Review of Reviews:
The Hemingses of Monticello by Annette Gordon-Reed
The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family by Annette Gordon-Reed, Reviewed by Edward Countryman
An Extraordinary Family and the Burdens of Slavery: A Review Essay The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family by Annette Gordon-Reed, Reviewed by Joshua D. Rothman
Beyond Biography, through Biography, toward an Integrated History The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family by Annette Gordon-Reed, Reviewed by David Waldstreicher
In The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family, Annette Gordon-Reed masterfully brings to life several generations of an enslaved family who left little direct evidence of their existence. Through many sources, Gordon-Reed recreates the lives of Thomas Jefferson’s slaves, many who were members of his own extended family. What readers are left with is nothing short of miraculous: a humane and thoughtful recreation of the lives of the enslaved at Jefferson’s famed Monticello.
As a National Book Award winner and Pulitzer Prize winner, The Hemingses of Monticello has been read and reviewed by top American historians including Edward Countryman, Joshua D. Rothman, and David Waldstreicher. Each of these three reviewers have a background in early national America that gives credence to their critiques of The Hemingses of Monticello. While Countryman, Rothman, and Waldstreicher are all able to pin point Gordon-Reed’s thesis, Rothman’s review provides the most in depth analysis in his critique of the landmark book. Countryman and Waldstreicher provide less insightful critiques of The Hemingses of Monticello, but both reviews agree that Gordon-Reed wrote a commanding assessment of the lives of several generations of the Hemings family.
Full of praise for Gordon-Reed, Countryman’s review laud’s The Hemingses of Monticello as “humane, thoughtful, gripping in its prose, compelling in its rich, sensitive argument.” Gordon-Reed convinces Countryman of the complexity of life at Monticello and of our complicated Founding Father, Thomas Jefferson.
As a reviewer, Countryman fully understands that Gordon-Reed “centers on a long-term, fertile sexual relationship between two very unequal people”. As an illustrative point of this common slaveholder/slave relationship, he uses Sally Hemingses decision to leave France and return to Virginia with Jefferson. Perhaps the best part of The Hemingses of Monticello is not the details of Hemings family members and Jefferson on Virginian soil, but instead it is their time spent in France that is most intriguing. Without merely regurgitating the facts of the Virginian’s lives in France, Gordon-Reed puts into historical context their lives spent there. It is in this sphere that Countryman provides his greatest praise for Gordon-Reed. By fleshing out the minute details of the lives centered around Jefferson, France, and Monticello, Countryman asserts that Gordon-Reed constructs “the richest, most explanatory account of them that the evidence permits her to make.”
Countryman hits a snag in his review when he claims The Hemingses of Monticello as the “Jefferson book for the Obama era’’. While this book is intrinsically about Jefferson, Gordon-Reed makes it clear that the Hemings family is her main focus. The Hemingses of Monticello remains the single best source on the lives of the enslaved Hemings family. Despite his contradictory opening claim, Countryman later admits that Gordon-Reed’s priority is to the Hemings family. Instead of a Jefferson book, The Hemingses of Monticello is the Hemings book for the Obama era.
Waldstreicher prefaces his critique of The Hemingses of Monticello with an examination of the debate that took place at the end of the twentieth century over the parentage of Sally Hemingses children. He then offers praise for Gordon-Reed’s examination, “necessary” as Waldstreicher terms it, of the Hemings family and their relationship to Jefferson in light of the recent DNA evidence.
In an attempt to placate modern-day readers, Gordon-Reed addresses the question of the presence of love in the relationship between Sally Hemings and Jefferson. Waldstreicher seems pleased with Gordon-Reed’s assessment that the idea of their love does not matter one way or the other. He goes on to pinpoint what mattered for Jefferson and what truly matters as the legacy of his ownership of slaves: property. The Hemings family members were Jefferson’s property first and foremost.
Lastly, Waldstreicher appreciates that Gordon-Reed refuses to repeat or deepen the many Jeffersonian hypocrisies. Indeed on the whole, Gordon-Reed rarely delves into the particulars of Jefferson’s life unless it is within the context of the Hemings family and his relation to them. Again, this line of thought argues against Countryman’s claim that The Hemingses of Monticello is this generation’s publication about Jefferson. While readers will learn many details of Jefferson’s life, Jefferson is not Gordon-Reed’s luminary. In his insightful review of The Hemingses of Monticello, Waldstreicher praises the fact that Jefferson and members of the Hemings family are rethought as members of a family, not just members of an antebellum slave plantation.
Clearly the most encompassing review, Rothman immediately points out how Gordon-Reed separates members of the Hemings family as “supporting characters in the life of a famous man.” Rothman goes on to concretely identify one of the main purposes of The Hemingses of Monticello: how “the deathbed narrative” of one of Thomas Jefferson’s granddaughters was privileged for hundreds of years over that of Jefferson’s slaves/sons.
In his review, Rothman also chooses to address the question of love between Sally Hemings and Jefferson. He agrees with Gordon-Reed and Waldstreicher’s review that the issue is not whether the two loved or were in love at any point, but rather how their complex relationship developed in France, carried over to Virginia, and how it is to be historically evaluated. Rothman uses few words to achieve this end, but his point is made clearly and concisely. However, Rothman is critical of what he calls Gordon-Reed’s oversimplification of whether Jefferson raped Hemings. “In doing so Gordon-Reed replicates their broadness, losing in the process much of the subtlety characteristic of the rest of the book.” Rothman forgets that The Hemingses of Monticello not only provides a historical framework for the Hemings and Jefferson relationship, but also offers general readership characteristics. Given today’s society’s interest in the slave owner/slave relationship, Gordon-Reed would be hard-pressed to not mention rape. The fact is that Jefferson could have raped Hemings.
Disturbingly, Rothman interprets Gordon-Reed’s portrayal of Jefferson as ‘creepy.’ Jefferson is renown for his demeaning opinions of African Americans in his Notes on the State of Virginia. Gordon-Reed suggests that while in France especially, Jefferson scrutinized Sally Hemings and her behavior, all the while comparing her against African Americans and other mixed-race slaves. However, Rothman interprets these observations by Jefferson and the ensuing relationship as ‘creepy.’ This is an odd word choice in an otherwise eloquently worded review. To observe and record was Jefferson’s nature; he evaluated almost every aspect of his life, whether in Virginia or France. The fact that Jefferson closely observed Sally Hemings does not make him creepy, but rather shows that Jefferson treated Hemings as a normal part of his life instead of an exception.
Rothman claims The Hemingses of Monticello is unnecessarily long, and he points to several scenes depicted by Gordon-Reed as expendable. In point of fact, he cites the squabble between two French servants in Jefferson’s Philadelphia household as one such event that takes up too much space. However, this particular squabble is enlightening because it provides a backdrop for how Jefferson treated other servants/slaves. Gordon-Reed adeptly demonstrates the ways in which Jefferson treated Sally Hemings differently than most of his other slaves. Jefferson’s response to the two French servants provides just one example of how he handled situations with other servants/slaves. Therefore, unlike Rothman claims, the dispute between the two French servants was necessary to The Hemingses of Monticello and could have taken up twice as much space.
While overall more critical than Waldstreicher’s review, Countryman and Rothman both appreciate the conclusions Gordon-Reed reaches. It would be a sign of poor scholarship if Gordon-Reed’s The Hemingses of Monticello received no criticism, positive or negative. The fact that three notable historians lend their expertise to reviews of this book speaks to the landmark conclusions reached concerning the Hemings family and Gordon-Reed’s thorough account of the Jefferson/Hemings relationship.
