I have never researched the issue, but Benjamin Franklin is alleged to have had a very active sex life during his years as Jefferson’s predecessor in Paris. William Howard Adams writes:
If Henry Adams was right in judging Jefferson’s Paris years his happiest, it had little connection with the cynical, often risqué era of Franklin’s triumphs. The fact that the Virginian is rarely mentioned in contemporary French letters and memoirs, while Franklin turns up regularly, attests to his private, diffident manner. By temperament and by choice, Jefferson distanced himself from the shallow, sarcastic wit that defined mondain society. Rather, he took pleasure in exchanging ideas with the extraordinary array of talented individuals in that talented age—writers, scientists, artists, philosophers—who thrived in the urban setting.100
Revisionist scholars seem to acknowledge Jefferson’s obvious preference for women of talent and intellect, and some attempt to identify such attributes in Sally Hemings. Princeton history professor Sean Wilentz, for example, wrote in The New Republic: “It is said that Hemings spoke French and, it seems, could interest her lover from the neck up, too.”101 The problems with this reasoning include: (1) the only suggestion we have that Sally had any significant proficiency with the French language comes from the very problematic 1873 assertions attributed to Madison Hemings, who had no apparent ability to judge the matter; and (2) assuming a superficial102 ability to communicate in French in addition to Sally Hemings’ other known attributes does not come close to placing her in the league of any of the women Jefferson is known to have found sexually attractive.
Again, as far as we know, Sally could neither read nor write in English, much less communicate seriously in any other language, draw, paint, sing, or play a musical instrument. We have good reason to believe she was “handsome,” and she may have been drop-dead beautiful, as Hollywood likes to suggest. But Paris was filled with beautiful women, and even if Sally had not been in daily contact with Jefferson’s daughters (and, most likely, not even near Thomas Jefferson during most of her Paris stay), yet another reason for doubting the Callender allegations is that Sally Hemings clearly was not Thomas Jefferson’s “type.”
Why Did Sally Not Confirm the Relationship
after Jefferson’s Death?
If Sally Hemings was in fact Thomas Jefferson’s lover and confidante, one might expect that she would take some pride in that relationship. During his life she might conceivably have had the self-restraint not to brag about it, but it is more difficult to accept that she could live as a free woman in Charlottesville for many years after Jefferson’s death and not bother to mention this remarkable distinction to anyone.
Of course, perhaps she did. We do not have records of statements she may have made during those years, and it is possible that she bragged about her famous lover to everyone she met. But this would be rather newsworthy stuff, and even if some did not believe her, one might expect that at least someone who heard her story would put it down on paper. The “Black Sal” story had been spread across the country, and had Sally confirmed it, she would presumably have been taken seriously. The absence of any clear record that she ever confirmed the rumors does not prove anything, and possibly can be explained by other causes; but it is another “silent dog” that supports the conclusion that the relationship never existed.
Why Did None of Sally’s Children Confirm
the Relationship During the Four Decades
after Jefferson’s Death?
As discussed in Chapter Four, we know that in 1873 an anti-Jefferson newspaper editor in Ohio published an article alleging that Madison Hemings had told him that Sally Hemings was his mother and that Thomas Jefferson had fathered all of her children. The factual errors and other problems with this account have already been discussed.
Madison could not personally have known the identity of his own father or that of the father of any of his siblings, as he was but two years old when Sally’s last known child was conceived. Most scholars have assumed that, if he or Samuel Wetmore (the journalist who actually wrote the story) did not simply fabricate the entire matter from the well-known Callender charges, Madison’s source must have been his mother.
But if Sally Hemings told her children they were President Thomas Jefferson’s children—which many revisionist scholars assume103—why did none of them mention it to anyone else until Jefferson had been dead nearly fifty years? (Obviously, we cannot be certain that they did not all discuss it regularly, but given the nature of the claim and the context of the Callender charges, it would seem likely that if they did discuss this regularly, someone would have mentioned it in a letter or other writing and someone else would have realized this document was of sufficient historical value to preserve.) Professor Gordon-Reed admits that Madison Hemings’ statement “is the only known recitation of the details of this controversial story by any of the parties involved. … ”104
It is unkind to the “intelligent”105 Madison to suggest that he was not bright enough to realize that being known as the son of the famous Thomas Jefferson might benefit him. His friend Israel Gillette—who was the subject of a similar Wetmore article later that year—readily admitted that his decision to drop the name of his real father and assume the surname “Jefferson” was done because “it would give me more dignity to be called after so eminent a man.”106
Brother Eston Hemings went so far as to change his last name to “Jefferson” when he moved from Ohio to Wisconsin, but, as far as we can tell, he never openly claimed to be the son of Thomas Jefferson.107 Nor, again, as far as we can tell, did any of the other children of Sally Hemings. And this appears to have been true not only in the decades after Jefferson’s death, but also when they lived at Monticello. The simplest explanation for this would seem to be that they did not believe they were Thomas Jefferson’s children.
