Hello Jane,
I am a family historian and researcher. I belong to large research group with ongoing studies of the Randolph/Randall/Randle families of Virginia. We have many varied peoples of education in our group. We have ongoing DNA studies. We seek our heritage.
Just as there are many, many people who claim descent from Pocahontas, is theirs fact or or oral history? I know you care, or otherwise you would not have posted. And I can certainly understand the heritage side, which is always my pursuit. My previous post was to enlighten.
My mother's parent's divorced when she was small, and in my search I discovered that my grandfather was born as the term goes, a bastard. I found him once with a different name than my mother's maiden name. A few doors down lived a family of stated as black in the census.
Do I have "black" blood coursing my body? Who knows, is not all blood red? And if I did/do..I think I would be proud, for they also gave much for this country now in it's 400th year.
I have interest in discussion's of the tribes of people of Africa, who were robbed of their natural history and heritage. But I also know much of my other lines, such as my direct Bridger line of England and early Virginia who lost much thru Bacon's rebellion of which we cannot erase the past, but be proud of who/why/and how we are as of today.
My question to you would be: Do you know of any male that could be tested for DNA.
I am including posts of people within this group. We have an ongoing discussion as thus I will present in part that was presented in 2002-2003: I did not post their names as I did not seek permission. Mr. Barger, I left his name as I feel he would discuss this with anyone who would quest to do so. But as a member of that group, I do not believe I would need permission. It's an ongoing study.
Afterwards, I include many sources to be found at the Library of Congress to help with the education of this post.
Another great person of his time in Virginia, a Mr. Bryd wrote in his diaries of doing the maidservant. Why is this not a controversy? Because he wasn't a president.
On to the posts of which I speak:
Apr 21, 2003
Categories: Book Excerpts, Descendants of William Randolph of Turkey Island Transferred from the News section:
Feb 9, 2002
Categories: Jefferson Jefferson Revised: Scholarship or Leap of Faith?
by Lanelle Bracher Samms
British author Samuel Butler’s comment, "Though God cannot alter the past, historians can", would be fitting for the most recent revision of Thomas Jefferson’s legacy. However, had Butler been here to witness the spectacle surrounding it, he might have changed his last phrase to, "... historians and the media can".
DNA studies completed by Eugene Foster in 1998 provided several significant results. They discredited the allegations made in 1802 by journalist James T. Callender that Jefferson fathered a child with Sally Hemings while the two were in Paris. For more than 150 years, the Thomas C. Woodson family claimed that this first child of Sally’s was Thomas Hemings Woodson. But, two separate DNA tests on six lines of Woodson descendants proved that "Tom" was not Thomas Jefferson’s child.
Of equal importance, the results proved that any one of twenty-five males in the Jefferson family could have fathered Sally Hemings’ last child, Eston. That number may be reduced to eight living at or near Monticello, including Thomas, his brother Randolph, five of Randolph’s sons, and a cousin, George.
While this last finding narrows the field, it does not prove paternity of Eston by the founder, nor does it disprove it. Consequently, many expected the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, prestigious owner and operator of Monticello, to maintain its long-held position that evidence of a sexual liaison between Jefferson and Hemings is inconclusive.
Instead, the Memorial Foundation published a controversial January 2000 Research Report that leapt beyond the DNA evidence to declare Thomas the father of Eston and more than likely the father of all the Hemings children. To bridge the evidentiary gap, the Foundation’s Research Committee gave new currency to historical evidence they and a consensus of historians had previously found inconclusive according to standards of scholarship. At the same time they accorded less weight to evidence that exonerates Jefferson ( www.monticello.org ).
The source of the controversy lies in family oral tradition, claims of Jefferson paternity passed down through generations of Hemings descendants. Why have historians dismissed such evidence in the past? Perhaps because it would not be allowed in a court of law to prove innocence or guilt. The Hemings oral histories are hearsay -- testimony of what others say or what is commonly said to be fact, about which the witness has no original or personal knowledge.
Before the DNA evidence, only a few revisionist scholars among generations of historians gave credence to the rumors started by Callender. However, it is the media that distorted public perception by assigning final authority to these authors and to fictitious Hollywood portrayals drawn from them. The media repeated the Jefferson paternity allegations so often, with the faulty mantra, "a consensus of historians believe", that it has become ingrained in their minds.
Consequently, when Eugene Foster published his DNA findings, journalists were amenable to the revised Jefferson. With few exceptions, their accounts were inaccurate with language like, "DNA proves...". Why? Because Foster got it wrong -- he had to publish a second version of his DNA findings in British science journal Nature because his first article, dated November 5, 1998, was discredited ( Accuracy in Academia, www.academia.org ).
Misleading in title and content, it omitted a crucial fact known by Foster before the study, that there were twenty-four other Jefferson males who were paternity candidates! On publication, Jefferson family historian Herbert Barger, who had given Foster the names of other Jefferson males before the study, challenged Foster and Nature.
An embarrassed Foster and his team attributed the omission to "space constraints". Later, to his credit, he tried to correct the damage a number of times. His letter to the New York Times said, "the genetic findings [we] reported ...do not prove that Thomas Jefferson was the father of one of Sally Hemings’ children. We never made that claim". There were few corrections in the media.
Oddly, had Foster not been challenged by Barger, his November 5 article would have handily supported the Memorial Foundation’s later announced position. It would also have supported another article in the same issue authored by Eric Lander and historian Joseph Ellis, a Foundation advisory board member. In it, they commit the same error – "Now, DNA analysis confirms that Jefferson was indeed the father...".
Ellis’s article was one of several communications which give the appearance of having been coordinated with the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation. Another, prominent in shaping public perception, was a PBS Frontline special, Jefferson’s Blood, in which paternity by the founder was presented with an air of historical finality. The special featured a Memorial Foundation historian and several Hemings descendants, yet no air time was given to dissenting voices. Substantial facts that would exonerate Jefferson either were not presented or barely received mention.
The program’s misleading language – "blood tests all but confirmed" and "DNA subjected this great man to a fall" -- left the impression, again, that the scientific evidence identified Jefferson as the father of the Hemings children. Early in the script, Thomas Woodson, whose Jefferson lineage was disproved by the DNA, suggests that today, Jefferson "would be convicted of rape of a child".
