"woke Monticello?" Topic

Anyone been there recently?
link

I toured Monticello frequently back in the early 1970s while at U.Va., and got some "special tours" (upstairs, for example) set up for history students at the University. This report saddens but does not surprise me.

I read that article elsewhere. It's like, "who's this Jefferson guy that the docents keep mentioning every once in awhile."

I'll say no more or else I will be cancelled by the wokesters.

Sounds pretty good to me. I'm curious as to the opening 'now a tourist attraction' – has it not been so for decades? Or the 'grievance' or 'politicisation' condemnations.

I find it very hard to believe the authors or commenters would accept *any* level of recognition of Jefferson's dark side. The full 'I love history but not the parts that make me uncomfortable or require reflection'.

We were certainly well aware of TJ's darker side fifty years ago.

The full 'I love history but not the parts that make me uncomfortable or require reflection'.

I don't actually know anybody who thinks or says that. Maybe I'm too sheltered.

As to 'tourist attraction" -- heh. I suppose the Alamo could be called a "tourist attraction" too -- but a lot of people consider it a shrine. Ditto Mount Vernon.

As far as that goes, is the US Capitol, or the White House, a "tourist attraction"? Certainly plenty of tourists visit them.

There is enormously more involved in presenting our history than providing entertainment for tourists.

I don't believe that the old "America is wonderful and we have never done anything wrong" idea has been around for many decades. It died somewhere in the 1960s. Everyone knows the wrongs that the US has done. However, we now can never say anything positive about the US. We judge everyone by the standards of today unless they are a minority. What do you think, would Martin Luther King have been in favor of Gay marriage?
Then he must be evil right. Did Harriet Tubman approve of Transgenderism? Then let's condemn her! No one in the past was perfect and no one in the past would be as "enlighten" as some people are today. But we can disapprove of Jefferson owning slaves but still recognize the many things he did accomplish.

I don't actually know anybody who thinks or says that. Maybe I'm too sheltered.

I'm paraphrasing (they'd never admit to finding it uncomfortable – but instead dismiss it entirely) but I've absolutely encountered the mentality time and time again. It's not unique to the US or even non-experts.

I'm thinking of Christopher Hill praising the mid-seventeenth century puritan revolution but finding its excesses, particularly in Ireland, hard to reconcile.

No one in the past was perfect

That's an understatement. Being a slaveowner and having sex with your enslaved people is certainly far from perfect. Both were criticised in Jefferson's own time – the second charge controversial enough to be used against him as early as 1800.

Slavery is a massive part of Black history and its repercussions still reverberate throughout US politics and institutions. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that someone like Jefferson should appeal in that way given he embodies the hypocrisy of the system (having helped design it) pretty well. I find it hard to believe there's *nothing* on Jefferson in Monticello now since surely that would rob the whole thing of its importance – why *this* slaveholder of all of them? The article is hardly a good faith appraisal since it describes, without qualification, so many corporate politicians as 'far-left' and pointing to the likes of Coates as a 'racial essentialist' (surely Coates' point in his writing is that race *is* consequential to a person's experience living in the US). That reads like baiting to me.

Grattan, yes, precisely so.

I'm thinking of Christopher Hill praising the mid-seventeenth century puritan revolution but finding its excesses, particularly in Ireland, hard to reconcile.

But why is that a problem? It's been half a century since I read Hill, of course; my minor field for my Ph.D. was Tudor and Stuart, and I focused a lot on the Puritans because my major field was US. I would likewise praise the puritan revolution, but that does not automatically imply approval of everything Oliver Cromwell did. One is allowed to, and able to, make distinctions and weigh the actions of human beings as they deserve.

