97. THOMAS JEFFERSON AND HIS UNKNOWN BROTHER (Bernard Mayo, ed., 1981).
98. For general background on Randolph Jefferson, see id. at 1–6.
99. Conversation with Herbert Barger, who asserts that when he raised the possibility that Randolph or one of his sons might have fathered Eston, Professor Ellis acknowledged that he did not realize Thomas Jefferson had a brother.
100. Ellis, Jefferson: Post-DNA 126.
101. Monticello Report 6.
102. Id., Appendix J at 3.
103. Ms. McMurry wrote: “Only after the publication of Fawn Brodie’s book did my mother wax indignant and her statement was, ‘Honey, that book is trash! Everyone knows it was his half-witted brother.’” Notarized statement, “Paternity of Sally Hemings’ Children, Statement of Rebecca Lee McMurry,” Apr. 1, 1999, a copy of which is in the writer’s possession.
104. WAVE (105.1 FM Radio), February 23, 1999, hosted by Janet Parshall.
105. While accounts passed down reflecting the opinions of third-party observers (whether eye-witness accounts or based merely on local gossip or speculation) may not be tarnished by a desire to further the image of a particular family, they may well suffer from other biases (including racial prejudice), and such observers may have less interest in carefully recording factual details than might a family member.
106. E-mail from Lucia Stanton to Bob Turner, Mar. 26, 2001, 4:09 PM, RE: Pearl Graham.
107. Pearl M. Graham to Julian P. Boyd, Jan. 11, 1958, a copy of which is on file with the writer.
108. E-mail from Lucia Stanton to Bob Turner, Mar. 26, 2001, 4:09 PM, RE: Pearl Graham.
109. Id.
110. Annette Gordon-Reed, “The Memories of a Few Negroes,” in SALLY HEMINGS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON 251 (Jan Ellen Lewis & Peter S. Onuf, eds. 1999). Professor Gordon-Reed’s frustration with the burden of trying to support the claim of a Jefferson-Hemings sexual relationship with footnotes citing credible sources is understandable, but the implication that “novelists” and “poets” are preferable to sound scholarly writings in the search for the truth is a bit bizarre.
111. The clever title comes from the fact that when Thomas Jefferson moved his remarkable double-sided clock from Philadelphia to Monticello and installed it over the entranceway, the weighted chains that drove it were too long; so Jefferson cut holes in the floor to allow the weights to travel into the basement. As the weights moved downward during the week, Jefferson marked off lines on the wall indicating the current day of the week, but the “Saturday” mark is found in the basement (where slave children might have been found). It was the playwright’s intent to symbolize that slavery itself, along with women’s and minority rights, was left in the basement of the elegant American system.
112. For an excellent summary of this story, see Catherine House, Which Jefferson?, ENDEAVOURS (“Research and Creative Activity • The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill”), Spring, 2002, at 18–20.
113. See Statement of Playwright Karyn Traut, infra at p.331.
114. For example, although nothing in Thomas Jefferson’s surviving letters or memorandum books suggests that Randolph was at Monticello during the summer of 1802, in the fourth volume of his Pulitzer Prize-winning biography Jefferson scholar Dumas Malone documents that among the many visitors to Monticello that summer was the President’s brother Randolph. DUMAS MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT: FIRST TERM 167 (1970).
115. In a letter to daughter Martha written from Monticello on January 22, 1795, Jefferson noted that he and Maria were “in hopes soon of a visit from my sister Anne.” THE FAMILY LETTERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 133. Jefferson routinely used the word “sister” to refer as well to his “sister-in-law,” and this may have thus been a reference to brother Randolph’s wife Anne Lewis. We can only speculate about why she was mentioned, whether Randolph and the children would come with her (or were already at Monticello), and other details.
116. Monticello Report, Appendix J at 2. Cynthia Burton informs me that she has confirmed other visits on Jan. 15, 1790, in January 1795, on April 22, 1797, and on April 21, 1808.