In print publications, writers forwarded characterizations of Jefferson ranging from the reasoned in Joseph Ellis’ "flesh-and-blood human", published in Nature, to the outrageous in Christopher Hitchens’ "slave-owning, serial flogger, sex addict and kinsman to ax murderers", published in The Nation.
For anyone who has studied the life, leadership and writings of Thomas Jefferson, the man does not fit with this new picture. Nor does the evidence, say critics whose numbers grow as the Memorial Foundation’s serpentine rationale comes to light. Historians, Jefferson watchers and organizations with a mission to preserve his legacy are among those challenging the Jefferson paternity notion.
Some are more outspoken than others. Admittedly, there are risks to historians and journalists who question the findings of the powerful Memorial Foundation and its advisory boards, whose members include civil rights leaders as well as feminist and ethnic studies academics, among them NAACP head Julian Bond.
One of the most outspoken critics of the Memorial Foundation’s Report is the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society ( www.angelfire.com/va/TJTruth ). The Society expected the Report to be a definitive work by independent experts. Instead, they say, Monticello employees developed what is a brief, overreaching Report that does not consider all the evidence. Society members are critical of its lack of objectivity and failure to apply well-recognized standards and tests to the evidence.
For example, the Memorial Foundation gave undue weight to a newspaper article titled the "Memoirs of Madison Hemings", published nearly fifty years after Jefferson’s death. Although it was based on an interview with Madison, the journalist used no direct quotes, and the article’s claim to Jefferson lineage has never been accepted as Madison’s own words or a paraphrasing of them. There is no record of Madison’s acknowledgment of the article or of its content. Furthermore, the claims to paternity were isolated, with no other evidence that Madison made them before or after the article’s publication. The Report glosses over the chronology of events, including the fifty-year time lapse.
The Society also points out that evidence exonerating Jefferson received less consideration than it had in the past. A series of Jefferson family denials, one from his daughter Martha on her deathbed, Jefferson’s letter to his Secretary of the Navy and a confession by Jefferson’s nephew, Peter Carr, that he fathered the children, were dismissed or afforded little weight. The DNA evidence ruled out Carr only in the paternity of Eston, and Carr’s confession would challenge the conclusion by the Foundation that all the Hemings children had the same father.
With the intent of bringing objectivity back to the issue, the Heritage Society has established the Scholars Commission, an independent group of historians, political scientists and legal scholars that will conduct a comprehensive review of all available evidence on the Jefferson-Hemings relationship and publish its findings early next year.
Chaired by Professor Robert F. Turner of the University of Virginia Law School, the group will include historians Dr. Alf J. Mapp, Jr. (Thomas Jefferson: A Strange Case of Mistaken Identity, Thomas Jefferson: Passionate Pilgrim); Dr. Willard Sterne Randall (Thomas Jefferson: A Life); Dr. Forrest McDonald (The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson); Dr. David Mayer (The Constitutional Thought of Thomas Jefferson); and Dr. Robert H. Ferrell, a Truman scholar who has written and edited more than two dozen books. Turner expects to release a final report by early next year.
Another organization that has weighed in on the issue is the Jefferson Legacy Foundation
( www.jeffersonlegacy.org ), founded in 1993. Merrill Peterson, who sits on the board is also the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Professor Emeritus of History at the University of Virginia (Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation). The Legacy Foundation has taken a less prominent but equally stringent position on where the evidence ends and the supposition begins. Chairman Sydney Stokes states it simply, "Which Jefferson was the father of Hemings’ children? We just don’t know yet -- the evidence doesn’t answer the question. Written and oral histories are inconclusive."
It is clear the verdict is still out on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy. We can look forward to the findings of the Scholars Commission in 2001 and beyond to what is learned by the next generation’s brightest minds.
Jefferson’s legacy is resilient -- his reputation survived Callender’s vicious political attacks in 1802, and despite the most reckless efforts by the contemporary media, public opinion will ultimately be determined by the truth, no matter where it comes to rest. We can take comfort in knowing that scientific advancements may one day allow us to solve this mystery and that today’s news does not necessarily determine tomorrow’s historical record.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 10, 2002 I went to the site recommended in your article and found all of them informative. I can gain access to both the "Nature" and the "Science" articles and will review them both. Usually, in reports of DNA studies, the data is listed in terms of probabilities and the numbers of matching gene sequences. Like many other methods of DNA analysis, Y-chromosome studies have their own problems. I will also review some information I have on Y-Chromosome analysis and post the information to this site. I am an anthropologist [to be specific - I am a paleoanthropologist] and am familiar with academic publications on DNA analyses [ie. Mitochondrial DNA, Nuclear DNA, and Y-Chromosome analysis]. In addition, I am not a fan of "Nature". Academically, this publication might fit with the "National Enquirer" in the sense that they have a tendency to sensationalize. I also think that Herbert Barger wrote a very reasoned and plausible discussion of "all" of the
necessary information. We will have to await the final results.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feb 10, 2002 The National Genealogical Quarterly of September 2001 (vol. 89, no.3) has a fascinating article that examines this controversy from still another perspective -- that of a competant genealogist. One article discussing the scholars' report states that a group of distinguished academics has attempted to answer a genealogical question without genealogical credentials. Indeed nearly the whole issue is devoted to a careful and detailed examination of many aspects of the problem. It is well worth reading.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would be very interesting to note the credentials of the "academics" serving on the Thomas Jefferson Foundation's "In-house" commission.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Referencing the NGQ article, you might be interested in reading this article from Insight Magazine (May 21, 2001).
