Kevin I will try to be brief. Why do you and Kukla and "most reasonable
people" (reasonable people on this list may not wish to be lumped into
your reading on this), I am reasonable and I don't agree with you two.
May I ask what available evidence you refer to, DNA proved that
Callender's 1802 lies were that.....NO match? Nothing of fact and truth
came out of this. How does it even "SUGGEST" (sure you can both have
your views but please explain to me what I am overlooking here?) You are
both out on a limb here with not one fact to justify your point. The
Woodson family is very upset that DNA did not support their long held
claims. Dr. Foster and I were on the trail of possible fathers and had
some good leads IF a child would have been proven to be conceived in
Paris, but since a Jefferson was not involved, we dropped it from our
radar.

It is probably correct to assume that we will never know for sure, BUT
dear authors let's keep the truth out there instead of bold lies to sell
books and degrade a fine gentlemen because he was a slave owner.

Your reference to Hamilton could best be commented on by Professor
Forrest McDonald, Distinguished Professor of History at the University
of Alabama, Emeritus, and one of 13 full and distinguished members of
The Scholars Commission who found NO proof of Thomas Jefferson fathering
any slave child. Possibly you may know him or of his great historical
knowledge. He was frequently consulted by Congress on crucial historical
matters. Prior to the Scholars Commission Study he was "a Hamilton Man",
he is now "a Thomas Jefferson Man." Do you, Kukla and the "reasonable
people" not believe this man and the other Scholars Commission Study?

   
Herb--

You write:  "I read such statements as (pg 116) "nevertheless, the
available evidence now suggests that Callender was essentially correct
about Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings." 

This statement is in fact true.  What Kukla says, in essence, is that in
his view, the evidence suggests (but does not prove) that Jefferson had
a sexual relationship with Hemings.  Kukla's view is more or less the
same as mine, and I would submit that of most reasonable people who have
examined the evidence.

I doubt we will ever know for certain whether Jefferson and Hemings had
a sexual relationship.  But the circumstantial evidence suggests that
there was one.  It is just circumstantial evidence--it is suggestive,
but not definitive.  But then, that is what I take Kukla to be saying
when he writes "the available evidence now suggests."  We don't know for
sure, but the extant evidence in favor of Jefferson's paternity of (some
of) Heming's children is sufficiently persuasive to allow a reasonable,
if tentative conclusion that Jefferson did in fact have sex with
Hemings.

I should add that people like Annette Gordon-Reed strike me as
relatively conservative.  They want to retain some value in Jefferson's
private life.  The tenor of the profession, to my read, is to hang
Jefferson out to dry as a repulsive character, on the scale of say,
Rousseau.  To my read of her most recent book, Gordon-Reed goes out of
her way to defend Jefferson.  I have a considerably darker, and less
redemptive view of the man.  I tend to think that Hamilton got Jefferson
right.

Just saying.

All best,
Kevin

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