The Jefferson - Hemings ControversyHistory on trial Main Page

AboutTime LineEpisodesJefferson on Race & SlaveryResources
Episodes
>
>
>

Shifting the Ground [AGR 67-75]

Kiersten Moore

[1] In her Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, Annette Gordon-Reed recognizes that "The principal method of showing that [James Thomson] Callender was lying rests on the assertion that there was no Tom Hemings who could have been the ‘President Tom' referred to so contemptuously by Callender" (67). The existence or non-existence of Tom Hemings is, in fact, of crucial importance to both sides in the controversy, for " To supporters of the story, existent Tom is proof of where the story began and evidence against ‘the Carr brothers did it' theory"(77). Gordon-Reed approaches the question of the existence of a Tom Hemings in a very methodical and unbiased manner, listing valid arguments both for and against his existence (67-75). She presents both sides without taking a side and ultimately seeks to discredit the Jefferson defenders by rendering their main argument moot and shifting the focus to the other Hemings children.

[2] Gordon-Reed presents three arguments for the existence of Tom Hemings: Callender was not stupid, disproving Tom's existence would have been easy, and a "Tom" does appear in the historical record. First, "While James Callender was a vile man, there is no evidence that he was a stupid one" (70). Callender was well aware that he was taking on a very powerful political figure, so his facts had to have sufficient accuracy and substantiation. "Why make up a son for Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings," she argues reasonably, "when Sally Hemings already had a son, Beverly" who would serve his polemical purpose just as well even though he was only four. Sure, an older (non-existent) boy literally named after Jefferson, would make his case better, but would Callender be so stupid as to create a person whose existence could easily be confirmed?

[3] That leads us to Gordon-Reed's second argument. Tom's existence could easily be confirmed or denied. All any curious but distant Jefferson defender had to do was go to Monticello and look for himself. But no one did: "the defenders of Jefferson never offered this rebuttal to Callender's claim" (70). You have to admit that it's curious, as Gordon-Reed says, that not even some neutral observer stumbled on the fact that there was no twelve-year-old President Tom, if there weren't. In fact, though, Jefferson's "most vociferous" contemporary defender, the editor of a rival Richmond newspaper, argued precisely the opposite, that Hemings had children, though not by Jefferson, rather than there were no such mulatto children there. If any of the parties present at Monticello during the early part of the controversy knew there was no "Tom," snarls Gordon-Reed, "why would not one of them have had the wit to point it out?"

[4] Third, Fawn Brodie, a Jefferson biographer, found writings by Martha Jefferson Randolph and Ellen Randolph Coolidge that point to the existence of a Tom. "Brodie accepted that Tom existed and posited that he may have been sent away from Monticello after the Callender story appeared," says Gordon-Reed (68). First, Brodie cites Martha, who reported on a wave of illness that struck Monticello: "Our intercourse with Monticello has been almost daily. They have been generally well there except Tom and Goliah who are both about again and poor little Harriot who died a few days after you left us" (68). There was both an older slave Goliah and a young child Goliah, in addition to an older slave Tom, as well as the possible child Tom. Whether Martha was reporting on the older slaves Tom and Goliah or the children Tom and Goliah is unclear, but if she was reporting on the children, such a report would give evidence for the existence of a young Tom. Second, Brodie cites Jefferson's granddaughter Ellen Randolph Coolidge, who wrote of four white slaves who ran away from Monticello. Gordon-Reed says that the Farm Book only mentions three runaways, so perhaps the fourth was Tom Hemings. Because the Farm Book did not mention the birth of Tom, it is only logical that it would not document him at any other points of his life.

[5] Likewise, balancing arguments on both sides, Gordon-Reed presents three arguments for the non-existence of Tom Hemings: his absence from the Madison Hemings memoir, insufficient explanations for his absence at Monticello, and evidence from one familiar with Jefferson's children. First, Madison Hemings's famous story could very well be true. His claim that Sally Hemings was indeed pregnant on her return from France but that the child died shortly after his birth gives strong evidence in support of the non-existence of Tom: "A child who died shortly after their return leaving no independent record does not provide as compelling evidence of the existence or the possible beginnings of the relationship" (71). If, perhaps, Madison Hemings was correct in his claim, this would provide enough evidence to disprove all previous claims of Tom's existence.

[6] Second, if Tom existed, a slew of unanswered questions persist: "Why would Tom be sent to live with another family for good when Callender's reign of terror lasted only a year and did no damage to Jefferson's political career?" "Why let [Tom] visit and not stay after Callender was dead and buried and Jefferson was safely ensconced in his second term?" And "If Tom was close enough to return to Monticello for visits, he would also have been within the sight of Jefferson's prying neighbors who had fed Callender information about the Hemings family. Wouldn't they know about the Woodson connection? How could his identity and whereabouts be kept secret?" (72) The questions are endless, each one leading to a new logical explanation of Tom's non-existence. Each new point brings up reasoning as to why Tom could simply not exist, as each question has insufficient explanations for answers.

[7] Thirdly, an episode involving a Virginian man by the name of Thomas Turner in 1805, lends more evidence to the non-existence of Tom. Turner's private letter to a friend found its way to a Boston newspaper. In the letter, Turner addresses the accusation of Jefferson's attempt to seduce John Walker's wife years ago. On Jefferson and Hemings, he wrote: "The affair of black (or rather mulatto) Sally is unquestionably true . . . the eldest son (called Beverly) is well known to many" (73). Turner knew of the situation at Monticello and knew of the affair and subsequent children produced by it. Not once did he make any mention of Tom, but rather he remarks on the eldest son, Beverly, apparently well known to many. If Tom did in fact exist, he would be the eldest; therefore, this mention of Beverly contradicts any evidence for the existence of Tom.

[8] Gordon-Reed goes about her argument in a very clever way, as we see. Instead of confirming or denying the existence of such a "Tom," Gordon Reed makes a case for both positions. In doing so, her objectivity gains her credibility, and she shifts the ground of the argument away from the Jefferson defenders to one where she can argue more positively. Proving the existence or non-existence of Tom Hemings, she claims, will not prove or disprove the relationship. Rather, by looking to the known facts about the other children, it is easy to see that there was a relationship: "Proof that [Callender] was lying about this one child would not defeat Jefferson's possible paternity of Sally Hemings's other children"(77). The argument over Tom's existence is, by far, a moot point as far as proving the validity of a relationship. Gordon Reed remains steadfast in her belief that there was a relationship and does so in a unique way, by not siding with either argument in this case. Gordon Reed concludes "The existence or nonexistence of Tom Hemings has taken on significance beyond its actual importance as a way of proving or disproving a Jefferson-Hemings liaison" (77).