The Fable of Tom and Sally
By James P. Lucier
The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, which owns and manages our third president's home, Monticello, in Charlottesville, Va., came to a startling conclusion in January 2000, just as it was about to announce a $100 million capital-gifts campaign: Jefferson was a man who secretly conducted a sexual liaison with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings, and fathered her six illegitimate children - a sordid affair covered up by a conspiracy of silence on the part of Jefferson and all of his legitimate descendants. The implication is that he was not the man of high probity and moral principles portrayed by historians. The report issued by an in-house committee at Monticello seemed clear enough. The committee said its review of the subject "indicates a high probability that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings, and that he most likely was the father of all six of Sally Heming's children appearing in Jefferson's records." Rather than being embarrassed by the new twist, the
authors concluded that "the implications of the relationship between Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson should be explored and used to enrich the understanding and interpretation of Jefferson and the entire Monticello community." Thus was born a new Jefferson for a new age. Shortly thereafter, the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation dropped the word "Memorial" from its name. Critics noted that the membership of the in-house committee included very few names of persons experienced in analysis of historical data. It was chaired by Dianne Swann-Wright, a Ph.D. candidate still struggling to write her dissertation. She apparently has published no peer-reviewed work and nothing on Jefferson himself. After repeated phone inquiries, she promised to call back with examples of her work but never did. In other writing, she has portrayed herself as a child of the civil-rights generation, identifying with the four young girls brutally murdered in the bombing of a church in Birmingham,
Ala. Critics have charged that she was overly influenced by the work of Annette Gordon-Reed, whose book Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, seemed to provide a road map for the subsequent Monticello study. Other members included an architect, an archaeologist, a geneticist, the head guide and a communications officer. A medical doctor wrote a dissenting report, only to have it ignored when the majority report was first published. The only recognized historian in the group was staff researcher Lucia Stanton, known for her meticulous work on Jefferson's notebooks. But now after a year of study and deliberations a committee of 13 distinguished scholars - the cream of U.S. historical researchers - has released a 565-page report demonstrating in a gentlemanly way that almost all of Monticello's presumptions are thin at best and based on shoddy scholarship, improbable assumptions and even doctored documents. The report was unanimous, although one
professor expressed several minority reservations. Moreover, another rebuttal issued at the same time by a third group, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, took a tougher attack based on firsthand accounts of dissidents from the Monticello group as well as legal and philosophical arguments. Is this just a tempest in an academic teapot? Not so, according to experts interviewed by Insight; it is a battle for the interpretation of America's heritage and the way future generations view the founders of the nation. University of Virginia law professor Robert Turner, chairman of the distinguished scholars committee, is a man who cares deeply about such things. "For a few weeks, I thought the Monticello report was right," he tells Insight. "But I went to a luncheon, and as we went around the room everybody said it was a poor piece of work. Then I downloaded it from the Web, and it read like an advocacy piece. I've been studying Jefferson for close to 30 years and I thought he
deserved a fair hearing." Then Turner began to put together the group of Jefferson scholars to examine the evidence piece by piece - authors mostly with several Jefferson books to their credit, history department chairmen, directors of graduate studies [see sidebar]. "We had a diverse group," says Turner. "I wanted people of exceptional ability. But I also wanted people of courage. I told them I don't care what you think, but you must agree to pursue the truth." The scholars examined the evidence individually, then got together for 15 hours of face-to-face meetings. "We have found most of the arguments used to point suspicion toward Thomas Jefferson to be unpersuasive and often factually erroneous," they wrote. "Not a single member of our group, after an investigation lasting roughly one year, finds the case against Thomas Jefferson to be highly compelling, and the overwhelming majority of us believe it is very unlikely that he fathered any children by Sally Hemings." Dan
Jordan, the president of the newly rechristened Thomas Jefferson Foundation, is unperturbed: "The group includes some fine scholars. I'm sure their opinions will be thoughtful. We are open to new evidence and we will review the report carefully," he tells Insight. Meanwhile Monticello guides continue to tout the new Jefferson as gospel-truth to visitors. Monticello has retooled its board with glitterati such as NBC headliner Katie Couric, PBS history icon Michael Beschloss and John F. Cooke, former president of the Disney Channel and now a vice president of the J. Paul Getty Trust. Yet Thomas A. Saunders III, a Southside Virginia boy who made good as a New York City investment banker, is chairman-elect of the board of trustees and chairman of the $100 million development campaign. A philanthropist who has lavished millions of dollars on his alma mater, Virginia Military Institute, and his graduate school, the University of Virginia, he has not hesitated to kick off the
Monticello capital campaign with a few millions of his own. A Jefferson enthusiast, Saunders details to Insight a grand vision of what the foundation can do: "I am the beneficiary of the founding of a country that is extraordinary. For whatever reason, there was a collection of geniuses, a set of circumstances that quite fortuitously brought them together at the same time. I've been around the world in every corner in my career, and there is no other place on Earth that offers our opportunity for freedom and individual rights. The Founders got it right - they put together the checks and balances, the whole system. Unfortunately, most Americans don't have a clue. That's where the educational program of the foundation will help." But Saunders defends the internal Monticello committee report as the work of impartial scholars. "Of course it was discussed at board meetings," he says, "but the board didn't take any position on it." Saunders bristles at the suggestion that a
Jefferson paternity of Hemings children is a slur on his character. "You have to put everything into a proper context. Until you put it in context, I don't think you are in a position to judge that relationship. Whether he had a relationship with Sally Hemings or not has no impact on what he did for this country and for democratic principles." Monticello critics beg to differ. David Murray is the director of the Statistical Assessment Service, a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank in Washington devoted to the accurate use of scientific and social research in public-policy debate. He says: "It is hard to escape the concern that Thomas Jefferson has been enlisted, on the losing side, in a battle of cultural symbolism, where the sexual and racial elements of the story have been allowed to predominate, turning a quest for evidence into a moral referendum on the evils of slavery." Others don't mince words either. "What we see is a deliberate and unforgivable attempt to destroy