Grattan54 +1

For the record, there is absolutely zero definitive evidence or proof that Sally Hemings was Thomas Jefferson's mistress, or that he fathered any of her children.
"But the DNA test!" Shriek the wokesters.
Sorry, buckoes. Go take a biology class. The DNA tests show that only the youngest of Hemming's children had a DNA marker from the Jefferson family— and that marker came from Thomas's grandfather, not Thomas. Thus, the following potential fathers are:
Thomas's father, or any male offspring of his (legitimate or illegitimate)
Thomas's uncle, or any male offspring of his (legitimate or illegitimate)
Thomas's brother, or any male offspring of his (legitimate or illegitimate)
Thomas himself, or any male offspring of his (legitimate or illegitimate)
Note that at the time of the birth, Thomas was in his sixties (was he even still fertile or even potent?). His younger brother, Randolph (a DNA marker holder), had a reputation for "fraternizing" with slaves, and is known to have fathered many children on the slaves. And he visited Monticello frequently. In fact, there are over two dozen potential Jefferson males who could be the source of Eston Hemming's DNA marker— and that doesn't include slave lovers of Hemmings who may have been fathered by one of these other Jefferson males!
There are a lot of fish swimming in that sea. But the anti-Founders wokesters MUST have Thomas be a rapist and a deadbeat dad— even though in truth, he was neither.

link

Parz +1

Parzival is correct. And more broadly, we are talking of fallible human beings. Jefferson himself was eloquent about the evil of slavery AND acted effectively against it on several occasions. Keeping his makes him a hypocrite, yes, and the criticism there is deserved -- but does not negate the great things he did, also. He was a man of many gifts and some notable flaws -- and keeping slaves was probably not even the worst one. But we owe him a debt of gratitude nevertheless.

We celebrate George Washington because he freed white property owning males.
We celebrate Robert E. Lee because he was loyal to his state of Virginia and was a great military man.
We celebrate Abraham Lincoln because he fought a war to keep the nation together and adopted policies that eventually freed the slaves.
We celebrate Crazy Horse because he fought for his land and has people and was a great tactician.
We celebrate The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. because he fought for civil rights for his people.

All of these are Americans who forwarded freedom for their people which eventually brought greater freedom for all of us here in America. None of these men were perfect, some owned slaves which was common at the time, some cheated on their wives which most people consider to be immoral, some fought against the government of the United States but believed they were fighting for their homes and families.
Little children should be taught the good in America. Older children should be shown our feet of clay, but on balance America has always been a great nation and still is today. It is okay to point out flaws in great men, but make sure you point out the great things they did first, because all of us are flawed and few of us are great.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek

I think there were a couple of nephews of Jefferson that also could have provided DNA.

I suppose they had to freshen up the tour to appeal to contemporary customers.

I like the author's comment:"But these days the focus is on grievance."

It's not like it's a secret that the tour is focused on slavery. If that bores him, why did he buy tickets?

Maybe someone was looking for some "woke" performance grievance of their own?

link

I saw a documentary that said T. Jefferson freed some mulatto slaves because they could pass for white.

Also, if it is good enough for the Thomas Jefferson Foundation to assert that the Hemming children were also his, it is good enough for me.

link

Ugh, as someone who is neither fully left nor fully right the tediousness of the knee jerking of both sides truly is exhausting. Stop dancing to the media's bull@#%& tune!

There is no magical America where children are only ever taught that America is blameless of any wrongdoing. It is both quite possible to acknowledge America's sins and teach children that it is a great nation you can take pride in. Going back to the 1970s we were able to do this as a nation. What the hell changed?

When did we all become such knee jerk morons where we can only have all history is terrible or all history is good? When did patriotism (small p) become an evil rather than a good? Why do we let the media keep taking us to places where we look for ways to instantly hate our fellow Americans rather than give them the benefit of the doubt?

Stop the madness. We are on a path where we are making the lives of each new generation worse, not better.

Jefferson can be a great man with flaws who we honor and question in equal measure without ripping down statues. We can also note that he owned slaves without sugarcoating it or downplaying it. All to often these days we view history with too modern a lens while forgetting that he without sin should cast the first stone.

There are a lot of self righteous people these days who have blinders on to their own failings that will likely be looked down upon by future generations.

Thank you Tgerritsen.

