Sally Hemings flees Jefferson, stays in France, and tells all

[Evan]

Yesterday I read the 1998 Y-chromosome DNA report, which almost completely proves that Thomas Jefferson did father children with Sally Hemings. According to most of the contemporary reports (i.e. screeds by Jefferson's political enemies, along with the memoirs of Sally Hemings' son Madison Hemings), their relationship began in France, where Jefferson was US Envoy and Hemings was his daughters' maid... and also, where the French Revolution had abolished slavery.

In actual fact, neither Hemings nor her also-enslaved brother James petitioned for their freedom as was then required, and (as Jefferson wrote to another American), "a person bringing in a slave, and saying nothing about it, has not been disturbed in his possession." Though somewhat reluctant, she even returned to Virginia with Jefferson in 1789. It seems most likely she was pregnant at the time (no baby was entered in Jefferson's records, but there's a suspicious blank line under that year, and rumors of such a birth are almost unanimous.) According to Madison Hemings:

[Jefferson] desired to bring my mother back to Virginia with him but she demurred. She was just beginning to understand the French language well, and in France she was free, while if she returned to Virginia she would be re-enslaved. So she refused to return with him. To induce her to do so he promised her extraordinary privileges, and made a solemn pledge that her children should be freed at the age of twenty-one years.

But suppose things were different? Since we know next to nothing about Sally Hemings' personality, I can't pin down an exact PoD. Perhaps she spends more time thinking about France; perhaps Jefferson's choice of words in that last conversation is slightly different; perhaps a previous conversation went differently (let's note Abigail Adams was also in Paris at the time)... but for one reason or another, suppose she refuses to return. Suppose further, that when she goes to petition for her liberty, she tells everything. Since she's pregnant (and her future children famously resembled Jefferson, so this one quite possibly would too), there's as much proof as there could be.

This is in September 1789, when the Revolution is just beginning. The Bastille has been recently captured. One revolutionary faction looks to the United States as a model; another faction yearns to go farther and more radical. It's possible that no revolutionaries would be influenced by Hemings' story - the revolution largely began in the licentious gardens of the Palace-Royal. But still, the United States' model might be somewhat tattered if it's publicized that their ambassador was raping his slave on the soil of France. (And no matter what Hemings' feelings might have actually been, it could easily be spun that way, especially iTTL...)

Let's also remember that Wilberforce in Britain has been working for two years with the Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. Such a high-profile case involving American perfidy and hypocrisy might be perfect for his movement to publicize. If Hemings wants to return to an English-speaking country, I could easily see Wilberforce and the Society sponsoring her emigration to England. Things can't move so slowly, though - in 1793, England goes to war with France, and all social reform movements are held suspiciously radical.

In America, I don't think this would totally sink Jefferson's political career. When Alexander Hamilton confessed to adultery with Maria Reynolds in 1797 (after implicating letters were printed by James Callender - coincidentally, the same person who first printed rumors of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship iOTL), he was able to keep his post as Inspector-General of the US Army. His already-rocky career never recovered. Jefferson, on the other hand, has just been appointed America's first Secretary of State, and I believe Washington (a fellow Virginian) would keep him in that office. Yet, his political capital will be quite damaged. Callender certainly thought that Jefferson would have been unable to win the Presidency if his affair was known, and I'd agree. I don't think the Republican Party will be choked off (there're other leaders, such as Madison and Clinton), but it might well be delayed.

Thoughts? I was somewhat surprised once I realized how large the effects of this explosive revelation could be, but I'm sure I've still missed some.

 

[Escape Zeppelin]

Thoughts? I was somewhat surprised once I realized how large the effects of this explosive revelation could be, but I'm sure I've still missed some.

I think you're dramatically overestimating the impact of your situation. First Jefferson's relationship wasn't very secret and and America's relationship with slavery was open knowledge. I doubt someone shouting their relationship from the rooftops would have made anyone do more than tut-tut about the propriety of it especially since he was a widower. Illegitimate children whether acknowledged or not weren't unusual in America, France, or England. And all three countries had a long relationship with slavery even if public opinion was turning. Second, as far as we know Sally Hemings was rather fond of Jefferson herself.

 

[Falecius]

Another point: France only abolished slavery in 1794, if memory serves. Sally won't be free in France in 1789, I think.

