Steve Corneliussen is correct that the public has been led astray in the
Jefferson-Hemings paternity issue. An example of this is the C-SPAN program
which started this thread, in which Alan Pell Crawford, one of the authors
discussing his book, stated “DNA testing cleared the Carrs.” Of course, it
did no such thing. Only descendants of one child (Eston) of Sally Hemings
were tested.  The descendants of the three other surviving children,
Harriet, Beverly and Madison have not been tested, because the descendants
of Harriet and Beverly are unknown, and the descendants of Madison refused
permission to test his son who is buried in the military cemetery at
Leavenworth, Kansas.  Although Crawford is admittedly not a Jefferson
“scholar,” he did spend two years researching his book. That he could make
a mistake so basic  illustrates the misinformation and faulty conclusions
that have led to the widespread belief that the DNA tests were scientific
proof of Jefferson’s paternity.  Another important aspect of the untested
children is that they have no DNA to the Jefferson line.

This passive acceptance of a Jefferson-Hemings relationship found its way
into the recent HBO series, “John Adams.”  In portraying the well known and
astounding coincidence of the near simultaneous deaths of Adams and
Jefferson on July 4, it is Sally Hemings who is at Jefferson’s bedside. For
a program that touted its fidelity to historical accuracy, this was an
egregious example of historical fiction.


Richard E. Dixon
Editor, Jefferson Notes
Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
4122 Leonard Drive
Fairfax, Va 22030
703-691-0770 fax 703-691-0978