117. If Thomas Woodson was Sally’s child, he was apparently born in 1790.
118. THOMAS JEFFERSON AND HIS UNKNOWN BROTHER 19–21. See also, Monticello Report, Appendix J at 2.
119. THOMAS JEFFERSON AND HIS UNKNOWN BROTHER 21.
120. Deposition of Thomas Jefferson, Sept. 15, 1815, Jefferson Papers at University of Virginia.
121. I am indebted to Richard H. Crouch for this observation.
122. CYNTHIA HARRIS BURTON, JEFFERSON VINDICATED 57–58 (2005).
123. See, e.g., Fraser D. Neiman, Coincidence or Causal Connection?, 57(1) WILLIAM & MARY Q. 205 (Jan. 2000).
124. THOMAS JEFFERSON AND HIS UNKNOWN BROTHER 19.
125. Monticello Report, Appendix J at 2.
126. Id.
127. Consider, for example, the already mentioned sworn affidavit that Thomas Jefferson provided on September 15, 1815, in connection with a dispute over Randolph’s will. He wrote: “That the testator [Randolph] was always in the habit of consulting this deponent [Thomas Jefferson] in all cases of importance respecting his interests, and he knows of no such case in which he did not consult him, except that of his last marriage. … ”
128. Monticello Report, Appendix J at 2.
129. THOMAS JEFFERSON AND HIS UNKNOWN BROTHER 24.
130. Six months earlier, Jefferson had included a general invitation that Randolph “pay us a visit here with my sister” (the designation he used for his sister-in-law). Id. at 23.
131. THOMAS JEFFERSON AND HIS UNKNOWN BROTHER 26.
132. Id. at 27.
133. Id. n.3.
134. Id. at 28.
135. Id. at 30.
136. In fairness, we certainly cannot rule out the possibility that such letters once existed.
137. THOMAS JEFFERSON AND HIS UNKNOWN BROTHER 32.
138. Id. n.1. Assuming that is correct, it does not prove that Randolph was the father of any of Sally Hemings’ children. But the excessive use of alcohol has been linked to adventuristic or reckless sexual behavior.
139. See, e.g., Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Randolph of January 11, 1789—on the eve of the French Revolution—which began “The occurrences of this part of the globe are of a nature to interest you so little that I have never made them the subject of a letter to you.” Id. at 13.
140. Id. at 3.
141. HELEN CRIPE, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND MUSIC 27–31 (1974). See also, SANDOR SALGO, THOMAS JEFFERSON: MUSICIAN & VIOLINIST 29–30 (2000).
142. Monticello Report, Appendix J at 2.
143. Id. at 3.
144. The Monticello Report estimates that Randolph Jefferson’s youngest son was born circa 1789 (id. at 3), and given the stress of childbirth in that era that may well have led to the death of Randolph’s wife. All we really know is that she died sometime between giving birth to James and Randolph’s remarriage in 1808 or 1809. See THOMAS JEFFERSON AND HIS UNKNOWN BROTHER 4. Randolph seems to have produced children about every second year until about 1789 (Monticello Report, Appendix J at 2–3), and the lack of any further children might suggest that his first wife either died around 1790 or perhaps was rendered incapable of producing children because of complications from childbirth. We are not likely ever to know the details.
145. Monticello Report, Appendix J at 3.
146. BEAR, JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO, Genealogical Table A, following page 24.
147. Id. at 22.
148. BRODIE, THOMAS JEFFERSON 440.
149. Monticello Report, Appendix J at 2–3.
150. Id. at 3. I say “probably,” because they give his year of birth as “c. 1789,” and Eston was not conceived until late August of 1807. Thus, if James was born between January and late August of 1789, he would have been eighteen when Eston was conceived.
