Dear Ms. Heckscher:

Thank you for your lengthy letter and I welcome your constructive
criticism as you know it. I will reply at the end of each paragraph to
better understand it. Boy, this is a great time consuming task but is
well worth my time because I represent the public's view and not an
agenda, in my opinion, determined with real research to degrade Mr.
Jefferson.   

Herb Barger 




Dear Mr. Barger:

Because you do not hesitate to pepper this list with a surfeit of  
repetitive messages expressing your vehement and intransigent  
judgment of facts, probabilities, and persons (living and dead) in  
the Jefferson-Hemings matter, I trust that you will not begrudge a  
note of respectful admonition to yourself.  Please allow me,  
therefore, to invite your consideration of the following points,  
attention to any one of which might enable some of your readers to  
view your messages as more than noisy and predictable nuisances, as  
you surely do not intend them to be.

(1.) A more adequate and consistent understanding of oral history.

On the one hand, you repeatedly dismiss and disparage the study of  
oral history--sneering at Dr. Dianne Swann-Wright, the scholar who  
headed the Monticello commission that examined the Jefferson-Hemings  
history in light of the DNA evidence, as "an oral slave historian" (a  
message of April 30);  discounting the census record listing Madison  
Hemings as TJ's son as "just another attempt to use oral history" (a  
message of April 29); and mocking the now-disproved  Woodson oral  
history of descent from TJ as "the old long false ORAL family  
claim" (a message of May 5). BARGER REPLY: I do not disparage and
dismiss oral family history but use it only as a "rough guide" to more
factual research. Example: The Woodson oral claims seemed sound but both
Dr. Foster and I were "looking around" for other possibilities when DNA
showed that there was NO DNA proof supporting their claims, thus our
search was suspended. The Eston oral history on the other hand was
proven by DNA to be correct, there was a match because the long held
belief that they descended from "A Jefferson uncle" and the DNA did
match this claim, thus their oral history was correct in this case.  

On the other hand, you repeatedly trumpet the claim that "Eston
Hemings['s] . . . family oral history had ALWAYS been that they
descended from 'a Jefferson uncle'" (a  
message of April 30) and insist that accordingly the 1998 DNA tests  
"proved that Eston's family oral history was correct and that Eston's  
DNA was that of 'a' Jefferson, Randolph, as they had always claimed,  
NOT Thomas" (a message of April 29). BARGER REPLY: See above comments.

May I suggest that as a matter of intellectual consistency you cannot  
have it both ways?  And that in any case both judgments betray an  
ignorance of the dynamics and appropriate uses of oral history?   
Historians and folklorists since the mid-twentieth century have  
devoted a great deal of thought to understanding how oral histories  
and traditions can--and cannot--be used to shed valuable light on  
both the past and the present, and to establishing standards for  
scholarship accordingly.  There is an extensive literature available  
on this topic should you care to peruse it before continuing to fling  
your own judgments on the subject incontinently about the Internet,  
as you do both on this list and on Amazon.com. BARGER REPLY: There is no
ambiguity about the two above mentioned oral family beliefs. I just
report the results because I assisted Dr. Foster with the study and I
have many inside research things to draw upon and to report to the
public. 

I will not here attempt to review the records you cite in light of  
those standards, except to draw your attention to the following well- 
established facts.  (a) Oral history tells us at least as much about  
the present in which it is voiced as about the past which it claims  
to convey.   (b) Oral history is not inherently more or less truthful  
or accurate than written history: accounts of both types must be  
carefully evaluated for their sources, circumstances of production,  
biases, probable effects of knowledge or ignorance, degree of  
correlation with established fact, and other human filters before  
their veracity can be assessed for its factual utility in any given  
instance. BARGER REPLY: If, as you say, oral history is neither more or
less truthful, then shouldn't competent scholars such as those of the
Scholars Commission link from www.tjheritage.org) be brought in to
assess the oral vs the facts? 
    (c) Because oral history is by definition unwritten, and  
therefore unfixed in historical time, we cannot assume its  
transhistorical consistency.  In other words, as you will doubtless  
be gratified to learn, we cannot be certain that the facts of his  
parentage that Madison Hemings committed to print in 1873 were the  
same as those he might have recounted in, say, 1838.  But by the same  
token, we also have no evidence that Eston Hemings's descendants  
"ALWAYS" (as you repeatedly put it) claimed descent from "a Jefferson  
uncle" rather than from Thomas himself, inasmuch as we have no means  
of documenting their oral tradition for any period older than that  
recalled by the inevitably imperfect memories of those who first  
submitted it to be recorded in writing in the late twentieth century.
BARGER REPLY: I am not aware of what Madison thought or committed to
writing in any earlier remarks.......just the Samuel Wetmore version in
the Pike Co. article. Yes, the Eston family always before 1974, I
believe, believed they descended from "a Jefferson uncle." At that time
Fawn Brodie met with them in NYC and persuaded them to change their
beliefs. I suppose that many people, under similar circumstances, might
"rethink" the benefits of being a descendant of Thomas Jefferson.   