the reputation of one of this great nation's greatest Founding Fathers. What makes this crime against our heritage the more reprehensible is that it was endorsed by the long-established institution that was founded to memorialize this man who is our most brilliant Founding Father," says Bahman Batmanghelidj, an Iranian-born, Oxford-educated U.S. citizen who admires Jefferson's principles precisely because of the experience of his native land. Indeed, he was a catalyst for organizing the Heritage group. The immediate cause of the Monticello announcement was purportedly a Nov. 5, 1998, article in the British magazine Nature that DNA testing of male descendants of Eston Hemings, one of Sally's illegitimate brood, disclosed a rare Y chromosome, known only in males of the Jefferson family. But unlike genetic testing of real subjects to prove actual paternity, no certainty could be established by the test in question. No recoverable DNA of Jefferson exists, and since he had only
one son who died as an infant, he had no male line that could be tested. So researchers tested male descendants of Jefferson's uncle, Field Jefferson, finding the Y marker. This implies it was passed into the family tree by Jefferson's grandfather. As a result, there were 25 male Jeffersons of an age to be considered a guilty party, eight of whom lived close enough to the plantation to be hot suspects. They are Jefferson himself, his brother Randolph, Randolph's five sons (then in their late teens and early 20s) and a cousin, George - all of them frequent visitors to Monticello when Thomas was in residence. Although the Nature article itself made no claim that Thomas was the one, journalists gleefully pounced on the report as conclusive. At that time another president, William Jefferson Clinton, was in hot water over sexual improprieties. If the great TJ was a bounder, what was the big deal about Bill? The DNA test was presented in the press as confirmation of the wild
speculations of Jefferson biographer Fawn Brodie and Hollywood scenario writers. There is little documentary evidence of Sally anywhere. Her mother, Betty Hemings, was a slave owned by Jefferson's father-in-law, John Wayles, and the personal servant to Martha Wayles before she married Jefferson. Sally was an infant when Betty came to Monticello with Martha. After Jefferson's wife died, he went to Paris as U.S. minister, later sending for his two daughters. Unknown to Jefferson, the 14-year-old Sally was chosen to accompany the young girls. In the fervid imagination of those unencumbered by any evidence, Sally's role in Paris was transformed into a dramatic love affair. If so, no one in a Paris captivated by the famous visitor ever took note. There is no evidence that Sally even lived in Jefferson's small Parisian residence; it is more likely she was quartered across town where she was a lady's maid to the two girls who had been placed in a convent school. But there is no
evidence for that either. Upon Jefferson's return and his election as president, the story started with James Thomson Callender in 1802, editor of the Richmond (Va.) Enquirer - a paper with a reputation not unlike that of the National Enquirer today: "It is well known that the man, whom it delighteth the people to honor, keeps and for many years has kept as his concubine, one of his own slaves. Her name is SALLY. The name of her eldest son is TOM. His features are said to bear a striking although sable resemblance to those of the President himself. i" Callender bore a grudge against Jefferson because the new president had declined to name him postmaster of Richmond. He also was a chronic alcoholic given to fits of depression who drowned a few weeks after writing those lines. Jefferson never dignified the accusation with any comment. The descendants of a slave named Thomas Woodson have claimed for two centuries that he was Callender's "Tom." But their story was totally
undone when the DNA study revealed that Woodson's descendants showed no sign of the Jefferson Y chromosome. If Sally did bear a son named Thomas, no record exists. But after five years she began a childbearing career of six children with no acknowledged father. During those years, Jefferson was away from Monticello approximately half the time during his career of public service to the nation. He kept meticulous records in journals of the days he left and arrived back. The Monticello committee pounced on a study purporting to show Jefferson's arrivals at Monticello coincided with the time of the conception of Sally's children. But, as Murray has shown, the use of statistics in that study is deeply flawed. Moreover, other critics have pointed out that Jefferson's arrivals also coincided with inundations of his friends and relatives, such as those nearby suspects, Randolph Jefferson and his sons. Indeed, it was noted at the time that Randolph, a man far simpler than his
genius brother, often sat up late in the slave quarters in Monticello playing the fiddle for dancing. Jefferson seldom recorded the familiar visits of his relatives, so the Monticello committee says that there is no documentary proof that Randolph actually was visiting at the mansion during Sally's conception window. On the other hand, no documentary proof exists that Sally was at Monticello during those periods either. Workers often were sent to other plantations when the workload was light - as would be the case when Jefferson was away and the mansion locked up. If so, did Sally return at the same time as Jefferson? There is very little mention of Sally at all, except in routine notations of her name in supply lists distributed. No arguments can be drawn either way from a lack of records. Nor is there any evidence that all of Sally's children had the same father, or that any but Eston carried the Y Jefferson chromosome. There is no basis for the assumption that Jefferson
was "likely the father of all six." By contrast, neither Sally nor her children ever made any affirmation that they had a family connection to Jefferson - except Madison Hemings who, 48 years later and living as a free man in Ohio, asserted to a radical Republican newspaper editor that all his mother's children had been sired by Jefferson. So why is Monticello making common ground with Jefferson's historic enemies? THE DISTINGUISHED SCHOLARS COMMISSION SAYS NO MAJORITY REPORT * Lance Banning Professor of History, University of Kentucky * James Ceaser Professor of Government and Foreign Affairs, University of Virginia * Robert H. Ferrell Distinguished Professor of History Emeritus, Indiana University * Charles R. Kesler Professor of Government, Claremont McKenna College * Harvey C. Mansfield William R. Kenan Jr. Professor of Government, Harvard University * David N. Mayer Professor of Law and History, Capital University * Forrest McDonald Distinguished Research Professor of
History Emeritus, University of Alabama * Thomas Traut Professor of Biochemistry and Biophysics School of Medicine, University of N.C. * Robert F. Turner (Chairman) Center for National Security Law, University of Virginia School of Law * Walter E. Williams Professor of Economics, George Mason University * Jean Yarborough Professor of Political Science, Bowdoin College MINORITY REPORT * Paul Rahe Jay P. Walker Professor of History, University of Tulsa
Read what others had to say:
Jacques Walker - Apr 24, 2003 Viewers | Reply to this item UPDATE- In May of 2002 the Monticello Association (lineal descendants of Thomas Jefferson) voted on whether or not to accept the Hemmingses claim of descent. Based upon a three year study by a membership advisory committee, the membeship voted 67-5 to dismiss the Hemmingses claim.
Currently, several members of the Hemmings family are on the college circuit conducting presentations as descendants of Mr. Jefferson. Ironically, they keep promoting the DNA findings, yet their particular lines were NEVER TESTED! Recently, the grave-site of one of their ancestors was discovered in a military cemetery at Ft. Leavenworth. To this day, this line of the Hemmings family REFUSES to have the remains tested, instead insisting upon their oral history as being satisfactory for their claim (what are they afraid of? I wonder).
