The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy

by Robert F Turner

  13. [Samuel E. Wetmore], Life Among the Lowly, Number 1. Madison Hemings, PIKE COUNTY REPUBLICAN (Waverly, Ohio), Mar. 13, 1873 at 4, reprinted in Monticello Report, Appendix E at 27–28.

  14. Id.

  15. Id.

  16. GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 8.

  17. Dumas Malone & Steven H. Hochman, A Note on Evidence: The Personal History of Madison Hemings, JOURNAL OF SOUTHERN HISTORY, vol. 41, no. 4, Nov. 1975, at 525.

  18. Id.

  19. The Albemarle County Minute Book recorded Madison’s height in 1831 as a precise “5:7 3/8 inches high,” whereas Wetmore described him in 1873 as “five feet ten inches in height.” Monticello Report, Appendix H at 12. Adding nearly three inches to Madison’s height might be expected to increase the credibility of his assertion to be the natural child of the six-foot two-and-one-half-inch tall Thomas Jefferson.

  20. BRODIE, THOMAS JEFFERSON 441.

  21. One might draw a parallel with a war veteran who waits a half century before suddenly claiming great acts of personal heroism during the conflict. It is certainly possible that the accounts are truthful, but they should be viewed with greater skepticism because the “hero” waited until others who might confirm or deny the accounts had passed from the scene.

  22. BRODIE, THOMAS JEFFERSON 358.

  23. GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 17, 44, 150.

  24. Obviously, we can’t be certain they did not make such claims. But there is no record of any such claims, and the nature of the information is such that one would expect someone to have recorded it if it had been widely discussed.

  25. See, e.g., Andrew Burstein, Jefferson’s Rationalizations, 57(1) WILLIAM & MARY Q. 183 (Jan. 2000).

  26. ANDREW BURSTEIN, THE INNER JEFFERSON 230–31 (1995).

  27. WAVERLY WATCHMAN, quoted in Malone & Hochman, A Note on Evidence at 527.

  28. [Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly, No. 3, PIKE COUNTY [Ohio] REPUBLICAN, Dec. 25, 1873, at 4.

  29. Id. (“Of my father, Thomas Jefferson, I knew more of his domestic than his political life, during his lifetime. It is only since his death that I have learned much of the latter. …I learned to read by inducing the white children to teach me the letters and something more; what else I know of books I have picked up here and there. … ”)

  30. See Chapter Eleven.

  31. Reprinted in JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO 71.

  32. [Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly No. 1.

  33. Id.

  34. JOSEPH J. ELLIS, AMERICAN SPHINX 168 (1996).

  35. [Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly No. 1.

  36. I am indebted to Richard Dixon for this observation.

  37. B.L. RAYNER, LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 33 (1834).

  38. WILLIAM LINN, THE LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 10 (2d. ed. 1839).

  39. My copy is from the second edition, published in 1839, and I am assuming this fact appears as well in the earlier edition. However, since the second edition came out more than three decades before publication of the Madison/Wetmore article, the point is unimportant.

  40. See Chapter Three.

  41. Like Thomas Turner, Madison (or, more likely, Wetmore, since Madison’s information was likely provided in an oral interview) spelled Thomas Jefferson’s father-in-law’s name as Wales rather than Wayles.

  42. See Chapter Eight.

  43. My own belief is that Madison had heard the story before encountering Wetmore, as there is a notation in a census report a few years earlier identifying him with the famous president. Wetmore was a census taker that year, but not necessarily the census taker in Madison’s area. He could have learned of the claim through a colleague. There has been some suggestion that the notation that Madison was the son of Thomas Jefferson seems to be in a different hand and pen than the other entries—suggesting that it may have been added later (perhaps by Wetmore?)—and I simply have not had the time or resources to follow up on this. The issue is not critical to our inquiry, but I mention it in case other scholars may wish to pursue it.

  44. [Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly No. 1.

  45. The only evidence we have that Madison was born on January 19 is from Madison’s own statement. However, Jefferson’s Farm Book confirms that Madison was born in January 1805. This issue is not significant for our inquiry, as the weather that January was so bad that neither Jefferson nor the Madisons would have ventured the long trip to Charlottesville from Washington.

