Herbert, Did you apply the same standards to determining if Callendar lied as you do to whether or not TJ was a typical southern guy. The fact that Callendar may have talked to other folks who weren't real happy with TJ does not set up a condition that confirms a "lie". And, how do you know he "listened" to them unless you were there, or Callendar wrote up detailed descriptions of his sources. Even the fact that Callendar was done a bad turn by Jefferson, does not begin to address whether or not Callendar lied. All in all, Herbert, I feel you doth protest far too much on an issue that the descendents are perfectly happy to be determined by oral history. All saints do not wear wings! Anne Pemberton [log in to unmask] http://www.erols.com/apembert http://www.educationalsynthesis.org ----- Original Message ----- From: "Herbert Barger" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 8:13 PM Subject: Re: DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy > Callender also listened to people who had reason to hate TJ just as > Callender did. Just one of those I will cite: David Meade Randolph, had > been denied the position of US Marshall and fell upon bad luck and moved > to Richmond and reportedly fed information to Callender. DMR had three > children (I may have covered this in an earlier message), named the same > as Sally's, two being quiet unusual names, Eston, Beverly and Harriet. > > Dr. Foster had me to do a genealogy chart on his wife who descended from > DMR. Small world eh? Could Sally have been spending some time around > people whose children had similar names? In most cases we do not know > where she was when she was conceiving her children and by whom. Her > mother had several men as fathers of her children so why should we > ASSUME that Sally only had one father for all her children?? Why are the > Hemings nieces and nephews ADAMET in refusing a DNA test of a Madison > descendant to compare to Eston DNA?? > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 7:54 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy > > like you and I, Callender did a lot of research; and he published his > research and whether Jefferson admitted it or not, most of it had been > proved true; the ONLY issue in debate is whether TJ was the father of > his own slaves (or merely, as you would argue their uncle). That hardly > makes him a liar. > > Paul Finkelman > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law > and Public Policy > Albany Law School > 80 New Scotland Avenue > Albany, New York 12208-3494 > > 518-445-3386 > [log in to unmask] >>>> [log in to unmask] 05/03/08 7:38 PM >>> > That makes neither of us liars because we both admit that we are > speaking off the top of our heads, but Callender was not he wrote it as > a fact. Mixing apples and oranges here! > > My memory did serve me well. None other than Annette Gordon-Reed on page > 76, "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, An American Travesty" writes > about Callender being correct about the Hamilton-Reynolds affair, > states, "Callender was correct about Jefferson's attempted seduction of > the wife of his friend John Walker, even though he overstated his case > against Jefferson." Further on she wonders what is the best approach > when assessing Callender's Jefferson-Hemings story? "Does one state or > imply, as most historians have done, that Callender had a record of > lying (SEE I DIDN'T ORIGINATE THAT WORD), about everything, when that > claim is not correct? > > Herb > > i recall he denied it and then admitted when presented with the proof. > Both of us are working from memory; but let me ask you; if you are > wrong, does that make you a liar? and if I am wrong does that make me a > liar? > > Paul Finkelman > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law > and Public Policy > Albany Law School > 80 New Scotland Avenue > Albany, New York 12208-3494 > > 518-445-3386 > [log in to unmask] >>>> [log in to unmask] 05/03/08 7:02 PM >>> > As I seem to recall off the top of my head the issue arose when > something came up about a Hamilton case and the issue came up. He > immediately acknowledged it and said it was improper. But in the same > sentence he said that was the only one of the rumors he would admit to. > > Herb > > -----Original Message----- > From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history > [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Finkelman > Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 6:57 PM > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy > > Herb: > > Did he admit the story with Mrs. Walker or deny it and then admit it > after Callender produced the evidence? > > > > Paul Finkelman > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law > and Public Policy > Albany Law School > 80 New Scotland Avenue > Albany, New York 12208-3494 > > 518-445-3386 > [log in to unmask] >>>> [log in to unmask] 05/03/08 6:49 PM >>> > I stick by my article that TJ admitted to one charge, that of Mrs. > Walker and denies all the other rumors. DNA disproved the Callender > statement that Tom Woodson was a son of TJ. He did not admit they were > ALL true....just the Walker case. > > Herb > > > the notion of Callender being a liar is pretty amusing; he accused > Jefferson of a number of things -- including propositioning his > neighbor's wife. Jefferson denied them all, and then had to admit to > all but one as Callender came up with a paper trial to prove them -- > including Jefferson's improper advanced on his neighbor's wife. > So, who was the "liar" here -- the investigative reporter (that is > really what Callender was) who revealed a number of Jefferson's acts > that Jefferson denied; or Jefferson who denied them and then was forced > to admit they were true! > > The only one Callender could not "prove" was the relationship with > Sally. But, even if he was wrong about that; it would not make him a > "liar" but only prove he was mistaken. I am sure that even Mr. Barger > does not believe that every mistaken assertion of fact makes someone a > "liar." The interesting thing about Jefferson and Callender is that > Jefferson flat out lied when he denied most of Callender's accusations, > when Jefferson knew they were true. > > So, Herb, do you really want to do down the road of calling Callender a > liar, unless you prepared to lay the same accusation on Jefferson 4 or 5 > more times than Callender? > > Paul Finkelman > > Paul Finkelman > President William McKinley Distinguished Professor of Law > and Public Policy > Albany Law School > 80 New Scotland Avenue > Albany, New York 12208-3494 > > 518-445-3386 > [log in to unmask] >>>> [log in to unmask] 05/03/08 5:31 PM >>> > Stephan, > > Yes, the controversy has been with us since 1802 when Callender, "bad > mouthed" TJ.....he personally had, to him, a good reason....TJ had > denied him the Richmond Postmaster position. The DNA proved Callender to > be a LIAR.....there was NO Jefferson/Woodson DNA match. Thus, what we > have remaining is a finding of a match between "A" Jefferson DNA and > Eston Hemings DNA. > > As I have earlier stated in earlier posts is that Dr. Foster, in my > opinion, (I was assisting in identifying Jefferson subjects and history > and genealogy and recommending sources for other persons of the study), > tested a known male subject of Eston Hemings, Sally's son. That son, > according to long held family beliefs, carried the Jefferson DNA. This > family belief was that "a Jefferson uncle", meaning Randolph, had > fathered Eston. This family NEVER claimed descent from Thomas as his > brother Madison had. Therefore, Dr. Foster had an assured match in hand > WELL BEFORE the lab results, however he never told Nature or anyone else > of this "line up." Dr. Foster and Mrs. Bennett (whose suggestion it was > to have the study), had a falling out over Dr. Foster's release of the > results prior to her printing of a Jefferson book she had in the works. > Up to this point she had been financing the project. Up until her death > a few months ago, she held great resentment and hurt for her "former" > friend. In an audio taped recording she states, "Gene, what is you want, > money, his reply according to our interview with her, was NO....FAME? At > what cost did he get fame? > > He never told Nature that I had recommended a meeting of all > researchers, etc. prior to release of the story results. He blames this > on "lack of space in Nature and an unnecessary meeting." Nature never > knew of other Jefferson suspects, otherwise there was NO way they could > have truthfully had a suggested headline, "Jefferson fathers slaves last > child." In the absence of this knowledge they went with what they had > after the Carrs were eliminated. It just HAD to be Thomas, (Randolph and > sons were not known by Nature), there was no other Jefferson in the > equation. In a 45 minute phone interview with Nature, immediately after > publication, they told Accuracy in Media Founder, Reed Irvine, that they > knew NOTHING of other possible Jefferson DNA. Mr. Irvine also phoned Dr. > Foster at this time and was not given a satisfactory reply. Back > checking the many e-mails Dr. Foster and I exchanged, I found > inconsistencies and outright different meanings to indicate to me that > what was stated in one e-mail was not consistent with another. In other > words, it seemed to me that I "may be too concerned" of certain methods, > arrival of study results, release of study to Nature, why Science in the > United States was not used for the study, (he says they refused because > of too much advance publicity). As a source of serious research and the > fame