All of us who study Virginia history--whether in formal academic settings or not--are interested in truth. And as others here have amply demonstrated, the scientific evidence, such as it is, from the DNA study has been abused, by professionals and laymen alike.
I find the issue to be overly narrow, and to distract from larger ethical questions. If Jefferson did not have sex with Sally Hemings, some other free man likely did. Hemings was young, physically attractive, and given her status as a slave, necessarily vulnerable. Sex between a slave woman and a free man was inherently coercive and nonconsentual. Hemings provides us with evidence that this almost certainly happened at Monticello. And Jefferson did *nothing* about it.
Here is one small indication of the much larger moral issue. Jefferson owned slaves, and no matter how you cut it, he was corrupted by the experience. Whether he had sex with Hemings or not, the experience of owning slaves shaped his moral character in ugly ways.
It seems to me that it would be expedient of us to evade this issue entirely. I, no more than any other thoughtful American, wish to denigrate the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, or the ringing defenses of our first amendment liberties that appear in Jefferson's Statute of Religious Freedom or his First Inaugural address. The politically correct thing to do, it seems to me, is to pretend that Jefferson lived a morally impeccable life.
Alas, precisely because I believe in the truth, I can not do that. Jefferson's thinking was corrupted by slavery. That is, unfortunate, but it is also true. Jefferson owned slaves, and depended upon their labor to afford the multiple rebuilding campaigns that produced Monticello, and the enlightenment lifestyle he lived there. Its wishful thinking to suppose that somehow he managed to escape the moral consequences of that fact, and of that decision.
---- Original message ----
>Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 17:09:13 -0400
>From: Herbert Barger <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy
>To: [log in to unmask]
>
>With reference to Mr. Smith's query may I say that I note that he is
>from one of our country's university history departments. May I ask that
>as such is he not interested in factual research as opposed to wishful
>thinking and political correctness.
>
>I find nothing objectionable about the "possibility" that TJ had a
>sexual relationship with Sally. I do object to there being NO proof of
>this "possibility". All of my research leads to Randolph, the much
>younger brother of Thomas as being the father of Eston and "possibly"
>others of her children. I am not biased other than trying to see the
>truth revealed to the public.
>
>Herb Barger
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Solomon Smith
>Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 4:33 PM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy
>
>I was wondering if Mr. Barger explain what he finds so objectionable
>about the possibility that Thomas Jefferson had a sexual relationship
>with Sally Hemings? You are clearly biased in this matter, and it seems
>as if you are willing to blame this act on virtually anyone other than
>TJ, but I don't honestly understand why.
>
>Thomas Jefferson, like all men, was flawed. As such, I don't really see
>how this besmears his character more than the other things uncovered
>after historians began to try to re-examine the place of the founding
>fathers in our historical lexicon. If anything, it makes the celebrated
>aspects of TJ seem even more intriguing. He truly was an enigma. But
>more important, we need to go beyond the celebratory history of the past
>(which Barger so clearly adheres to) in order to see our nation's past
>as it really was. Warts, et all. Until we do this, we can never
>understand our history or even our place in it.
>
>Solomon K. Smith
>Department of History
>Georgia Southern University
>
>
>
>
>
>---- Original message ----
>>Date: Thu, 1 May 2008 15:31:20 -0400
>>From: Herbert Barger <[log in to unmask]>
>>Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy
>>To: [log in to unmask]
>>
>>Henry,
>>
>>Why can you not believe the "uncle Jefferson" oral claim of the Eston
>>Hemings family? And I do agree that it is a vexing mess but very easy
>to
>>understand IF all facts are known and "nuts & bolts" research be done.
>>It is a mess when the media sensationalizes it, when Samuel Wetmore
>adds
>>the confusing unproved statements attributed to Madison, when Dr.
