| Episodes |
Hidden Motivation [AGR 38-46]
Raphael Khallouqi
[1] Thomas Jefferson's will, specifically its provision ensuring the liberation of five of his slaves, provides new measures for deliberation regarding his paternity of Sally Hemings's children. The key factor to examine according to Annette Gordon-Reed in Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy (38-46) is his motivation. Why were these specific five slaves -- Burwell Colbert, John Hemings, Joe Fossett, Madison Hemings, and Eston Hemings --chosen in lieu of his other one hundred and forty?
[2] Esteemed Jefferson historian Dumas Malone suggests that the choice was a practical one. Jefferson freed these five slaves because they were the few who possessed a practical skill. Malone argues that Jefferson was concerned that slaves who had no trade would not be able to make it in the outside world, and so he made the decision to free only those who were skilled laborers, also noting that two other slaves Jefferson freed in earlier years possessed a skill. If practicality was Jefferson's motive and the slave's skill was the criterion, however, Gordon-Reed argues forcefully, there was at least one other notable slave at Monticello who had a skill. Peter Hemings was a trained cook. Certainly most people would view culinary expertise as a practical skill, yet Peter was not freed. "Why Madison and Eston, and not Peter?" Gordon-Reed asks rhetorically (39). So much for Malone.
[3] To the contrary, Gordon-Reed seeks to unveil the truth by means of a close examination of each of the five freed slaves and their "sentimental value" to Jefferson. "The first reason that comes to mind when one thinks of why a master freed a slave is that the action was taken for reasons of sentiment," says Gordon-Reed reasonably (38). Perhaps the slave had performed an extraordinary service for his or her master, and freedom was recognition of that fact.
[4] This potential explanation for the selection of the five chosen slaves seems to hold true for three of them. Colbert, a relative of Sally Hemings, had served as Jefferson's personal valet for several years, rendering important and intimate services to him. Edmund Bacon, Monticello's overseer and someone familiar with the matter, is quoted as saying that Jefferson had "perfect confidence" in Burwell and that it was right that Jefferson free him in his will. Similarly, John Hemings, Sally's younger brother, and Fossett, another of her relatives, could be described as having provided Jefferson with remarkable service. Hemings was the master carpenter at Monticello and had contributed to the aesthetics of the home that Jefferson loved so dearly. Such was Jefferson's respect for him that he wanted him to work at the University of Virginia. As Gordon-Reed puts it, "Jefferson owed John Hemings a great deal, and again, one could understand why Jefferson would free him" (38). Fossett was a master ironworker at Monticello and in charge of Jefferson's metal shop; like John Hemings, "Fossett also had fairly substantial interaction with Jefferson over the course of his life about things that mattered to Jefferson, and therefore his emancipation makes sense as well" (38-39).
[5] If sentiment played a key role in Jefferson's selection of the five people, there is no question as to why these three individuals would be granted the gift of freedom. A problem arises, however, with the remaining two slaves, Madison and Eston Hemings, Sally's remaining children at Monticello. Madison was twenty-one, Eston eighteen, and their contributions to Jefferson and Monticello in no way matched those of Colbert, Hemings, or Fossett. "If sentiment played a role in the freeing" of Madison and Eston, Gordon-Reed says, again reasonably, "there had to be some alternative reason for its origin" (39). That origin must be Jefferson's paternity of the two slaves, the truth of which is further suggested in Gordon-Reed's examination of the precise nature of the provisions in the will regarding Madison and Eston."
[6] When freeing Madison and Eston in his will, Jefferson did not do so directly. Instead, so as to not invite gossip, he worded their emancipations in such a way that tied their freedom to John Hemings, an action that disguised his intentions as rewarding him for his excellent service as opposed to a benign act towards the siblings. Should he have chosen to outright free the two remaining children of the woman who was at the core of his scandal, uproar would have inevitably ensued.
[7] Jefferson's will reads: "I give also to John Hemings the services of his two apprentices, Madison and Eston Hemings until their respective ages of twenty-one years, at which period, I give them their freedom: and I humbly and earnestly request of the Legislature of Virginia a confirmation of the bequest of freedom of these servants, with permission to remain in this State, where their families and connections are."
[8] When writing this will, Gordon-Reed adeptly points out, Jefferson knew that in reality it did not give John Hemings Madison's services because Madison was already twenty-one years old when the document was drafted. His date of birth was noted in his Farm Book. With respect to Eston, who was eighteen years old at the time, she argues, it was Jefferson's intention that he work with John for three years so as to learn more about his craft and find himself more well-off in the long run.
[9] The lengths Thomas Jefferson went to in order to free Madison and Eston all but guarantee that his alleged promise to Sally Hemings in Paris did, in fact, occur. His lawyerly rhetoric and astute wording is what allowed him to fulfill this promise without raising any suspicion about his motives.