of TJ's DNA Study in question and a need to sell publications, this > just does not "cook." Was there haste to get the results in time for the > election at that time, to support President Clinton's pending > impeachment, as suggested by Prof. Joseph Ellis and others? Prof. Ellis, > in his book, Founding Brothers, (Smith has the sharpest pencil of anyone > around the beltway), heaps great mention of Stephan Smith (at that time > USNWR Editor), had a long multiple page article with a cover and > including a story by Prof. Ellis accusing TJ. We might wonder how this > issue came out before the Nature Story of Nov. 5, 1998 since they had an > embargo on the story. > > I am not convinced that future DNA of this particular case will be > improved by science because "it jumped track" not in the inability of > science to properly identify the DNA BUT in my opinion, a "manipulation > of events and denial of proper information." In my opinion the only > thing the test proved was that the Eston Hemings family had a > confirmation of their long held oral family beliefs.....they were > descended from "A" Jefferson,.....Randolph, as they had ALWAYS believed. > > > What do you mean, "what seems clear, over the years they evolved some > kind of bonding and relationship?" What proven bonding and relationship? > She was seldom mentioned except in slave supply lists where she received > the same similar supplies as other slaves at the house. You seem to not > contribute any importance to the five year absence of child > bearing....why not.......from this date on through all her pregnancies > Randolph was "between wives." > The issue in France is very clear....Sally for 5 weeks (the necessary > time to have conceived, a child if anything had proved this , and it was > never proven. The main thing is that this period was when she was AWAY > from TJ. Of course Madison's mention of this is one topic that is > questionable in his many statements which to me are questionable. We > know his naming by Dolley Madison was not correct, so what else in the > article is incorrect? > > So what if Sally did conceive, at Monticello, and we don't know WHERE > she was, everyone came when TJ arrived. Possibly his first cousin, > George Jefferson, his Richmond Manager, could have arrived as did > Randolph and sons, not exactly people that would be registered, but > "family." His nephew, Isham Randolph Jefferson, was listed in a Kentucky > History book as having been "reared" by TJ. Was he arriving when TJ did > to "rear" him? No reason to come when he was NOT there, because in most > instances Monticello was under construction and was closed. TJ always > stopped by daughter, Martha's home, on his travels to Monticello and she > accompanied him there with her children. Just because "he" was there > that is no reason to ASSUME he fathered any Sally > child.......preposterous. > > Some poster earlier asked about why no one mentioned Randolph prior to > the DNA Study and Prof. Joseph Ellis asked me the same question. I told > Ellis that others had and asked if he had read "Thomas Jefferson and his > UNKNOWN Brother" and he replied NO. This Monticello book is very > informative and this historian is ignorant of it? I was contacted by a > co-author of, "Anatomy of a Scandal", Rebecca McMurry, just as soon as > the story broke in the media, informing me that she and her family had > lived in nearby Orange Co., Va. and had purchased some of the items > auctioned at Monticello upon Mr. Jefferson's death. Since I had > suggested in my media releases, the name of Randolph Jefferson as a > possible father, and she had read of my research. She related to me that > her family and almost all the community believed that it was Randolph > who fathered Sally's children. > > Another person contacted me, an award winning playwright and stage play > producer from the University of North Carolina, Mrs. Karyn Traut, and > gave me details of a play, Saturday's Children", that she had produced > in 1981 after seven years of research and that her research had led her > to conclude that it was Randolph Jefferson who fathered some of Sally's > children. > Just because Prof. Ellis and any other unknowledgeable persons choose to > say, "why wasn't Randolph mentioned before now?" doesn't mean that he > was suspected in a VACUUM. Until this DNA Study came before us, there > was no need to pursue and challenge every statement made by persons > claiming descent from a famous president rather than his not so > important brother. > > I am looking at an 1883 book here before me, "Life of Thomas Jefferson", > by James Parton in which the following sentence appears in Chap. LIX, > The Campaign Lies of 1800. Referring to a statement to two of her sons, > Col. Thomas Jefferson Randolph and George Wythe Randolph, TJ's daughter, > Martha, not