Love Should Know No Color

By Stephanie DeLuca, with comments by Kevin Campbell, Jenna Goldenberg, and Kristina Gonzalez

[1] We 21st-century Americans, who tend to have only the most generalized knowledge about what life under slavery must have been like for African-Americans, are still bogged down by the interracial and scandalous relationship between Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson. Tina Andrews, the writer of Sally Hemings: An American Scandal, shied away from the political complications of the third president in order to put more of a focus onto the relationship between Jefferson and Hemings. She crafted a romantic fantasy with a historical setting in an attempt to empower Sally and highlight the strengths of the African-American woman. I completely support the movie’s purpose, but the product is no reflection of its intention. (see comment by Kevin Campbell)

[2] In the movie, the development of Jefferson and Sally’s physical affection comes after both connect on an intellectual level. This is set up to refute critics’ opinions that the Jefferson and Hemings relationship was based on physical attraction alone. Jefferson dismisses the slave-master relationship within their first interaction and acknowledges her intelligence by the second, confiding in her and admitting that she has “a mind worth mentoring.” By the third interaction he is caught admiring her beauty, but it is the fourth and fifth meeting that are the most striking. It is at this point that Sally questions the basis of the Declaration of Independence when she quotes Jefferson’s words: “We hold these Truths to be self-evident: that all Men are created equal.” Sally questions if a slave is not a person, and Jefferson the blunderer shuffles away. Sally Hemings -- catching the third president of the United States off guard? What an intriguing woman she must have been! (see comment by Jenna Goldenberg)

[3] Sally’s morals and values stem from the knowledge she has gained from her sessions with Jefferson. This knowledge allows her to see things that she, as a slave, was not allowed to see. She quotes Common Sense quite brilliantly and shortly after is recognized by Paine himself to be an “extraordinary girl.” Sally’s persona is shown when she questions Jefferson’s morals after the killing of Henry Jackson. She says: “You must fight again. Be true to your words. When you become president you cannot come to my bed and then go to your white Congress and do nothing about this plague against my people.” She will not be taken advantage of, nor will her children. She stands up for the freedom of her son, and strongly orders Jefferson: “You and I are allowing this.”

[4] There is no documentation providing evidence of Sally standing up to Jefferson the way she does in the movie. Andrews explains: "I can imagine how hard it would have been for Sally to have been 'free' in Paris, and then to have returned to Monticello as a slave. I think it would have been hard for her not to have thought 'how can you be with me and not do more about my people.' So, I have her challenge him on those points in the movie, even if in reality she might not have dared.” The correlation between the romantic fantasy and the empowerment of Sally becomes more and more distant the more she challenges his antics. If you desire to empower Sally through this film, it is acceptable. But when you try to explain why you took such liberties when recreating history, do not hide behind the romance.

[5] Sally’s literacy is impressive and her aptitude boundless; however, context is crucial. Slaves were forbidden to read, write, or be educated in any way not directly related to their work. They were prohibited from talking in their own languages, and if any rules were breached, they would be severely punished. There are many occasions in which Sally is shown teaching Henry how to read and write and an equal number of scenes in which she is helping fellow slaves escape. It was after one of these times that a man who was not her master fervently punished her for her “disobedience.” The historical context is too important to forget, and while I want to cheer and throw my hands in the air for Sally’s courage, I cannot help but remember the disservice being done to the people who actually lived through slavery. Of course, what gives me the right to claim that a disservice is being done -- but surely not every slave was given special privileges and their own room in the master’s home. (see comment by Kristina Gonzalez) I question if it is acceptable to show her “as the voice of thousands of slaves,” as Paine put it in the film, when she was so privileged compared to the treatment of slaves in other accounts and readings.

[6] It is undeniable that Sally’s empowerment is shown at the expense of historical accuracy, and the issue of its importance is a matter of opinion. Andrews explains in an interview: "Whether or not she actually assisted runaways is unknown, but I do know that her son, Tom, did after he left Monticello. Six of his 11 children became conductors on the Underground Railroad. So I made the assumption that this influence had to come from somewhere, and logically thought it had come from his mother.” (This means six of Sally’s son’s eleven children. Why not assume the times led the family to become a part of it?) Regardless, the assumption that Sally was an astounding young woman who raised her children to be as brave and bold as her is bearable. Andrews then continues: “I also present Sally as someone who secretly taught other slaves how to read. This came to me because so many of Madison's descendants became teachers and professors." This is the point at which I have to draw the line. There is no proof that Sally Hemings was even literate -- but giving Sally the ability to read because her grandchildren became involved in education? Director Charles Haid made a statement about the miniseries as well: "This story is not about slavery, it's not about politics, it's a story about the human and spiritual struggle between people.” If the focus was on the love story and the struggle between Sally and Jefferson as the directors and producers believe it to be true, how does Sally’s involvement with the Underground Railroad and teaching other slaves fulfill that?

