Eye opening History

Whether you believe it or not Sally Hemings story needed to be told. This is one of the most objective accounts I've read.

Scholarly book. Controversial subject but the author did her homework and proved her point.

An interesting look at this subject. One focus of the book was how the oral tradition of white families is usually accepted without question, while the oral tradition of black families is usually discounted without reason.

While an intimate relationship between Hemmings and Jefferson cannot be proved, the author lays out a very strong case that it is likely. Using the facts known and logic and examining all testimony concerning the matter as if it were a legal case, she is able to show how discounters of the relationship were motivated by their feelings for Jefferson or their bias against the testimony of slaves and former slaves. In that way, it tells us as much about ourselves as it does about Hemmings and Jefferson.

didn't get to this one, it was written before DNA pointed to paternity of Sally Hemings children, really recommend Gordon-Reed's newer one on the Hemings family.

This is Annette Gordon-Reed's first major book on the Jefferson-Hemings liaison. Her second, The Hemingses of Monticello, won the Pulitzer Prize and is one of my favorite books about any aspect of Jefferson's long and extraordinary life.

What makes this book so impressive, though, is that it was published before DNA evidence "revealed that male-line descendants of Eston Hemings (a son of Sally Hemings) and male-line descendants of Field Jefferson’s father (who was Thomas Jefferson's grandfather), shared the same Y-chromosome haplotype. This demonstrates that Eston's father was a Jefferson male," according to Monticello's website.

In other words, this book was published before the critical DNA evidence established a biological connection between Sally Hemings and Jefferson, corroborating the body of circumstantial evidence. Gordon-Reed, the legal scholar and fastidious historian that she is, metes out a point-by-point refutation of major historians' claims denying the Jefferson-Hemings liaison. She dismantles every spurious argument that it would have been impossible for a man like Jefferson to sire children with an enslaved girl -- anticipating the DNA study years in advance.

Some conservatives as well as liberals won't like what they read, as they project their a-historical identity and gender politics onto Thomas and Sally. Gordon-Reed not only challenges the idea that someone of Jefferson's stature would never take a teenage slave as a "mistress." She also challenges the notion that Sally Hemings would be automatically opposed to the relationship which lasted 38 years.

This is not written as narrative history. The text is dry for stretches as Gordon-Reed lays out the evidence in a lawyerly fashion. Make sure you follow the Jefferson and Hemings family trees so you don't get lost in all the names of relatives. But beyond making the argument that the Jefferson-Hemings liaison was not only possible but rather likely, Gordon-Reed raises important questions about the historical profession and the use of history as propaganda. Why was it that Madison Hemings' account of being Jefferson's son -- published in the 19th century -- was treated with disdain by just about every major Jefferson scholar until Fawn Brodie in the 1970s? The answer tells us more about ourselves than Jefferson himself.

This book is a fascinating and eye-opening look into the debate over whether or not Thomas Jefferson fathered children via his slave, Sally Hemmings. Annette Gordon-Reed deserves enormous credit for her rigorous research and fierce debate style that in my mind eliminate most doubt that Jefferson was the father of at least 4 surviving children whose descendants live in the USA today. The most important aspect of the book is a thorough analysis of the historical record that revealed Jeffersonian historians' extreme bias against the testimony of black people, particularly Madison Hemmings, the youngest of Jefferson-Hemmings children. I would give this book 5 stars were it not for debate structure of the book, which interferes with its readability and often repeats facts in different contexts. It is a hugely important book that should be read as it provokes discussion and curiosity about American racist past and present in a highly constructive way.

An important book

I’m not a fan of historical fiction, prefer non-fiction, and this book is a good example why. I appreciate the author’s fact pattern, one of the benefits of an attorney author. Also, Gordon-Reed’s mention of “presentism” when interpreting past events

I listened to this book as a complement to “Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power.” Jefferson is the most complicated of the presidents, so far.

Jefferson was 44 to Hemings’ 14 years when they were in France. She may have resembled his late wife, her half sister. Why didn’t Hemings and her brother, James (age 19) remain in France where they were legally free?

Such a peculiar institution, slavery. . . Washington and Jefferson were enslavers, Adams was not.

I listened to B (Madison Hemings memoir) and C (Israel Gillette Jefferson memoir) of the appendices that were mentioned in another review, a review that also referenced the DNA testing results.

Always looking for books that complement U.S. presidents since I’m in the Presidents Book Group, hosted by the Calvin Coolidge Presidential Library and Museum.
For example, I read “Never Caught:” (POTUS Washington).

Great for a number of reasons, but ideal for teaching upper division undergrads about how to interpret sources, construct an argument, and engage with the field.

I first read this in grad school and, recently, decided to reread it. It may be common knowledge now that SH's children were in some way related to the Jefferson clan but I remember in grad school being shocked by this revelation, or the possibility of it. I also remember that a question asked wasn't necessarily did it exist but rather could a romantic relationship ever exist between one in power and one enslaved.

In any event, like I said, I wanted to revisit it to garner more background knowledge on the topic without having to purchase new books. Interestly enough, the book isn't necessarily about TJ and SH alleged affair nor is it out to convince you of that. Written like a legal brief, the essential argument is actually that historians have for so long either denied the relationship because of a lack of evidence or lambasted the available evidence. AGR repeatedly undermines the arguments of various noted historians in the field and shows how racism has allowed for a valid primary source, Madison Hemings' memoirs, to be thrown out while other sources remain valued. Why value the opinion of one person above anothers? She uses extrinsic evidence and conjecture throughout her argument to show how a relationship was possible and, in her opinion, likely, basing her premise on the very documents that most historians want to throw out, as well as basing her arguments on historicity and common sense. I'm convinced by her argument and by the DNA evidence since revealed. But I'm still fascinated by the question we discussed in of my seminars in grad school and this question isn't much discussed here-is "love" possible when the distribution of power is disparate? Something to think about.

I'd recommend this read BUT it does get repetitive. You may be better served with reading the first couple and last couple of chapters.

I like the book for what it is trying to argue, I am just not so sure about how it is argued. Whenever an academic from outside of history tries to make a historical argument it can sometimes be problematic. However, she did really well and I was largely pleased.

This was a excellent historical analysis that is unbiased and factual. The case is presented fully, using reason and common sense to draw conclusions. It's impressive the research that went into creating this book. I now have a nuanced view of the Jefferson - Hemings controversy, backed by science, genealogy, and the past.