An example of one of the almost certainly untrue stories is Madison’s account of how he was named. The article asserts:
As to myself, I was named Madison by the wife of James Madison, who was afterwards President of the United States. Mrs. Madison happened to be at Monticello at the time of my birth, and begged the privilege of naming me, promising my mother a fine present for the honor. She consented, and Mrs. Madison dubbed me by the name I now acknowledge, but like many promises of white folks to the slaves she never gave my mother anything.44
There is not only no evidence that Dolley Madison was present at Monticello when Madison Hemings was born on January 19,45 1805; there is substantial circumstantial evidence that she was more than one hundred miles away in Washington, D.C. To begin with, we know that Dolley Madison did not like to be separated from her husband and lived with him in Washington during his service as secretary of state in the Jefferson administration. On the few occasions when they were separated, they wrote letters to each other regularly. We know that James Madison was in Washington, D.C., during January 1805, and there are no known letters between the two of them from this period.46
The Madisons always left Washington during the heat of August and September, and normally spent those months at Montpelier—often exchanging visits with Jefferson at Monticello lasting a week or more at a time. Jefferson normally also returned to Monticello for at least a few weeks around April, but the Madisons returned less frequently. Neither family normally attempted to make the trip during the cold winter months.47
In addition, the two people Dolley Madison might most likely have traveled all the way to Monticello to visit were not present at Monticello when Madison Hemings was born. On January 7—twelve days before Madison’s birth at Monticello—President Jefferson wrote a letter to Martha Jefferson Randolph datelined “Washington” and noting that her husband, Thomas Mann Randolph, had written that he planned to bring Martha to Washington. But Jefferson warned against attempting the trip, citing “such a spell of severe weather we have not known for years.”48 (Thomas Jefferson hated cold weather and complained of it often.49) Two days after Madison’s birth, again writing from Washington, Jefferson expresses concern that he has just received Martha’s letter of 11 January containing “information of your illness.”50 A third letter, written from Washington one week later, makes it clear that Jefferson is writing to the ill Martha at her home at Edgehill, not at Monticello.
In the January 21 letter, Jefferson emphasizes the “dreadful spell of weather,” of which he asserts he has seen nothing similar “since the last winter we were in Paris” more than fifteen years earlier. The third letter, dated January 28, reports that the ground had been covered with snow for twenty-four days (i.e., from about the fourth of January), and the previous day they had received another six to eight inches of snow.51 A review of Jefferson’s other correspondence indicates that he left Monticello between September 11 and October 9, 1804, and did not return until March 1805.52 The Madisons returned to Washington from Montpelier in early October.53
There is also the question of whether, even had she been present, and given the social realities of the day, Dolley Madison would have “begged” any Monticello slave for the privilege of naming a slave child after her husband. Would she have perceived this as a great honor? Any answer would be pure speculation. But even if one accepts that as being likely, would it hold true for the notorious Sally Hemings—whom James Callender had libeled to the world as “a slut as common as the pavement,”54 and Annette Gordon-Reed called “one of the most vilified women in American history”?55 Surely Dolley Madison was aware of the harm done to Thomas Jefferson’s reputation by the allegation that Sally Hemings had a mulatto child named “Tom.” Why on earth would she “beg” this same woman to name her latest child “Madison”? There is no reason to assume that Dolley Madison wished to fuel new scandals for the benefit of the Federalists as her husband contemplated a presidential campaign of his own.
Even if for some reason Dolley Madison had wished her husband to be so “honored,” might she not have been more likely to suggest the idea to Thomas or Martha Jefferson than to “beg” the new mother, a slave? (Professor Gordon-Reed argues that Sally probably did not name her own children in any event.56) Would Dolley Madison—a woman of illustrious reputation57—likely have made such a “bargain” and then failed to follow up with the promised gift? We obviously do not know the answer to any of these questions; but even had Dolley Madison been present at Monticello, Madison Hemings’ story would seem unlikely. This comment is not intended as criticism of Madison, who obviously had no memory of conversations by others made hours after he was born; nor is it intended to be critical of Sally Hemings. Despite Callender’s viciously racist rantings, there is no serious evidence that Sally Hemings was other than a fine and decent woman. But her image in the minds of the public came entirely from the pen of Callender, and anyone who “begged” her to name a child after a candidate for national political office would presumably not be trying to further that candidacy.
Like many of Madison’s reported allegations, this one is contrary to both the known evidence and common sense. In fairness to Madison, he obviously had no first-hand knowledge of the alleged incident, and—assuming that neither he nor Samuel Wetmore simply fabricated the story to provide a flavor of detail while discrediting (because of the social realities of the day) two of Jefferson’s closest friends with an allegation for which there is no evidence—it appears that he was likely misled. Presumably Dolley Madison was not his source, which would make Sally Hemings the most likely one. If Sally misled Madison about this incident, how much can we rely upon his other assertions that may have come from her?
