Hello to all and especially to Ms./Dr. Wells:  What a comment!  I feel that Ms. Hemmings was familiar enough with Jefferson's children and they were also familiar enough with her to in a lot of ways to accept her as a part of the family.  Do not get me wrong here.  I am not giving the situation at hand an excuse but in a lot of ways it was better that no other lady show up and marry Mr. Jefferson and create unwarranted havoc in the Jefferson household.  Simply put, in my humble opinion the Jefferson girls accepted and perhaps even loved Sally. Jane Steele,MA.

-----Original Message-----
>From: Camille Wells <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Oct 30, 2006 1:04 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: [VA-HIST] Family Politics:  Jeffersons, Hemings, Randolphs
>
>Gentlefolk:
>
>See underlined below.  Ellen Randolph Coolidge indeed was born in 1796, but
>Sally Hemings' last three children:   Harriet, Madison, and Eston were born
>between 1801 and 1808 when Ellen was between the ages of 5 and 12.
>Moreover, there's no reason to assume that Jefferson's relations with Sally
>Hemings ended with her pregnancies.
>And as Martha Jefferson Randolph drew her daughters into aspects of
>household management at Monticello, her statement could have been drawn from
>direct observation . . .
>
>Though I think more likely from established household policy.  As Jan Ellen
>Lewis, Frasier Neiman, and I have all observed in different venues,
>Jefferson¹s daughters and grandchildren had every reason to tolerate or even
>condone TJ¹s partnership with Hemings.  Had he chosen instead to remarry,
>there could have been more legitimate heirs and thus smaller individual
>legacies from his estate.
>
>[And yes, I know about Martha Wayles Jefferson¹s deathbed entreaty that TJ
>never remarry, thus subjecting her little girls to a potentially heartless
>stepmother.  If the story is true, and I don¹t believe it, she was ignoring
>her own family experience as well as prevailing circumstances of the day:
>when she married TJ in 1772, she was ³subjecting² the young son of her first
>marriage to a stepfather.]
>
>Moreover, there was a real family experience of what a parent¹s second
>marriage could do to the prospects of children from a first marriage.  When
>Martha Jefferson married her cousin Thomas Mann Randolph in 1790, she fully
>expected to become mistress of Tuckahoe, the seat of her recently widowed
>father-in-law also named Thomas Mann Randolph.
>
>But within six months she was dismayed when the elder TMR married a much
>younger and, as it turned out, disastrously aggressive second wife.  Family
>letters as well as subsequent events make clear that Gabriella Harvie
>Randolph gave her husband¹s many grown children to understand that they were
>not welcome at Tuckahoe.
>
>[One of many results was the flight of Anne Cary Randolph¹s decision to move
>in with her sister and brother-in-law Judith and Richard Randolph of
>Bizarre.  The outcome of this event involved a dead infant, suspicion of
>incest, a murder trial, and . . .this could go on for a while.]
>
>After the new Mrs. Randolph fetched up, Martha Jefferson Randolph wrote in
>distress to her father, who advised her not to react to any provocations--to
>wait for matters to sort themselves out.  ³Your situation will require
>peculiar attentions and respects to both parties [both in-laws].  Let no
>[re]proof be too much for either your patience or acquiescence.²
>
>Then in 1793 Gabriella Randolph presented her husband with a son whom she
>insisted be christened, like his father and much older half-brother, Thomas
>Mann Randolph.  The name was part of a clear and ultimately successful
>strategy of usurpation: when he came of age, her son became the master of
>Tuckahoe.
>
>[And neither the family at Tuckahoe nor modern architectural historians have
>ever forgiven Gabriella Harvie Randolph for painting the handsome walnut
>paneling, dates from 1733, in the northwest parlor.]
>
>There¹s more here in the way of architectural evidence:  Monticello does
>indeed ³speak up² on the subject, but my message has already rattled on too
>long, I fear.
>
>Camille Wells
>Department of History
>College of William and Mary
>
>> Mr. Dixon:  There have been plenty of scholars who've been called out for
>> "fudging" data:  The big flap over Michael Bellisiles's Arming America comes
>> quickest to mind.   Of course, he was not simply selective in his use of
>> quotations or other material, or cropping quotations, but appears to have
>> fabricated evidence.
>> 
>> Your concern is a reasonable one since, as you point out, the meaning of
>> Coolidge's words is altered by the omission; it is not merely a tightening up
>> of the language.  Where can we find the full text of the Coolidge letter that
>> you cite?   
>> 
>> All of this, however, puts in focus the reason for Coolidge's letter-- she was
>> addressing the persistent rumors about Jefferson and is female slaves and what
>> she labled "yellow children.".  But her information that Jefferson's room was
>> never visited by female slaves while he was in it must be second-hand at best.
>> Ellen Coolidge was only born in 1796.  It is understandable that she would
>> want to defend her grandfather from what she considered unjust allegations,
>> but as evidence that Jefferson was never visited by a female slave, well, I
>> don't see her letter making for a very strong case.
>> 
>> Daid Kiracofe
>> 
>> 
>> David Kiracofe
>> History
>> Tidewater Community College
>> Chesapeake Campus
>> 1428 Cedar Road
>> Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
>> 757-822-5136
>
>
>> Richard Dixon <[log in to unmask]> 10/27/06 5:15 PM >
>> The various comments on the obligation to provide complete and accurate
>> quotations raise the more interesting issue of consequence. The rules seem to
>> be understood, but when they are violated, what happens?.
>> 
>> In her letter of October 24, 1858 Ellen Coolidge wrote to her husband:
>> ³His (Thomas Jefferson¹s) apartment had no private entrance not perfectly
>> accessible and visible to all the household. No female domestic ever entered
>> his chambers except at hours when he was known not to be there and none could
>> have entered without being exposed to the public gaze.²
>> 
>> In her "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy," Annette
>> Gordon-Reed  included as an appendix the letter of Ellen Coolidge, but altered
>> it in this manner: ³No female domestic ever entered his chambers except at
>> hours when he was known not to be in the public gaze²
>> 
>> Gordon-Reed later brushed off the alteration, although it reversed the meaning
>> of the sentence. The University Press of Virginia first published her book in
>> 1997 and continues to publish it without correction or an errata insert.
>> Inexplicably, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation printed the original Coolidge
>> hand-written letter in its Research Committee Report in 2000, but used the
>> Gordon-Reed letter as the ³printed version.² Today, Monticello continues to
>> reference the Gordon-Reed version on its website with no explanation that it
>> is in error.
>> 
>> No college student could commit such a distortion and escape censure. As
>> always, the lower the violator is on the totem pole, the easier it is to pile
>> on. Can anyone cite an instance of condemnation from academics when fellow
>> academics are caught?
>> 
>> Richard E. Dixon
>> Editor, Jefferson Notes
>> Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
>> 703-691-0770
>> fax 703-691-0978
>> 
>> 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


Lillian Jane Steele

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html