| Episodes |
A Mini-Symposium on Douglass Adair
Edward J. Gallagher
Douglass Adair -- describing himself as a "research historian" and a "professional historian" -- carefully examines the Jefferson-Hemings Controversy, claiming "it is possible to prove that Jefferson was innocent of Callender's charges" (169). Just as carefully, examine Adair's analysis in turn. Does he make his case? Why, why not? What comments do you have about his argumentative strategies?
A skilled defense lawyer
Douglass Adair and I (after reading his convincing argument) think that Thomas Jefferson did not harbor a secret 38-year affair with Sally Hemings. Although sometimes faulty and circuitous in his logic, Adair presents a very plausible case explaining why it's impossible for Jefferson to have "kept as his concubine, one of his own slaves" (161). Adair is Thomas Jefferson's skilled defense lawyer. He draws from a multitude of primary documents that are personified as witnesses in his case. Adair brings these sources to life, calling them to the stand to question their accuracy and bias towards the situation as a whole. Adair shows that he has a plausible defense case through his extensive research. Adair "seek[s] independent corroboration, detail by detail" (178). His in-depth analysis of the scandal is evident in his essay. The adept lawyer does not make blind accusations; rather, he makes calculative assertions based on a wide range of evidence. Although he sets out to defend Jefferson, Adair does not rule out the possibility of an alleged Jefferson-Hemings relationship. His thesis is falsifiable. Adair remains skeptical as any "professional historian is taught to be" (181). He is light in his attack on Sally, pitying her and understanding her side of the story. Adair eloquently defends Jefferson using strong primary documentation to back his argument. Any jury would conclude that the 3rd president of the United States should be exonerated of the charges.
Emma Rabinowitz
Unconvincingly Unbiased
From the very beginning of his essay, Adair attempts to slyly slip in phrases such as "this ugly tale" in regard to the Jefferson-Hemings scandal. By referencing said scandal as a mere "tale," he already announces whose side he's on: his beloved Virginian, Jefferson. Naturally, taking a partial stance weakens Adair's credibility immediately. Though he lays out the primary sources of information regarding the scandal cohesively, several of his arguments seem flawed, for much of what he sees as "proof" is simply too far-fetched to slide as reasonable. Take Jefferson's Farm Book, for instance. Assuming it must've been 100 percent correct as Adair does, the man possessed the power to clear his name immediately. But, of course, Jefferson doesn't, according to Adair, for he was far too "honorable" a man to essentially tell the truth about the origins of the Hemings white ancestry and consequently prove his innocence in the matter. As for far-fetched, Adair's proposed views regarding Sally and Carr's relationship takes the cake. He not only undoubtedly states a relationship existed but suggests it was one of love, producing several of Sally's children. He continues to explain that Sally then gave her children the name of the president rather than of her lover in a fit of jealous rage against Carr for marrying. Adair's tone is one of assurance, and his unmerited confidence only adds to his blatant partialness, lending itself to his fast-declining credibility.
Casey Hollawell
A barely biased tone
Surely Adair takes a stance and supports his point, but his essay reads more informatively than persuasively, and this is perhaps the essay's greatest success. As the essay begins, the reader is presented with a very objective summary of the controversy that runs well beyond the death of Jefferson. And while Adair presents powerful evidence, he never explicitly supports one side over the other until later on in the essay, becoming the nonpartisan investigator for the masses. Whenever he presents the reader with such evidence, he is able to generate curiosity and interest without belligerent subjectivity. If he ever deviates from the line of objectivity, he steers himself back with a counter-claim. Furthermore, when he finally does begin to take his stance, it is so lightly given that it would be hard to offend nearly anybody. Adair's success as a writer here is in the barely biased tone.
Brian Day
Sympathy for Sally
For what little information we have on Sally Hemings, Adair sure seemed to know a lot about what she was thinking and what was going on in her mind prior to and during the Jefferson scandal. Adair says, with assurance, that Sally blatantly lied to her children by convincing them that they were the descendants of President Jefferson. He spews out facts and claims made by others close to Jefferson in order to degrade Sally and prove her story false. However, Adair has too much confidence in his understanding of Sally's motives. In response to Sally's account of her trip to France with Jefferson, Adair says "clearly Sally dramatized her relations with Jefferson even at the expense of truth in this instance. Clearly Sally wanted her children to believe that she had been Jefferson's mistress from the time she was fifteen or sixteen" (176). But is it clear? Are we to take Adair's word that Sally was lying in order to boost her pride and reputation? As I read Adair's article, I found myself sympathizing with Sally. Adair is not hesitant to shade from actual facts and, to prove Sally a liar, says that she would be unworthy of Jefferson's love in the first place. He freely criticizes Sally in order to build up Jefferson's defense, but the little evidence Adair has to back up his claims about Sally's character leaves me doubting his reliability.
