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