The Jefferson - Hemings ControversyHistory on trial Main Page

AboutTime LineEpisodesJefferson on Race & SlaveryResources
Episodes
>
>
>

Jefferson's Grandchildren versus Madison Hemings [AGR 87-93]

Meredith Weiner

[1] One of the most contentious issues in the Jefferson-Hemings scandal is who fathered Sally's children. Modern Jefferson defenders point to the Carr Brothers, Peter and Samuel Carr, based on stories by Jefferson grandchildren Thomas Jefferson Randolph and Elizabeth Randolph Coolidge. Jefferson biographer Henry Randall reports that Randolph told him that "Sally Henings [sic] was the mistress of Peter, and her sister Betsey the mistress of Samuel," and, further, that he overheard Peter confess to the activities that darkened Jefferson's reputation. Coolidge reports a generally similar conversation with Randolph in a letter to her husband, but one in which specific liaisons were not identified, and Coolidge hypothesizes Samuel as the father of Sally's children. In this section of her Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (87-93), Annette Gordon-Reed investigates these stories and finds that they do not prove either Carr brother the father of Sally's children, so that it is not possible to discount Jefferson.

[2] Here's Randall's report of Randolph's story:

Colonel Randolph said that a visitor at Monticello dropped a newspaper from his pocket or accidentally left it. After he was gone, he (Colonel R.) opened the paper and found some very insulting remarks about Mr. Jefferson's Mulatto Children. The Col. said he felt provoked. Peter and Sam Carr were lying not far off under a shade tree. He took the paper and put it in Peter's hands, pointing out the article. Peter read it, tears coursing down his cheeks, and then handed it to Sam. Sam also shed tears. Peter exclaimed, "arnt you and I a couple of pretty fellows to bring this disgrace on poor old uncle who has always fed us! We ought to be -- by -- !"

Gordon-Reed advances two reasons why Randolph's story is not credible. First, this "melodramatic moment" happened in 1813, years after the "Callender crisis." The relationship controversy was "old news," there was no "immediate crisis," and thus the reaction of the Carr brothers seems highly unlikely to Gordon-Reed: "the time for tears had long passed."

[3] The second reason that Gordon-Reed finds the Randolph story not credible is that there are two versions. The Coolidge version is "very different." In the Randolph story reported by Randall, Randolph confronts Peter Carr, who makes a "dramatic . . . confession." In the Coolidge version, Randolph overhears a conversation between the Carr brothers, and there is no mention of a confession -- and thus Coolidge conjectures the culprit is Samuel Carr. Why, reasons Gordon-Reed -- if the confession occurred -- why didn't Randolph name Peter to his sister? Why would he tell Randall and not Coolidge? There is "no rational explanation," says Gordon-Reed, and thus there may have been "no confession."

[4] Suppose Randolph did tell his sister about Peter. Or, suppose Randolph did not tell his sister about Peter. Either way, the question remains, why did Coolidge name Samuel? Gordon-Reed looks closely at Coolidge's letter and finds two reasons she pins the paternity on Samuel. First, she picked Samuel Carr as the father because she did not think he was a good person. She had no rhyme or reason for her arbitrary decision but, rather, personal conflicts that led her to this conclusion. Gordon-Reed does not think that Coolidge's conviction is valid, for "a source's admitted overall prejudice against an individual should make one wary of that source's statements about that person" (89). Gordon-Reed feels that Coolidge cannot be trusted because her reasoning is not justified. Gordon-Reed emphasizes that Coolidge's statements in her letter reveal a lack of knowledge about the situation.

[5] The second reason that Coolidge believes that Samuel was the father was because he had sex with black women in the past, so it can be argued that he would have been inclined to have sex with Sally Hemings. Coolidge was so adamant in her argument regarding Samuel Carr because she wanted to "provide a defense of Jefferson from a member of his own family" (89). However, Coolidge fails to share a personal experience in which she encountered Sally and Samuel Carr together, which backs up Gordon-Reed's statement that Coolidge's analysis is not valid.

[6] So, many descendants of the Jefferson family have voiced their opinions on who the father of Sally Hemings' children is, and Gordon-Reed utilizes their views to formulate a conclusion on the controversy. She does so by contradicting both Randolph and Coolidge's outlooks and voicing an alternative perspective. The fact that brother and sister have two different viewpoints on the same scandal leads her to discount their reasoning. From the disagreement between Coolidge and Randolph, we can conclude that there were many flaws underlying their alleged accusations. No matter what stance is taken, Gordon-Reed finds a way to prove them wrong. Gordon-Reed criticizes these commentators for the weaknesses in their viewpoints by posing different ways to determine who the father of Sally Hemings's children was.