8 ms·

Historians Uncover Slave Quarters of Sally Hemings at Jefferson’s Monticello

41 points by Mz 9y ago

spraak 9y ago
So it's interesting this is only coming out now, I wonder what took so long? But now is a better time than still later. And it's good to remind white people (like myself!) of the moral inconsistencies these popular figures of American history held. Yes, it does weaken their message and other supposed great work and actions, in my eyes. Further I'd like to point out that emerging from the darkness of repressed history is the understanding that many of who white people think of as native American were actually what we would call now black, or African American. The modern African American/Black is the true aboriginal of America. Look at any other inhabited place in history and you will find an aboriginal people that is highly melinated.
- WalterBright 9y ago
  > it does weaken their message and other supposed great work and actions Jefferson's personal failings do not diminish at all the great ideas, work and actions he did. Americans have benefited enormously from them. Similarly, Einstein's contributions to physics are not diminished by his bad treatment of his wife. http://www.openculture.com/2013/12/albert-einstein-imposes-on-his-first-wife-a-cruel-list-of-marital-demands.html http://www.openculture.com/2013/12/albert-einstein-imposes-o...
  - lsc 9y ago
    I think there's a difference; Einstein did not try to hold himself up as a moral exemplar, or at least, arguing so would be difficult. (I'm ignoring the moral difference here between being a jerk and literally owning slaves, which is also huge.) It's much easier to argue that Jefferson held himself as, and is seen today as a moral leader; to the extent that you see Jefferson as a moral leader, owning slaves really does diminish his authority in that area, in ways that having moral failings of the same magnitude would not diminish a person's contributions, say, to science. (Jefferson did make some contributions in that area, too, but compared to Einstein, or to Jefferson's contributions elsewhere, they were minor.) I personally think one can be a terrible person and a great scientist; Can one be a horrible person and a great moral leader? My gut says that you can't, that your own moral failings compromise your greatness as a moral leader in ways that your own moral failings can not compromise your greatness as a scientist. though I can see valid counter-arguments in both cases. For that matter, I'm not sure that scientific failings can compromise your greatness as a scientist. I think scientific contributions are interesting and important in part because we have this framework for dealing with scientific ideas that can take good and provable ideas from a source that spews a lot of (probably) false and unscientific ideas. I'm thinking here of Tesla, who unquestionably was a great scientist and who's work we use every day, but who also had a lot of ideas that didn't pan out, and many that one could argue were... crazy. I think our framework for dealing with moral and ethical contributions is dramatically weaker. We do have such a framework for legal contributions, but even that is a lot weaker than what we have for scientific contributions.
    - WalterBright 9y ago
      Do you think that "All men are created equal, ..." is invalidated because Jefferson owned slaves? Do you think the Lewis & Clark expedition was valueless because Jefferson owned slaves? Do you think the Louisiana Purchase is of no consequence because Jefferson owned slaves? Given his accomplishments and contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson which would you say are invalidated because he owned slaves?
      - marchenko 9y ago
        "All men are created equal..." is certainly not invalidated, but what was intended to be indisputably true is rendered debatable, since Jefferson obviously countenanced exceptions.
        WalterBright 9y ago
        Whether he had slaves or not made no difference to American history. I've never read about anyone justifying holding slaves because Jefferson did. Don't conflate the man with the idea. The idea has changed world history for the better, a LOT better. For example, I believe that a healthy diet is desirable. But I often fail at eating a healthy diet. In no way does that invalidate the idea or my belief in it.
        mlinksva 9y ago
        I'd be very surprised if defenders of slavery didn't routinely use Jefferson, Washington, and company to justify slavery. I don't know offhand how to find primary sources, but a quick web search turns up an interview[0] with a slavery and Jefferson scholar who says: "So that Americans come to believe in racism by reading Jefferson. And in the 1840's and 50's, these Southern racists who are defending slavery are reading Jefferson and quoting him on these issues. ... This is very damaging, horrible ideas and they are used over and over again in the 1840's and 50's by the defenders of slavery to argue in favor of continuing slavery. Jefferson justifies slavery, in fact, by arguing that blacks are inferior to whites on almost all levels." [0] https://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Finkelman.htm https://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Finkelman....
curtis 9y ago
There's a couple of things I find interesting about Sally Hemings that always gets glossed over in comment threads. First is that Hemings was 3/4 white, and second, that Hemings surviving children were all free as adults.
- red-indian 9y ago
  Jefferson did in fact give Madison and Eston their freedom in his will, but attached them as indentured apprentices to John Hemings until they reached their 21st birthday. (William) Beverly and Harriet both ran away from Monticello after their 21st birthday. Jefferson's policy was one of "non-pursuit" for slaves who had reached adulthood and chose to leave. They were not explicitly freed and were not given letters of manumission. They only remained free the rest of their lives because they passed as white and did not disclose details of their origin in their new homes. In the case of Harriet, Jefferson arranged for her to be given $50 and passage. This solution for slaves that could pass to do so arguably was better than one of manumission. As white people, they faced fewer threats in their live to their freedom than freed slaves did. Freed slaves and blacks born free both, even in the north were periodically captured and re-sold into slavery, as is documented in Solomon Northup's autobiography "Twelve Years a Slave".
