The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy

Home > Other > The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy > Page 48
The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy Page 48

by Robert F Turner


  21. This is not to suggest that such a relationship would have not also been “out of character” for Sally Hemings, as the reality is we know virtually nothing about her character. Nor, for that matter, is there any reason to assume she would have believed she had any voice in the decision had Thomas Jefferson actually made sexual advances towards her.

  22. WINTHROP D. JORDAN, WHITE OVER BLACK 465 (1968).

  23. Dunglison to Randall, June 1, 1856, in 3 HENRY S. RANDALL, THE LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 670–71 (1858).

  24. ANDREW BURSTEIN, THE INNER JEFFERSON 231 (1995).

  25. Andrew Burstein, Jefferson’s Rationalizations, 57(1) WILLIAM & MARY QUARTERLY 196 (Jan. 2000).

  26. JOSEPH ELLIS, AMERICAN SPHINX 367 (1996).

  27. Id. at 109.

  28. Id. at 79.

  29. Id. at 113.

  30. Nicholas Wade, Defenders of Jefferson Renew Criticism of DNA Analysis Linking Him to Slave’s Child, N.Y. TIMES, Jan. 7, 1999.

  31. FAWN BRODIE, THOMAS JEFFERSON: AN INTIMATE HISTORY 319 (1974).

  32. This is not to say that Thomas Jefferson did not have a sexual relationship with one or more of these women. We simply do not know.

  33. WILLIAM HOWARD ADAMS, THE PARIS YEARS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 21 (1997).

  34. Id. at 207.

  35. The full text of this interview can be found on the PBS web page at http://www.pbs.org/jefferson/ archives/interviews/Jordan.htm.

  36. Quoted in SARAH N. RANDOLPH, THE DOMESTIC LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 428 (1871).

  37. GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 148.

  38. John Adams, for example, told Jefferson that he cared “not a farthing” for his reputation. 2 NATHAN SCHACHNER, THOMAS JEFFERSON 924 (1951). I have my doubts about whether the statement was true.

  39. See Professor Rahe’s Dissenting Opinion, page 351.

  40. I claim no expertise in psychiatry, but a very strong case can be made that Jefferson’s unusually strong investment in his reputation kept him from turning away hundreds and perhaps thousands of strangers who arrived at his door expecting to be housed, fed, and entertained for in some cases weeks at a time; and rather than conserving his diminishing resources—or, more accurately, avoiding further unnecessary indebtedness that would later produce immense suffering for family members he deeply loved—he squandered his assets in his desire to avoid being thought poorly of by strangers.

  41. Jefferson to Martha Randolph, 9 THE WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 15–16 (Mem. ed., 1904).

  42. 3 RANDALL, THE LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 676. This statement, of course, suggests that I may be mistaken in my earlier judgment that his love for his family exceeded his investment in his reputation.

  43. SAMUEL M. SCHMUCKER, THE LIFE AND TIMES OF THOMAS JEFFERSON ix (1857).

  44. 1 HENRY ADAMS, HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DURING THE FIRST ADMINISTRATION OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 324 (1903).

  45. BRODIE, THOMAS JEFFERSON 455.

  46. JOSEPH J. ELLIS, AMERICAN SPHINX: THE CHARACTER OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 142 (1996). See also, id. at 41, 50, 51, 73, 74, 90.

  47. Id. at 71.

  48. Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, Mar. 13, 1789, in 7 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 302 (1904).

  49. ELLIS, AMERICAN SPHINX 366.

  50. [James Thomson Callender], The President Again, RICHMOND RECORDER, Sept 1, 1802.

  51. S.N. RANDOLPH, THE DOMESTIC LIFE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 133 (1978).

  52. Id. at 137.

  53. Ellen Randolph Coolidge to Joseph Coolidge, Oct. 24, 1858, in Monticello Report, Appendix E, at 18.

  54. See supra, note 18.

  55. Like its synonym ‘intercourse,’ the word ‘commerce’ was commonly used during Jefferson’s era to describe sexual relations.

  56. THOMAS JEFFERSON, NOTES ON THE STATE OF VIRGINIA, Query XVIII, reprinted in 2 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 225–26 (Mem. Ed. 1903).

  57. PAGE SMITH, JEFFERSON: A REVEALING BIOGRAPHY 229 (1976).

  58. Memoirs of Thomas Jefferson Randolph, transcribed by James Bear, Alderman Library, University of Virginia, Accession 5454-c.