You know, on previous evidence, this can be kept up for about two weeks. At the end of that time, the participants will be furious with one another, no one will have learned anything and no opinions will have changed.

You guys need a hobby. May I suggest historical miniatures gaming?

I think what most are asking for is a rounded view. From this article and also from seeing this story on TV, the current experience at Monticello has gone one way. I believe Most go to the site to see the home and learn about the mans positive contributions as well as the bad, not just those that are perceived as his evils. Also the Sally Hemmings story should be related as Inclusive due to the evidence that Parz presented in this thread earlier, not as a proven fact.

What is going on there, seems to be a pattern. This Covid "relief" money went to an agency for libraries and Museums, but the money went for activism and anti racist programs.

Subject: $15 USDM in American Rescue Plan funds went to ‘anti-racism,' ‘social activism' programs for kids


link

You know, on previous evidence, this can be kept up for about two weeks. At the end of that time, the participants will be furious with one another, no one will have learned anything and no opinions will have changed.

I dont know why this has to drag on. The vast majority of the 7,685 reviews are positive. Of the small number which are negative, most complain about the price or the wait; giving an overall image that Monticello is humming with activity. None of the negative reviews claim that the tour is false history or that they already knew about the details of slavery at the mansion. That tells me some "lurnin" is taking place.

Thus, Vivek Saxena's article appears to be an extremely cherry picked bit of propaganda to prove that woke people are invading and ruining everything from eliminating all vanilla ice cream flavors to having the nerve to point out facts we've all averted our eyes to for centuries.

Maybe people actually want to learn about slavery which, let's face it, has been swept under the rug because it is ugly and mostly about black people whom have been glossed over in general histories.

I'm not opposed to exposing the warts of the past— I don't think anybody actually is. I've known since I was a child that the Founding Fathers had plenty of issues, particularly with slavery and racism, among other things. But the amazing fact is that they created a system which could overcome these flaws (and largely has), and indeed was designed and intended to do so.

But even having said this, I have no trouble with troubling facts— men are men. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."— James Madison. But what the left is spewing isn't fact; it's conjecture (at best) and deliberate, willing falsehood at worst, skewing heavily towards the latter.
And that's why I brought up the Hemmings story— it's not fact, and indeed the evidence supports the opposite interpretation— that Thomas Jefferson had no close relationship with Sally Hemmings at all. But that's not what's being taught. We aren't dealing with a "troubling fact" about a Founding Father; we're being presented with a fait-accompli slur on his character motivated by a political purpose, which is no less than to undermine the principles of the US governmental system so as to make these amenable to wholesale, radical change if not outright reversal. And to me, that is heinous.
If you want to argue for change, be my guest. That's your right. Put forth your reasons and your reasoning in the public square, and let us examine and debate their merits or failings. But this isn't that. It's obfuscation, misdirection, and emotional manipulation and the willing effort to mislead not only the ignorant but also the innocent into accepting a world view which supports a political stance Which Cannot Be Questioned.
Well, I'm gonna kick that, and I'm gonna kick it HARD. And even if you do support so-called progressive policies, you should kick it, too. If the myths and sacred cows of the right are to be examined, then so should too the myths and sacred declarations of the left be examined. We must be willing to acknowledge ALL the flaws of ALL sides— but also recognize the good of any side. Only then can we truly arise at answers for problems that we face.
Which, by the way, is exactly what Thomas Jefferson advocated for in his day.

That was supposed to read "Inconclusive" not "inclusive" in my previous post.