  - eric_bullington 9y ago
    I am a (mostly) white American with some African-American ancestry, including several freed slaves. You're absolutely correct that freed slaves were always at risk of being re-enslaved in slave states and even sometimes in states where slavery was theoretically outlawed. The solution that one of my slave ancestors and free seamstress wife came up with was for her to buy his freedom from a plantation owner. They then carefully recorded the bill of sale from this purchase in the country book of sales each time they moved, which was how a genealogist was able to track down their movements (and from his research[1], I connected a known branch of my family via primary sources, which was later re-confirmed by DNA testing). Clearly, this meticulous record-keeping was done as a shield against re-enslavement, although they likely still lived in fear. This branch of my family crossed the race barrier some time around the civil war, but evidently only somewhat, because rumors followed that family into the 20th century, leading to claims of native American ancestry to explain their darker skin (as it turns out, according to DNA testing, I have ~3% African ancestry but 0% Native American ancestry). Also, while it is true that freed slaves and their ancestors that crossed the race line faced fewer threats to their freedom than those who didn't, their life was often still full of risk to both life and property since their status was often known to many in the community. One son of the family I mentioned above made good as a trader, and became (the then equivalent of) a multi-millionaire. He married a white woman and lived a long life, and upon his death willed his considerable estate to his son, my 4th g-grandfather (wife had passed). Unfortunately, one of his wife's nephews moved to annul the will and have the estate passed to him as next of kin, on the grounds that the heir was the product of an invalid marriage, as it was between a black man and white woman. The lower court ruled in favor of the nephew, but it was overruled in one of the first rulings of the reconstruction era SC Supreme Court. Alas, the legitimate heir never managed to recoup much of the estate in spite of the ruling, probably because no one would enforce it. I'm sure this type of thing was quite common back then, and only grew worse as the region entered the Jim Crow era. 1. http://www.martygrant.com/genealogy/familydata/grpf1652.html http://www.martygrant.com/genealogy/familydata/grpf1652.html
zorpner 9y ago
A good read today, and includes some interesting discussion of Jefferson's moral role given his slave ownership: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/07/03/jeffersons-last-public-letter-reminds-us-what-independence-day-is-all-about/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/07/03...
markdog12 9y ago
For anyone looking for a good book on Jefferson, https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jefferson-Power-Jon-Meacham/dp/1400067669/ https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jefferson-Power-Jon-Meacham/dp... The competition between Jefferson and Hamilton is also detailed in https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/1594200092/ https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/159..., and it doesn't paint such a great picture of Jefferson. (Alexander Hamilton lived one of the most incredible lives ever. Anyone interested in history needs to read this book)
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  Both men's lives are pretty amazing. Jefferson had some really unfortunate parts (views and actions on race), but I struggle to find too many people who were as enlightened as him but also held power. That book, anyway, is really sympathetic towards Jefferson. I started reading the Hamilton book but haven't gotten through it, Hamilton seems a little more power-hungry and less moral. Though not sure if that's bias. It seems like modern media and scholarship has thought more highly of Jefferson than Hamilton. In John Adams, Stannis (just kidding, Jefferson) is the equal, Hamilton isn't very sympathetic. The Chernow book has turned Hamilton's perception a bit. What is an objective view on the two?
  - markdog12 9y ago
    > Hamilton seems a little more power-hungry and less moral Hamilton was power hungry, but not for the typical reasons. For instance, he did not make a fortune for himself, while Jefferson lived an extremely lavish lifestyle, while on large debts. Hamilton was incredibly ambitious, but it seems he genuinely did want to improve the lot of all Americans. Hamilton seems less moral? How so? Hamilton did not have slaves, for instance. Both men had affairs, with Hamilton's dirty laundry aired as the first national scandal, while Jefferson took his secret to his grave. > It seems like modern media and scholarship has thought more highly of Jefferson than Hamilton It seems the tide may turn on this, and maybe it already has. At the very least, Hamilton's modern ideas certainly won the day.
    - 9y ago
patrickg_zill 9y ago
Weren't there 7 adult males living in Monticello who were Jefferson's relatives during the same time period, who would show up on DNA testing as being equivalent to him? I thought that the proof of it being TJ was later admitted to be not accurate enough to exactly pinpoint him?
- rmason 9y ago
  It has always annoyed me mightily that people accept this as a foregone conclusion that Thomas Jefferson is the father. Historians condemned the original report by a lone graduate student which seems to be accepted as an absolute fact. Jefferson had a brother, Randolph, who was always at the plantation when Thomas was there who is documented to have had children with dozens of other slaves. Why wasn't that even considered? DNA tests only proved that a Jefferson male was the father, not Thomas Jefferson. There were 25 Jefferson males alive at the time who could have been the father. Only Randolph and Thomas were at the plantation every single time that Sally Hemmings got pregnant. http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-case-of-jefferson-and-hemings/ http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-case-of-jefferson...
dhkkkfff 9y ago
It would have been better if the slaves were killed after they were freed. So many problems could have been prevented.