long before her death, said, "She asked the Colonel if he > remembered when Hemings (the slave who most resembled Mr. Jefferson) was > born. He turned to the book containing the list of slaves, and found and > found that he was born at the time supposed by Mrs. Randolph. She then > directed her son's attention to the fact, that Mr. Jefferson and Sally > Hemings could not have met, were far distance from each other, for > fifteen months prior to the birth. She bade her sons remember this fact, > and always defend the character of their grandfather." Mr. Parton, the > book author, states, "It so happened, when I was examining an old > account-book of Mr. Jeffersons, I came "pop" on the original entry of > the slave's birth, and I was then able, from well-known circumstances, > to prove the fifteen months' separation. I could give fifty more facts, > if there were any need of it, to show Mr. Jefferson's innocence of this > and all similar instances against propriety," > > Of course you may say, well who was this Hemings child referenced? My > long and careful research indicates that the reference is to Beverly > Hemings for various reasons. > > Some people claim, for obvious reasons, that TJ never clarified his > statements regarding the many rumors against him...he did. In a cover > letter to his Secretary of the Navy and Secretary of the Treasury he > admits some earlier visiting when he was young and single to visiting a > married friend while her husband was away. But he says, that is the > "ONLY ONE" of the rumors against me which is correct and I admit it as > improper. > > The other rumors at the time were the Callender Campaign Lies about a > connection to Sally Hemings. He did not feel it necessary, during the > busy time he was running our country to debate or dignify all that and > future rumors. A famous quote to Henry Lee on May 15, 1826, just before > his death on July 4th, says it all I think, "All should be laid open to > you without reserve, for there is not a TRUTH existing which I fear, or > would wish unknown to the whole world." > > Herb Barger > Jefferson Historian > > > > Herb -- > > The facts, such as we know them are the facts. More will emerge with > time. I am quite familiar with Abigail Adam's comments, the words of > a punctilious mother of daughters, deeply opposed to slavery - Sally > is the only known slave ever to spend the night under an Adams roof - > and, I think, appalled at a Southern culture that would condone > sending a nine year child around the world in the care of another > child. She saw Sally as "15 or 16" (she was actually 14) and knew to > a fine point how responsible 15 year old girls were. That says > nothing whatever about the impact of Sally on Jefferson, matters of > which she could have know way of knowing, and which would have > offended her on several levels, had she done so. > > We will simply have to disagree about her parentage. Willard Sterne > Randall offers no citation for his assertion that she was the > daughter of Nelson Jones (probably Joseph Neilson). I think Annette > Gordon-Reed makes a compelling case against it and, more than that, I > find it improbable. Jones/Neilson was a carpenter. There are the age > issues. But, mostly, I do not believe that a lower caste white would > violate and impregnate a slave on the Jefferson plantation. I don't > mean that such a man would cavil over moral concerns, simply that in > a culture that sees some people as property, you would assume the > owner would not be amused by the violation of his property. It would > be a significant trespass, with children as a long range consequence. > If your rice bowl depended on the owner, I just don't think you would > do something like that casually. > > I join myself with everybody else on this list who has made the point > that you have to see these people first as human beings embedded in a > culture. That is not romantic. We, ourselves, are similarly embedded. > Why it matters is that these men and women, so mundanely ordinary in > some ways nonetheless could do what they did. Using science and > documentation to recreate that reality in order to better understand > it seems to me a wholly admirable task. > > If you ask me to speculate, based on years of reading about these > men, I would say this. Jefferson felt vulnerable. He was a fastidious > man, and he was strongly attracted to a married woman, Maria Cosway. > For her a physical relationship was adultery. But their mental, > emotional, aesthetic, and physical connections were strong. There was > also his sense of loyalty to Martha, whom he adored. My wife died six > years ago, and I adored her in life, and cherished her more than I > can express, and my views have not changed a whit, and have little > relevance to the several friendships I have formed with women