> [Original Message]
> From: S. Corneliussen <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 4/25/2008 1:35:49 PM
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Jefferson on BookTV
>
> Some comments in reply to Henry Wiencek:
> * Concerning the public's views, I haven't seen any polls either, but I'd 
> bet a big chunk of money that most people believe that comedians' gags
about 
> Sally and TJ stem from known, accepted historical fact.
> * Concerning _Hemings partisan_ and _Jefferson defender_, I prefer 
> _pro-paternityist_ and _anti-paternityist_. I admit that the terms are 
> clunky, but I propose that _partisan_ and _defender_ ascribe motivations 
> that aren't always present, and that the connotations tend to confine the 
> discussion within the box that Mr. Wiencek rightly deplores. (But then,
I'm 
> the guy who worries about the unexamined, residual connotations in a
phrase 
> like "legitimate slave-catcher.")
> * Concerning the views of southern-studies specialists, and for that
matter 
> historians generally, my own guess is that Mr. Wiencek is right: they
"are 
> persuaded that Thomas Jefferson fathered all of Hemings's children." 
> Persuaded, yes, but on what basis? I have a further guess as well: many
or 
> most have not looked at enough of the evidence, if only because to do so 
> requires so much time. Would these persuaded scholars understand, for 
> example, Mr. Wiencek's teaser hint about Edmund Bacon and Isaac
Jefferson? 
> Moreover, maybe the zeitgeist compels scholars' agreement. In particular
I'd 
> like to know how many have actually read Cyndi Burton's _Jefferson 
> Vindicated_, which Mr. Wiencek mentions below. (If U. Richmond historian 
> Woody Holton is reading this, I especially hope that he will comment on 
> that. He reviewed the book at Amazon.com, apparently without actually 
> reading it -- though if that's so, not having read it didn't stop him
from 
> connecting Cyndi with white supremacy. It's posted under "Virginia
History 
> Lover.")
> * Concerning doubts among well-known historians: Dan Jordan does say that 
> honorable people can differ on the paternity. Joyce Appleby, in her TJ 
> biography, is unwilling to assert forthrightly that the paternity is a 
> proven fact. Clay Jenkinson makes a point of highlighting the word 
> _probably_ concerning his paternity assumption. And now, according to
Henry 
> Wiencek, Henry Wiencek is apparently about to go public with some doubt.
> * Concerning Annette Gordon-Reed and such doubt, it's interesting and
maybe 
> worrying to note something from p. 244 in her chapter "The Memories of a
Few 
> Negroes" in my paperback copy of _Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson:
History, 
> Memory, and Civic Culture_. I like her choice of that ironic, maybe even 
> sarcastic, chapter title. I agree with her about what that allusion says 
> about the mindset in which Merrill Peterson operated. But my agreement 
> doesn't mean I'm not startled that she wrote: "If others continued 
> [post-DNA] to treat the matter as still an open question, how could I 
> continue to moderate my voice when faced with what could only be
interpreted 
> as even greater contempt and lack of concern for the history and
interests 
> of black people?" Open question? Below, Mr. Wiencek writes of the 
> anti-paternityists that their "arguments convinced me that the question
is 
> still open."
> * Setting aside any implication that somehow Ann Coulter could ever rise
to 
> merit mention in the same category with Cyndi Burton -- and maybe that 
> implication isn't actually there -- I believe Mr. Wiencek is mistaken 
> concerning the number of possible paternity candidates. (We'll also set 
> aside that Man-in-the-Moon gag, borrowed from E. M. Halliday, I believe, 
> when Halliday was mocking anti-paternityists not long after the DNA news 
> came out.) As a letter in Nature made plain in early 1999, there could
have 
> been paternity candidates outside the acknowledged extended Jefferson 
> family. (I'll fetch that letter and post it if you like.) We can't know
the 
> number of paternity candidates.
> * Concerning the science in the Hemings-TJ debate: Pro-paternityists
usually 
> build their proof on historical evidence, the DNA, and what is called 
> "statistical evidence." That's three components -- two of them
scientific, 
> or at least called scientific. We haven't discussed that second of the
two 
> scientific components, which is what -- more than anything else --
engenders 
> my own doubts about the paternity allegations. That credulous historians 
> have so readily accepted silly "statistical evidence" shakes my
confidence 
> in their judgment about the rest of it, even including the very real and 
> maybe suggestive qualitative (as opposed to quantified) correlation
between 
> TJ's presences at Monticello and Hemings's conceptions.
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> Steven T. Corneliussen
> Poquoson, Virginia
> (and also Jefferson Lab)
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Henry Wiencek" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:49 AM
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Jefferson on BookTV
>
>
> I was glad to see Steven T. Corneliussen's post because I'm writing the
> Hemings chapter of my book on Jefferson and his slaves right now, so these
> are the issues on my mind every morning. It's hard to say where public
> opinion stands on the Hemings issue because I haven't seen any polls on
> this. Jefferson's defenders (a phrase I use neutrally, to distinguish them
> from the folks I call "the Hemings partisans") believe they have made some
> headway in getting the media to acknowledge that DNA all by itself did not
> prove a Hemings/Thomas Jefferson link. My ballpark guess is that most
> historians who study slavery, plantations, and the antebellum South are
> persuaded that Thomas Jefferson fathered all of Hemings's children. If
there
> are any doubters among prominent southern-studies specialists they are
> keeping their mouths shut. There are some political and legal historians
who
> don't believe it, such as the members of the scholars committee chaired by
> Robert Turner of UVA law school.  Then there are the unaffiliated
defenders
> such as Herb Barger, Richard Dixon, Cynthia Burton, Ken Wallenborn, and
the
> McMurrys, who have carried out herculean labors of research. My hat is off
> to these defenders because they have made a really good case. Their
> arguments convinced me that the question is still open; that's one reason
I
> decided to write the book.
>
> I have nearly gone mad trying to figure out this Hemings business because,
> as the defenders have shown, the documentary records (specifically the
> Callender articles and Madison Hemings's memoir) are really full of holes,
> to an extent which the Hemings partisans have not acknowledged. But on the
> other side, the defenders suggest that any one of seven Jeffersons (I
think
> Ann Coulter will tell you 25) could have fathered the Hemings children,
but
> some of these paternity candidates might as well be the Man in the Moon,
> they were so far off.  Poisoning all of this discussion is the
> politics--politically correct on one side, patriotically correct on the
> other side. If you believe this, you're racist; if you believe that, you
> hate America.
>
> Corneliussen is correct--the DNA test by itself did not prove that Thomas
> was the father, and the DNA test by itself does not clear the Carrs from
> paternity of Hemings's older children. (One lingering mystery, which will
> probably never be solved: Jefferson's grandson TJ Randolph said that
Sally's
> sister (or niece) also had children who resembled Jefferson: Who were
these
> children? Who was their father? For that matter, who was their mother--the
> sister or the niece?) The question for me has been: can we navigate
through
> the errors, lies, and false memories in the documents and come to a really
> firm conclusion? I think we can. My thinking is that the most important
> "witnesses" are not Callender and Madison Hemings, but Edmund Bacon and
> Isaac Jefferson. The specialists on the list will know what I'm talking
> about, the rest of you will have to wait for the book.
>
> For those of you who missed the BookTV showing of the panel, Jon Kukla
made
> a very funny remark on the subject of paternity, evidence, testimony, etc.
> I paraphrase: "I have three children, and I certainly hope there were no
> witnesses."
>
> Henry Wiencek
> Charlottesville
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.4/1396 - Release Date:
4/24/2008 
> 6:32 PM 
>
> ______________________________________
> 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