Before anyone begins the argument that the descendants of Eston Hemmings should be accepted as members because of the DNA findings ( his line is the ONLY ONE to show a DNA link between Sally Hemmings and the Jefferson family), keep in mind that the Monticello Association is an organization consisting of ONLY direct (proven) descendants of Thomas Jefferson. It has never accepted into the organization collateral descendants as members (i.e., cousins who are in the Jefferson family but not directly descended from Mr. Jefferson) and currently chooses not to sacrifice Mr. Jefferson on the altar of political correctness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 24, 2003 Viewers | Reply to this item Jacques, I have no intention of getting into that debate, believe me, but I do have a question regarding the DNAs that were done since we're having DNAs done on this site to establish which line of Randolphs our families connect with. Did Easton Hemings have a son and did that son have a son, on down? If so, could the DNA test be conducted as our DNAs are done on this site, i.e., through mouth swabs? Since a father's Y chromosome is passed to his sons and those sons to their sons on down, wouldn't mouth swabs and tests of the Y chromosome give the answer as opposed to digging up a grave?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apr 25, 2003 They could, but all that would prove was that there was a Jefferson ancestor, not that the ancestor was Thomas Jefferson. It has long be the contention (well before DNA testing) that at least one of Sally Hemmings children was the child of a Jefferson nephew, not Thomas. They would have the same DNA in this case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To my knowledge that is exactly how it was done, and the reason that only the Woodson line (proved negative) and the Eston Hemmings line were tested. In order to get Jefferson DNA Dr. Foster had to get samples from the Field Jefferson line (Thomas Jefferson's uncle), because Mr. Jefferson left no surviving male heirs.
As for the controversy, it's simple-if you can't prove that your ancestor came over on the Mayflower then you are not eligible for membership in the Mayflower Society. Therefore, if you can't prove that your ancestor was Thomas Jefferson then you can't become a member of the Monticello Association.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 17, 2003 I have been reading this string of views on the Jefferson-Hemings DNA Study and it's aftermath. I am the Jefferson Family Historian, (Herbert Barger), mentioned in the first article of the string. As assistant to Dr. Eugene Foster (whose wife is a Randolph and a first cousin, six generations removed, from Thomas Jefferson, on the Randolph side of the family), I am able to report all the inside shenagins and manipulations of Mr. Jefferson's legacy. I refer you to my web page: www.angelfire.com/va/TJTruth and our Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (www.tjheritage.org). Here you mayl read a review of our book, "The Jefferson-Hemings Myth, An American Travesty" and be able to link to the full Scholars Commission Report referred to earlier in the string). The report is very critical of the now newly named, Thomas Jefferson Foundation (owners of Monticello) who saw a need to DROP "Memorial" from their title. One may wonder if it is no longer a "memorial" to
Mr. Jefferson then just WHAT is it? I personally am VERY critical of their handling of the study. President Daniel Jordan was informed of the existance of a son of Madison Hemings whose DNA could be matched with the Jefferson DNA to add science to that branch of the Hemings's family claim that THEY are descended from Thomas Jefferson. Even though Dr. Jordan would have you believe that he is open to further research, he HAS NOT taken any initive to add further science to this important study. I requested that he hold up his Report until he obtained these results......he refused and released his "in house" inadequate and misleading Report. Some of the earlier articles report other phases of this "one sided" report.
Mr. Jefferson's legacy is being permitted to deteriate by the actions taken at Monticello and the History Chair at the University of Virginia sponsored by Monticello. If Mr. Jefferson were alive today , in my opinion, he would......."CLEAN HOUSE."
To bring this topic up to date I will just ad a few comments to the latest string which takes us up through the Monticello Association vote of last year in which they overwhelmingly and wisely, in my opinion, voted to disallow any Hemings into their membership. Since that time the Monticello web page was "revised" in their conclusion of the findings regarding the Sally Hemings affair. Let us now ask them to instruct their guides to follow those conclusions instead of misinforming the public that it was Thomas Jefferson who fathered possibly one and possibly ALL of her children. Just stop and consider that Monticello "evaluation", how could they possibly make such a statement without showing their bias, only ONE Hemings was tested, there is NO accounting for DNA of her other recorded children. and the present Hemings making money from speaking engagements and books REFUSE a DNA check of their ancestral uncle, William Hemings and Dr. Daniel Jordan WILL NOT suggest this
to them. They may be happy with their oral family history and annually appear and disrupt the Monticello Annual Meetings with the help of three or four members, I AM NOT. There are big time agendas at work here in a number of places and a new politically correct invironment..........but foundations and academia could and should be ABOVE and beyond all this "historical revisionism", in my opinion.
The Hemings Family have decided to hold their own family gathering at Monticello this year and have the permission of Monticello. Even though they refuse to grant access to DNA (Dr. Jordan, Monticello President, wouldn't ask but I did) and some members claiming to be descendants of Tom Woodson and the Hemings, are most vocal in the media (who have a "field day" with this.)
In reality one prominent Woodson descendant will not concede that her family was ELIMINATED in the study and even Monticello states that the Woodsons have not been proven to even be descended from Sally Hemings.
The newspaper article of the interview of Madison Hemings by Samuel Wetmore is inaccurate in several of the stated remarks. One obvious misstatement (only to those of us who researched it), is that Madison is reported as saying that he was named for James Madison by Dolly Madison upon the occasion of her visit to Monticello on the date of his birth. This date being January 19, 1805 and a very cold winter day with rivers and roads frozen over are we to believe that suddenly Dolly must state to her husband, James Madison (Secretary of State) that she must leave Washington (where she was acting as Mr. Jefferson's hostess in White House matters), and journey to Mr. Jefferson's home, Monticello, to name a slave child of Sally Hemings? Mr. Jefferson and the Madisons NEVER traveled the treacherous roads from Washington to Monticello in the winter. There are other inconsistancies also in the article but to really tie the bundle of "inaccuracies" together the writer and/or
Madison Hemings stated that Dolly never gave Sally a gift as promised and further remarked, "but like many promises of white folks to the slaves she never gave my mother anything." The writer, Samuel Wetmore, was a staunch abolitionist and even used a title for this series, "Life Among the Lowly", a subtitle of the famous Harriet Beecher Stowe story, Uncle Tom's Cabin. Can we believe anything in this Wetmore article written in the Pike County, Ohio Republican or can we balance it against a five day later opposition paper, the Waverly Watchman, which among other opposing statements, wrote, "the fact that Hemings claims to be the natural son of Jefferson does not convince the world of its truthfulness." I fully agree with this statement.
Herbert Barger
Jefferson Family Historian
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: an American controversy
by Annette Gordon-Reed
© 1997 University Press of Virginia
Writings by Thomas Jefferson and the Jefferson-Randolph Family
The Adams-Jefferson Letters: The Complete Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and Abigail Adams. Ed. Lester J. Cappon. 2 vols. Chapel Hill, N.C., 1959.
Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson. With an Introductory Essay by Dumas Malone, Boston, 1948.
