Would some politically incorrect person please succinctly and
concisely boil down the two sides of people on this issue? The
discussion is at the molecular level here and perhaps a refresher
course at the satellite level would be beneficial. I can't really tell
the players apart without a program, which I seek. Basically who
belongs on which side and who besides the one known agnostic is in
that camp. Also, a cogent discussion of the DNA evidence would be
useful with reference to family trees as known.
Thanks (I think)
Lyle Browning
On May 1, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Herbert Barger wrote:
> Henry,
>
> Why can you not believe the "uncle Jefferson" oral claim of the Eston
> Hemings family? And I do agree that it is a vexing mess but very
> easy to
> understand IF all facts are known and "nuts & bolts" research be done.
> It is a mess when the media sensationalizes it, when Samuel Wetmore
> adds
> the confusing unproved statements attributed to Madison, when Dr.
> Foster, without informing Nature, the media, etc., tests a known
> carrier
> of the Jefferson (Randolph) DNA.......SURE there would be a match,
> when
> Dr. Jordan assigns his Monticello Study to an "oral slave family
> specialist" who uses two controversial "road maps" for research, and
> who
> can come up with a completely unacceptable and laughable and biased
> claim that possibly all of Sally's children were fathered by Thomas
> Jefferson. How can a dedicated historian such as Dr. Jordan explain
> this
> when only ONE Hemings was tested. He would not even suggest the
> Hemings
> test a known son of Madison. Their report also suggested that during
> three of Sally's conceptions that some of Randolph's sons were present
> at Monticello but concluded that their ages of 14-20 would be 'TOO
> YOUNG" to consider. Yes, I have a copy of the Monticello Report
> which is
> well highlighted. What do you think of Dr. Ken Wallenborn's Minority
> Report being completely DELETED from the original release of their
> report?
>
> We know that Callender got it wrong in his Campaign Lies article of
> 1802......DNA proved him a liar....NO Jefferson-Woodson match. As you
> know, this was the "original" lie for many years before Brodie, and
> has
> been perpetuated since by persons, some foundations and some in
> academia
> to further their agendas.
>
> Edmund Bacon, TJ's overseerer, and before that, a young man who lived
> nearby and frequented there often BEFORE being officially hired as
> overseer, stated that he saw someone OTHER than TJ exiting Sally's
> quarters early in the morning. In Rev. Pearson's account, the name
> of a
> father for Harriet II was DELETED to protect the individual.
>
> I do not find the Woodson claim to being descended from Thomas
> Jefferson
> a mystery at all. Dr. Foster and I frequently discussed the fact
> that we
> didn't consider their claim as viable at all. In fact, I did much
> research of TJ in France and elsewhere and pretty well pinned down
> who a
> "POSSIBLE" father for ANY RUMORED child conceived in France would
> be. It
> was NOT TJ! We even discussed finding descendants of those we
> suspected,
> but when the DNA results were returned we dropped all such research.
> Our
> suspicions were confirmed.....there being NO Jefferson-Woodson match.
>
> If historians, book authors, certain foundation officials would not
> approach the controversy that "he's guilty" and approach it from a
> "level playing field" then we would be hearing a much different story.
> The public has been fooled, lied to and manipulated long
> enough...........Dr. Dan Jordan.....will YOU conduct another study,
> using ALL available research from any source??
>
> The Fossett claims are not worthy of even a discussion but just shows
> how some people "jump on the bandwagon" for recognition after the
> subject has become deceased. The Waverly Watchman newspaper, an
> opposition paper to Samuel Wetmore's paper, pretty well reported the
> willingness of people to want to upgrade their image at the expense of
> others.
>
> Speaking of the need to collect the William Hemings DNA, let it be
> known
> that Shay Banks-Young, a descendant of Madison Hemings, and 7 other
> cousins oppose this and she told me that they will NEVER permit this
> and
> are "HAPPY" with their oral history.........are we?
>
> I have faith in the McMurry's book which tackles the rumor of Sally
> and
> Martha Jefferson being half-sisters. They expended much time, money
> and
> effort in arriving at their conclusions......a rumor only.
>
> Herb Barger
>
>
> I also don't think the "Jefferson uncle" oral history in Eston's line
> proves
> anything one way or the other. In general, the historical testimony on
> all
> sides of this issue is a vexing mess--Madison Hemings, the Randolphs,
> Callender, and Edmund Bacon all got some things wrong and some things
> right.
> The Woodsons are a mystery. And then we have the Fossetts--but that's
> for
> another time.
>
> As Herb mentions, the McMurrys have tried to knock down the story of
> Sally
> being the half-sister of Martha Jefferson, but I do not find their
> argument
> persuasive at all. If that story had originated as a political smear
> and
> was
> baseless, as the McMurrys suggest, I think Ellen or Jeff Randolph
> would
> have
> brought it up to deny it.
>
> Herb raises an excellent point -- we should try to extract DNA from
> the
> remains of Madison's son. History would be served, but the family
> doesn't
> want it done. A pity. It could answer a couple of big questions.
>
> Henry Wiencek
>
> ______________________________________
> 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
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