(2.)  A more careful attention to the biases inherent in your own  
language.

You claim to be interested in "truth" (or, if you would prefer,  
"TRUTH"), insisting that (as you put it in a message of May 1), "I  
find nothing objectionable about the 'possibility' that TJ had a  
sexual relationship with Sally. . . .  I am not biased other than  
trying to see the truth revealed to the public." BARGER REPLY: My
statement is as I believe is correct. IF it had happened and could be
proven, THEN that wouldn't bother me in the least. It might have
bothered TJ though because of his miscegenation beliefs. If he were to
hold to this belief there would be no possibility of this. In fact, had
that been the case, I would not have spent the last ten years
researching and informing the public of certain foundations, authors,
individuals, certain of the media, etc. attempts at political
correctness and historical revisionism.   




I am sorry, sir, but your constant, harshly juridical language belies  
this claim.  You repeatedly accuse--I use the term advisedly--others  
of deeming TJ "guilty" of a relationship with SH (e.g., in messages  
of April 29, May 1, May 3, May 5, etc.), or of "accusing him" of such  
(e.g., in a message of May 3), and you express  the wish that TJ  
could "defend himself" (e.g., in a message of May 5).  You repeatedly  
accuse assorted historical actors whose accounts of the subject  
contradict yours of "lying" or of being "liars" (examples too  
numerous to mention, and much remarked in previous threads). BARGER
REPLIES: Are you aware that the Callender projects were referred to as,
Campaign Lies?  

You refer to other possible candidates for the paternity of SH's
children as "suspects" (e.g., in messages of April 29 and May 3).  A  
genealogist whose work you doubtless value discloses a similar  
outlook when she titles her book on the relationship "Jefferson  
Vindicated`" (it is difficult to believe that a book bearing such a  
title represents anything other than a sustained attempt to reach a  
foreordained conclusion, which is not how persuasive historical  
analysis is made). BARGER REPLIES: Yes, I used the word, "suspects" for
all possible fathers of any Sally child there were at least eight
possibilities based upon my research because, as you may know, I have
been the Jefferson Family Historian for many, many years and because of
that Dr. Foster chose me to assist with subjects for the study. I knew
the Jeaffreson/Jefferson family genealogy back to Pettistree, Suffolk
Co., England and had charted most of them. He and Mrs. Bennett of
Arlington assured me that had it not been for my research then the study
may have failed. That word only means that they were around and may have
fit the mold but at that time the research had not began. Dr. Foster
failed to mention other Jeffersons to Nature that I had given him and
thus we see that "Jefferson fathers slaves last child" was their
conclusion because they weren't aware of the other Jeffersons.  
I thought the book title, "Jefferson Vindicated, Fallacies, Omissions,
and Contradictions in the Hemings Genealogical Search" was a fair and
concise evaluation of what had happened. I wish to congratulate Cynthia
Burton, a Charlottesville genealogist for this great revealing study. I
highly recommend the book to all. It can be purchased at Monticello,
Amazon or any good book dealer. For those that remember James A. Bear,
Jr., Monticello Director prior to Dr. Dan Jordan, you may wish to read
his forward in this book. I had nothing to do with her choice of the
title but we all are aware that the Monticello Assn.(TJ descendants),
study "vindicated" Jefferson from fathering slave children. We also know
that the 13 member Scholars Commission Report, "vindicated TJ" and we
could go on and on into the sub titles.     