Carr and Cary Papers, 1785-39. Special Collections Department, University of Virginia Library.
Catalogue of the Library of Thomas Jefferson. Comp. E. Millicent Sowerby. 5 vols. Washington, D.C., 1952-59.
Coolidge, Thomas Jefferson. An Autobiography. Boston, 1923.
The Family Letters of Thomas Jefferson. Ed. Edwin M. Betts and James A. Bear, Jr. Columbia, Mo., 1966.
The Garden and Farm Books of Thomas Jefferson. Ed. Robert C. Baron. Golden, Colo., 1987.
Jefferson's Memorandum Books: Accounts with Legal Record and Miscellany, 1767-1826. Ed. James A. Bear, Jr., and Lucia C. Stanton. Monticello Research Library.
Notes on the State of Virginia. 1784; rept. Boston, 1802.
Randolph, Sarah N., The Domestic Life of Thomas Jefferson. 1871; rept. Charlottesville, Va., 1978.
Randolph, Thomas Jefferson. Memoirs, 1974. Typescript in James A. Bear, Jr., Papers, acc. no. 5454-C, Special Collections Department, University of Virginia Library.
The Republic of Letters: The Correspondence between Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, 1776-1826. Ed. James Morton Smith. New York, 1995.
Thomas Jefferson and James Thomson Callender. Ed. Worthington C. Ford.Brooklyn, 1897.
Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book, with Commentary and Relevant Extracts from Other Writings. Ed. Edwin Morris Betts. Princeton, N.J., 1953.
Thomas Jefferson's Garden Book, 1766-i82q, with Relevant Extracts from His Other Writings. Ed. Edwin Morris Betts. Philadelphia, 1944.
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson. Ed. Julian Boyd et al. 25 vols. to date. Princeton, N.J., 1950-.
The Papers of Thomas Jefferson: Jefferson's Literary Commonplace Book. Ed. Douglas Wilson. Princeton, N.J.,1989.
The Works of Thomas Jefferson. Ed. Paul Leicester Ford.12 vols. New York and London, 1904-5.
The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Ed. Andrew A. Lipscomb and Albert E. Bergh. 20 vols. Washington, D.C., 1903.
Newspapers:
American Constellation (Petersburg, Va., 1834-36)
Boston Repertory (1805)
Daily Scioto Gazette (1902)
Frederick-Town Herald (1802)
Gazette of the United States (New York, 1802)
Globe (Washington, D.C.,1830-45)
Intelligencer and Petersburg Commercial Advertiser (1824-36)
New York Times
Petersburg Republican (1843-44)
Pike County (Ohio) Republican (1835)
Richmond Examiner (1802) Richmond Enquirer (1824-36)
Richmond Recorder (1802-3)
Virginia Free Press (Charleston, 1830-36)
Virginia Gazette (Richmond, )
Virginian-Pilot (Norfolk)
Waverly Watchman (1835)
Washington Post
Books, Articles, and Other Secondary Sources
Adair, Douglass. Fame and the Founding Fathers. Ed. Trevor Colbourn. New York, 1974
Anderson, Jefferson Randolph. "Tuckahoe and the Tuckahoe Randolphs" Register of the the Kentucky State Historical Society 35 (1937): 39-59
Bailyn, Bernard. Faces of the Revolution: Personalities and Themes in the Struggle for American Independence. New York, 1990.
Banner, Lois W. Review of Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, by Fawn Brodie, in American Historical Review 80 (1975): 1390.
Banning, Lance. Jefferson and Madison: Three Conversations from the Founding. Madison, Wis., 1995.
Bear, James A., Jr. "The Herrings Family at Monticello," Virginia Cavalcade 29 (Autumn 1979): 78-87. I
____.Jefferson at Monticello: Memoirs of a Monticello Slave as Dictated to
Charles Campbell by Isaac and Jefferson at Monticello: The Private Life of Thomas Jefferson by Rev. Hamilton Wilcox Pierson. Charlottesville, Va.,1967.
Bennett, Lerone, Jr. "Thomas Jefferson's Negro Grandchildren," Ebony 10 (Nov. 1954): 78-80.
Beveridge, Albert J. Life of John Marshall. 4 vols. Boston, 1919.
Binder, Frederick M. The Color Problem in Early National America as
Viewed by John. Adams, Jefferson, and Jackson. Paris, 1968.
Binger, Carl. Thomas Jefferson: A Well-Tempered Mind. New York, 1970.
Biographical Review of Dane County, Wisconsin, Containing Biographical Sketches of Pioneers and Leading Citizens. Chicago, 1893.
Blackburn, Joyce. George Wythe of Williamsburg. New York, 1975.
Blasingame, John. Slave Testimony. Baton Rouge, La.,1997.
Blennerhassett, Harman. Breaking with Burr: Harman Blennerhassett's Journal, 1807. Ed. Raymond E. Fitch. Athens, Ohio, 1988.
Bober, Natalie S. Thomas Jefferson, Man on a Mountaintop. New York, 1988.
Boiler, Paul F. Review of Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, by Fawn Brodie, in Southwest Review 59 (1974): 321.
Bontemps, Arna. Great Slave Narratives. Boston, 1969.
Boyd, Julian. "The Murder of George Wythe," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser. 12 (1955): 513.
Brant, Irving. James Madison. 6 vols. Indianapolis, 1941-53
Brodie, Fawn. "The Great Jefferson Taboo," American Heritage 22 (June 1972): 49-57, 97-100.
____."Jefferson Biographers and the Psychology of Canonization," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 2 (1971): 155-71.
____.Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History. New York, 1974.
____."Thomas Jefferson's Unknown Grandchildren: A Study in Historical Silences," American Heritage 27 (Oct. 1976): 28-33, 94-99.
Brown, Stuart, Jr. Virginia Baron: The Story of Thomas, 6th Lord Fairfax. Berryville, Va., 1965.
Burstein, Andrew. The Inner Jefferson: Portrait of a Grieving Optimist.Charlottesville, Va., 1995.
Burwell, William. "Vindication of Mr. Jefferson," Richmond Enquirer,
Aug. and Sept. 1805.
Chandler, David Leon. The Jefferson Conspiracies: A President's Role in the Assassination of Meriwether Lewis. New York, 1994.
Chase-Riboud, Barbara. Sally Herrings. New York, 1979.
Cocke, John Hartwell. Journal. University of Virginia Library.