Other Parts of the Story Are Very Difficult to Believe
Also in the “highly incredible” category is Madison Hemings’ account of the alleged “treaty” between Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson:
Their stay (my mother and Maria’s) [in Paris] was about eighteen [sic58] months. But during that time my mother became Mr. Jefferson’s concubine, and when he was called back home she was enciente [French for “pregnant”] by him. He desired to bring my mother back to Virginia with him but she demurred. 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 promises, on which she implicitly relied, she returned with him to Virginia.59
One hardly knows where to start with this incredible statement. A few observations may be useful:
The only first-hand commentary we have about Sally’s personality at the time she traveled to Paris was from the captain of the ship that transported them from Virginia—who thought that Sally would be of no use to Thomas Jefferson and suggested he take her back to Virginia—and from Abigail Adams, who hosted Jefferson’s daughter Polly and her maid Sally for three weeks in London while awaiting the arrival of another Jefferson servant to take them to Paris. Adams—whose character, judgment, and intelligence are well-documented—described the frightened slave girl as “quite a child”60 and as wanting “more care”61 than Jefferson’s eight-year-old daughter Polly. Is it credible that Sally would so quickly have been transformed into a self-assured young woman with the courage and wit to confront her “master”—the United States Minister to France?62
Would the proud Thomas Jefferson have tolerated such behavior and submitted to such a demand? If he found himself in the embarrassing circumstance of having impregnated a child servant, who was already blackmailing him into submitting to her demands, would Thomas Jefferson likely have gone to great lengths to make certain she returned to Monticello with him—where her presence might easily destroy his cherished reputation? Would he have made sure her room on the ship was near that of his daughters?
As a t
echnical matter, to obtain her freedom Sally would have had to retain a French lawyer and file an expensive lawsuit before a court that might, or might not, have interfered with the “property” claimed by the powerful American Minister to France—who, it should be recalled, was immune from the process of French Courts by the well-established international legal principle of diplomatic immunity.63
Then there is the issue of how Sally Hemings, even if she were fluent in French, would have learned that she was allegedly “free” under French law.64 Unlike Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings was not trained in jurisprudence. And we know that Jefferson himself was unaware of this law until he specifically researched the issue at the request of a constituent.65 There is not the slightest bit of evidence, besides Madison’s allegation (concerning facts about which he clearly had no personal knowledge), that Sally had any knowledge of French law at this time.66
If we assume that, upon arriving in Paris, Sally suddenly blossomed into a brilliant and independent personality broadly cognizant of legal matters, must we not presume that she also realized that any agreement she negotiated with Thomas Jefferson in Paris would be absolutely unenforceable once she returned to Virginia? Surely such a sophisticated young woman would have known that, as a slave, she had no legal standing in Virginia courts to bring any action against a Caucasian? It might have been more credible if Madison had simply alleged that, while in Paris, Thomas Jefferson promised Sally he would free her children. The idea that the young slave compelled Thomas Jefferson to agree to a “treaty” is simply not credible. For that matter, nor does it fit with the story that “Tom and Sally” were madly in love with each other.
Speaking of Sally Hemings’ children, we must address as well the question of her remarkable prescience as an immature child in Paris. Now that the DNA studies have established that Thomas Woodson was not the son of Thomas Jefferson, there is little reason to believe67 that Sally Hemings had a child before Harriet I was born in late 1795—whether by Thomas Jefferson or any other father.68 Is it reasonable to assume that Sally Hemings would have bargained with Thomas Jefferson for the eventual freedom of children, the first of who would not be conceived for more than five years?
There is serious question about whether the Sally Hemings who stayed with Abigail Adams would have wanted to be left behind in Paris when Thomas Jefferson and his entourage returned to Monticello—where Sally’s mother and siblings awaited and where she knew she would be well treated, fed, clothed, and otherwise provided for as were all of the Hemings family members. France, it should be recalled, was at the time on the eve of a violent revolution. Other than Madison Hemings’ account, there is no reason to believe that Sally had significant French language skills.69 Indeed, Madison’s account strongly suggests that Sally was not even literate in English two decades after returning from Paris.70
There is also the issue of the “extraordinary privileges” Sally was allegedly promised as a part of this “treaty” arrangement. The available evidence, as will be discussed in Chapter Six, suggests that Sally received no special consideration from Thomas Jefferson when compared to other members of the Hemings family—indeed, she did not even receive her own freedom in his will. Surely, had the two been “lovers” for decades prior to his death, Thomas Jefferson would at least have given Sally her freedom rather than risk her being sold and abused by some future master. And if Sally were so anxious to claim her freedom in Paris, why did she not bargain at least to be freed upon the death of her famous lover? This version of events makes absolutely no sense.71
Indeed, if Sally was nearly as clever and courageous as we are led to believe by the revisionists, why did she not simply say: “Sweetheart, I’ll go back with you if you promise to manumit me as soon as we get to Virginia.” He could then pay her a small “wage” as he had done in Paris, and her children who were seven-eighths white would have been born free under Virginia law. Callender had not even arrived in the United States, there was no hint of scandal, and Jefferson could easily have invented a story of some great “service” on Sally’s part to explain the special treatment in case anyone noticed, e.g., “I was choking on a snail, when she grabbed me and hugged my chest, freeing my air passage and saving my life!”
