Ms. Pemberton:

  Let me preface the following by asserting that I have absolutely NO interest in whether TJ had a relationship with SH; personally, I believe TJ's life was his own affair ... not mine.  

  >That is a real stretch of suppositions!

  It would indeed be a stretch IF I had made a supposition; I did not. I merely asked if proof exists to show that SH carried to full term.  It is not unreasonable to imagine she may not have done so.  My statement was that if one was to use ONLY SH's delivery dates to appoint TJ as the father of her child(ren), then the charge against TJ would be baseless.  One can't, with all certainty, claim that TJ fathered SH's child(ren) because she became pregnant when TJ was at Monticello ... UNLESS ... one knows for certain that SH carried to a certain time.  If her child(ren) was/were carried only 7 months, then a serious flaw is evident.

  >Do you have an evidence her babies came early or late

  No more than you have.  

   >- were they smaller than usual, or larger than usual? 

  This statement proves to me that you are only interested in "stirring the pot", so to speak.  I don't believe any rational person would negate the need to ask the question I asked.  

  >What reason do you have for supposing that she did not carry her children to full term? 

  Inasmuch as my training demands that research answer every question that might be answered, I find my question to be legitimate.  Are there any historians on this list who would deny that it is the historian's duty to find all available evidence if said evidence exists?  

  Again, I made no supposition as to SH's term of pregnancy; I merely assert that it is a question that begs to be answered.

  >Or, are you grasping at straws????

  I have no reason to grasp at anything.

  R. Burnett Jenkins

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html