  59. JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO 85 (James A. Bear, Jr., ed. 1967).

  60. BRODIE, THOMAS JEFFERSON 239.

  61. ANNETTE GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 127 (1997).

  62. There may well be some subjective elements in ascertaining or agreeing upon the truth in this issue, as different observers may have different senses of what “family love” is or ought to mean. It may also be much more difficult to ascertain the truth about someone’s emotions. But even if not easily quantifiable, the basic issue of whether Thomas Jefferson actually felt certain emotions he expressed is a question of fact.

  63. Id. at 127–28.

  64. I am indebted to Stephen Coles (MD, Ph.D.) of the Los Angeles Gerontology Research Group for this information, which is based upon a 35.5 year estimated life-expectancy-at-birth for males born in 1789 in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. He references: L. I. DUBLIN, A. J. LOTKA, & M. SPIEGELMAN, LENGTH OF LIFE (1936). Former Monticello guide Dr. Michael Moffitt brought this source to my attention.

  65. ELLIS, AMERICAN SPHINX 52.

  66. Jefferson to Madison, 6 PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 438.

  67. THE FAMILY LETTERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 23 n.3.

  68. Jefferson to Monroe, Mar. 18, 1784, 8 PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 43.

  69. THE FAMILY LETTERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 58.

  70. Id. at 56 n.1.

  71. 16 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 487 n. (Julian P. Boyd, ed. 1961). For another reference to suffering from “violent” headaches, see Jefferson to Monroe, June 20, 1790, id. 536.

  72. THE FAMILY LETTERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 85.

  73. Id. at 145 n.1.

  74. This child died at the age of two and the same name was given to Sally’s second daughter. See Chapter Two.

  75. Jefferson to Edmund Randolph, Sept. 7, 1794, in 8 WORKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 152 (Fed. ed. 1904).

  76. Jefferson to Thomas Divers, Sept. 28, 1794, in 28 PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 168 (2000).

  77. THE GARDEN AND FARM BOOKS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 275 (Robert C. Baron, ed. 1987).

  78. Jefferson to Madison, Apr. 27, 1895, in 9 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 302–03.

  79. THE FAMILY LETTERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 236.

  80. Id. at 237.

  81. Id. at 302 n.1.

  82. Id. at 304.

  83. DUMAS MALONE, JEFFERSON THE PRESIDENT: SECOND TERM 1805–1809 at 143 (1974).

  84. Id.

  85. Patterson to Jefferson, July 14, 1807, original at the Massachusetts Historical Society. See also, 2 JEFFERSON’S MEMORANDUM BOOKS 1207 n.16.

  86. Dr. Bear has correctly copied the original book, but the context suggests to me that Jefferson was probably in pain when he walked. The subsequent references to his being “nursed” and transported by wheelbarrow are more consistent with the interpretation that he was in substantial pain.

  87. Quoted in BEAR, JEFFERSON AT MONTICELLO 19. Jefferson bought his first pair of spectacles at the age of fifty near the end of 1793. Id. at 128 n.73. See also, ISAAC JEFFERSON, MEMOIRS OF A MONTICELLO SLAVE 44–45 (1951). Mr. Bear seems to believe Isaac was referring to the 1793 period, but my physician friend Dr. White McKenzie Wallenborn has examined Jefferson’s health far more closely than I have and believes Isaac’s remark related instead to Jefferson’s health problems of 1807. If he is correct, then the incident is even more significant as it relates to the period shortly before Eston Hemings was conceived.

  88. Jefferson to Ellen Wayles Randolph, Oct. 25, 1808, in THE FAMILY LETTERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 354 (Edwin Morris Betts & James Adam Bear, Jr., eds. 1966).

  89. ADAMS, THE PARIS YEARS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 19. Obviously, the problem Jefferson identifies here has nothing to do with race. Indeed, only two of his servants in Paris were of African heritage (James and Sally). But given Sally’s reported immaturity, it is virtually inconceivable that Jefferson would not have perceived that any confidenc
e he shared with her might be disclosed both to other servants in the house and from them to his guests, visitors, and even strangers. This, plus the obvious risk that Sally would disclose an intimate relationship to Patsy and Polly, would obviously have been major impediments to such a relationship, even if he found Sally otherwise irresistible.

  90. On thirty-one-year-old James Madison’s interest in a girl less than half his age, see GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 112.

  91. See, e.g., ELLIS, AMERICAN SPHINX 110.

  92. See, e.g., JACK MCLAUGHLIN, JEFFERSON AND MONTICELLO 183 (1998).

  93. VIRGINIUS DABNEY, THE JEFFERSON SCANDALS 41 (1981).

  94. Burstein, Jefferson’s Rationalizations 184.

  95. ELLIS, AMERICAN SPHINX 62.

  96. Id. at 110.

  97. Id. at 115.

  98. Id. at 261.

  99. Had Sally been literate, one might have expected her to take the lead in educating her children. But Madison said he learned to read by persuading the white children at Monticello to teach him. This of course does not prove anything, and conceivably Sally was so busy looking after the personal needs of the President that she did not have time to help educate her children. But there is not a single scrap of paper in existence known to contain her writing or other evidence that she could read or write.

