On Thu, 10 Jan 2002 14:51:00 GMT, jalison8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>"J. L. Bell" <jnolbell@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>:|jalison8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>:|> Thomas Jefferson's brother Randolph was 51 years of age was known to
hang
>>:|> out with the slaves at Monticello even to the point of playing the
fiddle
>>:|> for the slaves to dance to etc in the evenings when he was at
Monticello.
>>:|
>>:|The statement about Randolph Jefferson's fiddle-playing is not tied to
a
>>:|particular date, but he seems to have spent most of his time at his
brother
>>:|Thomas's plantations/slave labor camps before Sally Hemings conceived
her
>>:|children.
>
>
>Seems?
>
>
>Let me set some ground rules here early on.
>
>I don't have a clue if T J did or did not have a ***ual relation****p with
>one or any of his females slaves.
>I'm honest enough to say that.
>Now, I'll toss in the other side of that, NEITHER does anyone else.
>I also have no ax to grind, I am not for or against Jefferson. if he did
or
>didn't doesn't alter my views of him in the least bit. He was a man,
great
>in many ways, flawed in other ways. He had beauty and pimples as well, as
>we all do.
>
>There is no concrete evidence that has ever been found, historical or
>scientific that PROVES that he ever fathered any children by any slave.
>
>What there is is a lot of cir***stantial evidence, a lot of speculation,
a
>lot of spinning.
>
>What you have and will continue to have is those that want to believe he
>did, and they will tout all the cir***stantial evidence that exists that
>seems to bolster their case.
>
>On the other side of that coin you have those who don't want to believe
>that he fathered any of her children and they will tout all the
>cir***stantial evidence that seems to bolster their case.
>
>Both sides will pick holes, use sarcasm, etc to try and damage the other
>side.
>
>One thing I have found seems to be habit from both sides of leaving
things
>out or perhaps even outright altering things.
>
>You can seemingly find in the case of all the major players each pointing
>the finger at the players on the other side saying members they, those
>members, left this or that out, misrepresented this or that, didn't
>mention this or that, etc.
>
>Example, in one of the books I recently read they talk about a an erasure
>mark in one of the books Jefferson kept records in, indicating that
someone
>had erased an entry there and IIRC it would have been a spot where a
>certain slave named Tom, if said slave existed should have been listed.
>
>The implication being that some unknown person erased Tom's name.
>
>You can find examples of this going on from and on both sides of this
>debate..
>
>I would love to find a study, any study, done by someone or by persona's
>that truly and honestly could give a figs leaf less about any meanings to
>any outcome, no axes to grind for or against anyone.
>
>For such a study to take every single piece of known information that
could
>even remotely add to or take away from the total of knowledge in this
>matter.
>
>In the case of the DNA would completely and honestly explain in very
>detailed terms exactly what those tests showed and didn't show, might of
>proved and couldn't prove.
>
>List all the information that sup****ts both sides, all the information
tat
>hurts either or both sides and any evidence that does neither, in short
all
>the good, bad and indifferent.
>
>However, finding such a study seems pretty hard to do.
>
>There isn't anything I have read yet over the numerous books, re****ts,
>articles, etc yet that I can't see major flaws in, and that is material
for
>both sides. When I start running into claims that so and so
misrepresented
>this or that or left this or that out of their book etc then I want to
know
>only one thing. Did they, and if they did, why did they?
>
>Those answers become more and more difficult to find.
>
>What we seem to have more than anything else is a war of personalities
and
>scholars
>
>We have all the older scholars ba****ng Fawn Brodie, and her ba****ng them.
>We have Annette Gordon-Reed ba****ng the older ones, the Brodie bashers
and
>some of the new scholars. We have Eyler Robert Coates ba****ng Annette
>Gordon-Reed and Byron W. Woodson ba****ng anyone who doesn't sup****t the
>Woodson Family oral traditions.
>
>We have The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society ba****ng that TJMF
>
>Even the National Genealogical Society in their Quarterly Volume 89,
No.3,
>September 2001 issue had a special re****t on the Jefferson-Hemings
debate.
>I am reading it now. What I see with it is possibly a respected Society
>prostituting itself. It has joined that ba****ng. The arguments they
>present to bash the Coates book are so surface, so generalized that they
>are actually comical. They have come to the conclusion that Jefferson was
a
>father of some of Sally Hemings children (using the rules of genealogy
>research and study, or so they say, but the flaws are evident)
>
>There are honest points raised on both sides of the issue, I would much
>rather see more effort, more honest attempts to address those honest
>points that are raised by both sides than all the bull crap ba****ng that
is
>going on.
>
>I would much rather see more honesty, more admitting by both sides that
>there are questions, facts, evidence, etc that at this point in time
don't
>have answers for nd may never have answers for. It may never be possible
to
>say for certain he did or he didn't.
>
>All these books, re****ts, studies, etc are people or groups of people
>putting together that info that basically sup****ts their conclusions on
>this matter while claiming the conclusions of the other side is
incorrect.
>
>I get tired of that.
>
>I want to know, things like
>(1) Is there truly an erasure?
