"samsloan" <samhsloan@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>:|For example, the most famous slave of Thomas Jefferson by far was Sally
>:|Hemings. However, the index and the 552 pages of notes by Betts contain
>:|no mention, none what ever, of Sally Hemings. Similarly, none of the
>:|public letters and writings of Thomas Jefferson mention Sally. However,
>:|Sally is mentioned dozens of times in the Farm Book, which Thomas
>:|Jefferson clearly never intended to be published.
>:|
>:|The real question to which everybody wants an answer it whether Thomas
>:|Jefferson was the father of Sally's five children. I realize that this
>:|question has already been answered definitively by that well known and
>:|distinguished historian, Oprah Winfrey, but there are still those out
>:|there who have lingering doubts.
>:|
>:|The Farm Book provides lots of clues as to who the real father might
>:|be. For example, for every slave born at Monticello, Thomas Jefferson
>:|listed both the father and the mother in the Farm Book, with the sole
>:|exception of the children of Sally Hemings. Why it is that only her
>:|children do not have the name of the father listed? Inquiring minds
>:|want to know.
The answer is:
IT IS INCONCLUSIVE
There is as much evidence, or more evidence showing that others could have
and possibily did father her children.
Based on DNA he was not the father of the child that Sally Hemings was
suppose to have conceived while in France.
As to the other children she had, the evidence is inconclusive.
DNA does indicate that a descendant of Thomas Jefferson's Uncle did father
the last child Sally Hemings had. However, that descendant could have been
black or white, free or a slave. It also could have been Thomas Jefferson
or one of Thomas Jefferson's nephews or his brother.
Any children she had between the one that was suppose to have been
conceived in France and her last child, there is no DNA evidence one way
or
the other.
There is evidence that points to Thomas Jefferson's brother and or others
Your bias is and has been he did it.
You twist things to make it look that way
***************************************************************
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Historical Reality SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v.
Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
USAF LT. COL (Ret) Buffman (Glen P. Goffin) wrote
"You pilot always into an unknown future;
facts are your only clue. Get the facts!"
That philosophy 'snipit' helped to get me, and my crew, through a good
many combat missions and far too many scary, inflight, emergencies.
It has also played a significant role in helping me to expose the
plethora of radical Christian propaganda and lies that we find at
almost every media turn.
*****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
|