  100. ADAMS, THE PARIS YEARS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 76–77.

  101. Sean Wilentz, What Tom and Sally Teach Us, NEW REPUBLIC, Nov. 30, 1998 at 15.

  102. We know from Jefferson’s letters that even after living eighteen months in Paris and with the aid of a tutor James Hemings was unable to communicate in French. Jefferson remarked in a letter to Anthony Giannini that James “has forgot how to speak English, and has not learnt to speak French.” Jefferson to Giannini, 5 Feb. 1786, 9 PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 252, 254 (Julian P. Boyd, ed. 1954). See also, 14 id. 426 (1958). If Sally had developed a proficiency with the language, it is reasonable to assume she would have shown off such a talent at Monticello on occasion and someone like Isaac Jefferson or Edmund Bacon (both of whom recorded talents by other members of the Hemings family) might have made note of it.

  103. Jan Ellen Lewis & Peter S. Onuf, Introduction, SALLY HEMINGS & THOMAS JEFFERSON 9 (1999).

  104. GORDON-REED, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 7.

  105. Monticello Report, Appendix H at 12 (quoting Samuel Wetmore).

  106. [Samuel Wetmore,] Life Among the Lowly, No. 3, Pike County [Ohio] REPUBLICAN, Dec. 25, 1873, at 4.

  107. On one occasion he may at least have encouraged speculation on the subject, but there is no known instance in which he actually asserted that Thomas Jefferson was his father. See, e.g., Monticello Report, Appendix F at 3; and Lucia Stanton & Dianne Swann-Wright, Bonds of Memory, SALLY HEMINGS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON 173. (“Although it was widely ‘rumored’ in southern Ohio that he was Jefferson’s son, he is not known to have made an unequivocal statement of his parentage, as did his brother Madison.”) But cf., Gordon-Reed, THOMAS JEFFERSON AND SALLY HEMINGS 211 (“Not only did Madison Hemings claim to be Jefferson’s son; his brother Eston did as well.”).

  108. Joshua D. Rothman, James Callender and Social Knowledge of Interracial Sex in Antebellum Virginia, SALLY HEMINGS AND THOMAS JEFFERSON 98.

  109. David Brion Davis, Preface, in LUCIA STANTON, FREE SOME DAY 11 (2000).

  110. JOSEPH ELLIS, AMERICAN SPHINX 23 (quoting University of Virginia history professor Peter Onuf as characterizing “the emerging scholarly portrait of Jefferson as ‘a monster of self-deception.’”).

  Individual Views of

  Professor Jean M. Yarborough

  joined by

  Professor Charles Kessler

  and

  Professor Harvey C. Mansfield

  12

  Individual Views of Jean M. Yarborough, Charles Kessler, and Harvey C. Mansfield

  * * *

  After reviewing the report of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation and the materials presented in this report, we do not believe the evidence that Jefferson fathered one or more of Sally Hemings’ children is compelling.

  The case for Jefferson’s paternity rests on three principal arguments: recent DNA evidence, greater weight to the oral tradition of Madison Hemings, and Jefferson’s presence at Monticello during each of the periods when Sally Hemings conceived her children. But as even the authors of the article analyzing the DNA results make clear, the DNA evidence does not “prove” that Jefferson was the father of Sally’s children. Moreover, there is not one oral tradition, but three in play, and these contradict each other on key points. The Thomas Woodson tradition was conclusively refuted by the DNA evidence. Until recently, the descendents of Eston Hemings asserted that a relative of Jefferson’s was the father of Eston, a claim not inconsistent with the DNA findings.

  Only Madison Hemings claimed that Thomas Jefferson was the father of all the Hemings children, and, significantly, this was not until 1873, in an interview given to a newspaper editor in Ohio. If Jefferson were the father, it seems likely that all the Hemings children would have known it, and not just one. Further, it seems plausible that the story would have surfaced earlier, and that there would be some contemporaneous evidence somewhere that would corroborate the charge. There is not.

  Equally troublesome is the assumption that Sally Hemings was monogamous and that all her children were fathered by the same man. It is true that earlier historians had also been quick to assume that only one man (Jefferson’s nephew Peter Carr) was the father of all of Sally’s children. But a serious reconsideration of the question in light of the DNA evidence requires that this assumption also be scrutinized, especially in light of contemporary accounts that suggest several possible fathers. None of this is inconsistent with the fact that Sally’s conceptions took place when Jefferson was in residence. When else would Jefferson’s relatives come to visit?

