Sally Hemings: An American Scandal (2000)

The belief that Thomas Jefferson had a long-standing sexual relationship with his slave Sally Hemings rests on four grounds: 1) the contemporaneous charges of journalist James Callendar, who smeared members of both political parties, sometimes truthfully and sometimes not, as his allegiances shifted. Callendar's charges were made in viciously racist terms, and they were never directly addressed by Jefferson. Callendar is strikingly portrayed as a snake by Rene Auberjonois in this film. 2) The claim of Madison Hemings, one of Hemings' sons, who first wrote that he and Hemings' other children were fathered by Jefferson in a newspaper interview and then in a short memoir, both written in the 1870's, when he himself was in his seventies, and nearly fifty years after Jefferson's death. 3) DNA testing of the lineal descendants of Eston Hemings, Sally Hemings' youngest child, that showed a familial link to a male Jefferson, but not specifically to Thomas Jefferson. 4) Timetables that show that Thomas Jefferson is the only male Jefferson who can be proved to have been at Monticello around nine months before the births of all of Sally's children. If we make the assumption that all of Sally Hemings' children had the same father, that would tend to show that Jefferson was the father of all of them. Each of these, by itself, proves nothing; even taken together they aren't conclusive proof. But they certainly are suggestive.What is more important in judging stories about Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson is that we know practically nothing about the nature of the relationship between them. Hemings left no papers; Jefferson wrote nothing about her. Madison wrote that Sally went to France as a companion to Jefferson's daughter Maria when he was the US ambassador; that she and Maria stayed eighteen months, during which Sally became pregnant with Jefferson's child. "She was just beginning to understand the French language well, and in France she was free, while if she returned to Virginia she would be re-enslaved. So she refused to return with him. To induce her to do so he promised her extraordinary privileges, and made a solemn pledge that her children should be freed at the age of twenty-one years. In consequence of his promise, on which she implicitly relied, she returned with him to Virginia." He wrote that these promises were kept: "He (Jefferson) was not in the habit of showing partiality or fatherly affection to us children. We were the only children of his by a slave woman. He was affectionate toward his white grandchildren, of whom he had fourteen, twelve of whom lived to manhood and womanhood." He also wrote that, "We were permitted to stay about the 'great house,' and only required to do such light work as going on errands. Harriet learned to spin and to weave in a little factory on the home plantation. We were free from the dread of having to be slaves all our lives long, and were measurably happy. We were always permitted to be with our mother, who was well used. It was her duty, all her life which I can remember, up to the time of father's death, to take care of his chamber and wardrobe, look after us children and do such light work as sewing, and Provision was made in the will of our father that we should be free when we arrived at the age of 21 years."Assuming this is all true (and the movie doesn't stick to even this much) everything else about their relationship is invented. Were Sally and Thomas tender and loving partners over several decades, was Thomas a mean and ruthless exploiter of a vulnerable slave, or did they both have what was just a practical arrangement? Nobody knows, so we all bring to their relationship our own prejudices, wishes, and hopes. It's a mirror, and what we see in it is ourselves, not any historic fact. What is written and filmed about them is a "plantation romance," whether it is of the whips and chains variety like Mandingo and parts of this movie, or whether it is more hopeful that love could overcome the institution of slavery, as are other parts of this movie. As to the movie itself, it has a serviceable script and is well filmed by TV mini-series standards, and its four-hour length doesn't seem too long. Its main advantages are that Neill and Ejogo provide two good lead performances and that Ejogo is a world-class beauty. Its only distracting flaw is the excessive and quite noticeable make-up jobs on all the actors who are supposed to be elderly. In sum, it's worth watching if you're interested in the subject and don't think that movies tell the truth about historical characters.

THE FACTS:She was a slave. He was a slave owner.Any "romance" that blossomed under those circumstances is instantly suspect. Love is free. Love is willing. Love should not be kept under lock and key. Yeah, maybe Sally legitimatly fell in love with TJ BUT the fact still remains, she was his property. What options did she have? What if 14-15 year old Sally had said no to her 42-43 year old "massa" Thomas? But on to the movie itself. Did it make a honest attempt to tell this story, taking in consideration the circumstances in which these people lived or did the creators take the sleasy route and just make it some wack romance novel come to life?Yep...worse fears confirmed...Tina Andrews(writer) turned it in to a part GONE WITH THE WIND, part IMITATION OF LIFE, part THORN BIRDS, all crap. Oh sure we got to see Diahann Carol smack ol Sally upside the head and my goodness, for a slave, Sally sure did get around didn't she? I was expecting Rhett Butler to come rolling through, proclaiming his love for Sally as well.What a load of crap.This movie made slavery look like fun, like an Disney amusement park(SLAVERYLAND! Where Ol' Times Are Not Forgotten! Zippadee Doo Dah Zippadee Yea!), made Sally look like a spoiled(how dare she want Thomas to promise not to sell her!)Lolitaish(her "seduction" of a "resisting" Thomas in romantic pre-French Revolution Paris is sure to be a "classic")civil rights feminist and Thomas as a reluctant, foot soaking, tortured(he supposedly did not agree with the institution of slavery but yet owned slaves and sold some of them to pay off his debts)romantic.Did I already mention that this was a load of crap?To take an period in American history as horrifying as slavery and to use it as a backdrop for a two bit Danielle Steele knockoff is demeaning not only to the audience watching this train wreck of a mini-series but to the memories of those who endured Slavery. Period.

Hello. I was very pleased with the series. I was interested in watching it because of SAM NEILL but soon found that the acting of SAM and Carmen was so well done that I actually found myself watching TJ and Sally finding each other, loving each other and was drawn in to their unique situation. I believe that the series did a good thing in bringing this relationship into the public eye and I personally have found I have a great interest in learning more about TJ, Sally (who, unfortunately, there is not a lot available) and the whole horrible slave business.There were places in the series where I was disappointed, simple things that were not realistic, but I was willing to overlook them because of the superb acting of SAM NEILL and Carmen.I recommend this series.

I thoroughly enjoyed this mini series, it was very well written, entertaining and one of the best I have seen. Very historically accurate in terms of what the slaves went through and a good quality production. The entire cast are some of the most talented actors I have seen, no one was a disappointment. Carmen Ejogo portrayed Sally as an intelligent woman and was very convincing and wonderful in her part. I think we will see a lot of her in the future. Sam Neill was also wonderful-based on historical information I believe his portrayal of Jefferson was accurate. Mare Winningham was excellent as always but I enjoyed every actor down to the smallest roles. I wish there were more quality programs like this one on television. The only disappointing part was when it was over.