  46. See, e.g., RALPH KETCHAM, JAMES MADISON 444 (1990). I am also indebted to David B. Mattern, Senior Associate Editor of the James Madison Papers Project at the University of Virginia, for his search of Madison’s papers during this period.

  47. Id. at 415, 426.

  48. THE FAMILY LETTERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 265–66 (Edwin Morris Betts & James Adam Bear, Jr., eds. 1966). I am indebted to Cynthia Harris Burton for calling this letter to my attention.

  49. In an 1801 letter to William Dunbar, Jefferson wrote: “I have no doubt but that cold is the source of more sufferance to all animal nature than hunger, thirst, sickness, & all the other pains of life & of death itself put together. …[W]hen I recollect on one hand all the sufferings I have had from cold, & on the other all my other pains, the former preponderate greatly.” Jefferson to Dunbar, Jan. 12, 1801, 9 WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 170 (Fed. ed. 1905). Among many other references to cold weather, Jefferson wrote in an 1821 letter to John Adams: “During summer I enjoy it’s [sic] temperature, but I shudder at the approach of winter, and wish I could sleep through it with the Dormouse, and only wake with him in spring, if ever.” Jefferson to Adams, June 1, 1823, reprinted in 2 THE ADAMS-JEFFERSON LETTERS 578 (Lester J. Cappon, ed. 1959).

  50. THE FAMILY LETTERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 266.

  51. Id. at 267.

  52. 11 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 49, 53, 62, 69 (Mem. ed. 1903).

  53. Since the Papers of James Madison for this period have not yet been published, I am once again indebted to David B. Mattern for his assistance.

  54. [James T. Callender,] More about the President, Richmond RECORDER, Sept. 22, 1802. The point here is not that Sally Hemings was in fact a bad person. There is not the slightest bit of serious evidence to support such a conclusion. As was discussed in Chapter Three, James Callender was a vicious racist who probably knew almost nothing about Sally Hemings and simply defamed her in his campaign to hurt Thomas Jefferson. The issue here is not about Sally’s character, but rather that her public identification with an alleged scandal would make her an unlikely individual for the wife of a presidential aspirant to approach with such a request. It would be in some ways comparable to the wife of a potential presidential candidate “begging” Monica Lewinsky to name an illegitimate child after her husband. (I intend by this comparison no disrespect to Ms. Lewinsky—or to Sally Hemings—but merely remark about the perceptions of some in the public.)

  55. GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 208.

  56. Id. at 200.

  57. Presumably it is unnecessary to document Dolley Madison’s fine reputation.

  58. The stay was actually twenty-six months.

  59. [Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly No. 1.

  60. 11 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 503 (Julian P. Boyd, ed. 1955).

  61. Id. at 551.

  62. VIRGINIUS DABNEY, THE JEFFERSON SCANDALS 103 (1981). (“The notion that a sixteen-year-old slave would defy her master and seek to drive a hard bargain with him is incredible on its face.”)

  63. This issue is discussed in greater detail in Chapter Nine.

  64. WILLIAM HOWARD ADAMS, THE PARIS YEARS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 137 (1997).

  65. Jefferson to Paul Bentalou, Aug. 25, 1786, in 10 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 296.

  66. It is certainly possible that Sally could have learned from the servants of other students at the Abbaye about slaves who had gained their freedom in France by petitioning the court, but presumably the other servants were not slaves. Even if they were cognizant of these legal technicalities, there
might well be risks to their own employment in providing such information to Sally if Martha and Polly’s powerful father learned they were the reason he lost his slave. In the total absence of relevant information, we can only speculate; but the assumption that non-slave servants would both have this knowledge and willingly convey it to Sally is not that obvious.

  67. It is certainly possible that Thomas Woodson was Sally’s child. But he clearly was not Thomas Jefferson’s. Thus, the real point here is that there is little reason to believe that Sally could have had a child by Thomas Jefferson until years after she allegedly compelled him to yield to her demands in Paris.

  68. Indeed, the only source for a child other than Thomas Woodson born to Sally Hemings in 1790 is Madison Hemings’ own statement. James Callender asserted that there was a ten- to twelve-year-old “Tom” at Monticello in 1802—which is consistent with a 1790 date of birth—but this obviously could not be the same child that Madison claims died shortly after being born.

