On Wed, 16 Jan 2002 07:37:42 GMT, sloan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Sam Sloan)
wrote:
>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.
>
This is a test to see if I can reply to a message this old.
Sam Sloan
|