Coleman, Elizabeth Dabney. "The Carrs of Albemarle." M. A. thesis,
University of Virginia, 1944.
____."Peter Carr of Carr's-Brook (1770-1815)," Papers of the Albemarle County Historical Society (1943-44): 4-23.
Collections of the State Historical Society of Wisconsin. Ed. Lyman Copeland Draper. Vol. 6. Madison, Wis., 1808.
Cresson, William P. James Monroe. Chapel Hill, N.C.,1946.
Crouch, Tom D. The Eagle Aloft: Two Centuries of the Balloon in America. Washington, D.C.,1983.
Cunningham, Noble Jr., In Pursuit of Reason: The Life of Thomas Jefferson. Baton Rouge, La.,1987.
Dabney, Virginius. Across the Years: Memories of a Virginian. New York, 1978.
____.The Jefferson Scandals: A Rebuttal. New York, 1981.
____.Mr. Jefferson's University: A History. Charlottesville, Va., 1981.
Daniels, Jonathan. Ordeal of Ambition: Jefferson, Hamilton, and Burr.
New York, 1970.
Davis, Arthur Kyle. Three Centuries of an Old Virginia Town: The History and Memorials and Charm of Petersburg and the Appomattox. Petersburg, Va., 1912.
Davis, David Brion. Was Thomas Jefferson an Enemy of Slavery? New York and London, 1970.
Dos Passos, John. The Head and Heart of Thomas Jefferson.
Garden City, N.Y., 1954.
Du Bellet, Louise Pecquet. Some Prominent Virginia Families. 4 vols.
Baltimore, 1976.
Du Bois, W. E. B. Writings. Ed. Nathan Higgins. New York, 1986.
Durey, Michael. With the Hammer of Truth: The Autobiography of James Callender. Charlottesville, Va., 1990.
Eckenrode, Hamilton J. The Randolphs. New York, 1946.
Farrison, William E. "Origin of Brown's Clotel," Phylon 15 (1954):
347-54
Felzenberg, Alvin Stephen. Review of Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, by Fawn Brodie, in American Political Science Review 71 (1977): 339.
Fithian, Philip Vickers. Journals and Letters: A Plantation Tutor of the
Old Dominion. Ed. Hugh Dickinson Farish. Richmond, 1943.
Fleming, Thomas. The Man from Monticello: An Intimate Life of Thomas Jefferson. New York, 1969.
Flower, Milton E. James Parton: The Father of Modern Biography. Durham, N.C., 1951.
Ford, Worthington Chauncey. Thomas Jefferson and James Thomson Callender, 1798-1802. Brooklyn, N.Y, 1897.
Gaines, William H. Thomas Mann Randolph, Jefferson's Son-In-Law.
Baton Rouge, La., 1966.
Genovese, Eugene. Roll Jordan Roll: The World the Slaves Made. New York, 1972.
Gibbs. C. H. Ballooning. London, 1948.
Golladay, Dennis. "Jefferson's 'Malignant Neighbor,' John Nicolas, Jr.," Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 86 (1978): 306-19.
Goode, James M. The Outdoor Statuary of Washington, D.C.: A
Comprehensive Guide. Washington, D.C., 1974.
Graham, Pearl N. "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Herrings;" Journal of Negro History 44 (1961): 89-103.
Hamilton, Halmon. Review of Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, by Fawn Brodie, in Journal of Southern History 41 (1975): 107-9.
Hazleton, Jean Hanvey. "The Hemings Family of Monticello." Manuscript in University of Virginia Library.
A History of Dade County, Wisconsin. Chicago, 1880.
History of Ross and Highland Counties, Ohio, with Illustrations and
Biographical Sketches. Cleveland, 1880.
Hobson, Charles F., ed. The Papers of John Marshall, Vol. 5. Chapel
Hill, N.C., 1987.
Hogan, Clifford. "How Not to Write a Biography: A Critical Look at Fawn Brodie's Thomas Jefferson," Social Science Journal 14:2 (1977): 132-33.
Jellison, Charles A. "James Thomson Callender: `Human Nature in a
Hideous Form,'" Virginia Cavalcade 29 (Autumn 1978): 62-69.
____."That Scoundrel Callender," Virginia Magazine of History and
Biography 67 (1959): 295-306.
Johnston, Hugo James. Race Relations in Virginia and Miscegenation in the South, 1776-1860. Amherst, Mass., 1970.
Jordan, Winthrop. White over Black: American Attitudes toward the Negro,1550-1812. Chapel Hill, N.C., 1968.
____.Review of Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, by Fawn Brodie, in William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 32 (i975): 510.
Justus, Judith. Down from the Mountain. Perrysburg, Ohio, 1990.
Katz, Gertrude, ed. "Old Letters, Old Biographies, and Old Family Trees of Bourne, Carr, Darden, and Allied Families ...." Tampa, Fla., 1976, copy in New York Public Library.
Kennedy, John P. The Life of William Wirt. 2 vols. Philadelphia 1850.
Ketcham, Ralph. James Madison: A Biography. New York, 1971.
Koch, Adrienne. Jefferson and Madison: The Great Collaboration. New York, 1950.
Langhorne, Elizabeth. Monticello: A Family Story. Chapel Hill, N.C., 1989.
Levy, Leonard. Jefferson and Civil Liberties: The Darker Side. Cambridge, Mass., 1963.
Lewis, Thomas. The Fairfax Line: Thomas Lewis's Journal of 1746. J. W Wayland. New Market, Va., 1925.
"Library of Dabney Carr, 1773, with a Notice of the Carr Family,"
Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 2(1894): 221-28.
McCoy, Drew. The Last of the Founding Fathers: James Madison and the Republican Legacy. Cambridge, Mass.: 1989.
McDonald, Forrest. The Presidency of Thomas Jefferson. Lawrence, Kans. 1976.
McGill, John. The Beverley Family of Virginia: Descendants of Major
Robert Beverley (1641-1687) and Allied Families. Columbia, S.C., 1956.
McKittrick, Eric. "The View from Jefferson's Camp;" New York Review of Books, Dec. 17, 1970.
McLaughlin, Jack. Jefferson and Monticello: Biography of a Builder.
New York, 1988.
Malone, Dumas. Jefferson and His Time. 6 vols. Boston, 1948-81.