41 points by Mz 9y ago

So it's interesting this is only coming out now, I wonder what took so long? But now is a better time than still later. And it's good to remind white people (like myself!) of the moral inconsistencies these popular figures of American history held. Yes, it does weaken their message and other supposed great work and actions, in my eyes. Further I'd like to point out that emerging from the darkness of repressed history is the understanding that many of who white people think of as native American were actually what we would call now black, or African American. The modern African American/Black is the true aboriginal of America. Look at any other inhabited place in history and you will find an aboriginal people that is highly melinated.

WalterBright 9y ago
> it does weaken their message and other supposed great work and actions Jefferson's personal failings do not diminish at all the great ideas, work and actions he did. Americans have benefited enormously from them. Similarly, Einstein's contributions to physics are not diminished by his bad treatment of his wife. http://www.openculture.com/2013/12/albert-einstein-imposes-on-his-first-wife-a-cruel-list-of-marital-demands.html http://www.openculture.com/2013/12/albert-einstein-imposes-o...
- lsc 9y ago
  I think there's a difference; Einstein did not try to hold himself up as a moral exemplar, or at least, arguing so would be difficult. (I'm ignoring the moral difference here between being a jerk and literally owning slaves, which is also huge.) It's much easier to argue that Jefferson held himself as, and is seen today as a moral leader; to the extent that you see Jefferson as a moral leader, owning slaves really does diminish his authority in that area, in ways that having moral failings of the same magnitude would not diminish a person's contributions, say, to science. (Jefferson did make some contributions in that area, too, but compared to Einstein, or to Jefferson's contributions elsewhere, they were minor.) I personally think one can be a terrible person and a great scientist; Can one be a horrible person and a great moral leader? My gut says that you can't, that your own moral failings compromise your greatness as a moral leader in ways that your own moral failings can not compromise your greatness as a scientist. though I can see valid counter-arguments in both cases. For that matter, I'm not sure that scientific failings can compromise your greatness as a scientist. I think scientific contributions are interesting and important in part because we have this framework for dealing with scientific ideas that can take good and provable ideas from a source that spews a lot of (probably) false and unscientific ideas. I'm thinking here of Tesla, who unquestionably was a great scientist and who's work we use every day, but who also had a lot of ideas that didn't pan out, and many that one could argue were... crazy. I think our framework for dealing with moral and ethical contributions is dramatically weaker. We do have such a framework for legal contributions, but even that is a lot weaker than what we have for scientific contributions.
  - WalterBright 9y ago
    Do you think that "All men are created equal, ..." is invalidated because Jefferson owned slaves? Do you think the Lewis & Clark expedition was valueless because Jefferson owned slaves? Do you think the Louisiana Purchase is of no consequence because Jefferson owned slaves? Given his accomplishments and contributions: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson which would you say are invalidated because he owned slaves?
    - marchenko 9y ago
      "All men are created equal..." is certainly not invalidated, but what was intended to be indisputably true is rendered debatable, since Jefferson obviously countenanced exceptions.
      - WalterBright 9y ago
        Whether he had slaves or not made no difference to American history. I've never read about anyone justifying holding slaves because Jefferson did. Don't conflate the man with the idea. The idea has changed world history for the better, a LOT better. For example, I believe that a healthy diet is desirable. But I often fail at eating a healthy diet. In no way does that invalidate the idea or my belief in it.
        mlinksva 9y ago
