Finally, there is another logical fallacy at play in this debate. The fact that we have no information about where Thomas Jefferson was at a given hour on a particular night leaves open the possibility that he was in the arms of Sally Hemings or some other woman. But it does not constitute “evidence” of that relationship, nor is it correct to assume that the odds he was with Sally are “fifty-fifty.” There is a temptation to think: “Well, either he was or he wasn’t. With only two alternatives, the probability of one or the other is fifty percent. It’s a toss-up question.”
To illustrate the fallacy of this reasoning, let us consider another hypothesis. Let us assume that on a particular day in his professional life, no record exists of whether or not George Bush (either of them, or Bill Clinton if you prefer) wore socks. If someone without knowledge of the facts alleged that he wore orange socks on that day, we would not assume the odds were fifty-fifty in favor of such a proposition—and even if stated in the alternative that he either wore orange socks or did not wear orange socks, the odds would not change. Nor are the odds fifty-fifty that he wore no socks that day, as we can reasonably predict from things we do know about their behavior that these men have worn socks most of the days of their adult lives. Thus, we should resist the temptation to think: “Well, we can’t conclusively prove that Thomas Jefferson had an affair with Sally Hemings or that he did not. Thus, the odds are fifty-fifty, and the issue is a ‘toss up.’”
Acknowledgments
I am particularly grateful for the opportunity to work with the exceptional group of senior scholars who made up the Scholars Commission. I knew most of them from their Jefferson writings or by reputation, but before this inquiry few were even casual acquaintances, much less friends. Among the many sources of satisfaction during this inquiry have been the warm friendships I have made with a group of scholars I deeply admire. I am indebted to them for their cooperative spirits, their helpful comments on my own work, and their patience as our final product has been delayed through no fault of their own.
One of my first official steps after accepting the invitation to chair the Scholars Commission was to contact Dr. Daniel Jordan, the highly regarded president (1986–2008) of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (renamed “Thomas Jefferson Foundation” in 2000) to seek his help. Consistent with his reputation as a gentleman, he invited me to join him for lunch at Monticello and offered whatever assistance we needed. He was fully cooperative. I am indebted as well to Ms. Lucia Stanton, the Shannon Senior Research Historian at Monticello, who has responded promptly and candidly to all of my questions. These are emotional issues for many, and there has been a tendency by some on both sides to view those who take a different view as being either “traitors” or “racists.” I understand the passions, but I see few obvious villains on either side of the debate.
During our lunch, Dr. Jordan urged me to resist the temptation to focus our investigation on the Monticello Report itself, and suggested in the alternative that we gather together a large group of student assistants and search for new evidence of relevance to the issue. I had already struck out in an effort to interest members of the Jefferson Literary and Debating Society at the University of Virginia in the issue, which surprised me given their traditional devotion to their University’s founder and enthusiasm for a good quarrel.70 Indeed, I sensed that this issue was viewed by many at the University as being so politically sensitive that I went to unusual steps to try to disassociate my work on the inquiry from my employment by the University of Virginia. During our inquiry I made no use of law student research assistants, and even opened a new e-mail account at home to minimize the necessity of using my University of Virginia account in connection with my work as a member of the Scholars Commission. Anyone who is displeased with my work ought therefore direct his or her anger at me rather than my employer. No reasonable person can accuse the University of Virginia of trying to “protect” the reputation of its founder in this matter.71
There was one very notable exception, and a tremendous one at that, as it came from the most senior official at the University. University of Virginia Rector72 John “Jack” P. Ackerly III, came to see me after reading a summary of our report in the Wall Street Journal73 in 2001 and provided deeply appreciated encouragement and support. Jack Ackerly—and based upon his comments, I believe a majority of the other members of the University of Virginia Board of Visitors at the time—recognized that Thomas Jefferson was not receiving a fair hearing and tried to be supportive without in the process interfering with the academic freedom of members of the faculty.
My research brought me into contact with a number of very able private citizens who possessed both a remarkable knowledge about Thomas Jefferson and a willingness to do the serious business of scholarly research outside the limelight and (like the members of the Scholars Commission) without compensation. The list of those who helped is a long one, but I would be unforgivably remiss if I failed to acknowledge the tremendous help I received from Cynthia Harris Burton,74 Eyler Coates, Sr.,75 former Monticello guides Dr. White McKenzie Wallenborn (who also served on the Monticello research committee), and Dr. Michael Moffitt. They have been critically important to my efforts in this inquiry, and each of them deserves a large measure of the credit for any good I may have accomplished. Obviously, they are not responsible for my errors.
As our work progressed, it became clear that there were three organizations with a particular interest in our inquiry: the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (TJHS, which had asked us to undertake the inquiry), the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF, or TJF now that it has dropped the word “Memorial” from its name), and the Monticello Association (MA), which, as noted, is the family association of descendants of Thomas Jefferson. We tried to deal fairly with all three groups, and solicited new evidence and arguments from each of them. When our Final Report was completed just six days before it was released to the public, copies were e-mailed simultaneously to the heads of each of the three organizations.
