Herb,

You are asserting that he no consideration for her as a human being, but it 
does not answer the question of whether or not he had a sexual relationship 
with her.

It really does not matter how exhaulted Jefferson was in being a Founding 
Father. In fact, it is no part of my consideration of whether or not he was 
responsible for fathering children with Sally. The publication of the 
stories circulated at Monticello by the "scandalmonger" Callender seem like 
the tip of the iceberg. Callender did well by Jefferson in the early days of 
the 1800 election, publishing questionable details on Adams' personal 
behavior, details at times supplied by Jefferson himself. Jefferson applaude 
Callendar's publications, and helped circulate them where they would be 
useful to his campaign. But when Adams, who'd had enough, pressed for 
Callendar to be prosecuted under the Sedition laws, in Richmond, Jefferson 
deemed it detrimental to his campaign to intercede, and Callendar went to 
jail, from where he continued to write the same stuff about Adams and the 
Federalists. It is understandable that he would have reason to later turn on 
his supporter, Jefferson, when the tide turned against him. Did he then 
publish "lies", or did he publish the truth as he was told it by those who 
were at Monticello and probably knew what was going on?

Jefferson, as explained in Kukla's book, was not necessarily an "admirable" 
man in all his sexual activities. Although he admitted to pursuing Mrs. 
Walker, when he was "young and unmarried", the truth, as disclosed in the 
Walker documents, was that the pursuit continued after he was married to 
Martha. Not only did he relentlessly pursue Mrs. Walker, a married woman, 
but he also carried on an affair with Mrs. Coswell in France and after 
returning home to Virginia. It would seem to me that his relationship with 
Martha was verging on abusive, inasmuch as the poor woman was kept 
constantly pregnant, and those constant pregnancies were the ultimate cause 
of her death.

While the evidence is circumstantial, it is evidence nevertheless, and 
certainly points to the likelihood that those who affirmed it, the slaves at 
Monticello, and those who claimed to be his sons, were not totally making it 
up. Minor details may be suspect, but in whole, the argument holds water.

You can hold out as long as you can draw a breath, but do you really need to 
rail against those who are more accepting of the humanity of this man than 
you are?

Your defense of Jefferson is admirable in the same sense that the attorney 
for a suspect grabs at straws and technicalities to confuse the jury.

Anne



Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org 

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