        I'd be very surprised if defenders of slavery didn't routinely use Jefferson, Washington, and company to justify slavery. I don't know offhand how to find primary sources, but a quick web search turns up an interview[0] with a slavery and Jefferson scholar who says: "So that Americans come to believe in racism by reading Jefferson. And in the 1840's and 50's, these Southern racists who are defending slavery are reading Jefferson and quoting him on these issues. ... This is very damaging, horrible ideas and they are used over and over again in the 1840's and 50's by the defenders of slavery to argue in favor of continuing slavery. Jefferson justifies slavery, in fact, by arguing that blacks are inferior to whites on almost all levels." [0] https://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Finkelman.htm https://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Finkelman....

curtis 9y ago

There's a couple of things I find interesting about Sally Hemings that always gets glossed over in comment threads. First is that Hemings was 3/4 white, and second, that Hemings surviving children were all free as adults.

red-indian 9y ago
Jefferson did in fact give Madison and Eston their freedom in his will, but attached them as indentured apprentices to John Hemings until they reached their 21st birthday. (William) Beverly and Harriet both ran away from Monticello after their 21st birthday. Jefferson's policy was one of "non-pursuit" for slaves who had reached adulthood and chose to leave. They were not explicitly freed and were not given letters of manumission. They only remained free the rest of their lives because they passed as white and did not disclose details of their origin in their new homes. In the case of Harriet, Jefferson arranged for her to be given $50 and passage. This solution for slaves that could pass to do so arguably was better than one of manumission. As white people, they faced fewer threats in their live to their freedom than freed slaves did. Freed slaves and blacks born free both, even in the north were periodically captured and re-sold into slavery, as is documented in Solomon Northup's autobiography "Twelve Years a Slave".
- eric_bullington 9y ago
  I am a (mostly) white American with some African-American ancestry, including several freed slaves. You're absolutely correct that freed slaves were always at risk of being re-enslaved in slave states and even sometimes in states where slavery was theoretically outlawed. The solution that one of my slave ancestors and free seamstress wife came up with was for her to buy his freedom from a plantation owner. They then carefully recorded the bill of sale from this purchase in the country book of sales each time they moved, which was how a genealogist was able to track down their movements (and from his research[1], I connected a known branch of my family via primary sources, which was later re-confirmed by DNA testing). Clearly, this meticulous record-keeping was done as a shield against re-enslavement, although they likely still lived in fear. This branch of my family crossed the race barrier some time around the civil war, but evidently only somewhat, because rumors followed that family into the 20th century, leading to claims of native American ancestry to explain their darker skin (as it turns out, according to DNA testing, I have ~3% African ancestry but 0% Native American ancestry). Also, while it is true that freed slaves and their ancestors that crossed the race line faced fewer threats to their freedom than those who didn't, their life was often still full of risk to both life and property since their status was often known to many in the community. One son of the family I mentioned above made good as a trader, and became (the then equivalent of) a multi-millionaire. He married a white woman and lived a long life, and upon his death willed his considerable estate to his son, my 4th g-grandfather (wife had passed). Unfortunately, one of his wife's nephews moved to annul the will and have the estate passed to him as next of kin, on the grounds that the heir was the product of an invalid marriage, as it was between a black man and white woman. The lower court ruled in favor of the nephew, but it was overruled in one of the first rulings of the reconstruction era SC Supreme Court. Alas, the legitimate heir never managed to recoup much of the estate in spite of the ruling, probably because no one would enforce it. I'm sure this type of thing was quite common back then, and only grew worse as the region entered the Jim Crow era. 1. http://www.martygrant.com/genealogy/familydata/grpf1652.html http://www.martygrant.com/genealogy/familydata/grpf1652.html

