I think David Meade Randolph already was the Federal Marshall in
Richmond and lost the position with Jefferson's election-MLN
On May 3, 2008, at 6:13 PM, Herbert Barger wrote:
> Callender also listened to people who had reason to hate TJ just as
> Callender did. Just one of those I will cite: David Meade Randolph,
> had
> been denied the position of US Marshall and fell upon bad luck and
> moved
> to Richmond and reportedly fed information to Callender. DMR had three
> children (I may have covered this in an earlier message), named the
> same
> as Sally's, two being quiet unusual names, Eston, Beverly and Harriet.
>
> Dr. Foster had me to do a genealogy chart on his wife who descended
> from
> DMR. Small world eh? Could Sally have been spending some time around
> people whose children had similar names? In most cases we do not know
> where she was when she was conceiving her children and by whom. Her
> mother had several men as fathers of her children so why should we
> ASSUME that Sally only had one father for all her children?? Why
> are the
> Hemings nieces and nephews ADAMET in refusing a DNA test of a Madison
> descendant to compare to Eston DNA??
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 7:54 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy
>
> like you and I, Callender did a lot of research; and he published his
> research and whether Jefferson admitted it or not, most of it had been
> proved true; the ONLY issue in debate is whether TJ was the father of
> his own slaves (or merely, as you would argue their uncle). That
> hardly
> makes him a liar.
>
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York 12208-3494
>
> 518-445-3386
> [log in to unmask]
>>>> [log in to unmask] 05/03/08 7:38 PM >>>
> That makes neither of us liars because we both admit that we are
> speaking off the top of our heads, but Callender was not he wrote
> it as
> a fact. Mixing apples and oranges here!
>
> My memory did serve me well. None other than Annette Gordon-Reed on
> page
> 76, "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, An American Travesty" writes
> about Callender being correct about the Hamilton-Reynolds affair,
> states, "Callender was correct about Jefferson's attempted
> seduction of
> the wife of his friend John Walker, even though he overstated his case
> against Jefferson." Further on she wonders what is the best approach
> when assessing Callender's Jefferson-Hemings story? "Does one state or
> imply, as most historians have done, that Callender had a record of
> lying (SEE I DIDN'T ORIGINATE THAT WORD), about everything, when that
> claim is not correct?
>
> Herb
>
> i recall he denied it and then admitted when presented with the proof.
> Both of us are working from memory; but let me ask you; if you are
> wrong, does that make you a liar? and if I am wrong does that make
> me a
> liar?
>
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York 12208-3494
>
> 518-445-3386
> [log in to unmask]
>>>> [log in to unmask] 05/03/08 7:02 PM >>>
> As I seem to recall off the top of my head the issue arose when
> something came up about a Hamilton case and the issue came up. He
> immediately acknowledged it and said it was improper. But in the same
> sentence he said that was the only one of the rumors he would admit
> to.
>
> Herb
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman
> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 6:57 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy
>
> Herb:
>
> Did he admit the story with Mrs. Walker or deny it and then admit it
> after Callender produced the evidence?
>
>
>
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York 12208-3494
>
> 518-445-3386
> [log in to unmask]
>>>> [log in to unmask] 05/03/08 6:49 PM >>>
> I stick by my article that TJ admitted to one charge, that of Mrs.
> Walker and denies all the other rumors. DNA disproved the Callender
> statement that Tom Woodson was a son of TJ. He did not admit they were
> ALL true....just the Walker case.
>
> Herb
>
>
> the notion of Callender being a liar is pretty amusing; he accused
> Jefferson of a number of things -- including propositioning his
> neighbor's wife. Jefferson denied them all, and then had to admit to
> all but one as Callender came up with a paper trial to prove them --
> including Jefferson's improper advanced on his neighbor's wife.
> So, who was the "liar" here -- the investigative reporter (that is
> really what Callender was) who revealed a number of Jefferson's acts
> that Jefferson denied; or Jefferson who denied them and then was
> forced
> to admit they were true!