Hannah Masse
A new and intriguing idea
In looking at the Jefferson-Hemings Controversy as a whole, for the most part the only accusations that have arisen have pointed the finger at Jefferson for initiating and being involved in such an affair. Aside from his family members and those in close contact with him on his Monticello Plantation, written and oral support in defense of Jefferson was seemingly non-existent. However, this all changed with Adair. After providing the reader with sufficient background information about Monticello life, Jefferson's character, and Callender's wretched allegations against him, Adair presents a new and intriguing idea: perhaps Sally Hemings was at the center of a scandalous affair but that Jefferson was not her partner in crime. Moreover, Adair concludes that Sally and Peter Carr were the true ones to have had sexual relations. He describes Sally to be beautiful as many have before; however, he elaborates on her description, making her appear to be lustful and educated about what is going on around her. Using a somewhat subtle approach, Adair does not shove his argument down reader throats and over-exert his argument but, rather, provides just enough detail to intrigue readers and get them thinking about a new possibility. Because of his innumerable references to Jefferson's personal slave records, his opinions on slavery, and his dedication to sticking to one's morals, Adair's argument comes across as convincing and well detailed. Similar in tone and style to that of an attorney, Adair therefore defends Jefferson in a plausible fashion.
Ann O'Connell
He never even met the man
According to Douglass Adair, I guess we have had it wrong this whole time. He essentially flips the scandal on its head, assigning Thomas Jefferson the role of victim. Adair ups the ante, though, from previous attempts at pinning Jefferson as victim by portraying him as nobly harboring the "ugly secret" of his father-in-law and nephew as his reputation took the brunt from the cries of miscegenation. Although Adair dedicates much time to systemically examining the primary source evidence available to ground his claims of Jefferson's innocence, are his assumptions truly believable? He takes Jefferson's Farm Book as near gospel -- as if everything logged into it must/ be true -- but isn't it possible that Jefferson could have fudged some of the information to make him seem like an impossible candidate for the father of Sally Heming's children? Also, he relies far too heavily on Jefferson's character as a defense, saying the accusations "simply cannot be assimilated to the known character of the real Thomas Jefferson." Can he really say this with assurance? He never even met the man. We are all human, even Thomas Jefferson, and no one is perfect. Shouldn't we have learned by now, after seeing the falls of other famous figures off their steep pedestals, that everybody is capable of making mistakes? I guess Adair hasn't quite caught on yet.
Jennifer Markham
A wild suggestion
Douglass Adair wildly suggests that Thomas Jefferson did not father the children of young Sally Hemings. He stands strong as an advocate of Jefferson, taking his side in all respects. For instance, Adair states in complete confidence, "Today, it is possible to prove that Jefferson was innocent of Callender's charges" (169). While he completely discounts any relations between Jefferson and Hemings, Adair does suggest a relationship between Hemings and the nephew of Jefferson, Peter Carr. Could this be the explanation for such striking resemblances between Hemings' children and Jefferson? Could it be true that all of Jefferson's words denying his relationship with Hemings are actually valid? Adair turns to the direct words of Jefferson and inside reports from the Monticello house for proof. He refers quite often to the Farm Book for direct records of such happenings relating to the lives of Jefferson and Hemings. Adair is set in his beliefs and preaches from a new perspective on the controversy. It is interesting and highly persuasive, and it definitely offers a new way to view and study the controversy.
Kiersten Moore
Convincing defender but no judge
Adair succeeds in defending Jefferson from some of the stories and speculations circulating regarding his controversial relationship with Sally Hemings. He thoroughly studies Jefferson's Farm Book, notes there is no husband listed beside Sally's name, sees that the date of the birth of her first child is five years after her trip to France, and thus accuses her of lying about being pregnant with Jefferson's child in France. Adair then reveals Randolph's evidence that Sally was the mistress of Peter Carr, which explains why her children resemble Jefferson. By linking these pieces of evidence together and assuming that Sally is merely a deceiver, Adair emerges strongly biased in favor of Jefferson. However, he never tries to see how Sally's accounts could be true. He never considers that perhaps Sally had sexual relationships with both Carr and Jefferson. Maybe the father of her children was in fact Carr, but she was simply unaware. Maybe she was pregnant in France but had a miscarriage. Furthermore, how could Sally know who the father of her children were if she was the mistress of two men? Whether true or not, Adair never considers such a possibility and is therefore subjective in defense of Jefferson. He pieces evidence together, but his final conclusions lack the balance of both sides of this argument. Although Adair is convincing as a defender, he is by no means a judge.
Danielle Heymann