 

[unprincipled peter]

E-Z, It's not so much that no one was in the dark (bad, bad pun intended) about the situation. It's pretty much like modern politics - virtually every politician is known to be guilty of something that almost all of them do. The difference is that you have a smoking gun. The degree of damage it does depends on to what degree Jefferson's enemies are in the same slave sleeping bed. If the powerful enemies can get away with exposing him and not pissing off their powerful friends and not exposing themselves, they'd use that smoking gun in a heartbeat. Most likely, though, due to the common occurrence of the time, it'd go down exactly as it did in OTL: everyone knowing the situation, and no one jumping up on the bully pulpit to shout it out. The mere fact that the Hemmings details are common knowledge today says volumes about how common knowledge it was 200 years ago.

 

[Evan]

Another point: France only abolished slavery in 1794, if memory serves. Sally won't be free in France in 1789, I think.

I understand slavery wasn't abolished in French colonies until 1794, but I haven't found anyone saying slavery was legal until then in metropolitan France. What's more, Thomas Jefferson wrote to another American at the time saying, "I...find that the laws of France give him [i.e. a slave] freedom if he claims it, and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to interrupt the course of the law."

It's pretty much like modern politics - virtually every politician is known to be guilty of something that almost all of them do. The difference is that you have a smoking gun. The degree of damage it does depends on to what degree Jefferson's enemies are in the same slave sleeping bed. If the powerful enemies can get away with exposing him and not pissing off their powerful friends and not exposing themselves, they'd use that smoking gun in a heartbeat.

I entirely agree. This would be more likely to happen, I think, given that the Federalists' strongest base was in the northern states which had already abolished slavery or were in the process of doing so. Also, southern planters and politicians - including Jefferson himself - continued to however-nominally oppose miscegenation even into the OTL 1960's. Someone caught at it would lose at least some stature, I think.

What's more, I'd say France and England could have a different reaction to this happening there than in the wilds of America. Remember the British Establishment was quite capable of giving liberty to every slave who set foot in Britain (in the 1772 Somerset Case) even while owning plantations in the West Indies.

Most likely, though, due to the common occurrence of the time, it'd go down exactly as it did in OTL: everyone knowing the situation, and no one jumping up on the bully pulpit to shout it out. The mere fact that the Hemmings details are common knowledge today says volumes about how common knowledge it was 200 years ago.

Common knowledge in Charlottesville, perhaps, but outside it? The mere fact that Jefferson's heirs and the vast majority of historians could deny it until the 1990's says volumes. Remember that Callender in 1804 reported it not as a confirmation of an already-known fact but as a scoop.

 

[ManintheField]

A. The whole controversy is far from settled. The thing that will 'settle' it is a DNA test of Thomas Jefferson himself. Up until then, we have supposition and two sides that are far too emotionally invested in a 200 year old paternity case.

B. Comparing Jefferson to Hamilton here isn't a great way to extrapolate the effects on Jefferson's political career. Hamilton was a political nobody who was almost entirely dependent on Washington's patronage for his position. He had few close allies of real influence outside of Washington and he never did himself any favors as time went on. Jefferson, on the other hand, was popular and well-liked both inside and outside state and Federal political circles. There were those who were against Jefferson, to be sure, but they were never as numerous or un-reserved in their dislike for him as Hamilton's detractors were for him.

In other words, Hamilton's relationship with Maria Reynolds was the final nail in the coffin of a sinking national political career, while a reveal of Jefferson's relationship with Hemmings would be a body blow to a career on a steep upward trajectory from an already high starting point. Hamilton was, in a lot of ways, never cut out for democratic politics: He was a genius and those who got to know him could recognize his competence and drive. However, these weren't things that lent well to either the popular political sphere or the internal machinations face and honor based gentleman's politics. Jefferson, on the other hand, was the consummate gentleman's gentleman, from the best of families, familiar with exactly how to play the game in the long run, and a kind of proto-proto-populist in many ways.

Hamilton excelled as an administrator speaking to his constituency but, the moment he stepped outside that comfort zone, he was out of his depth. Jefferson excelled as a politician chasing the approval of his peers and the broader populace who had some troubles with the intricacies of administration. Hemmings wouldn't sink his career.

 

[Valena]

I understand slavery wasn't abolished in French colonies until 1794, but I haven't found anyone saying slavery was legal until then in metropolitan France. What's more, Thomas Jefferson wrote to another American at the time saying, "I...find that the laws of France give him [i.e. a slave] freedom if he claims it, and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to interrupt the course of the law."

Yes. Legal in French colonies, illegal in metropolitan area. That's why the father of Alexander Dumas who was a product of similar romance was considered completely free man (the fact that he was discriminated for being colored is a common bigotry having nothing to do with legislation) so slavery in metropolitan France was illegal at least in 1770ies and any slave was considered a free man.