>
> The only one Callender could not "prove" was the relationship with
> Sally. But, even if he was wrong about that; it would not make him a
> "liar" but only prove he was mistaken. I am sure that even Mr. Barger
> does not believe that every mistaken assertion of fact makes someone a
> "liar." The interesting thing about Jefferson and Callender is that
> Jefferson flat out lied when he denied most of Callender's
> accusations,
> when Jefferson knew they were true.
>
> So, Herb, do you really want to do down the road of calling
> Callender a
> liar, unless you prepared to lay the same accusation on Jefferson 4
> or 5
> more times than Callender?
>
> Paul Finkelman
>
> Paul Finkelman
> President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law
> and Public Policy
> Albany Law School
> 80 New Scotland Avenue
> Albany, New York 12208-3494
>
> 518-445-3386
> [log in to unmask]
>>>> [log in to unmask] 05/03/08 5:31 PM >>>
> Stephan,
>
> Yes, the controversy has been with us since 1802 when Callender, "bad
> mouthed" TJ.....he personally had, to him, a good reason....TJ had
> denied him the Richmond Postmaster position. The DNA proved
> Callender to
> be a LIAR.....there was NO Jefferson/Woodson DNA match. Thus, what we
> have remaining is a finding of a match between "A" Jefferson DNA and
> Eston Hemings DNA.
>
> As I have earlier stated in earlier posts is that Dr. Foster, in my
> opinion, (I was assisting in identifying Jefferson subjects and
> history
> and genealogy and recommending sources for other persons of the
> study),
> tested a known male subject of Eston Hemings, Sally's son. That son,
> according to long held family beliefs, carried the Jefferson DNA. This
> family belief was that "a Jefferson uncle", meaning Randolph, had
> fathered Eston. This family NEVER claimed descent from Thomas as his
> brother Madison had. Therefore, Dr. Foster had an assured match in
> hand
> WELL BEFORE the lab results, however he never told Nature or anyone
> else
> of this "line up." Dr. Foster and Mrs. Bennett (whose suggestion it
> was
> to have the study), had a falling out over Dr. Foster's release of the
> results prior to her printing of a Jefferson book she had in the
> works.
> Up to this point she had been financing the project. Up until her
> death
> a few months ago, she held great resentment and hurt for her "former"
> friend. In an audio taped recording she states, "Gene, what is you
> want,
> money, his reply according to our interview with her, was
> NO....FAME? At
> what cost did he get fame?
>
> He never told Nature that I had recommended a meeting of all
> researchers, etc. prior to release of the story results. He blames
> this
> on "lack of space in Nature and an unnecessary meeting." Nature never
> knew of other Jefferson suspects, otherwise there was NO way they
> could
> have truthfully had a suggested headline, "Jefferson fathers slaves
> last
> child." In the absence of this knowledge they went with what they had
> after the Carrs were eliminated. It just HAD to be Thomas,
> (Randolph and
> sons were not known by Nature), there was no other Jefferson in the
> equation. In a 45 minute phone interview with Nature, immediately
> after
> publication, they told Accuracy in Media Founder, Reed Irvine, that
> they
> knew NOTHING of other possible Jefferson DNA. Mr. Irvine also
> phoned Dr.
> Foster at this time and was not given a satisfactory reply. Back
> checking the many e-mails Dr. Foster and I exchanged, I found
> inconsistencies and outright different meanings to indicate to me that
> what was stated in one e-mail was not consistent with another. In
> other
> words, it seemed to me that I "may be too concerned" of certain
> methods,
> arrival of study results, release of study to Nature, why Science
> in the
> United States was not used for the study, (he says they refused
> because
> of too much advance publicity). As a source of serious research and
> the
> fame of TJ's DNA Study in question and a need to sell publications,
> this
> just does not "cook." Was there haste to get the results in time
> for the
> election at that time, to support President Clinton's pending
> impeachment, as suggested by Prof. Joseph Ellis and others? Prof.