>(2) Did Gordon-Reed publish a copy of a letter when there was an original
>known to exist that contained info the copy didn't contain and would have
>conflicted with the point she was trying to make? If so why?
>and so on
>
>I want to know things like that, I want to know the answers to all the
>charges each side makes against the other side. In doing that I may end
up
>with the most honest gathering of information that it is possible to
have.
>=================================================
>Here is what is known:
>
>This whole so called scandal came about as a result of a certain pissed
off
>man wanting to get revenge. Thus he published a story in the newspaper
in
>1802 as I recall. Ironically, that man's original story has been pretty
>much demolished.
>
>TOM WOODSON
>That man wrote about a boy named Tom who was about 12 who was suppose to
>have been a product of a ***ual relation****p between TJ and a slave named
>Sally Hemings. It was not a story about a boy approx 4 years old named
>Beverly. (Tom was the son that was suppose to have been conceived in
>France and born in America shortly after they all returned from France.
>This was suppose to have been the ultimate proof, because no Carr male
was
>in France, no Jefferson male, other than TJ was in France. This was the
>foundation of the long time romantic or pure ***ual relation****p between
>Sally Hemings and TJ story. But the DNA testing didn't sup****t any of
>that.)
>
>Tom Woodson is the only Tom put forth by any oral traditions of any of
>those claiming to be descendants of TJ and Sally Hemings and what the DNA
>does show is that there was no "Jefferson" Y Chromosome found in any of
the
>Woodson male lines and six different test were run on what appears to be
>all six surviving male lines of descendants. IIRC, the Bryon Woodson book
>does list Tom Woodson as having had 11 children of which 6 were sons who
>went on to have sons etc.
>
>Thus, the original rumor/story doesn't stand up. The woodson oral
>tradition, which was suppose to have been the most detailed, most
complete,
>oldest, etc doesn't float.
>
>BTW, the oral tradition of the descendants of Madison Hemings claim that
a
>child of unknown gender was conceived in Paris and born at Monticello but
>only lived a short time. So even the various oral traditions don't
agree
>on this one.
>
>HARRIET HEMINGS
>Born 5 October, 1795, died December 1797 [1]
>
>BEVERLY HEMINGS
>Born 1 April, 1798, left monticello in 1821 or 1822, dropped from sight.
>According to Madison Hemings, he passed into white society, married in
>Maryland into a family "in good Cir***stances"; and had at least one
child,
>a daughter. (unless he had son as well and either his grave or their
>graves could be found, good DNA harvested, this is a dead end trail with
>regards to any DNA evidence.[1]
>
It is virtually certain that Beverley was the grandfather of Edward
Graham Jefferson, retired chairman of the board of DuPont Chemical
Corp.
>HARRIET HEMINGS
>Born in May 1801; left Monticello in 1821 or 1822, possibly with brother
>Beverly. Madison re****ted that she passed into white society and "married
a
>white man in good standing in Wa****ngton City." He last heard from her
>about 1863. She had several children, but nothing further is known about
>her or her offspring. [1]
>
>MADISON HEMINGS
>born 19 January 1805; manumitted by Jefferson's will in 1826. He was
>considered white by the 1830 census taker's but married a free quadroon,
>MARY McCOY, on 21 November 1831. Because interracial marriage was then
>illegal in Virginia's Madison went before authorities in Charlottesville,
>shortly bone his marriage, to register as a "free Negro." That do***ent
>describes him as a "mulato" of light complexion, 5' 7'/s" tall." After
his
>mother's death, Madison moved his family to Pike County, Ohio, where he
>worked as a builder in Waverly, the county seat. After retirement, he
>settled across the county line in rural Ross County, where he died 28
>November 1877.
>
>His children were (1) a son who died young in Albemarle County; (2) Sarah
>(3) Thomas Eston, who died in a Confederate prison; (4) Harriet, who died
>in 1925 (g) Mary Ann, who married [-?-] Johnson; (6) Catherine Jane; (7)
>William Beverly, who joined the Union Army at age sixteen and died in
1910
>at the military home in Leavenworth, Kansas; (8) James Madison, who moved
>into white society in Colorado; (9) Julia A.; and (10) Ellen Wayles, who
>wed an Oberlin College graduate, Andrew Jackson Roberts, and died in 1940
>after seeing one son (Frederick Madison Roberts) serve twelve years in
the
>California State Assembly.'" [1]
>
> ESTON HEMINGS
>(alias JEFFERSON), born 21 May 1808, is the son for whom DNA testing was
>conducted among male offspring, with a finding that they carry the
>Jefferson Y-chromosome. Eston was willed by Jefferson to John Hemings
>(Eston's half-uncle) as an apprentice until he reached twenty-one, but he
>was informally manumitted in 1826, three years early. 6-ton, too, was
>labeled white by the 1830 census taker in Charlottesville. However, on 14
>June 1832, he wed the free octoroon JULIA ANN ISAAcS and filed a "free
>Negro" registration that describes him as a "Aright mulatto," 6' 1".