By far the most responsive group was the TJHS, perhaps understandably given the fact that they had initiated our inquiry. During our year-long inquiry, I received numerous e-mails, faxes, research papers, articles, and even an advance copy of a book that members of the group had coauthored.76
Many others have provided helpful assistance or encouragement.77 I have also benefited from the generous cooperation I received from some of the major participants in this dispute, including Dr. Eugene Foster and Professor Joseph Ellis.78 Dr. Terry Turner,79 of the University of Virginia Medical School, also provided very helpful assistance—sometimes by pointing out weaknesses in arguments that had been suggested (such as that the fact Thomas Jefferson fathered mostly girls and his brother Randolph only boys might be scientifically significant for our inquiry). That may have been a more valuable contribution than suggesting a new positive argument on one side or the other of this issue.
During the subsequent nearly nine years in which, as time permitted, I made some final corrections and additions to my Individual Views, I have been particularly fortunate to have the assistance of Steven Corneliussen—a professional science writer at the Jefferson Laboratories in Newport News, Virginia. Steve remains an agnostic on the Jefferson-Hemings issue, but was outraged over what he perceived as the “abuse of science” by some who believed that Thomas Jefferson had fathered one or more children by Sally Hemings. He not only agreed to personally read and comment on each of my chapters, but also recruited some outstanding professional scientists to help review one particularly disappointing “scientific” contribution to the debate. (See Chapter Five.)
Last, but certainly not least, I am indebted to my now seventeen-year-old son, Thomas, for his many months of tolerance in 2000–2001 while I spent night after night reading and then working at my computer until the early hours of the morning. Living with a single parent as a seven-year-old child is not always easy; and when “Dad” sometimes seems preoccupied with other priorities, it can be all
the more difficult.
Disclaimer
I should again emphasize that my work on this project has been personal and not on behalf of the University of Virginia, its School of Law, the Center for National Security Law, or any other organization or entity with which I am currently or in the past have been affiliated. I have undoubtedly made errors, and I am confident they will be identified by others.80 I suspect I may well be accused of making some errors on points I will continue to believe are valid, and in those cases I will submit the verdict to the reader. As Thomas Jefferson said in his First Inaugural Address:
When right, I shall often be thought wrong by those whose positions will not command a view of the whole ground. I ask your indulgence for my own errors, which will never be intentional, and your support against the errors of others, who may condemn what they would not if seen in all its parts.
Weigh the evidence on all sides and draw your own conclusions, for on this issue it is clear that some very able scholars—on one side or the other—have reached the wrong conclusions. As Jefferson reminded us, we are in the end answerable not for the rightness but only the uprightness of our decisions.81
Ultimately, our goal must be a search for the truth. That, I am persuaded, can best be attained by vigorous and open public debate. As my University’s founder, Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1820:
This institution [the University of Virginia] will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.82
We must never abandon that principle.
As will be discussed in my Postscript—which, I emphasize, reflects my own personal views only and has not even been seen by some members of the Scholars Commission—the sad reality has been that, in the aftermath of our April 2001 report, not one of the leading scholars in the revisionist camp has been willing to engage in public debate with us on this issue. To mention just one example, a debate being planned for the 2002 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association had to be cancelled when no one could be found to defend the position that Thomas Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings.
The most common response, I am told, was that scholars had “moved on” to other issues. That was also the explanation given by Dr. Daniel Jordan, President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, in explaining why the foundation did not think it would be useful to comment in detail on the Scholars Commission report.83 I will leave to the reader the question of whether the strength of this report may have been a factor in such decisions to “move on” and reluctance to defend their positions on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. In the absence of public debates, we are left with the alternative, as lawyers say, of submitting the case to the jury of public opinion “on the briefs.”
* * *
Footnotes
1. Jefferson’s Farm Book indicates at various points that Sally was born in 1773. We don’t know the date. She arrived in Paris around the middle of 1787, so there would seem to be about an equal chance that she was thirteen years old as opposed to fourteen. See, e.g., THOMAS JEFFERSON: THE GARDEN AND FARM BOOKS 244 (Robert C. Baron ed., 1987).
2. See Chapter Three.
3. Jefferson to Adams, July 9, 1819, in 15 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 206 (Mem. ed. 1904).
4. LUCIA STANTON, FREE SOME DAY 107 (2000).
5. For a first-hand account of Federalist attitudes towards Jefferson, see Margaret Bayard Smith, Reminiscences of President Jefferson, reprinted in JEFFERSON READER 57–59 (Francis Coleman Rosenberger, ed. 1953). Ms. Smith was the daughter of Federalist Colonel John Bayard, and writes of believing that Jefferson was “a violent demagogue, coarse and vulgar in his manners, awkward and rude in his appearance, for such had the public journals and private conversations of the federal party represented him to be.” Id. at 57. She writes of her subsequent shock after meeting Jefferson and “discovering the stranger whose deportment was so dignified and gentlemanly, whose language was so refined, whose voice was so gentle, whose countenance was so benignant, to be no other than Thomas Jefferson.” Id. at 58.