151. I am aware of no reliable records giving a date of birth for James Lilburne Jefferson. However, on February 18, 1816, he complained in a letter to h
is famous uncle that the court would not allow him to collect his inheritance until he chose a guardian. (Original letter in University of Virginia Library.) Had he been born in the year the Monticello experts estimate, he would have been about twenty-six by 1816, when he alleges he needed a guardian to handle his legal affairs. This could still have been the case had he been mentally incompetent to handle his affairs, but there is no suggestion of that, and his penmanship is far superior to that of his father. Tax records suggest that he did not pay property taxes before 1818, which may also suggest (but certainly does not prove) that he was born after 1789. Genealogist Cynthia Harris Burton, who provided me with the above information, believes James was probably not born before 1796–97. On the other hand, his letter of February 18, 1816, makes references to a desire to get out of a rental agreement with a Mr. Thomas for a ferry—suggesting that he may have had legal capacity to enter into contracts at that time. The point is not critical to our inquiry but, given the uncertainty, I am inclined to exclude James as a serious candidate for Eston’s paternity. If Ms. Burton is correct, this would presumably also undermine the argument that Sally Hemings began having children shortly after the death of Randolph’s first wife. I am also indebted to Rebecca L. McMurry for providing me with a photocopy of the February 18 letter.
152. BEAR, JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO 88 (statement of Edmund Bacon, former Monticello overseer).
153. Monticello Report at 9.
154. “[T]hey and their brothers are also unlikely fathers because of their youth and very intermittent presence.” Monticello Report, Appendix J at 3. Once again, we are straying from Occam’s Razor. The issue raised by the DNA tests is who was the father of Eston Hemings. Only one of Randolph’s boys was even arguably too young to be a suspect in that matter, and compared with the sixty-four-year-old President, even a fourteen- or fifteen-year-old would have to be considered seriously. Assuming that there could only be a single father to all of Sally’s children, in the absence of serious evidence to justify such an assumption, is precisely what Occam was cautioning us about. While it is true that Randolph’s boys had an “intermittent presence” at Monticello, to impregnate Sally each time, one of them would only need to be at Monticello (or wherever Sally was) an hour or less for each child. Since we do not in most instances know whether or not they were present, we should not arbitrarily exclude them as possible suspects.
155. It is said that “Tom” was born in 1790. It is thus theoretically possible that this could have resulted from impregnation during the first three months of the year, as Sally returned to Monticello from Paris with Jefferson at the end of 1789.
156. Monticello Report, Appendix J at 3.
157. A few weeks before his sixty-seventh birthday, Jefferson wrote that he could still ride as far as forty miles in a single day. Jefferson to Dr. Vine Utley, Mar. 21, 1819, 15 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 186 (Mem. ed. 1904).
158. Technically, in the case of Beverly, the statistical odds are that Thomas Jefferson was not present when the child was conceived. However, he arrived three days after the most probable conception date, and thus remains a serious candidate. Neiman, Coincidence or Causal Connection? 205.
159. W. C. L. Ford et al., Increasing paternal age is associated with delayed conception in a large population of fertile couples: evidence for declining fecundity in older men. 15 (8) HUMAN REPRODUCTION 1703 (2000). A more recent study in the same professional journal seems to confirm this conclusion: “Perhaps the most interesting result from our study is the observed decrease in fertility with male age, beginning in the late 30s.” David B. Dunson, Bernardo Colombo & Donna D. Baird, Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle, 17(5) HUMAN REPRODUCTION 1399–1403, May 2002.
160. W. C. L. Ford et al., Increasing paternal age is associated with delayed conception in a large population of fertile couples: evidence for declining fecundity in older men. 209 (8) HUMAN REPRODUCTION 1703 (2000).
