You seem to have read every other book on this subject but my book,
"The Slave Children of Thomas Jefferson". Why the omission?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4906574009/slavesofthomasje
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 13:21:59 GMT, jalison8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>bulldogwaw@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Bulldogwaw) wrote:
>
>>:|>From: jalison8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>:|>Date: 12/29/2001 2:12 PM Eastern Standard Time
>>:|>Message-id: <ii4s2usa8tv74ai2lp2031qn9uj7ci0t17@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>:|
>>:|>>:| Hate to tell you this, BUT - - - they did some DNA on Sally
Hemmings
>>:|>progeny,
>>:|>>:|and there was a match to Jefferson.
>>:|>
>>:|
>>:|>Hate to tell you thus, well actually I don't hate to tell you this at
all. I
>>:|am aware of the DNA results
>>:|
>>:|Oh really?
>
>
>Yep, far more so than you are apparently.
>
>>:|
>>:|
>>:|>There was a match to "A" male Jefferson.
>>:|>
>>:|
>>:|>The DNA did not come from Thomas Jefferson.
>>:|
>>:| Wrong!
>
>LOL, are you actually trying to claim they dug up Thomas Jefferson's
>remains? LOL, you better think about that one before you answer.
>
>The DNA for the Jefferson sides was taken from descendants of Field
>Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson's uncle.
>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>" There were nineteen subjects, which included five descendants of two
sons
>of Field Jefferson, three descendants of three sons of the Carr brothers'
>grandfather, five descendants of two sons of Thomas Woodson, the alleged
>first son of Sally, one descendant of Eston Flemings, Sally's last child,
>and five control subjects. The blood samples were then hand-carried to
>England in December 1997 by Dr. Foster, to a laboratory for testing and
>comparison."
>(SOURCE OF INFORMATION: The Jefferson-Hemings Myth, An American Travesty.
>The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. Edited by Eyler Robert Coates,
SR.,
>Jefferson editions, Charlottesville, Virginia, (2001) p 28)
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>There is a chromosome the "Y" chromosome that remains constant in males
of
>a same line. It is only passed from generation to generation by males to
>males of the same line.
>
>Thomas Jefferson had no male children that lived to adulthood. They did
not
>did up Thomas Jefferson's remains. Nor did they locate and dig up the
>remains of his one male child that did die young.
>
>
>Instead they used descendants of Field Jefferson who was Thomas
Jefferson's
>uncle. Field Jefferson would have had the same Y Chromosome as Thomas
>Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson's Father, Thomas Jefferson's Grandfather, and
>the same Y Chromosome as any surviving males in Thomas Jefferson's direct
>line of descendants had he had any that survived.
>
>DNA testing will not establish paternity beyond one generation with any
>degree of absolute certainty. It can exclude potential fathers but cannot
>identify with absolute certainty a father beyond one generation.
>
>The reason being while in males the Y Chromosome would be present through
>many generation all other chromosomes change because the mating of a man
>and woman produces new chromosomes.
>
>Example: A paternity test using DNA could pretty well establish that your
>son, if you had a son was actually your son, or could prove beyond any
>doubt that he wasn't, if in fact he wasn't.
>However, your son matures and has children with a woman. The children of
>that union would have different DNA than yours, with the exception of
that
>one Y Chromosome that would be present in any and all male children of
that
>union.
>
>What the DNA tests in the Jefferson-Sally H. situation proved was that
the
>odds were 1-100 that a Jefferson male was the father of the last of the
>Sally H. children
>
>There were no matches between the Jefferson male line and the Woodson
>line, that being the Thomas Woodson line. The descendants of Thomas
Woodson
>have claimed for decades that Thomas Woodson was the male child that was
>conceived by Sally. H. when she was in France with Thomas Jefferson and
who
>was born shortly after their return from France. It was this Tom , so
the
>Woodson oral traditions goes, that James Thomson Callender first wrote
>about when he wrote about Thomas Jefferson and his mistress slave
September
>1, 1802., and it was that Tom that was in fact the son of Thomas
Jefferson
>and Sally H.
>
>Well, the results of the DNA doesn't sup****t that. No Y Chromosome
>consistent with the Jefferson line was found in the Thomas Woodson
>descendant's blood sample.
>
>The Woodson clan had additional samples tested in 2000 with the same
>results. They have since, as a group, dropped attempts to gain burial
>rights in the Jefferson cemetery.
>
>
>During the time period that Sally H. was conceiving children the
following
>lived at or within 20 miles of Monticello, and visited often when Thomas
>Jefferson was there,
>They are:
>Thomas Jefferson
>Randolph Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's brother)
>Five sons of Randolph Jefferson who lived at or near Monticello and at
>least one male cousin, George (See: The Jefferson-Hemings Myth, An
American
>Travesty. The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. Edited by Eyler Robert
>Coates, SR., Jefferson editions, Charlottesville, Virginia, (2001) p 40)
>
>All of the above would have the exact same Y Chromosome.
>
>Jefferson's Uncle, Field Jefferson, had male children, who in turn had
male
>children. Thus, any or all of those particular Jefferson's, if they ever
>visited at Monticello would have been potential, "suspects."
>
>
>Thus all the DNA test established was that the odds were 1-100 that one
of
>the males in the Jefferson line fathered at least the last of Sally
Hemings
>children. The DNA did not and could not identify which one.
>
>
>To sum it up once more:
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>(1) There was no match between the DNA of descendants of Jefferson and
>Woodson. This finding was extremely im****tant. It meant that Thomas
>Jefferson (or any other Jefferson) did not father Thomas Woodson as
stated
>in Callender's 1802 article.
