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
|
