3] Religion also played a huge role in the election of 1800, and the second "lie" that Parton negates is one about Jefferson's religious beliefs or lack thereof. For instance, Alexander Hamilton denounced the soon-to-be President as an atheist, and a well-known preacher and politician in New York, Dr. John Mason, claimed that the Notes on Virginia were evidence of Jefferson's disbelief in a "universal deluge" (571). A pamphlet titled "The Voice of Warning to Christians" was published only a few weeks before the election. In it Mason said, "Christians! It is thus that a man, whom you are expected to elevate to the chief magistracy, insults yourselves and your Bible!" (571).
[4] Politics and religion were never far apart in this time, and the election was often a discussion brought into sermons. In response to accusations similar to those noted above, one lay person in a sermon stated, "the blameless deportment of this man has been the theme of encomium. He is chaste, temperate, hospitable, affectionate, and frank" (572). Despite these honorable characteristics that Parton is once again bringing to light, many said Jefferson is not a Christian! Parton ridicules such charges because it seems ludicrous that Jefferson's religious beliefs should determine his credentials as President. The biographer only further validates the absurdity of these claims by recounting other preposterous assertions: "One writer proves his case thus: 1. The French Revolution was a conspiracy to overthrow the Christian religion; 2. Thomas Jefferson avowed a cordial sympathy with the French Revolution; 3. Therefore Thomas Jefferson aims at the destruction of the Christian religion" (572). So much for logic!
[5] Parton makes it quite clear that Jefferson should not be vilified for his religious principles. Perhaps the attacks originated because of the role Jefferson played in the separation of church and state in Virginia, something that was clearly opposed by the clergy. Jefferson thought such a separation was necessary because he felt that certain members of the clergy were not acting with the best intentions of the state in mind. Jefferson defended himself by declaring that he had "sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man" (573). Jefferson was not a man, in Parton's opinion, to dissuade any person, especially his own family, from their faith. Instead, he believed in each individual's denominational freedom.
[6] To reassure his supporters at the time, Jefferson attended a Unitarian church in Philadelphia and wrote, "I never will by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others. On the contrary, we are bound . . . to make common cause . . . to maintain the common right of freedom of conscience. We ought, with one heart and one hand, to hew down the daring and dangerous efforts of those who would seduce the public opinion to substitute itself into that tyranny over religious faith which the laws have so justly abdicated" (574). His actions towards redeeming himself in the public eye were rewarded, and Jefferson won back the Republican support. Parton believes that Jefferson's principles are fundamentally the principles of the United States.
[7] Now let us look at the "lie" that most concerns us in this project, that Jefferson fathered children by a certain "Dusky Sally" (569). Parton cites the "respectable Madison Henings [sic], now living in Ohio who supposes that Thomas Jefferson was his father." But, asserts Parton, "Mr. Henings has been misinformed" (569). Parton's assurance is derived from a letter of Henry S. Randall, an earlier eminent Jefferson biographer who was in contact with Colonel Thomas Jefferson Randolph, a grandson of President Jefferson. Randolph told Randall that Sally was the mistress of Jefferson's nephew Peter Carr, and on that basis Parton reported that the "father of those children [of Sally Hemings] was a near relation of the Jeffersons, who need not be named" (569). Though he doesn't publicize Carr's name , Parton includes a longish excerpt from Randall's letter to further support this claim that such a scandal did not and, in fact, could not have occurred.
[8] For instance, Randolph through the Randall letter claims, "there was not a shadow of suspicion that Mr. Jefferson, in this or any other instance, had any such intimacy with his female slaves" (569). Sally was treated like every other slave; she received the same clothes and was never given special treatment. Randolph claims that he "slept within sound of [Jefferson's] breathing at night" (569), and therefore there was no possibility of any person sneaking into his room after hours. Randolph's personal opinion of Jefferson was that he was "as chaste and pure, as immaculate a man as ever God created" (569-70).
[9] In addition, Randolph through Randall reports that he had a discussion with his mother Martha Randolph, who, though much bothered by the scandal, only spoke to her sons once on the subject. Using Jefferson's detailed Farm Book, Martha pointed out that Jefferson and Sally could not have met at the time that Madison was conceived and were in fact far away from one another fifteen months preceding the child's birth: "She bade her sons remember this fact, and always defend the character of their grandfather" (570). Randolph verified Martha's analysis of the dates in the Farm Book, as did Randall. In Parton's view, then, the evidence in the Randall letter quashed that "Campaign Lie":
So much for this poor Campaign Lie, which has been current in the world for seventy-four years, and will, doubtless, walk the earth as long as weak mortals need high examples of folly to keep them on endurable terms with themselves. (570)
Parton's idolatry of Jefferson led him to believe that "[the letter] will be valued by those who believe that chastity in man is as precious a treasure as chastity in woman, and not less essential to the happiness, independence, and dignity of [Jefferson's] existence" (569).
[10] Parton succeeded, therefore, in establishing the Randall letter as the basis for the official narrative of the scandal lasting well into the middle of the 20th century and beyond. In her Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (1997), Annette Gordon-Reed, for instance, says the Randall letter was "the staple" of scholarly treatment from Merrill Peterson (1960) to Andrew Burstein (1995). But Parton was correct assuming that such a rumor, such a campaign lie, would never die, for Gordon-Reed deconstructed that official narrative -- accusing Randall of "distinct bias" and claiming that Parton "was out neither to discover the truth nor to disseminate it" --and thus successfully returning the relationship to the realm of possibility.
[11] For instance, Gordon-Reed invalidates the theory of Randolph and his mother that Jefferson and Hemings could not have been together: "Because of [Dumas] Malone's thorough chronologies of Jefferson's life, we know now that Martha Randolph was most likely wrong. Jefferson was at Monticello at least nine months before the birth of each of Sally Hemings's children" (80). She then even claims that it is possible that both Martha and her son lied to protect Jefferson's reputation and that Parton never bothered to verify their stories. Gordon-Reed informs us that Parton was aware that Madison Heming's claim that Jefferson was his father would be published in a newspaper, and it is for this reason that Parton addressed the matter directly in his biography. He "deemed Madison Heming's statements, and those of Israel Jefferson who supported him, unworthy of serious attention because historians did not like what the men were saying and because their status made them easy to dismiss (97). Gordon-Reed questions why some (white) oral history should be silenced while others (African American) are deemed worthy of making history. This is what she will call evidence of the "doctrine of white supremacy."
[12] Parton states that it is a natural product of the United States to develop rumors when election time rolls around, and Jefferson was no exception as an object of gossip. Perhaps it was in 1796, when Jefferson was elected as Vice President, that the "art" of the campaign lie originated (567). Despite the "liar's'" attempts at slandering the President, Parton points out that "Jefferson's life presented to his view a most discouraging monotony of innocent and beneficial actions, -- twenty-five years of laborious and unrecompensed public service, relieved by the violin, science, invention, agriculture, the education of his nephews, and the love of his daughters" (567-68). Jefferson's life, in Parton's opinion, is a paragon of moral righteousness.
[13] Parton's adoration of Jefferson is blatant in this chapter of his biography to the point at which it seems that the President can do no wrong. He addresses several of the accusations brought against Jefferson and defends them by using outside references as well as Jefferson's own writings. However, Parton never questions the validity of his sources, as Gordon-Reed reminds us, or takes into account Jefferson's capacity to make mistakes as a human being. It is because of Parton's (and Randall's) idolatry that Jefferson maintains the glorified image of how we visualize one of our Founding Fathers today. "If Jefferson was wrong, America is wrong," proclaimed Parton, "If America is right, Jefferson was right" (iii).