With One Problematic Exception, Other Monticello Slaves Did Not Confirm the Allegation
Joshua Rothman wrote his doctoral dissertation on interracial sex in antebellum Virginia. In Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson, he asserts: “Slaves at Monticello knew of the association between Hemings and Jefferson and had greater access to details of the relationship than nearly anyone else.”108 Rothman’s comment is probably valid. But had the relationship been of a sexual character, one would expect that, following his death, at least some of Thomas Jefferson’s former slaves would have passed on this remarkable story and ultimately it would have found its way into written form and been preserved for posterity.
It is thus noteworthy that, with the exception of Israel [Gillette] Jefferson, as an old man in 1873 and in an account so filled with errors as to suggest either that his memory had failed him or he was intentionally fabricating his story to support his friend Madison, of the hundreds of people owned by Jefferson over the years, not a single account survives in which a slave confirms Madison Hemings’ story. Surely this long-lasting affair, had it existed, would have been widely known within the slave community. After Jefferson’s death, most of his slaves were sold and spread across the south. Yet—again, except for the story attributed to an aging Israel Jefferson—there is not a scrap of paper suggesting that any of them ever said a word to anyone, even to acknowledge the rumor.
Some might reason that slaves feared they would be severely punished if they spread rumors about the sex lives of their masters. Or perhaps they thought it improper to discuss inter-racial sex with strangers—a social taboo that was not to be mentioned. But Isaac Jefferson, in his Memoirs of a Monticello Slave, did not hesitate to note rumors within the Monticello slave community that Sally and some of Betty Hemings’ other children were the offspring of John Wayles, Thomas Jefferson’s father-in-law.
Again, these “silent dogs” are not conclusive proof of anything. But one would expect that a decades-long romance between an American President and one of his slave women, producing numerous children over many years, would be known to other Monticello slaves. If so, it is reasonable to assume that they would find i
t noteworthy and, upon moving to new plantations and making new acquaintances, they would share the rumors with others, who would find it interesting and pass it along themselves. Somewhere along the line, someone would put the account down in writing. And the absence of such accounts (again, with the exception of Israel Jefferson’s problematic story) is yet another bit of “non-evidence” that ought to exist were the story true.
To Accept This Story, We Must Dismiss the Oral Tradition
of Eston Hemings’ Family and Accept Instead
the Unsupported Allegations of Vile Racists Like
James Callender and Thomas Gibbons
One of the greatest ironies in the desire of some to accept the allegations of the revisionists in the name of “political correctness” is that, in so doing, they must dismiss the oral history of Eston Hemings’ descendants (passing down that Eston’s father was not Thomas Jefferson, but “an uncle”)—which points most likely to “Uncle Randolph,” Thomas Jefferson’s younger brother—and instead accept as truth the allegations of blatant racists like James Callender and Thomas Gibbons, neither of whom had ever even been to Monticello and both of whom had strong personal grievances against Thomas Jefferson.
As discussed in Chapter Eight, at its core, “oral tradition” refers to multiple hearsay testimony passed down over many generations, often with decades elapsing between retellings by individuals who have an obvious incentive to embellish the achievements of their ancestors. It is hardly the most reliable form of evidence, but it can be very useful as a means of identifying leads to investigate further—and sometimes it is simply all we have with which to work.
The oral tradition of the Eston Hemings family would appear to be more reliable than most on the issue of Eston’s paternity, as there would be no clear benefit to the family in acknowledging that Eston’s father was not the famous historical figure who wrote the Declaration of Independence and served two terms as President, but rather merely “an uncle” of that famous man. The current efforts of some of Eston Hemings’ descendants to discredit the accounts they repeatedly admit they were told by their parents and grandparents so they can claim lineage from the famous President is an excellent example of the dangers of relying upon such accounts as evidence of the truth.
But surely the family traditions passed from one generation of Eston Hemings’ descendants to another for a century and a half ought not be rejected simply because they are at odds with the rantings of James Callender (who, it should be recalled, without the slightest apparent knowledge of the facts referred to Eston’s mother as a “slut”), or Thomas Gibbons (who described Sally Hemings’ children, whom he had never laid eyes upon, as “flat nosed” and “thick lipped,” and called Sally herself a “prostitute”). Particularly given how well their oral traditions fit with the other information we have about Randolph Jefferson, the oral traditions of Eston’s family deserve greater respect than this.
Why Did Thomas Jefferson Not Free Sally in His Will?
There is an erroneous perception by many that Thomas Jefferson freed Sally Hemings and all of her children in his will. This was one of the many false statements made by Israel Jefferson in 1873, and perhaps he is the source for some of the modern misinformation. In reality, although she was eventually allowed to leave the plantation and apparently spent the final years of her life living with her freed sons Madison and Eston in Charlottesville, Sally Hemings was never legally freed from her status as a slave.
Given what we know about Thomas Jefferson, is it credible that—if Sally Hemings were, in fact, his lover for decades and the mother of most of his children—he would neglect to provide for her future in any way in his will? Would he have allowed her to become subject to being sold at auction—perhaps to an abusive master who would whip or sexually abuse her, or perhaps to a political enemy who would take her from town to town and force her to recount the details of her romance with the once beloved President? No reasonable person can assume that.