After
>his mother's death, he moved to Ohio with his brother Madison but settled
>in Chillicothe, where he became a musician of considerable repute. In
1852
>he moved his family to Madison, Wisconsin. There they changed their
surname
>to Jefferson and established their racial identity as white. Eston died
in
>Madison on 3 January 1856.
>
>His children were (1) John Wayles Jefferson, a lieutenant-colonel of a
>white unit in the Civil War; and later a wealthy banker and cotton broker
>in Memphis, Tennessee; (2) Ann(a) W Jefferson, whose son Walter Beverly
>Pearson became the multimillionaire president of Standard Screw Company
in
>Chicago; and (3) William Beverly Jefferson, who owned two hotels and an
>omnibus company in Madison. [1]
>FOOTNOTE
>[1] National Genealogical Society Quarterly, Volume 89, No. 3, September
>2001 pp 171-172.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>A grave site for William Beverly has been found and Coates in his book
The
>Jefferson-Hemings Myth, An American Travesty stated that prior to the DNA
>results oral permission was obtained by descendants of Madison Jefferson
to
>exhume the remains for DNA testing but once the DNA results of the
original
>testing was made public these same people refused to sign the legal
>do***ents that would have allowed the exhumation to actually take place.
he
>stated they said they preferred to stand by their oral traditions.
>
>Therefore, science has given a 100-1 odds, when compared to random male
>population sampling, that a male Jefferson fathered one of Sally Hemings
>children, that child being Eston Hemings.
>
>A testing of the DNA that might be harvested from William Beverly would
>isolate Eston Hemings as being the only known offspring or a probable
>Jefferson male, or would expand the known offsprings of a Jefferson male.
>The descendants of Madison Hemings don't seem willing to take that
gamble.
>
>The DNA taken from William Beverly could also be matched with the Woodson
>and Carr DNA results thus perhaps shedding more light on the subject.
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>With the current known evidence, including the scientific evidence no one
>can state positively that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings, let
>along any other Hemings child. The evidence does show he didn't father
any
>child named Tom Hemings, or Tom Woodson.
>
>One can suspect he fathered Eston Hemings, one can speculate he did, but
>one cannot prove he did. The scientific evidence says nothing about any
of
>the other known Hemings children and rules him out as a father for Tom
>Woodson no matter who Tom Woodson's mother was.
>
>With cooperation from the right people more information could be gathered
>by doing DNA tests on William Beverly, provided good DNA could be
>harvested. If a burial site for Beverly Hemingway could be found and good
>DNA harvested, or any male children he had was found and good DNA could
be
>harvested, more would be known.
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>[snip]
>
>>:|You criticize Annette Gordon-Reed for not considering other Jefferson
nephews
>>:|as possible fathers of Sally Hemings's children. Please acknowledge
that in
>>:|the entire history of this dispute NO ONE suggested in print that any
of those
>>:|nephews had ***ual relations with Hemings until after the DNA tests
sent
>>:|diehard deniers scurrying to find candidates with the right genes.
There was
>>:|no reason for Gordon-Reed's book--which was published before the DNA
tests and
>>:|was a review of the historiography on the subject--to consider those
other men.
>
>
>Irrelevant.
>
>I do believe the mystery was considered settled by those who wanted to
have
>it settled. They claimed T Jefferson was the father, Those who didn't
want
>him to be the father offered up the Carr brothers.
>
>let me offer you something from page 227 of National Genealogical
Society
>Quarterly, Volume 89, No. 3, September 2001
>
>"By definitions, the scholarly practice of history is grounded in
>revisionism. Historians present new evidence and offer new
interpretations
>of previously examined evidence, deepening and enhancing our
comprehension
>of the past in the process."
>
>History is not latin, i.e. a dead language.
>
>There is constantly research being done and at times new facts become
>known, which in turn caused a reevaluation of previously known
information
>and conclusions.
>
>It doesn't matter when a research was began to find other possible
>"fathers." What matters is, evidence was discovered which instituted a
>reexamination of existing opinion, fact sand conclusions. What matters
is,
>there were other potential "fathers" found.
>
>What matters now is, can it be proven they weren't and only T Jefferson
was
>or could be?.
>That should be the direction now, not what was the situation for decades
>before.
>
>
>>:|Jefferson's Randolph descendants didn't mention their Jefferson
cousins in
>>:|connection with Hemings. Instead, one claimed that everyone at
Monticello knew
>>:|that Peter Carr had an exclusive, long-term relation****p with Hemings
and
>>:|fathered all her children.
Who claimed this?
>Another claimed that Samuel Carr did. One Randolph
>>:|even claimed to have heard a teary confession. Those stories are, of
course,
>>:|mutually contradictory. There's no do***entary evidence in their
favor, and
>>:|they're further contradicted by the DNA findings. But they do show
that the
>>:|Randolphs were not above pointing the finger at their distant cousins
for
>>:|fathering Sally Hemings's children. If the actual men involved were
>>:|Jefferson's nephews by the male line, why didn't the Randolphs say so?
>
>Who knows what their reasoning might have been.
>
>All the above that you mentioned shows is what I said in the beginning.
NO
>ONE KNOWS.
|