since > her death. I expect Jefferson felt much the same because that is the > way most widowers with whom I have talked describe their life > experience, and studies provide formalization for this. Also the > death of wives was much higher as a percentage than it is today. As > was death in general. Jefferson is unusual only in that he did not > remarry. Unlike, say, Mason who, we know, deeply loved his wife. > > Jefferson had no real idea what to expect with Sally.Prior to seeing > her, she was probably mostly a logistical detail. Her importance, her > reality, in his mind, lay principally in her role as a guide and > companion for nine year old Maria. And then she was there. Pretty, > vivacious, possibly a genetic echo of his great love. She would know > nothing of any of this, of course. It must have been very awkward for > him. She was completely his, literally. She was little more than a > child. And if she was Martha's half sister she was Martha returned to > life, as he must first have known her. > > What seems clear is that over years they evolved some kind of bond > and relationship. We can't know its internals; it is entirely emic. > But we can know certain details as to how it played out. She went > back from France with him. She was the only person who could enter > his private apartment in Monticello at all times. And this is true > independent of whether there were any children. > > He freed her children (read into that what one will). > > As to why it was five years before Sally conceived. I don't know the > answer. I don't know that it is definitively knowable. I don't see > why it matters. There is, of course, the issue of the conception in > France. But, there are several possibilities. It does seem clear > Jefferson was in residence within the nine months prior to her > deliveries. (Brodie, 492, Miller, 170). > > As for paternity. I believe that advances in genetics will answer > this question dispositively - and I am content to await its judgment. > > -- Stephan > > On 1 May 2008, at 21:56, Herbert Barger wrote: > >> Stephan, >> >> You should read a bit more about Abigail Adams comments on "attractive >> young woman, Sally" upon her arrival. There was talk that she was so >> young and inexperienced in the ways of being Jefferson's daughters >> that >> there was some consideration and suggestions of sending her back >> home on >> the same ship she arrived on. Read earlier posts about the half-sister >> rumors......NO proof. This is soap opera stuff that drives believers. >> >> You speak of his sex drive and frequent children by Martha, then >> tell me >> this....WHY was it over five years before Sally had a FIRST recorded >> child after return to Monticello? >> >> Herb Barger >> >> >> How was it adultery? Thomas Jefferson was a widower when he and Sally >> Hemings encountered one another in Paris, she an attractive young >> woman virtually white in skin tone, just blossoming into beauty - >> "Dashing Sally" - his wife's half-sibling and much the same in >> appearance as her sister, he a man who never married again after >> Martha's death. Just at the simple human level are we to believe >> Jefferson lived as a celibate for two-thirds of his life (and this >> puts aside his unquestioned, if ill-defined, connection with Maria >> Cosway)? Jefferson was clearly strongly attracted to women, and >> clearly a sexual being. Martha Wayles Skelton bore her first child >> almost nine months to the day from her nuptials - by 18th century >> calculation - and was pregnant with metronomic regularity every two >> years until her death. >> >> It seems to me that the paternity issue and the sexuality issue ought >> to be seen as very different considerations. The former may be >> problematic to some, but the idea of Jefferson the monk seems >> patently absurd. >> >> -- Stephan >> >> >> On 1 May 2008, at 17:51, [log in to unmask] wrote: >> >>> Accusing a fine Southern gentleman, and one of the founders of our >>> country, >>> of adultery when he is not available to defend himself, and on >>> assumptions >>> rather than facts, is poor history and quite disrespectful. >>> >>> J South >>> >>> >>> >>> **************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists >>> on family >>> favorites at AOL Food. >>> (http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001) >>> >>> ______________________________________ >>> 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 > > ______________________________________ > 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 > > ______________________________________ > 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 > > ______________________________________ > 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 > > ______________________________________ > 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