Nor, for that matter, were Sally’s children “freed at the age of twenty-one years.” Beverly, her oldest son, was probably twenty-four at the time he was recorded as having “run away” (perhaps with Jefferson’s consent or acquiesence) from Monticello72; Madison was twenty-two when freed following Jefferson’s death.73 It is unclear whether Harriet was twenty-one or twenty-two when she reportedly was informally freed with Jefferson’s consent.74 Eston was released at nineteen pursuant to a decision by the administrators of Thomas Jefferson’s will following the former president’s death.75 Jefferson had instructed that Eston be required to work for his uncle, John Hemings, for another two years.76
In summary, the allegation of a “treaty” between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings simply fails to pass the “straight-face” test. Other than Madison Hemings’ unsourced allegations—reported second-hand by the anti-Jefferson Wetmore—there is not the slightest bit of evidence to support it. It is inconsistent with what little we know about the personality of Sally Hemings and the great deal we know about Thomas Jefferson. All things considered, it must be regarded as one of many parts of Madison’s alleged “memoir” that call into question the veracity of the entire document.
Professor Gordon-Reed’s efforts to legitimize and build her case around this document are at times almost amusing. Totally ignoring the fact that all of the crucial details occurred years before Madison was born, and that he thus could have had no first-hand knowledge of the veracity of his assertions—she writes: “Madison Hemings’s memoirs must stand or fall on the basis of his credibility alone. To that end, it must be said that these memoirs are properly described as items of direct evidence that Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings were involved in a relationship.”77 She even attempts a little sleight-of-hand analysis in suggesting that Madison’s story is corroborated by other evidence:
Sometimes even without his realizing it, a number of details offered in Hemings’s statement give rise to circumstantial evidence that supports his basic claim. For example, the notion that there was a promise of freedom for Sally Hemings’s children when they reached the age of twenty-one is supported by the circumstances and timing of her children’s departures from Monticello.78
As indicated above, it is simply not true that Sally’s children were “freed” when they reached the age of twenty-one (or that they departed Monticello upon turning twenty-one). We know that Beverly Hemings was at least twenty-three (and more likely twenty-four) when he ran away from Monticello, apparently never to be heard from again by Thomas Jefferson. Madison did not obtain his freedom until he was twenty-two. We don’t know how old Harriet was when she finally left (probably twenty-one), and Eston did not turn twenty-one until well after Thomas Jefferson’s death.79
Even if each of Sally’s children had been freed on their twenty-first birthday, that fact would not “corroborate” Madison’s 1873 statement. This reasoning might make some sense if the children had been freed after Madison made his statement or if Madison was likely unaware of these details. But Madison presumably knew the facts more than four decades before he gave his statement. It is just as reasonable to conclude that he formulated his testimony to fit with the known facts as that the earlier events independently corroborate his claims. And since “the circumstances and timing of her children’s departures from Monticello” do not in any serious way support the allegation that each of them was set free upon reaching the age of twenty-one, Professor Gordon-Reed’s allegation makes even less sense.
There are other clear factual errors in the account attributed to Madison—facts that Madison himself should certainly have known, but which an Ohio journalist like Samuel Wetmore might not have known. For example, Wetmore claims that Madison asserted that all four of Sally’s children were
freed by Thomas Jefferson’s will,80 whereas we know that, of Sally’s children, only Madison and Eston were mentioned in the will. Are we to assume that Madison Hemings was knowingly overstating his case, or was his memory just failing him in his old age? Alternatively, was this erroneous assertion simply an effort by Samuel Wetmore to add credibility to the anti-Jefferson story he was writing? Does it matter, in terms of the document’s historical value as a source for the truth?
The Gordon-Reed Alterations to the Wetmore Article
In the introduction I discussed the alarming alterations contained in Professor Gordon-Reed’s transcription of the Wetmore article in the first edition of her Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.81
For example, in the original Wetmore article, Madison is alleged to have said: “My grandmother was a fullblooded African. … ”82 This statement is clearly erroneous, as Sally Hemings’ mother, Betty Hemings, was half-white—a point acknowledged by Gordon-Reed on page one of her book and repeatedly thereafter.83 This obvious factual error in the account attributed to Madison is not apparent to readers of the first edition of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, however, as her appendix has Madison saying “My great-grandmother was a fullblooded African. … ”84 (See Figure 1 on page 33.)
The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy Page 21