Ah yes, Michael ... She set the stage for the women's teas in the White
House where the women would discuss politics. Not only did Jefferson not
have a suitable mate to continue the tradition, he thoroughly disdained
women talking politics. And, we wonder why it is so believable that
Jefferson chose a slave to bed?????
Anne
Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael B. Chesson" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: TJF re-asserting statistical science?
Anne,
and a big ditto for Abigail Adams--remember the ladies, puhleeze!
Michael Chesson
________________________________
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history on behalf of
Anne Pemberton
Sent: Mon 2/23/2009 6:54 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] TJF re-asserting statistical science?
Jeff,
As long as its a "Man's World", women will be judged by the men they snag,
and men will go on snagging those that make them wiggle. Would Hillary now
be Secy of State if she had not been married to Bill? Would we be interested
in Martha Custis Washington if she hadn't been married to George?
Anne
Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org <http://www.educationalsynthesis.org/>
----- Original Message -----
From: "JEFFREY D SOUTHMAYD" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2009 5:15 PM
Subject: Re: TJF re-asserting statistical science?
> The Hemings apologists apparently subscribe to the theory that the status
> of the female is
> proportional to the status of the male she can attract.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> J South
> a/k/a Jeffrey D. Southmayd
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Herbert Barger <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Sent: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 11:57 am
> Subject: Re: TJF re-asserting statistical science?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Mr. Corneliussen,
>
> You asked two questions which I will be happy to reply to because as
> Jefferson Family Historian who assisted Dr. Foster with the DNA Study and
> as
> Founder of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (www.tjheritage.org), I
> have the answers. I might bring it to the reader's attention that the
> Thomas
> Jefferson Heritage Society was recently honored by the Virginia
> Commonwealth
> Senate in a proclamation for our research.
>
> A. Yes, Monticello does continue to cite biased information as explained
> by
> Dr. Ken Wallenborn when his Minority Report was HIDDEN by Daniel Jordan,
> Past President, Monticello. As recently as a week ago I exchanged research
> and recommendations with Cinder Stanton, Senior Researcher there,
> recommending that they conduct an UPDATE to their opinions and guesses.
> She
> still maintains that they will maintain their presence stance. This is
> WRONG
> and gives the public an INACCURATE assessment of the controversy. This
> topic
> is such a closely held matter that the general public does not recognize
> just what is going on. May I please suggest that readers place an order at
> Amazon or other book dealers for a book exposing this twisted and biased
> study, "In Defense of Thomas Jefferson, The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal" The
> book may be advance ordered and will be available on June 9, 2009.
>
> B. Yes, there was a Statistical Analysis done by a Washington, D.C. well
> recognized Professional Group, as reported in the Washington Post shortly
> after the DNA results were announced in 1998. They severely took the
> Monticello IN-HOUSE research report to task for such biased reporting. Dr.
> Foster, of whom I assisted, wrote me in an e-mail, that he was prepared to
> write an identical article for the Wash. Post until he read the excellent
> and revealing article.
>
> Monticello does not seem to want to cite any study including the great
> Scholars Commission Study (13 prominent professors who found NO proof that
> TJ fathered slave children), or comment or book that opposes their agenda
> based research.
>
> A short synopsis is posted here for you and other serious researchers:
> * Nothing proves TJ fathered slave children and this makes reference also
> to
> Annette Gordon-Reed's latest book in which
> she BOLDLY proclaims that 7 Hemings children were fathered by TJ. This is
> OUTRAGEOUS unprofessional and UNFOUNDED accusations. In her first book
> (which was one of two major sources for the Monticello Study), she
> completely rearranged a letter meaning from a TJ granddaughter to her
> husband and she also states that DNA did not prove that Eston's descendant
> was a descendant of TJ. SO, what has she unearthed since that makes 7
> correct? I asked Cinder Stanton of this "7 finding by AGR", since possibly
> I
> had been asleep when this important, "Earth Shattering" research FIND had
> occurred but wished not to comment on what her good friend had written.