161. Childbirth was one of the most common causes of death for women in this age group. While the Monticello Report speculates that James Lilbune Jefferson, Randolph’s youngest son, was born “c. 1789,” Cynthia Burton, who has studied the records carefully, believes he was born several years later. (See Chapter Two.) If Randolph’s first wife Anne died from complications giving birth to James a few years later, Randolph might well have become a widower just in time to father Harriet I. Then again, Anne could have lived even longer (and perhaps died from some other cause or from the birth of a child who did not survive), and Harriet I could have been fathered by one of the Carr brothers. All we can do is speculate in the absence of serious evidence. The point is that there are lots of other possibilities without assuming that Thomas Jefferson had to have fathered all (or any) of Sally’s children.
162. We know that Randolph was almost certainly not married when he wrote his May 28, 1808, will (since no mention is made of a wife), but he does mention his new wife’s brother in a letter to Thomas Jefferson in December 1809.
163. See, e.g., 2 SCHACHNER, THOMAS JEFFERSON 923. (“Randolph’s second wife, whom he had married without consulting his brother, proved extravagant and a shrew. Poor Randolph fell under her domination, had to sell lands to pay her debts and finally, on his brother’s advice, informed the local merchants that she was to receive merchandise only on his written order. Thereupon she forged the orders. Thus harassed, Randolph quietly died in 1815.”)
164. Obviously, if he were Sally’s sexual partner she could have told Madison that his father was “Thomas Jefferson” without making a false statement.
165. Monticello Report, Appendix J at 3.
166. By using the singular “lover” here I do not mean to exclude the possibility that her children had more than one father—a possibility whose likelihood is as difficult to quantify as is the monogamy possibility, given the scant evidence available.
167. Cynthia Burton informs me that she has found evidence Sally left Monticello by April 1790 with Martha and/or Maria, who spent the summer visiting relatives at various Virginia locations in the Richmond area before returning to Monticello. An October 1790 letter from Maria to Thomas Mann Randolph suggests that she and Sally were still in Cumberland County.
168. It is a fairly simple matter to posit any of a number of Jefferson’s visitors as having possibly fathered any one or two of Sally Hemings’ children. Once we insist (without the slightest bit of evidence other than a statement attributed to one of her sons, who could not possibly have known that his mother was, in fact, monogamous) that every one of her children had to have a common father, suspicion obviously is directed at potential fathers who were regularly at Monticello year after year. Ergo, Thomas Jefferson becomes the most likely suspect. By similar reasoning, if a police officer investigating a series of robberies at a convenience store over a number of years were to note that none of the witnesses speculated about whether the robber they observed might have been different from the perpetrator(s) of previous robberies (when the same witnesses were not present), and from that information ruled out the possibility of multiple robbers, the odds are good that he would soon arrest the store proprietor as the only individual known to have been present during every crime. To use another example, over the years we have had several pens, purses, and even a few laptop computers stolen from the University of Virginia law library. It is doubtful that many of the victims speculated that the unknown individual who took their property was responsible for specific other thefts as well. But if we assume that there can be only one thief for all of the stolen property, over a period of a decade, that would pretty much rule out students (who graduate after three years) and point suspicion to long-term library employees or administrators. The assumption that Sally Hemings could not have had more than one father to her children is precisely the kind of unwarranted assumption that Occam cautioned us against.
11
The “Silent Dogs” and Other Issues Ignored by Most Revisionist Scholars
* * *<
br />
INSPECTOR GREGORY: “Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?”
SHERLOCK HOLMES: “To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time.”
INSPECTOR GREGORY: “The dog did nothing in the night-time.”
SHERLOCK HOLMES: “That was the curious incident.”
—Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Silver Blaze, in
THE COMPLETE SHERLOCK HOLMES 347 (1992).
In the first nine chapters, I have sought to identify and analyze all of the key arguments offered by revisionist historians in support of their conclusion that Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more children by Sally Hemings. Chapter Ten looked in greater detail at evidence they acknowledge to exist, but may have dismissed a bit prematurely. This chapter will briefly consider two other issues:
the absence of evidence that ought to exist if the allegations against Thomas Jefferson were true; and
The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy Page 43