Years ago Fawn Brodie wrote a highly-acclaimed work on this topic. I think that many other books have come out since then on the subject. Jefferson was a fascinating, complex, multi-talented "Renaissance" sort of a person, worthy of any biographer.

The Long Affair, an anti-Jefferson polemic by the Irish diplomat and writer, Conor Cruise O'Brien

Fawn Brodie's "psychological analysis" of Jefferson is not admired by some historians and several have written blistering rebuttals, such as Clifford Egan's article "How Not to Write a Biography: A Critical Look at Brodie's Jefferson in the the Social Science Journal 14, No. 2, and Virginius Dabney in The Jefferson Scandals: A Rebuttal.

I enjoyed Annette Gordon-Reed's Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy because she lays out the evidence but refrains from making an all-out judgment.

With the recent DNA-testing results proving that Sally's descendants are related to Jefferson's acknowledged descendants, it might seem the case is settled, but it's not. It's long been suspected that John Wayles, Jefferson's father-in-law, fathered Sally Hemings with his slave Betty -- making her the half-sister of Martha Wayles, Jefferson's wife -- thus the DNA could be indicating that relationship. Actually, there's a double possibility of the DNA evidence: along with the Wayles side, one or the other of Jefferson's nephews, the Carr brothers (his sister's sons), could be a candidate to have fathered Sally's children. Of course, there's the possibility it was Jefferson himself, but there's not irrefutable proof so we're back to square one.

Barbara Chase-Riboud's fictional account, Sally Hemings, makes the conclusion that Jefferson indeed had a long-term affair with Sally -- as did the film Jefferson in Paris, and it's all very interesting but readers/viewers who accept the conclusions as fact really should read the nonfiction criticisms, synoptically if possible.

Has anyone read American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis, who wrote the Pulitzer Prize winning book, Founding Brothers? I enjoyed FB and have been thinking of trying some other books by Ellis.

Georgia, I read American Sphinx several years ago, so I don't remember the particulars, but I do recall that J. Ellis's focus on Jefferson's character was of the interpretative type of biography that I'm leery of. I also recall there was some sort of kerfuffle about Ellis's agenda and his trustworthiness. Founding Brothers was a much better book, in my opinion -- so good in fact that I'm dismayed that Ellis has such a blotch on his record, if it is indeed true.

I've been reading more off the Internet about the DNA testing. It's interesting to learn that the Y-chromosome testing (which wasn't mentioned in the books I had previously read, probably because it hadn't been done yet) indicates that a male of the Jefferson line fathered at least one of Sally's children and maybe others, but not all. Other candidates have appeared, Jefferson's brother or one of the brother's five sons. Well, about all we can conclude is it was "all in the family."

Oh, Deborah, I meant to ask: what is the title of the program or movie you watched on TV?

Sally Hemings: An American Scandal. It was made in 2000.

Sam Neill plays Jefferson. It looked very authentic and it showed Jefferson as an eclectic, passionate man, with strengths and weaknesses. I didn't like the Jefferson in Paris movie. I thought this was better. I have often wondered how Jefferson rationalized the relationship in his head, why did he not free her while he was alive? His daughter freed her upon her fathers death.

Deborah, I recall that part of the reason Jefferson did not free Sally was she would have had to leave Virginia -- it was Virginia law. Martha Randolph only informally freed Sally, perhaps because by that time Sally was considered too old to be uprooted.I have often wondered how Jefferson rationalized the relationship in his head...Which relationship? The fact that he owned slaves or that he had a sexual relationship with Sally? The latter has not been proven so he might not have had anything to rationalize. The former is indeed difficult to explain, but several other Presidents (including Washington) and statesmen of that time period were slaveowners so perhaps it was "the way things were done." And if he did have an affair with Sally, he could have rationalized along the same lines -- he was an enlightened man in many respects, but he was a man of his times and not without his faults We make a mistake of assuming his thought processes and attitudes (and those of his contemporaries) should be equivalent to ours.

I didn't realize that she would have had to leave the state so that makes sense if he was indeed having an affair with her.

Actually, I think the term 'affair' here is used very loosely. An affair is voluntary on both sides. Sally was a slave who did not have a choice.

Thanks, Deborah, I'll find or buy a copy of the film. I see that it is adapted from Chase-Riboud's novel. The novel is quite interesting if somewhat melodramatic and improbable in parts, but I certainly understand C-R's fascination and how the subject makes good creative drama. I agree with you about Jefferson in Paris; I'm afraid that I found the character of Sally in that film annoying and Nolte's Jefferson without nuance.

The only problem I have with dramatized historical fiction is some viewers think it's all true, and that's why I'm perhaps too much a stickler for noting these are things that are alleged to have happened. "Alleged" is fine for good storytelling and getting people interested in what is known historically and what is revisionism (in every sense: good, bad, and neutral), but there will always be folk who accept what is dished out to them without any further exploration.

leel, indeed affair is loose, but that's part of its definition:
a procedure, action, or occasion only vaguely specified; also : an object or collection of objects only vaguely specified... - from Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary.That's how I mean it and not that of a voluntary love affair.

agreed with all of the above, films actually make me want to learn more, so I don't usually take films for face value unless I really know the topic.