> The
> study "jumped the track" early in the study, Dr Foster (whose wife
> descends
> from a man who had supposedly given James Callender misinformation that
> placed Mr. Jefferson in a bad light that was proved by DNA to be a lie),
> tested a KNOWN carrier of the Jefferson DNA whose family had always
> claimed
> descent from "a Jefferson uncle or nephew" (I have a copy of a letter to
> this affect). Eston NEVER claimed descent from TJ as Madison did in his
> DEFECTIVE newspaper article. Of course this article, which was strictly
> believed and followed by the Monticello Study, was greatly flawed when
> Madison states that Dolley Madison named him on the occasion of his birth
> at
> Monticello while she was visiting there in Jan 21, 1805. NO such meeting
> occurred on this date (the Madisons NEVER traveled to Va. from Washington
> during winter), so are we to believe that others of his statements are
> LIES.....my research indicates....YES. This was a document relied on by
> the
> Chairman of their study, an African-American oral history specialist hired
> to head the Getting Word Project (recording the slave input there). Dr.
> Wallenborn reports that the study was programmed with an pre-conceived
> intention of finding Mr. Jefferson guilty. And this, Mr. Corneliussen, is
> why you see this FALSE poster there.......just imagine their claim that
> possibly ALL of Sally's children were fathered by TJ when only ONE was
> tested and the Madison descendants REFUSE to DNA test their ancestor, thus
> there is NO DNA proof that Eston and Madison had the same father.
>
> A process has evolved at Monticello and elsewhere where Mr. Jefferson's
> interests are not best served. The latest "real beginning" of the drive to
> "get" TJ because he owned slaves, etc. was when the October 1992 symposium
> was formed at the University of Virginia under the guidance of Prof. Peter
> Onuf, a history professor sponsored by Monticello. This symposium, which
> occurs annually and continues to this date, continues to believe the FALSE
> DNA results and is closely tied to Monticello.
>
> There is no level playing field for FULL research, they dropped the word,
> MEMORIAL from their title and continue to receive input from the Getting
> Word Project membership........even though they took down their web page
> which gave a list of 10 prominent African-American personages.
>
> Summary: There is NO proof that TJ fathered any slave child. Monticello
> and
> certain favored authors are content to confuse the uninitiated public
> confused by DNA and overwhelming public relations. In my opinion the
> public
> should be concerned that their famous founding father is being maligned in
> the name of political correctness and historical revisionism. I would
> suggest that Monticello be advised of your discontent with inaccurate and
> biased reporting which I am of the opinion that is damaging to their
> attendance and donation efforts. They may own his home, HOWEVER, we, the
> public, own his legacy and it is being trampled in a major agenda.
>
> Herb Barger
> www.jeffersondna.com
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of S. Corneliussen
> Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2009 7:41 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [VA-HIST] TJF re-asserting statistical science?
>
> A friend who knows of my interest in the ways in which the authority of
> science is invoked in the Hemings-TJ controversy was visiting a new Thomas
> Jefferson Foundation exhibit and jotted down this caption: "Based on
> documentary, scientific, and statistical studies and oral history, many
> historians now believe that years after his wife's death Thomas Jefferson
> was the father of Sally Hemings' children." The friend is pretty sure that
> that's very close to verbatim.
>
> Leaving aside the old discussion about oral history vs. oral tradition,
> and
> concerning only the mention of statistics: It's possible that all that's
> meant is, for example, Winthrop Jordan's often-recalled nonquantitative
> observations about the qualitatively intriguing Hemings-TJ Monticello
> conceptions coincidences. But in the past, the TJF has, I believe,
> explicitly invoked the outright quantitative statistical study that
> appeared
>
> in the William and Mary Quarterly nearly a decade ago. That study
> confidently invoked the full authority of statistical science in
> professing
> to have proven TJ's paternity of six Hemings children. That quantitative,
> not just qualitative, study involved probability theory, Monte Carlo
> simulations, and Bayes's theorem.
>
> I would be grateful for answers or comments on three questions: Does
> anybody
>
> know if the TJF still means deliberately to cite that study as legitimate
> scientific evidence? Does anybody know if any other such _quantitative_
> statistical study has appeared anwhere? If so, does anybody know if the
> TJF
> is now citing any such study?
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> Steve Corneliussen
> Poquoson, Virginia
>
> ______________________________________
> 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
|