>
>(2) There was no match between the DNA of Woodson, Herrings, and Carr
>descendants. This meant that neither of the Carr brothers fathered Thomas
>Woodson or Eston Herrings. However, it is still conceivable that they
could
>have fathered one or more of Sally's other children.
>
>(3) A match was found between the DNA of descendants of Field Jefferson
and
>the descendant of Eston Herrings. This only means that any one of the
>Jefferson men previously mentioned could have fathered Eston Herrings,
but
>it doesn't indicate which Jefferson.
>(SOURCE OF INFORAMTION: The Jefferson-Hemings Myth, An American Travesty.
>The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society. Edited by Eyler Robert Coates,
SR.,
>Jefferson editions, Charlottesville, Virginia, (2001) p 30)
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>:|>Evidence? It must have been so quiet no one knows about it.
>>:|
>>:| Funny it seems to have been enough for Jefferson's *white* descendats
to
>>:|accept the black ones as members of the family.
>>:|Guess they don't know as much as *you* huh?
>
>
>Your claim was:
>
>>Hate to tell you this, BUT - - - they did some DNA on Sally Hemmings
>>progeny, and there was a match to Jefferson.
>
>>A much quieter note they found the samematches with the offspring of
>>some others of Jefferson's slaves.
>
>>So, I would say there is proof now. The Hemmings family has been
welcomed
>>by the Jeffersons as family. That does it for me.
>
>My comment
>Evidence? It must have been so quiet no one knows about it.
>was in direct reply to your
>
>>A much quieter note they found the samematches with the offspring
>>of some others of Jefferson's slaves.
>
>You still have not supplied any evidence for the above.
>
>In addition, acceptance is not universal.
>
>>:|
>>:|>Actually, I don't have a problem with the fact that Sally H. and J
Jefferson
>>:|might have been involved ***ually, hell even romantically.
>>:|
>>:| Neither would I if she had been his wife instead of *slave.*
>>:|
>>:|>But, it has not been proven, which was my point.
>>:|
>>:| To most of the world it has.
>
>"Most of the world" as you call it was duped by the original misleading
>articles published in 98-99.
Why were the articles misleading??
>Follow up articles published giving the "rest of the story" is correcting
>that perception, that is for those interested in knowing. Those
interested
>in believing the worse will continue to hang their hats on the
>misrepresentations created with those first articles.
>
>>:|>None of the Sally H. descendants have been allowed burial permission
in the
>>:|Jefferson family cemetery.
>>:|
>>:| Don't know if they have integrated the family cemetary, but they
have
>>:|welcomed the black descendats at family gatherings. You should watch
>>:|educational TV more.
>
>Which is not proof.
>I prefer to read the work of scholars rather than writers of TV
programming
>who looks at ratings and drama for audience appeal.
>
>Actually I have here and have read all of the following:
> All of the Anti Jefferson was the father works of the likes of Dumas
>Malone and other Jefferson scholars.
>
>Thomas Jefferson a Intimate History, Fawn M. Brodie (pro Jefferson was
>father work)
>
>A President in the Family, Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings, and Thomas
>Woodson, Byron W. Woodson, Sr. (pro Jefferson was father written by a
>member of the Woodson clan)
>
>
>Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings An American Controversy, Annette
>Gordon_Reed (a pro Jefferson is the father book)
>
>The Jefferson-Hemings Myth, An American Travesty Edited by Eyler Robert
>Coates, Sr. (A anti Jefferson is the father works)
>
>The last three mentioned works above all take into account the DNA
>results, address other aspects since 1998 including the so called
>acceptance by the Jefferson descendants, the Monticello foundation etc.
>
>I suggest you get away from education TV and read the actual facts ,
>results and works by scholars on both sides.
>
>>:|
>>:| There is vastly more than mere speculation to Jefferson regularly
drilling
>>:|for oil with Hemmings. And has been for almost 200 years.
>
> Not really
>
>The best that can be said is there is valid evidence on both sides of the
>issue. However, the DNA evidence has damaged badly the "he is the father"
>crowd.
Very strange statement. The DNA evidence, combined with all the other
historical evidence, proves conclusively that Thomas Jefferson was the
father.
>By two separate sets of DNA tests made on descendants of Thomas Woodson
and
>both sets ruling any Jefferson out as the father of Thomas Woodson, much
of
>the cir***stantial evidence has been discredited.
What are you talking about? What cir***stantial evidence has been
discredited?
>There is another Sally Hemings offspring line located. The grave of
William
>Hemings, son of Madison Hemings, grandson of Sally Hemings has been
located
>and none of the Hemings defendants seem willing to give permission to
have
>DNA tests made.
>
>Tom - (Woodson) (1790) was suppose to be conceived by Thomas Jefferson
and
>Sally Hemings in France. DNA ruled this out.
>
>Harriett - (1795) died in 1799 Sally Hemings and some believe Thomas
>Jefferson
>
>Beverly- (1798) son of Sally Hemings and some believe Thomas Jefferson
>
>Unamed daughter (1799) died in infancy Sally Hemings and some believe
>Thomas Jefferson
This is just a theory. There is no proof that this child existed.
>
>Harriet - (1801) Sally Hemings and some believe Thomas Jefferson
>
>Madison - (1805) Sally Hemings and some believe Thomas Jefferson
>
>Easton - (1808) Sally Hemings and some believe Thomas Jefferson DNA
proves
>that there is a 1-100 chance that a male Jefferson did father this child
>(rather than a random male from outside the Jefferson line) with Sally H.
>but cannot show which Jefferson. There were at the very least 8 potential
>suspects.
Sam Sloan
http://www.samsloan.com/slaves.htm
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/4906574009/slavesofthomasje
|