  Although we do not believe that the case against Jefferson’s paternity is air tight, and there remain legitimate questions that cry out for better answers than we can give, we think that a fair and impartial review of all of the evidence suggests that Thomas Jefferson was not the father of any of Sally’s children.

  Individual Views of

  Professor Lance Banning

  13

  Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: Case Closed?

  * * *

  Whether Thomas Jefferson fathered children by Sally Hemings is a harder question for me than it seems to be for many. The DNA results, in combination with the data concerning Sally Hemings’ conceptions, have persuaded many able scholars that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings and may have fathered some or all of Eston’s siblings. But there is powerful evidence to the contrary, as creditable as reported statements by Madison Hemings and often too lightly dismissed. The conclusion that Jefferson fathered these children, moreover, cannot be accepted unless we are also able to give credence to a much longer list of radical implausibilities than I have been able to swallow. Thus, I continue to doubt that Jefferson fathered any of the Hemings children, have signed the commission’s report, and find Robert Turner’s individual statement generally convincing.

  The informal essay which follows was prepared as all of the commission members were grappling with the issue late last year [2000]. It continues to reflect my thinking.*

  * * *

  Within the last three years, the old story that Thomas Jefferson fathered several children by his slave Sally Hemings—a claim that most Jefferson scholars had earlier considered so implausible that nearly all of them rejected it without a truly rigorous investigation—has gained new credibility and extensive national publicity. In 1997, Annette Gordon-Reed offered a powerful argument that the case for Jefferson’s paternity was notably stronger than the leading Jefferson scholars had been willing to admit, while the case that Hemings’ children were fathered by one of Jefferson’s Carr nephews, which was widely accepted by those scholars, was markedly weaker than they had supposed. In the aftermath o
f Gordon-Reed’s book, several former skeptics moved to a neutral position and Joseph Ellis, who still thought Jefferson’s paternity unlikely, insisted in his American Sphinx, which won the National Book Award, that neither side had a clearly convincing case. Then, in 1999, DNA testing proved compatible with the possibility that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings, Sally’s youngest son, but incompatible with the possibility that one of the Carr brothers did. At that point, numerous former skeptics or neutrals, led by Ellis himself, moved firmly to the other side. A few have even suggested that no reasonable person can continue to doubt it. The DNA report (very misleadingly titled), a conference held at the University of Virginia, a volume of essays resulting from that conference, a forum in the William & Mary Quarterly, a bad movie, a dreadful TV miniseries, and a report by the staff of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, which manages Monticello—all accepting the likelihood of Jefferson’s paternity—publicized the accusation far and wide. A good bit of politics, some of it racial and some of it prompted by the close conjunction of the release of some of the reports with Bill Clinton’s impeachment, erupted on both sides.

  Political considerations continue, as they always will, to affect the ongoing dispute over whether the story is true. Thomas Jefferson is an icon: more closely identified than any other individual with the foundational principles of the American regime. Logic may tell us that his personal character has little to do with whether his principles were sound or his public contributions useful, but it still has symbolic importance for many. People, moreover, are strongly inclined, for the most part, to believe what they want to believe, to give more weight to evidence that supports their position than to evidence that disputes it, and, regrettably often, to impugn the motives of those who disagree. Professional historians and other scholars are not immune to these weaknesses, but the discipline of history does insist that we make our best effort to recognize our biases and control for them. Even when we do, we may not get the history right, but if no historical “truth” is ever discoverable at all, if we don’t at least aim at that, whether the result seems politically helpful or not—in short, if it is never really possible for us to learn something from the past, if our encounters with the records are little more than occasions for symbolic battles and incidents in current cultural conflicts—it’s hard to see why we bother with history at all. There are other, perhaps more forthright, grounds to fight those battles on. Let’s start, at least, by getting the history as straight as discipline allows. Only then, as I conceive it, are we ready to ask if the history holds any lessons. Is the story true? This, at least, is an interesting question for historical detectives—and one that any student or citizen can pursue quite seriously on his own, since so many of the original sources are readily available, courtesy of Monticello’s website and websites on the other side.1 Politically, the subject is a landmine. Rightly handled, though, it has some useful things to teach about the method of sound historical inquiry and the uses or abuses of the past. That’s what attracted my interest, and this paper is meant to share my own reasoning and conclusions. I’ve studied most of the relevant primary and secondary sources on the subject, and although I haven’t given it years or even months of study, I think I do see pathways through the thicket.

 

‹ Prev