6. This point does not appear to be in controversy between the factions in the current debate, and it is readily admitted by some of the most ardent advocates of Thomas Jefferson’s paternity of Sally’s children. See, e.g., ANNETTE GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 3 (1997); and JOSEPH J. ELLIS, AMERICAN SPHINX 260, 365 (1996).
7. See, e.g., Michael Kammen, Jefferson: Farmer, Architect, Rebel, Statesman & Etc., WASH. POST, 7 July 1974 at D1 (“Mrs. Brodie does not so much humanize Jefferson as trivialize him. She is a historical gossip, incapable of distinguishing between cause and effect.”). Historian Garry Wills characterized Brodie’s scholarship as “sub-freshman absurdity,” adding: “Error on this scale, and in this detail, does not come easily. There is a skill involved.” Garry Wills, Uncle Thomas’s Cabin, NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, Apr. 18, 1974 at 27.
8. Garry Wills, Uncle Thomas’s Cabin, NEW YORK REVIEW OF BOOKS, Apr. 18, 1974 at 27.
9. Like so many myths, this one has an historical predicate. Although there was no “staircase” during Jefferson’s lifetime, one was installed by Jefferson M. Levy after he became the owner of Monticello in order to provide access to a bathtub he installed above the small (two-and-a-half-foot-wide) alcove above Jefferson’s bed (which had been built and used by Jefferson as a clothes closet). This staircase was later removed as part of an effort to restore the property to its original plan. See, e.g., Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Research Committee, Report on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (Jan. 2000), Appendix H at 3 (hereinafter referred to as Monticello Report). This report is available on line at: http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings_report.html.
10. On this point, see the Individual Views of Professor Robert Ferrell, Distinguished Professor of History, Emeritus, at Indiana University and widely regarded as among America’s foremost presidential historians, beginning on page 281.
11. ANNETTE GORDON-REED, THE HEMINGSES OF MONTICELLO: AN AMERICAN FAMILY (2008).
12. Mary L. Dudziak, Goluboff and Gordon-Reed win Guggenheim Fellowships, Legal History Blog, April 9, 2009, available at http://legalhistoryblog.blogspot.com/2009/04/goluboff-and-gordon-reed-win-guggenheim.html.
13. Neely Tucker, Add Washington Book Prize to the ‘Hemingses’ Haul, WASH. POST, May 29, 2009.
14. Annette Gordon-Reed Named Rutgers Board of Governors Professor of History, Rutgers Media Relations Press Release, July 14, 2009, available at http://news.rugters.edu/medrel/news-releases/2009/07/annette-gordon-reed-20090714.
15. Jacquelin Trescott, Obama honors winners of National Medal of the Arts, National Humanities Medal, WASH. POST, Feb. 26, 2010.
16. Annette Gordon-Reed ’84 to join the Harvard faculty, Harvard Law School News & Events, April 30, 2010, available at http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/2010/04/30_annette.html.
17. Felicia R. Lee, MacArthur Foundation Honors 23, N.Y. TIMES, Sept. 28, 2010, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/arts/28macarthur.html.
18. Marcia Coyle, An alternative short list for the high court, NATIONAL LAW JOURNAL, May 18, 2009, available at: http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1202430756479&slreturn= 1&hbxlogin=1. (The story began: “Is New York Law School’s Annette Gordon-Reed, the Pulitzer Prize-winning law professor/historian, on President Obama’s Supreme Court ‘short list?’”)
19. The first person to my knowledge to discover material errors in the Gordon-Reed book was Eyler Coates in 2000. The following year, he included the Coolidge letter with changes identified in an appendix to THE JEFFERSON-HEMINGS MYTH 193–96 (Eyler Robert Coates, Sr., ed. 2001).
20. See pages 373–75.
21. History News Network provides a useful summary of “How the Ambrose Story Developed” at: http://hnn.us/articles/504.html.
22. Mark Lewis, Plagiarism Controversy: Doris Kearns Goodwin And the Credibility Gap, FORBES, F
eb. 27, 2002, available at: http://www.forbes.com/2002/02/27/0227goodwin.html.
23. Robert F. Worth, Prize for Book Is Taken Back From Historian, N.Y. TIMES, Dec. 14, 2002, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/14/business/media/14BOOK.html.
24. Id.
25. If the aged Madison Hemings confused his grandmother with his great-grandmother (whom he knew), how credible are his rather bizarre assertions about events in Paris that occurred years before his birth? If, on the other hand, the error was injected by Pike County Republican editor Samuel Wetmore—a strong critic of Thomas Jefferson—the accuracy of the rest of the article is similarly brought into question. There is also at least some evidence that Professor Gordon-Reed’s transcription of the Pike County Republican article was copied from Professor Fawn Brodie’s book, as both versions transcribe the date of Madison Hemings’ marriage as “1834” rather than “1831” (which is clear on the microfilm I examined). However, Professor Brodie transcribed Madison’s age at the time of Jefferson’s death as “21,” while Professor Gordon-Reed correctly transcribes “21 1/2”—evidence both that she can be a careful scholar and that she (or someone on her behalf) checked her work against the original.
26. THE BLUEBOOK: A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF CITATIONS (18th ed. 2005).
The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy Page 9