zorpner 9y ago

A good read today, and includes some interesting discussion of Jefferson's moral role given his slave ownership: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/07/03/jeffersons-last-public-letter-reminds-us-what-independence-day-is-all-about/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/07/03...

markdog12 9y ago

For anyone looking for a good book on Jefferson, https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jefferson-Power-Jon-Meacham/dp/1400067669/ https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jefferson-Power-Jon-Meacham/dp... The competition between Jefferson and Hamilton is also detailed in https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/1594200092/ https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-Chernow/dp/159..., and it doesn't paint such a great picture of Jefferson. (Alexander Hamilton lived one of the most incredible lives ever. Anyone interested in history needs to read this book)

aaron-lebo 9y ago
Both men's lives are pretty amazing. Jefferson had some really unfortunate parts (views and actions on race), but I struggle to find too many people who were as enlightened as him but also held power. That book, anyway, is really sympathetic towards Jefferson. I started reading the Hamilton book but haven't gotten through it, Hamilton seems a little more power-hungry and less moral. Though not sure if that's bias. It seems like modern media and scholarship has thought more highly of Jefferson than Hamilton. In John Adams, Stannis (just kidding, Jefferson) is the equal, Hamilton isn't very sympathetic. The Chernow book has turned Hamilton's perception a bit. What is an objective view on the two?
- markdog12 9y ago
  > Hamilton seems a little more power-hungry and less moral Hamilton was power hungry, but not for the typical reasons. For instance, he did not make a fortune for himself, while Jefferson lived an extremely lavish lifestyle, while on large debts. Hamilton was incredibly ambitious, but it seems he genuinely did want to improve the lot of all Americans. Hamilton seems less moral? How so? Hamilton did not have slaves, for instance. Both men had affairs, with Hamilton's dirty laundry aired as the first national scandal, while Jefferson took his secret to his grave. > It seems like modern media and scholarship has thought more highly of Jefferson than Hamilton It seems the tide may turn on this, and maybe it already has. At the very least, Hamilton's modern ideas certainly won the day.
  - 9y ago

patrickg_zill 9y ago

Weren't there 7 adult males living in Monticello who were Jefferson's relatives during the same time period, who would show up on DNA testing as being equivalent to him? I thought that the proof of it being TJ was later admitted to be not accurate enough to exactly pinpoint him?

rmason 9y ago
It has always annoyed me mightily that people accept this as a foregone conclusion that Thomas Jefferson is the father. Historians condemned the original report by a lone graduate student which seems to be accepted as an absolute fact. Jefferson had a brother, Randolph, who was always at the plantation when Thomas was there who is documented to have had children with dozens of other slaves. Why wasn't that even considered? DNA tests only proved that a Jefferson male was the father, not Thomas Jefferson. There were 25 Jefferson males alive at the time who could have been the father. Only Randolph and Thomas were at the plantation every single time that Sally Hemmings got pregnant. http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-case-of-jefferson-and-hemings/ http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-case-of-jefferson...

dhkkkfff 9y ago

It would have been better if the slaves were killed after they were freed. So many problems could have been prevented.