
Historians Uncover Slave Quarters of Sally Hemings at Jefferson’s Monticello - Mz
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/thomas-jefferson-s-enslaved-mistress-sally-hemings-living-quarters-found-n771261?cid=sm_npd_nn_fb_ma
======
patrickg_zill
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
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...](http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpage/the-case-of-jefferson-
and-hemings/)

------
curtis
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
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
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)

~~~
ScottBurson
Thanks for posting. I don't know nearly as much about my ancestry as you do of
yours, though I haven't particularly looked, but I too grew up with the tale
that I had some Native American ancestry, 8 generations back in my case.
23andMe, however, says I'm .4% African, and, like you, 0% Native American.
Since .4% is exactly what you'd expect after 8 generations, I think it's the
same kind of situation.

Ironically, I recall my mother's father, now long dead, as being rather
virulently racist, but in retrospect it seems likely he's the one my African
ancestry came through.

~~~
eric_bullington
Yep, both of my "Native American" family branches turned out to be in fact
African American.

You should look into your ancestry, you may be able to track it down. Just be
sure to depend only on primary documents (birth certificates, death
certificates, family bibles, wills, census rolls, etc) and perhaps some very
convincing secondary sources (like newspaper accounts, or academic works).
There's a lot of misleading "genealogy" that people have done in the past
50-75 years, and particularly in the past 10 years in the genealogy forums.

~~~
rabboRubble
Wonder if this phenomena is related to the "Big Chief" culture in New Orleans.
It seemed the African transplants to those areas describe themselves in ways
that seem more like Native American to the uninitiated.

[http://www.mardigrasneworleans.com/mardigrasindians.html](http://www.mardigrasneworleans.com/mardigrasindians.html)

~~~
eric_bullington
I'm afraid that's not it, but rather (probably for the reasons I outlined
above), people who crossed the race line made up fake ancestry to explain
their "different" appearance without admitting to African heritage. I know
some families also claimed to have Middle Eastern or Italian heritage to
explain their dark features. It's sad, but they did what they felt they had to
do to preserve their safety and standing in the community.

------
zorpner
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...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/retropolis/wp/2017/07/03/jeffersons-
last-public-letter-reminds-us-what-independence-day-is-all-about/)

------
markdog12
For anyone looking for a good book on Jefferson,
[https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jefferson-Power-Jon-
Meacham/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Thomas-Jefferson-Power-Jon-
Meacham/dp/1400067669/)

The competition between Jefferson and Hamilton is also detailed in
[https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-
Chernow/dp/159...](https://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Hamilton-Ron-
Chernow/dp/1594200092/), 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
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
> 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.

~~~
afarrell
> while Jefferson took his secret to his grave

James T. Callender reported on the Jefferson-Hemmings affair.

~~~
markdog12
Yep, same guy who reported on the Hamilton-Reynolds scandal. Difference is
Hamilton confessed, not a lot of people probably believed Callender on
Hemmings. Callender was also on Jefferson's payroll specifically to pen rabid
attacks on Hamilton. Very interesting dynamic there:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2016...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/history/2016/08/james_callender_the_attack_dog_who_took_aim_at_alexander_hamilton_and_thomas.html)

------
spraak
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
> 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-o...](http://www.openculture.com/2013/12/albert-einstein-imposes-on-
his-first-wife-a-cruel-list-of-marital-demands.html)

~~~
lsc
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
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?

~~~
tptacek
It's not from Jefferson that we get "All men are created equal", but John
Locke. Even the words Jefferson used to retransmit this thought were borrowed.

The idea that the Louisiana Purchase is inconsequential because of Jefferson's
personal history is nowhere to be found on this thread.

~~~
WalterBright
The words do indeed go back to others. But Jefferson distilled them into a
potent form and put them on the founding document of a nation (at the very
personal risk of his life).

Nobody had done that before.

~~~
tptacek
What is it that you think he was saying? He was most certainly _not_ saying
that Africans were created equal to "whites". He didn't even believe they were
the same species.