> Ellis,
> in his book, Founding Brothers, (Smith has the sharpest pencil of
> anyone
> around the beltway), heaps great mention of Stephan Smith (at that
> time
> USNWR Editor), had a long multiple page article with a cover and
> including a story by Prof. Ellis accusing TJ. We might wonder how this
> issue came out before the Nature Story of Nov. 5, 1998 since they
> had an
> embargo on the story.
>
> I am not convinced that future DNA of this particular case will be
> improved by science because "it jumped track" not in the inability of
> science to properly identify the DNA BUT in my opinion, a
> "manipulation
> of events and denial of proper information." In my opinion the only
> thing the test proved was that the Eston Hemings family had a
> confirmation of their long held oral family beliefs.....they were
> descended from "A" Jefferson,.....Randolph, as they had ALWAYS
> believed.
>
>
> What do you mean, "what seems clear, over the years they evolved some
> kind of bonding and relationship?" What proven bonding and
> relationship?
> She was seldom mentioned except in slave supply lists where she
> received
> the same similar supplies as other slaves at the house. You seem to
> not
> contribute any importance to the five year absence of child
> bearing....why not.......from this date on through all her pregnancies
> Randolph was "between wives."
> The issue in France is very clear....Sally for 5 weeks (the necessary
> time to have conceived, a child if anything had proved this , and
> it was
> never proven. The main thing is that this period was when she was AWAY
> from TJ. Of course Madison's mention of this is one topic that is
> questionable in his many statements which to me are questionable. We
> know his naming by Dolley Madison was not correct, so what else in the
> article is incorrect?
>
> So what if Sally did conceive, at Monticello, and we don't know WHERE
> she was, everyone came when TJ arrived. Possibly his first cousin,
> George Jefferson, his Richmond Manager, could have arrived as did
> Randolph and sons, not exactly people that would be registered, but
> "family." His nephew, Isham Randolph Jefferson, was listed in a
> Kentucky
> History book as having been "reared" by TJ. Was he arriving when TJ
> did
> to "rear" him? No reason to come when he was NOT there, because in
> most
> instances Monticello was under construction and was closed. TJ always
> stopped by daughter, Martha's home, on his travels to Monticello
> and she
> accompanied him there with her children. Just because "he" was there
> that is no reason to ASSUME he fathered any Sally
> child.......preposterous.
>
> Some poster earlier asked about why no one mentioned Randolph prior to
> the DNA Study and Prof. Joseph Ellis asked me the same question. I
> told
> Ellis that others had and asked if he had read "Thomas Jefferson
> and his
> UNKNOWN Brother" and he replied NO. This Monticello book is very
> informative and this historian is ignorant of it? I was contacted by a
> co-author of, "Anatomy of a Scandal", Rebecca McMurry, just as soon as
> the story broke in the media, informing me that she and her family had
> lived in nearby Orange Co., Va. and had purchased some of the items
> auctioned at Monticello upon Mr. Jefferson's death. Since I had
> suggested in my media releases, the name of Randolph Jefferson as a
> possible father, and she had read of my research. She related to me
> that
> her family and almost all the community believed that it was Randolph
> who fathered Sally's children.
>
> Another person contacted me, an award winning playwright and stage
> play
> producer from the University of North Carolina, Mrs. Karyn Traut, and
> gave me details of a play, Saturday's Children", that she had produced
> in 1981 after seven years of research and that her research had led
> her
> to conclude that it was Randolph Jefferson who fathered some of
> Sally's
> children.
> Just because Prof. Ellis and any other unknowledgeable persons
> choose to
> say, "why wasn't Randolph mentioned before now?" doesn't mean that he
> was suspected in a VACUUM. Until this DNA Study came before us, there
> was no need to pursue and challenge every statement made by persons
> claiming descent from a famous president rather than his not so
> important brother.
>
> I am looking at an 1883 book here before me, "Life of Thomas
> Jefferson",
> by James Parton in which the following sentence appears in Chap. LIX,
> The Campaign Lies of 1800. Referring to a statement to two of her
> sons,
> Col. Thomas Jefferson Randolph and George Wythe Randolph, TJ's
> daughter,
> Martha, not long before her death, said, "She asked the Colonel if he
> remembered when Hemings (the slave who most resembled Mr.