  69. We know that a tutor was hired to teach French to Sally’s brother, James, but this was presumably because he had to converse in that language in order to be trained as a French chef.

  70. “I learned to read by inducing the white children to teach me the letters and something more; what else I know of [from] books I have picked up here and there, till now I can read and write.” [Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly No. 1. Presumably, if Sally had been literate she would have taught her children herself.

  71. As an economic matter, a twenty-one-year-old slave was far more valuable than a much older woman. Female slaves could produce more slaves for the master, while males could perform hard labor. If Jefferson were willing to free Sally’s future children, promising to give Sally (who was valued at fifty dollars following Jefferson’s death) her freedom in his will would have been of little consequence to his estate. The only “logic” to the treaty story is that it fits with some of the facts that Madison and Wetmore knew were publicly known in 1873.

  72. THE GARDEN AND FARM BOOKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 386 (Robert C. Barron, ed. 1987). We really don’t know whether Beverly was a few months short of his twenty-fourth birthday or had passed it; but he was clearly well beyond the age of twenty-one.

  73. Lucia Stanton, The Other End of the Telescope: Jefferson through the Eyes of His Slaves, 57 WILLIAM & MARY QUARTERLY 141 (Jan. 2000).

  74. See JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO 102.

  75. Jefferson’s will is reprinted in JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO 118.

  76. Id.

  77. GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 212.

  78. Id. at 213.

  79. However, Jefferson’s will did provide that Madison and Eston should be given their freedom at the age of twenty-one.

  80. [Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly No. 1.

  81. See Introduction, at 29–38.

  82. [Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly, No. 3, PIKE COUNTY [Ohio] REPUBLICAN, Dec. 25, 1873, at 4.

  83. GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 1, 23, 128, 164.

  84. Id. 245 (emphasis added).

  85. [Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly, No. 3, PIKE COUNTY [Ohio] REPUBLICAN, Dec. 25, 1873, at 4.

  86. GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 246.

  87. Id. 248; BRODIE, THOMAS JEFFERSON 475. In this instance there may well be an honest explanation for the errors. Microfilm copies sometimes have imperfections (e.g., small white blotches perhaps caused by lint or dust on the film) that make it difficult to read particular letters or numbers, and it might well be that a “4” could appear to be a “1” and an “8” confused as a “3.” But the numerous other “errors” are more difficult to explain.

  88. His delight at having returned to Albemarle County to find “the proud and haughty [Thomas Jefferson] Randolph in poverty” is particularly apparent. [Samuel Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly, No. 3, PIKE COUNTY [Ohio] REPUBLICAN, Dec. 25, 1873, at 4. This article appears in the Monticello Report, Appendix E at 32. Hereinafter cited as “[Samuel Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly, No. 3.”

  89. For example, Israel alleges that Jefferson “was hardly ever sick. … ” Id. For a discussion of Jefferson’s health problems, see Chapter Eleven.

  90. Monticello Report, Appendix E at 41.

  91. [Samuel Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly, No. 3 at 32.

  92. Monticello Report, Appendix E at 41.

  93. [Samuel Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly, No. 3 at 4.

  94. As will be discussed in Chapter Six, the key to being freed was not being a child of Sally Hemings but being a male descendant of Betty Hemings, Sally’s mother. Sally’s brothers Robert and James were freed by Jefferson in the 1790s, and with but a single exception the remaining sons of Betty’s daughters Mary, Bett, and Sally were freed in Jefferson’s will—along with Sally’s brother John. A useful annotated genealogical chart appears in JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO, Table B, following page 24. I say that Sally’s sons, Madison and Eston, were treated less favorably, because Burwell received immediate freedom and $300, John Hemings and Joe Fosset received their tools, freedom after one year, and (like Burwell) a “comfortable log-house” on Jefferson’s land; while John Hemings also received “the service of his two apprentices, Madison and Eston Hemings, until their respective ages of twenty-one years, at which period respectively, I gave them their freedom.” Id. at 121–22.

  95. [Samuel Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly, No. 3 at 4.

  96. Id.

  97. Id.

  98. FARM BOOK 386.

  99. See, e.g., FARM BOOK 382 (listing “Burwell” first among “Roll of Negroes. 1810. Feb. in Albemarle. House etc.”; and no reference on this list to any “Israel”). See also id. at 402, 403, 409, 412, 418.