____.Mr. Jefferson's Private Life," Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society 84 (1974): 65-72.
Malone, Dumas, and Stephen H. Hochman. "A Note on Evidence: The Personal History of Madison Herrings," Journal of Southern History 41 (1975):523-28.
Malone and Jefferson. Conversation with Anne Freudenberg.
Charlottesville, Va., 1981.
Mapp, Alf, Jr. Thomas Jefferson: A Strange Case of Mistaken Identity. New York, 1987.
____.Thomas Jefferson, Passionate Pilgrim: The Presidency,
the Founding of the University, and the Private Battle. Lanham, Md., 1991.
Mayo, Bernard. Myths and Men: Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson. Athens, Ga., 1959
____.Thomas Jefferson and His Unknown Brother Randolph. Charlottesville, Va., 1942.
Meltzer, Milton. Thomas Jefferson: Revolutionary Aristocrat. New York, 1991.
Miller, John Chester. The Wolf by the Ears: Thomas Jefferson and Slavery. New York, 1977.
Morton, Richard L. Colonial Virginia. 2 vols. Chapel Hill, N.C., 1960.
Muzlish, Bruce. Review of Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, by Fawn Brodie, in Journal of American History 61 (1975): 1090-91.
Nock, Albert J. Jefferson. New York, 1926.
Onuf, Peter S. "The Scholars' Jefferson," William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 50 (1993): 671.
____.ed. Jeffersonian Legacies. Charlottesville, Va., 1993.
Parton, James. The Life of Thomas Jefferson. Boston, 1874.
Peterson, Merrill. The Jefferson Image in the American Mind. New York, 1960.
____.Thomas Jefferson and the New Nation. New York, 1970.
____.Thomas Jefferson: A Reference Biography. New York, 1986.
Pierson, Hamilton. Jefferson at Monticello: The Private Life of Thomas Jefferson. 1862; rept. Freeport, N.Y, 1971.
Pleasants, Edward Valentine. The Edward Valentine Pleasants Papers. Richmond, 1927.
Plumer, William. Memorandum of Proceedings in the United States Senate,1803-1807. Ed. Everett S. Brown. New York, 1923.
Railey, William Edward. The Railey's and Kindred Families: The Woodsons, the Keiths, the Pleasants, and the Mayos. Frankfort, Ky., 1911.
Randall, Henry S. The Life of Thomas Jefferson. 3 vols. 1858; rept.
New York, 1972.
____.Correspondence between Henry Randall and Hugh Blair Grigsby, 1851-61. Ed. Frank J. Klingberg. Berkeley, Calif., 1952.
Randall, Willard Sterne. Thomas Jefferson: A Life. New York, 1993.
Randolph, Robert Isham. The Randolphs of Virginia: A Compilation of the Descendants of William Randolph of Turkey Island and His Wife, Mary Isham of Bermuda Hundred. Chicago (?), 1936.
Risjord, Norman K. Thomas Jefferson. Madison, Wis., 1994.
Roseboom, Eugene Holloway, and Francis Phelps Weisenburger. A History of Ohio. New York, 1934.
Rutland, Robert Allen. James Madison: The Founding Father. New York and London, 1987.
Sanford, Charles B. Thomas Jefferson and His Library: A Study of His Literary Interests and of the Religious Attitudes Revealed by Relevant Titles in His Library. Hamden, Conn., 1977.
Schachner, Nathan. Thomas Jefferson: A Biography. 2 vols. New York, 1951.
Scott, James G., and Edward A. Wyatt. Petersburg's Story: A History.Petersburg, Va., 1960.
Sloan, Herbert E. Principle and Interest: Thomas Jefferson and the
Problem of Debt. New York, 1995.
Smith, Margaret Bayard Smith. The First Forty Years of Washington Society. New York, 1906.
Smith, Page. Thomas Jefferson: A Revealing Biography. New York, 1976.
____.John Adams. 2 vols. New York, 1962.
Smith, William Loughton. The Pretensions of Thomas Jefferson to the
Presidency Examined. Philadelphia, 1796.
____."The Family of William Randolph of Bristol, England, Second Son of Isham Randolph of Dungeness, Virginia." Virginia Magazine of History and Biography 49 (Jan. 1941): 78.
Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation Curator's Annual Report, 1979, Acc. no. 7690-AG, box 2, University of Virginia Library.
Thompson, Jesse Ball. Tuckahoe Plantation. Richmond, 1975.
Trollope, Frances. Domestic Manners of the Americans. Ed. Michael
Sadleir. London, 1927.
Tucker, George. The Life of Thomas Jefferson. 2 vols. Philadelphia, 1837.
Wills, Garry. "The Aesthete," review of The Worlds of Thomas Jefferson, by Susan R. Stein, in New York Review of Books, 40 (Aug.12, 1993) 6-10.
____.Inventing America: Jefferson's Declaration of Independence. New York, 1978.
____."Uncle Thomas's Cabin," review of Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, by Fawn Brodie, in New York Review of Books 21 (April 18,1974): 26.
Wilson, Douglas, "Thomas Jefferson and the Character Issue," Atlantic Monthly 270 (Nov. 1992): 57-74.
Woodson, Henry Morton. A Historical Genealogy of the Woodsons and Their Connections. Columbia, S.C., 1915.
Wright, Benjamin F. Review of Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History, by Fawn Brodie, in Social Science Quarterly 56 (1975): 157.
Wyatt, Edward A. Along Petersburg's Streets: Historic Sites and Buildings of Petersburg, Virginia. Richmond, 1943.
Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson : history, memory, and civic culture. Edited by Jan Ellen Lewis and Peter S. Onuf. Charlottesville, University Press of Virginia, 1999. x, 280 p. : ill.
LC call number: E332.2.S24 1999
LC control number: 99033901
Gordon-Reed, Annette.
Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: an American controversy. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1997. xx, 288 p.
LC call number: E332.2.G67 1997
LC control number: 96034550
Miller, John Chester.
The Wolf by the ears: Thomas Jefferson and slavery. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia: Published with the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation, 1991. xii, 319 p.
LC call number: E332.2.M54 1991
LC control number: 91025939
Jane, I hope this helps. Life is and creates controvery. Again, do you know of a male that could test for DNA? That would be major if you did and it proved positive.
Best wishes,
Tamara Mitchell
Perrysburg, OH
---------------------------------
Get your email and more, right on the new Yahoo.com
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