> Jefferson) was
> born. He turned to the book containing the list of slaves, and
> found and
> found that he was born at the time supposed by Mrs. Randolph. She then
> directed her son's attention to the fact, that Mr. Jefferson and Sally
> Hemings could not have met, were far distance from each other, for
> fifteen months prior to the birth. She bade her sons remember this
> fact,
> and always defend the character of their grandfather." Mr. Parton, the
> book author, states, "It so happened, when I was examining an old
> account-book of Mr. Jeffersons, I came "pop" on the original entry of
> the slave's birth, and I was then able, from well-known circumstances,
> to prove the fifteen months' separation. I could give fifty more
> facts,
> if there were any need of it, to show Mr. Jefferson's innocence of
> this
> and all similar instances against propriety,"
>
> Of course you may say, well who was this Hemings child referenced? My
> long and careful research indicates that the reference is to Beverly
> Hemings for various reasons.
>
> Some people claim, for obvious reasons, that TJ never clarified his
> statements regarding the many rumors against him...he did. In a cover
> letter to his Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of the Treasury he
> admits some earlier visiting when he was young and single to
> visiting a
> married friend while her husband was away. But he says, that is the
> "ONLY ONE" of the rumors against me which is correct and I admit it as
> improper.
>
> The other rumors at the time were the Callender Campaign Lies about a
> connection to Sally Hemings. He did not feel it necessary, during the
> busy time he was running our country to debate or dignify all that and
> future rumors. A famous quote to Henry Lee on May 15, 1826, just
> before
> his death on July 4th, says it all I think, "All should be laid
> open to
> you without reserve, for there is not a TRUTH existing which I
> fear, or
> would wish unknown to the whole world."
>
> Herb Barger
> Jefferson Historian
>
>
>
> Herb --
>
> The facts, such as we know them are the facts. More will emerge with
> time. I am quite familiar with Abigail Adam's comments, the words of
> a punctilious mother of daughters, deeply opposed to slavery - Sally
> is the only known slave ever to spend the night under an Adams roof -
> and, I think, appalled at a Southern culture that would condone
> sending a nine year child around the world in the care of another
> child. She saw Sally as "15 or 16" (she was actually 14) and knew to
> a fine point how responsible 15 year old girls were. That says
> nothing whatever about the impact of Sally on Jefferson, matters of
> which she could have know way of knowing, and which would have
> offended her on several levels, had she done so.
>
> We will simply have to disagree about her parentage. Willard Sterne
> Randall offers no citation for his assertion that she was the
> daughter of Nelson Jones (probably Joseph Neilson). I think Annette
> Gordon-Reed makes a compelling case against it and, more than that, I
> find it improbable. Jones/Neilson was a carpenter. There are the age
> issues. But, mostly, I do not believe that a lower caste white would
> violate and impregnate a slave on the Jefferson plantation. I don't
> mean that such a man would cavil over moral concerns, simply that in
> a culture that sees some people as property, you would assume the
> owner would not be amused by the violation of his property. It would
> be a significant trespass, with children as a long range consequence.
> If your rice bowl depended on the owner, I just don't think you would
> do something like that casually.
>
> I join myself with everybody else on this list who has made the point
> that you have to see these people first as human beings embedded in a
> culture. That is not romantic. We, ourselves, are similarly embedded.
> Why it matters is that these men and women, so mundanely ordinary in
> some ways nonetheless could do what they did. Using science and
> documentation to recreate that reality in order to better understand
> it seems to me a wholly admirable task.
>
> If you ask me to speculate, based on years of reading about these
> men, I would say this. Jefferson felt vulnerable. He was a fastidious
> man, and he was strongly attracted to a married woman, Maria Cosway.