So perhaps it was his intention to leave Sally to the care of his beloved daughter, Martha Randolph—whom he could count upon to treat her lovingly and to protect her dignity as she grew older? The problem with this theory is that, if there had been a sexual relationship, Martha would certainly have known of it. While she might have played the role of dutiful daughter while her father was still alive, Jefferson would almost certainly have realized that Martha would also likely blame Sally for the relationship that had harmed his reputation and so clearly upset her. Could he be certain that Martha would on her own provide Sally with the love and comfort any honorable man would wish at the time of his death for the love of his life?
Even if Martha had promised to provide a safe and comfortable living environment for Sally Hemings, if she believed the stories were true and wanted to protect her father’s reputation, is it likely that she would have allowed Sally to move to Charlottesville to live with her sons—in an environment where she could tell her story to the entire world? The answer to all of these questions, presumably, is “We don’t know.” Conceivably, the answer is “yes.” But from what we believe we know about Thomas Jefferson and his daughter Martha, the more likely response is “no.” It is very difficult to reconcile Sally’s treatment (being totally ignored) in Thomas Jefferson’s will with any theory that she was the love of his life and the mother of most of his children.
The argument on the other side, presumably, is that Jefferson still cared deeply about his future reputation (certainly true), and that he knew if he freed the infamous Sally Hemings, it could be seen as an admission of guilt by many Americans. But if that were his concern, why did he give freedom to Madison and Eston—two of his alleged children by Sally Hemings who could be expected to produce the same kinds of rumors?
We are told that Sally was the love of his life, the woman who “knew Thomas Jefferson at least as well as did any of his white friends and relatives,”109 whereas by Madison Hemings’ own account, he and his brother were shown no affection by Jefferson, and Jefferson’s records treat them as almost nonentities at Monticello.
Perhaps (as some of the revisionists would apparently wish us to believe), everything we thought we knew about Thomas Jefferson’s character for the past two centuries is wrong, and he was truly a “monstrous”110 figure. A far simpler and more rational conclusion, from the totality of the evidence before us, is that Sally Hemings was not Thomas Jefferson’s lover, and her children were not his children.
* * *
Footnotes
1. Joshua D. Rothman, James Callender and Social Knowledge of Interracial Sex in Antebellum Virginia, in SALLY HEMINGS & THOMAS JEFFERSON 88 (Jan Ellen Lewis & Peter Onuf, eds. 1999).
2. See Chapter Nine.
3. WILLIAM HOWARD ADAMS, THE PARIS YEARS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 47 (1997).
4. Id. at 221–22.
5. Joshua D. Rothman, James Callender and Social Knowledge of Interracial Sex in Antebellum Virginia, in SALLY HEMINGS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON 87.
6. 3 HENRY S. RANDALL, THE LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 672 (1858).
7. JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO 28 (James A. Bear, Jr., ed. 1967). See also, id. at 111. (“Mr. Jefferson always had a great deal of company.”)
8. Id. at 126 n.48.
9. Id. at 23.
10. ANNETTE GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 131 (1997).
11. Quoted in SARAH N. RANDOLPH, THE DOMESTIC LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 403 (1871).
12. THE FAMILY LETTERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 458.
13. Once the Slave of Thomas Jefferson: The Rev. Mr. Fossett, of Cincinnati, Recalls the Sage of Monticello—Reminiscences of Jefferson, Lafayette, Madison and Monroe, THE WORLD (New York), Jan. 30, 1898, at 33.
14. JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO 12. Isaac added that he had personally visited Jefferson’s library “a thousand times” over the years. Id. at 18.
15. Id. at 84.
16. 3 RANDALL, THE LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 671.
17. MILTON E. FLOWER, JAMES PARTON: THE FATHER OF MODERN
BIOGRAPHY 237 (1951).
18. The full text of this insightful interview can be found on the PBS web page at http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/archives/interviews/Jordan.htm. Dr. Jordan has more recently confirmed to me that he and other Monticello scholars agreed that “it was certainly possible for individuals on the second floor to have overheard voices or singing below.” E-mail from Dan Jordan to Robert F. Turner, Feb. 18, 2002, 8:59 AM, Subject: “Three Requests,” a copy of which is in the writer’s possession.
19. To mention but one example, Jefferson inherited debts to English creditors from his mother and his father-in-law. Under the Virginia sequestration law passed during the Revolution, many prominent Virginians—including the Lees, the Marshalls, Patrick Henry, and Edmund Pendleton—elected to discharge sterling debts with greatly depreciated paper currency. Writing to one of his father-in-law’s creditors, Jefferson said: “What the laws of Virginia are, or may be, will in no wise influence my conduct. Substantial justice is my object, as decided by reason, and not by authority or compulsions.” As a matter of principle, Jefferson refused to take advantage of legal loopholes that would have permitted him to significantly reduce the indebtedness that haunted him all of his life. See The Debt to Farell & Jones, in 15 PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 642 (Julian P. Boyd, ed. 1958).
20. “I shall often go wrong through defect of judgment. 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.” Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, Mar. 4, 1801, reprinted in, 3 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 323 (Mem. Ed.1903).
The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy Page 47