It seems clear, therefore, that whether or not you acknowledge it,  
you and at least some of those who share your viewpoint regard any  
possible TJ-SH sexual relationship as a crime.  Because TJ is someone  
you claim to admire, may I suggest that so long as you continue to  
maintain this view of his possible connection with SH, it will be  
impossible for you to approach the known facts in the case, and to  
attempt their plausible interpretation, in anything remotely  
resembling an unbiased manner?--much less to begin to understand TJ's  
own understanding of his actions should they somehow prove beyond  
even your doubts to have taken place?  At the very least, your use of  
such language is likely to make your arguments appear inherently  
biased to those very readers you wish most to persuade. BARGER REPLY: In
all of your vast wisdom, how can you conclude that I and others would
consider any POSSIBLE PROOF of a TJ/Sally relationship a "CRIME?" We do
admire Mr. Jefferson and we already know the truth of our findings and
we are equally aware of detractors and WHY they are and encourage all
freedom loving citizens everywhere to challenge, books, movies,
Monticello tours, TV programs and magazine articles.....there is NO
proof that TJ fathered slave children. The general consensus of
researchers is that his younger brother, Randolph, fathered at least one
of Sally's children. Don't let the Monticello assessment that possibly
he may have fathered ALL of her children.......only ONE Hemings was
tested.........draw your own conclusions about this stance by Dr.
Jordan. 

(3.)  A minimal courtesy to those who disagree with you
If you are familiar with TJ's correspondence, you may perhaps have  
relished, as have I, his ability to be courteous--unfailingly, if  
sometimes chillily or even freezingly, courteous--to all his  
correspondents, even those he profoundly disliked or who proffered  
arguments he deemed contemptible.  I do wish you could emulate him in  
this matter; it is a wise strategy in debate as well as a humanely  
elegant style.

Specifically, you do your own argument great injury when you  
continually dismiss all those who disagree with you about the  
possibility or probability of a TJ-SH sexual relationship-- 
historians, biographers, genealogists, archaeologists, geneticists,  
descendants of assorted historical actors, members of the news media  
and of the general public--as mere shills for "political correctness"  
and "historical revisionism," or as gullible dupes of the same (as in  
your messages of April 30, May 3, May 5, etc.).  As a mere matter of  
strategy, how do you expect to persuade anyone whom you begin by  
insulting?  And as a matter of fact, your portrayal of those you  
disagree with is demonstrably inaccurate (note that I do not accuse  
you of lying; simply of being inaccurate--a courtesy you refuse to  
extend to others).  You are not going to win an argument whose  
inherent legitimacy you refuse to accept.  And you are not going to  
persuade either the scholars or the broad public you desire to  
influence if you cannot recognize what is obvious to any fair-minded  
person: that many of those who disagree with you evince a commitment  
to accuracy and a capacity for discerning judgment at least equal to
your own. BARGER REPLY: As you may have already surmised I don't have
the charm that TJ had. I research, find facts, report them and let the
readers decide who is misleading them. Sometimes it riles certain people
to learn that there "other" researchers out there finding vast
differences from that which the public is being "spoon fed." May I
suggest to you to list all statements or topics which persuade you to
conclude that I am wrong and that TJ and Sally were a "couple."  
What do you think of the 13 member top scholars report, do you consider
them not as wise and learned as the in-house Monticello study group?
Read their bios and think about it. They found NO proof of a TJ/Sally
link.
  
As a scholar who has followed the arguments and counter-arguments on  
the subject of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings since my  
adolescence, more than three decades ago, changing my own best guess
about the likelihood of the relationship from skepticism to probability
as new facts have come to light, I am viscerally  
disinclined to take seriously the arguments of someone who deems me a
priori guilty (sic) of bad faith.  Please consider this letter an  
attempt to overcome my aversion to conversation with you on that  
ground alone, and--more importantly--consider that I may well speak  
also for any number of others whose intellectual honesty and  
professional integrity you are so blithely and unfoundedly eager to  
impugn. You might wish to consider why your historical conclusions  
cannot stand on their own merits without requiring that you traduce  
those who disagree with them.  If there are biases and fixed agendas  
to be fairly acknowledged, dear sir, are they not your own? BARGER
REPLY: Since you are a scholar who has followed this controversy and
changed your beliefs may I again ask what do you believe that convinces
you? In the 10 years I have been associated with the study it has
enlightened our knowledge of such things that DNA disproved the Woodson
claim, research indicates that the Wetmore/Madison claim is incorrect,
that Dr. Foster did a test knowing in all probability there would be a
match and not informing Nature of this beforehand and many, many other
things that cast doubt upon the long held rumors. Possibly you have been
reading the several books that confuse the public and in many cases not
inform the reader some of their research came from and not reporting the
results of the Scholars Commission Report or reporting a hidden Minority
Report that was "swept under the rug" until I and others "squealed" on
them and asked the TJF to investigate, resulting in an apology by Dr.
Jordan to Dr. Wallenborn, the report author. I will be looking for that
list of persuasive statements that lead you to believe TJ guilty. 

--Jurretta J. Heckscher

______________________________________
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