> For her a physical relationship was adultery. But their mental,
> emotional, aesthetic, and physical connections were strong. There was
> also his sense of loyalty to Martha, whom he adored. My wife died six
> years ago, and I adored her in life, and cherished her more than I
> can express, and my views have not changed a whit, and have little
> relevance to the several friendships I have formed with women since
> her death. I expect Jefferson felt much the same because that is the
> way most widowers with whom I have talked describe their life
> experience, and studies provide formalization for this. Also the
> death of wives was much higher as a percentage than it is today. As
> was death in general. Jefferson is unusual only in that he did not
> remarry. Unlike, say, Mason who, we know, deeply loved his wife.
>
> Jefferson had no real idea what to expect with Sally.Prior to seeing
> her, she was probably mostly a logistical detail. Her importance, her
> reality, in his mind, lay principally in her role as a guide and
> companion for nine year old Maria. And then she was there. Pretty,
> vivacious, possibly a genetic echo of his great love. She would know
> nothing of any of this, of course. It must have been very awkward for
> him. She was completely his, literally. She was little more than a
> child. And if she was Martha's half sister she was Martha returned to
> life, as he must first have known her.
>
> What seems clear is that over years they evolved some kind of bond
> and relationship. We can't know its internals; it is entirely emic.
> But we can know certain details as to how it played out. She went
> back from France with him. She was the only person who could enter
> his private apartment in Monticello at all times. And this is true
> independent of whether there were any children.
>
> He freed her children (read into that what one will).
>
> As to why it was five years before Sally conceived. I don't know the
> answer. I don't know that it is definitively knowable. I don't see
> why it matters. There is, of course, the issue of the conception in
> France. But, there are several possibilities. It does seem clear
> Jefferson was in residence within the nine months prior to her
> deliveries. (Brodie, 492, Miller, 170).
>
> As for paternity. I believe that advances in genetics will answer
> this question dispositively - and I am content to await its judgment.
>
> -- Stephan
>
> On 1 May 2008, at 21:56, Herbert Barger wrote:
>
>> Stephan,
>>
>> You should read a bit more about Abigail Adams comments on
>> "attractive
>> young woman, Sally" upon her arrival. There was talk that she was so
>> young and inexperienced in the ways of being Jefferson's daughters
>> that
>> there was some consideration and suggestions of sending her back
>> home on
>> the same ship she arrived on. Read earlier posts about the half-
>> sister
>> rumors......NO proof. This is soap opera stuff that drives believers.
>>
>> You speak of his sex drive and frequent children by Martha, then
>> tell me
>> this....WHY was it over five years before Sally had a FIRST recorded
>> child after return to Monticello?
>>
>> Herb Barger
>>
>>
>> How was it adultery? Thomas Jefferson was a widower when he and Sally
>> Hemings encountered one another in Paris, she an attractive young
>> woman virtually white in skin tone, just blossoming into beauty -
>> "Dashing Sally" - his wife's half-sibling and much the same in
>> appearance as her sister, he a man who never married again after
>> Martha's death. Just at the simple human level are we to believe
>> Jefferson lived as a celibate for two-thirds of his life (and this
>> puts aside his unquestioned, if ill-defined, connection with Maria
>> Cosway)? Jefferson was clearly strongly attracted to women, and
>> clearly a sexual being. Martha Wayles Skelton bore her first child
>> almost nine months to the day from her nuptials - by 18th century
>> calculation - and was pregnant with metronomic regularity every two
>> years until her death.
>>
>> It seems to me that the paternity issue and the sexuality issue ought
>> to be seen as very different considerations. The former may be
>> problematic to some, but the idea of Jefferson the monk seems
>> patently absurd.
>>
>> -- Stephan
>>
>>
>> On 1 May 2008, at 17:51, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>>
>>> Accusing a fine Southern gentleman, and one of the founders of our
>>> country,
>>> of adultery when he is not available to defend himself, and on
>>> assumptions
>>> rather than facts, is poor history and quite disrespectful.
>>>
>>> J South
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists
>>> on family
>>> favorites at AOL Food.
>>> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
>>>
>>> ______________________________________
>>> 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
>
> ______________________________________
> 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
>
> ______________________________________
> 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
>
> ______________________________________
> 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
>
> ______________________________________
> 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
|