>>Foster, without informing Nature, the media, etc., tests a known
>carrier
>>of the Jefferson (Randolph) DNA.......SURE there would be a match, when
>>Dr. Jordan assigns his Monticello Study to an "oral slave family
>>specialist" who uses two controversial "road maps" for research, and
>who
>>can come up with a completely unacceptable and laughable and biased
>>claim that possibly all of Sally's children were fathered by Thomas
>>Jefferson. How can a dedicated historian such as Dr. Jordan explain
>this
>>when only ONE Hemings was tested. He would not even suggest the Hemings
>>test a known son of Madison. Their report also suggested that during
>>three of Sally's conceptions that some of Randolph's sons were present
>>at Monticello but concluded that their ages of 14-20 would be 'TOO
>>YOUNG" to consider. Yes, I have a copy of the Monticello Report which
>is
>>well highlighted. What do you think of Dr. Ken Wallenborn's Minority
>>Report being completely DELETED from the original release of their
>>report?
>>
>>We know that Callender got it wrong in his Campaign Lies article of
>>1802......DNA proved him a liar....NO Jefferson-Woodson match. As you
>>know, this was the "original" lie for many years before Brodie, and has
>>been perpetuated since by persons, some foundations and some in
>academia
>>to further their agendas.
>>
>>Edmund Bacon, TJ's overseerer, and before that, a young man who lived
>>nearby and frequented there often BEFORE being officially hired as
>>overseer, stated that he saw someone OTHER than TJ exiting Sally's
>>quarters early in the morning. In Rev. Pearson's account, the name of a
>>father for Harriet II was DELETED to protect the individual.
>>
>>I do not find the Woodson claim to being descended from Thomas
>Jefferson
>>a mystery at all. Dr. Foster and I frequently discussed the fact that
>we
>>didn't consider their claim as viable at all. In fact, I did much
>>research of TJ in France and elsewhere and pretty well pinned down who
>a
>>"POSSIBLE" father for ANY RUMORED child conceived in France would be.
>It
>>was NOT TJ! We even discussed finding descendants of those we
>suspected,
>>but when the DNA results were returned we dropped all such research.
>Our
>>suspicions were confirmed.....there being NO Jefferson-Woodson match.
>
>>
>>If historians, book authors, certain foundation officials would not
>>approach the controversy that "he's guilty" and approach it from a
>>"level playing field" then we would be hearing a much different story.
>>The public has been fooled, lied to and manipulated long
>>enough...........Dr. Dan Jordan.....will YOU conduct another study,
>>using ALL available research from any source??
>>
>>The Fossett claims are not worthy of even a discussion but just shows
>>how some people "jump on the bandwagon" for recognition after the
>>subject has become deceased. The Waverly Watchman newspaper, an
>>opposition paper to Samuel Wetmore's paper, pretty well reported the
>>willingness of people to want to upgrade their image at the expense of
>>others.
>>
>>Speaking of the need to collect the William Hemings DNA, let it be
>known
>>that Shay Banks-Young, a descendant of Madison Hemings, and 7 other
>>cousins oppose this and she told me that they will NEVER permit this
>and
>>are "HAPPY" with their oral history.........are we?
>>
>>I have faith in the McMurry's book which tackles the rumor of Sally and
>>Martha Jefferson being half-sisters. They expended much time, money and
>>effort in arriving at their conclusions......a rumor only.
>>
>>Herb Barger
>>
>>
>>I also don't think the "Jefferson uncle" oral history in Eston's line
>>proves
>>anything one way or the other. In general, the historical testimony on
>>all
>>sides of this issue is a vexing mess--Madison Hemings, the Randolphs,
>>Callender, and Edmund Bacon all got some things wrong and some things
>>right.
>>The Woodsons are a mystery. And then we have the Fossetts--but that's
>>for
>>another time.
>>
>>As Herb mentions, the McMurrys have tried to knock down the story of
>>Sally
>>being the half-sister of Martha Jefferson, but I do not find their
>>argument
>>persuasive at all. If that story had originated as a political smear
>and
>>was
>>baseless, as the McMurrys suggest, I think Ellen or Jeff Randolph would
>>have
>>brought it up to deny it.
>>
>>Herb raises an excellent point -- we should try to extract DNA from the
>>remains of Madison's son. History would be served, but the family
>>doesn't
>>want it done. A pity. It could answer a couple of big questions.
>>
>>Henry Wiencek
>>
>>______________________________________
>>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
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
