Anne,

For someone who is not a professional geneticist you seem to put much
faith that in 10 years DNA will solve the question. This further exposes
your weak arguments to "guessing" and I must vigorously oppose your ten
year prediction. While not a geneticist myself, I have worked closely
with several and one, Dr. Edwin Knights, is on the board of our Thomas
Jefferson Heritage Society (www.tjheritage.org).

You do not fully understand the limits of DNA or the reasons behind the
Dr Foster test. DNA is a great science but honest people must use
history and family history to lead to correct conclusions and we know Dr
Foster "clouded" the outcome when he matched blood of a known "Jefferson
uncle" with the blood of 5 Jefferson donors and did not inform Nature of
this.

Maybe some would call this "rigging" and maybe some would call the
Monticello Study "rigging" and if they dug far enough "possibly" they
might determine this, who knows....I DO! I still am not able to
ascertain Anne's defense of these falsifying authors when NOTHING proves
TJ's guilt. Don't forget that numbered list Anne!

Don't let the scholarly bit scare you Anne, we don't always need a
scholar to see a "con job" when we see it. You may have already read
parts of the Scholars Commission Report (13 top level senior scholars),
what do you have by way of comment for their findings of NO PROOF OF TJ
INVOLVMENT. At least Jon Kukla did consult our TJHS council and learn of
at least the errors by AGR's twisting of Ellen Randolph Coolidge's
letter to her husband, in her earlier book, giving the paragraph an
exact opposite meaning. Of course AGR's book along with the FALSE
misleading Madison newspaper article written by an abolitionist, was
used as "road maps" by Annette Gordon Reed's great friends conducting
the Monticello Study, Cinder Stanton and Dianne Swann-Wright, an oral
slavery specialist hired to research slave work at Monticello, and guide
the all African-American Getting Word Board there.

Most people have NOT read this report.....I have, they sent me a copy,
and I have made many comments regarding their inadequacy at getting to
the bottom of the study. Can you imagine a study group stating on a few
pages where a short biography is listed of the Randolph Jefferson sons,
ranging in age from 14 1/2 to 21, and then concluding on another page
that they were "too young." Three were stated to have been around
Monticello at the time of Sally's conception time for Eston and two
others. They over look the fact that we all know this is contrived and
sloppy research......and from that pinnacle of research that Dan Jordan
is proud of telling the public about. When he "swept under the rug" his
employee's Minority Report it was time for someone to take action, and I
DID. Parts of his own Thomas Jefferson Foundation Board were unaware of
this deception prior to my complaints. Dr Daniel Jordan, Monticello
President, apologized to Dr Wallenborn after I complained.

This is to both Anne and Jon Kukla, I have carefully read then Kukla
book but I find no reference to Monticello's own book publication,
"Thomas Jefferson and his UNKNOWN Brother", don't worry, it has been
"overlooked" by other "famous" authors such as Prof. Joseph Ellis. The
little book is full of letters between the brothers and in one TJ is
citing the arrival of Randolph's twin sister and asking that they all
get together at Monticello, WHAT WAS THAT DATE: In August 1807, EXACTLY
9 months prior to Eston's birth. Reading carefully these letters we find
that Randolph was "between wives" when ALL of Sally's children were
conceived and born.    

Come on Jon..........was your statement on page 131 "Sally Hemings was
Thomas Jefferson's perfect remedy for wholesome sexual release." Sounds
to me like you also have been mining under the rocks in Fawn Brodie's
yard. WHERE is your proof for such statements? On page 127 you attempt
to inform us: "If Sally was not pregnant at sixteen when she returned
from Paris, when did her relationship with Jefferson begin?" Again you
lead the reader to believe that there "was" a relationship which you
have not proved. You allude to the Jan. 1795 birth of Harriet I, BUT you
fail to bring to the reader's attention that there was almost 6 years
after their return from Paris that Sally had NO child....WHY? My
research reveals that it was then that Randolph's wife had died and he
was widowed until 1808/1809 when he married a second time. Eston was
born May 21, 1808. Sally had no more children even though Thomas was now
retired at Monticello.       

On page 115 Jon, you state, "Thomas Jefferson fathered six children born
to his slave Sally Hemings between 1795 and 1808." Of course being a
respectable historian and author you have the references and PROOF that
this is an accurate statement, don't you?? Of course I have asked
Annette Gordon-Reed the same question.........NO reply as yet. 

Herb Barger

Neil,

I realize I was pretty angry when I replied to Herbert. Not only does he

assign motives to people without knowing what he's talking about, he
also 
cast aspersions regarding my use of this listserve supported by my tax 
moneys. Enough was enough!

Ten years from now, we will know whether or not he is right or wrong
about 
Jefferson. Science will advance to where the question is decided by DNA
or 
other forensic means rather than by whether or not he is a Founding
Father.

I wish you luck in your pursuit of the data in Kukla's book and hope
that 
you, at least, will realize that those who write "the other side" are
not 
the scoundrels that Herbert paints them as. As we both learned last
night, 
the research into "the other side" is probably more scholarly than
Herbert's 
protestations.

Anne

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