  100. As has already been discussed, based upon Thomas Jefferson’s records, Sally Hemings appears to have been a relatively minor figure at Monticello.

  101. LUCIA STANTON, FREE SOME DAY: THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN FAMILIES OF MONTICELLO 94, 123 (2000). The source cited by Ms. Stanton is a letter from one of Jefferson’s granddaughters from Poplar Forest reporting that Israel was temporarily serving as “chief waiter.”

  102. FARM BOOK 128, 168–70. The Craven lease was written on August 22, 1800, prior to Israel’s birth, and was to commence on the first day of the new year.

  103. STANTON, FREE SOME DAY 87–88.

  104. 3 HENRY S. RANDALL, THE LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 675 (1858).

  105. JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO 72.

  106. STANTON, FREE SOME DAY 131.

  107. One never makes such a conclusion casually. However, in this case, we are not just dealing with a faulty memory of early childhood events, but an elaborate portrayal of a role at Monticello that clearly had no basis in reality.

  108. GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 174.

  109. See, e.g., id. at 11, 224.

  110. B.G. BURKETT & GLENNA WHITLEY, STOLEN VALOR: HOW THE VIETNAM GENERATION WAS ROBBED OF ITS HEROES AND ITS HISTORY (1998).

  5

  Thomas Jefferson’s Visitation Patterns to Monticello and Their Correlation with Sally Hemings’ Conceptions

  * * *

  In his prize-winning 1968 history White Over Black, Professor Winthrop D. Jordan appears to have been the first scholar to assert that Thomas Jefferson was home at Monticello “nine months prior to each birth”1 by Sally Hemings. More recently, Dr. Fraser D. Neiman, the Director of Archaeology at Thomas Jefferson’s home, Monticello, has published a computer-assisted quantitative analysis in the prestigious William & Mary Quarterly2 which, if I understand it correctly, concludes that this correlation between Jefferson’s presence and Hemings’ conceptions establishes a 99 percent probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally’s children.3 Dr. Neiman’s concludes that “[s]erious doubt about the existence and duration of the relationship and about Jefferson’s paternity of Hemings’s six children can no longer be reasonably sustained.”4 This statistical study has been hailed by believers in Jefferson’s paternity as being likely to “quiet those wh
o have resisted accepting Jefferson’s paternity.”5

  Professor Annette Gordon-Reed had previously written that the “pattern of Sally Hemings’s conceptions of children and Jefferson’s presence at Monticello is perhaps the most compelling evidence of the existence of a relationship between the two.”6 This was also one of the three arguments relied upon by Professors Lander and Ellis in Nature for the assertion that Thomas Jefferson was the father of one or more of Sally’s children.7

  “Junk Science”

  Thomas Jefferson was a man of science, and he would expect us to respect both the results of DNA testing (a technology that surely would have fascinated him) and any serious logical analysis—especially one based upon mathematics. However, he would also expect us to be rigorous in our examination of the methodology used and the assumptions upon which scientific analysis is premised. This is where Dr. Neiman’s study appears to have serious shortcomings.

  Candidly, to borrow a term used by several of my colleagues during our Dulles sessions of the Scholars Commission, Neiman’s “Monte Carlo”8 study struck me as being “junk science” long before I became involved in a technical discussion with scientists who confirmed its fatal deficiencies.

  Another term that was used during the Dulles meetings was “GIGO”—computerese for “Garbage In, Garbage Out,” or “if your input is not reliable, your output from the computer will be no better.” As our report reflects, none of us was impressed by it. Nor was I particularly surprised when a member of the Monticello Research Committee told me that, after Dr. Neiman completed his computer simulations, he entered their next meeting, slapped his papers on the table, and exclaimed with glee: “I’ve got him! I’ve got him!”9

  To begin with, the paper includes some distracting factual errors. Neiman writes: “Molecular geneticists found the Jefferson-Y haplotype in recognized male-line descendants of Thomas Jefferson,”10 when in fact there are no such descendants.11 Jefferson’s only children to reach maturity were both daughters, and the DNA samples used in the tests were from male-line descendants of Thomas Jefferson’s cousins.