EXPLANATION OF THE 25 JEFFERSONS BEING BATTED AROUND IN THE MEDIA AND
ELSEWHERE.
Please let me clarify this number to read: 8 potential Jeffersons NOT
25. In the early days immediately after the false DNA headline story in
Nature Journal I was approached by a very talented individual and George
Washington researcher, who wished to name as many Jeffersons in the
Jefferson charts that were alive at the time of Sally's conceptions.
Since I had all the Jefferson family history and charts back to England
and was asked by Dr. Foster to participate in the DNA Study, everyone
was interested in who the Jefferson males were. I gave the individual a
number of 25 that were alive at that time, making it absolutely clear
that my research had found only 8 to be even close in the contest. May I
please suggest that "25" be dropped from any future research. Of course
Thomas was one but the others suspects at that time (since revised) are:
George Jefferson (TJ's business agent in Richmond),Randolph and older
sons, and a slave named Sandy (denoting the Jefferson sandy hair
etc),(inherited by TJ from his father and who knows how far back his DNA
goes, Thomas I, Thomas II or Peter). This slave "could" have had a male
son with the previous Jefferson DNA that "could" have fathered some of
Sally's children. I have found no reason to revise the "possible eight",
EXCEPT recent research has led me to conclude that it was Randolph
because Dr. Foster tested a KNOWN Eston male descendant whose family had
ALWAYS claimed descent from "a Jefferson uncle", meaning Randolph. With
this family belief the DNA match would automatically be expected but the
only thing it would conclude is that the Eston DNA "confirmed" their
claims. NOTHING concludes that it was Thomas. Dr. Foster, in my opinion,
was remiss in not telling the media, Nature Journal, Monticello and the
public that he was testing such a "guaranteed match."
For any discussion of the half-sister false rumors I refer all to a
great study done by two very serous and dedicated researchers, Dr. and
Mrs. James McMurry, Jr. in their book, "Anatomy of a Scandal, Thomas
Jefferson and the Sally Story." This book is available from Amazon and
elsewhere, finds NO truth to this rumor.
Herb Barger
Jefferson Family Historian
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of S. Corneliussen
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2008 5:31 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Jefferson on BookTV
Thanks, Mr. Wiencek. This afternoon I'm reminded that among some or
maybe
even many in this forum, patience expires for this general topic, no
doubt
for some good reasons. I hope, though, that I may nevertheless respond
briefly to two more things (the first of which might also bear on some
of
what Jurretta Heckscher wrote):
First, as far as I know -- and maybe someone can enlighten me, though
I've
been asking around for a long time -- no one has ever vetted that
Monticello-approved paternity-candidate headcount of 25, despite what
Gary
Davis suggested in his 7 January 1999 letter in Nature. Davis wrote that
"any male ancestor in Thomas Jefferson's line, white or black, could
have
fathered Eston Hemings. Plantations were inbred communities, and the
mixing
of racial types was probably common. As slave families were passed as
property to the owner's offspring along with land and other property, it
is
possible that Thomas Jefferson's father, grandfather or paternal uncles
fathered a male slave whose line later impregnated another slave, in
this
case Sally Hemings. Sally herself was a light mulatto, known even at
that
time to be Thomas Jefferson's wife's half sister." Davis cited Fawn
Brodie
and W. S. Randall. I don't know what he considers proof of the
half-sisterhood.
It's sometimes said that everything that can be debated about Hemings-TJ
has
been debated, but I'd still like to hear expert historical opinion about
Davis's conjecture. Again, maybe that already exists and I've just
missed
it. But until someone shows that Davis's conjecture lacks merit, it
seems to
me that we do not -- and will not ever -- know the headcount.
Second, yes, my terms _pro-_ and _anti-paternityist_ are mega-clunky, as
I
said before. I don't offer them as suggestions, certainly not to a
wordsmith
who takes your kind of care with his craft. But I do continue to believe
that _Jefferson defender_ and _Hemings partisan_ carry connotative
freight
that supplies, and resupplies, a verbal battle that ought to be just a
discussion.
Thanks very much.
Steven T. Corneliussen
Poquoson, Virginia
(and Jefferson Lab, Newport News)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Wiencek" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2008 1:06 PM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Jefferson on BookTV
My thanks to Mr. Corneliussen for his thoughtful comments. I don't think
I'll be adopting his nomenclature of "pro-paternityist" and
"anti-paternityist"; but I'm grateful for the suggestion. As for the
Man-in-the-Moon jibe, I didn't know that Halliday had also used it; I
guess
great minds think alike. Coulter did use the number 25, which she got
directly from the official Monticello report. My basic point is that
commentators such as Coulter, who don't know anything about the subject,
have foghorned their opinions about it anyway.
Much of the literature on the Hemings issue, though not all, consists of
experts attacking the work of other experts. I'm avoiding that as much
as
possible. I try to approach this "de novo" and I try to lay out the
germane
information as clearly as possible.
Henry Wiencek
Charlottesville
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