[7] Reasonably empowering Sally to defend herself and her family is respectable, especially after DNA evidence proved Jefferson fathered one of Sally’s children. Clearing the Hemings’ name is also respectable and understandable, but it becomes too much of a stretch when Andrews defends her work. "This story," explains Andrews, "is of a man and a woman, who despite their vast cultural differences, despite the adversity they faced and the secrecy they were forced to maintain, remained devoted to each other.” I wish she would have stopped there, at a love story breaking racial boundaries. Instead, she continues, “My hope is that the movie will further the dialogue between the races, that the sons and daughters of slaves and the sons and daughters of slave owners will come together and talk honestly about the past -- accept it, learn from it and grow closer together." Maybe it’s because I’m not of African American descent that I can say that it has been accepted and also that I feel like Andrews is being hypocritical. Love should know no color. It would have been a wonderful love story, clearing the name of Sally, had the efforts to show the strengths of Sally, as an individual, not been so exaggerated and historically inaccurate.

Comment

Jenna Goldenberg (Nov. 2009)

Throughout the film, Sally’s empowerment is seen through her relationship with Jefferson. Although Sally is a slave, she does not just simply follow orders. Instead, she is portrayed as an extremely brave woman. She does what she has to in order to defend herself and her children if they are to be mistreated. She does not allow Jefferson to have complete control over her even though she is a slave. Even as Martha and Jefferson are discussing what to do about the scandal, Sally barges in and refuses to leave after Jefferson repeatedly tells her he cannot speak with her. She even calls him a hypocrite and orders that he cannot do anything to stop their son from leaving. A typical slave would never speak to his or her owner this way, but Sally said what she felt to Jefferson. Sally also calls him out on being hypocritical in his Notes on the State of Virginia, in which he harshly discusses how whites are superior to blacks. She says, “I hate what I allowed you to turn me into” and shows Jefferson her scars. Her powerful words finally get Jefferson to tell her that he loves her. Toward the end of the movie, Jefferson recognizes Sally’s strength: “You are strong, and I have come to depend on your strength.”

Kristina Gonzalez (Nov. 2009)

Clearly Sally must have been an extremely “intriguing woman” for the third President of the United States to take such a unique interest and carry some sort of relationship with her for thirty-eight years. Sally is taught how to read and write, speak French, and use proper etiquette around people of stature. She is portrayed and treated as any other typical workingwoman living independently in Paris, and, unlike the majority of the slaves left in the States, she is given a true taste of freedom. The tie between her empowering character and the romantic fantasy exists in the idea that had white men been able to look past the color of skin and realize the potential slaves held as human beings, they would have found that it is not as farfetched as it seems for an African American to possess such a prominent role in society. Jefferson demonstrates this in his love and attraction to Sally’s influential and direct ways of thinking. Furthermore, is it so unbelievable that Sally was an intelligent woman driven enough to help those of her own race understand the privileges freedom has to offer? There is no doubt that slaves were punished accordingly for secretly learning to read and write, but there also existed exceptional circumstances. Jefferson supposedly treated his slaves better than most slave masters of that time period. If anyone were able to instruct slaves in private and get away with it, it would certainly be Sally, the woman who held the heart of a lenient and reasonable man.

Kevin Campbell (Nov. 2009)

I wondered quite often about this issue of politics myself during the film. It seems interesting to me that a man so surrounded by it could go seemingly oblivious to it for the entire duration. There are a few references to the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, Common Sense, and things like that, but those to me seem to be more of someone pointing to these tidbits of history and saying “Look, the film is true because we have historical facts in here.” Jefferson mentions the difficulties of bringing up such a touchy subject as slavery in Congress when pressured by Sally, and he comments on his foolishness in writing his Notes on the State of Virginia, but these have no real significance on the story at all. Take out those scenes in which government is briefly mentioned and change the historical names to ordinary ones, and you have a regular romance story and no one would know the difference. Tina Andrews cuts out the politics (because who wants to watch a movie about that, right?) and focuses solely on the romance with which I, like you, feel could mislead many audiences as to the true nature of the scandal. The movie is only half the story. Andrews does a great job at showing the romantic strife between the two lovers but fails to capture the political complications that Jefferson went through.