And when was slavery glossed over in the modern era? I learned about the brutality, cruelty and evil which was slavery back when I was a boy, growing up in the ‘70s and ‘80s in Alabama. (If any state had cause to "gloss over" and "hide" a history of slavery and racism, it did. But yet the textbooks generated by the state didn't do that, and I had access to many points of view, not only from these, but from books available in my school and public library.) I saw the photos of scarred backs, the illustrations of African captives crammed in slave ships, learned about the evils of the KKK and Jim Crow and segregation (and that at the same time George Wallace made his bid for the Presidency! If ever there was a political weathervane, that man was the rooster on top of it!).
So the idea that these things have not been taught or were covered over is specious— so too is the idea that anyone says they *shouldn't* be taught.
The truth of history isn't the problem. "Presentism" is— the desire to judge the past and the people of the past by the current moral zeitgeist, especially selectively so (because it is always selective). Even worse is "guilt by association" or yet even more worse, "guilt by descent." It is these which I oppose. I bear neither responsibility nor guilt for anyone's actions other than my own. But if you wish to claim otherwise, be prepared— because the skeletons in your ancestors' closets rattle as loudly as the ones in mine. "All men sin and fall short of the Glory of God. There is none righteous— No, not one."— the Apostle Paul. Doesn't matter what you believe, that statement is absolutely correct, and always will be, in America or anywhere else.

So let us be honest— but let us also be discerning. Evil and good mix together in men; we should not cast aside the latter because the former is there too.

Parzival +1

And when was slavery glossed over in the modern era?

It hasn't generally been focused on or given weight of importance in our history.

I saw the photos of scarred backs, the illustrations of African captives crammed in slave ships, learned about the evils of the KKK and Jim Crow and segregation…

Great, and now, courtesy of the TJ Foundation, everyone can acquire the same enlightenment that you had the benefit of. Isn't that wonderful?

So the idea that these things have not been taught or were covered over is specious— so too is the idea that anyone says they *shouldn't* be taught.

Let's try and keep the context and grounding of what I said. It's been glossed over and ignored bc it's not comfortable. That doesnt mean it's never been taught or has been covered up. Although there have been edits about slavery in textbooks to minimize concentrating on it.

The truth of history isn't the problem. "Presentism" is— the desire to judge the past and the people of the past by the current moral zeitgeist, especially selectively so (because it is always selective).

Considering TJ, via the DOI and the Constitution, is asking us to live by the morals of HIS time, I think it only fair that we are able to judge his behavior by our standards. Don't you?

Even worse is "guilt by association" or yet even more worse, "guilt by descent." It is these which I oppose. I bear neither responsibility nor guilt for anyone's actions other than my own. But if you wish to claim otherwise, be prepared— because the skeletons in your ancestors' closets rattle as loudly as the ones in mine. "All men sin and fall short of the Glory of God. There is none righteous— No, not one."— the Apostle Paul. Doesn't matter what you believe, that statement is absolutely correct, and always will be, in America or anywhere else.

I don't follow this at all. I presume that the TJ Monticello tour is doing well and that people are learning about the slavery that's been previously glossed over at the mansion. Most people seem happy about the tour content with a couple of malcontents that don't want to hear about "that slavery crud spoiling TJ's accomplishments as a great man".

Although, I hope this isn't what you are in accord with, I do get the impression that you believe that the TJ Foundation by pointing out an education on slavery by one of the Nation's foremost slave owners is some sort of subversive exercise. If that is your opinion, then it does seem to contradict your view that slavery isn't an inconvenient truth and hasn't been glossed over. You cant have it both ways.

So far on this thread, the only specious items seem to be the intent of the article originally posted and that article trying to decouple TJ's DNA from Hemmings' offspring.

About eighteen years ago I took my then young kids to Monticello. I was surprised then about how banal the tours had gotten compared to my previous visits in the 1970s. My kids were also underwhelmed. It was as if they were so focused on not being offensive that they had sucked the life out of the tour. I have not been back since.

Thomas Jefferson was in his own time a controversial figure. I do not see why there is a need to make him less so today. However the Monticello Foundation is a business. They need to bring in traffic in order to maintain the place.

I've had it up to here with, "we were never told this in high school." High school survey courses barely get to world war 2, and that's only by skipping over tons and tons of people and stories. Who here was told in high school that Jefferson's brother used to play the fiddle and dance with the slaves when he visited Monticello? No? Because it doesn't belong in a high school survey course. In depth study is for college. Rant over.

"Subject: $15 USD USDM in American Rescue Plan funds went to ‘anti-racism,' ‘social activism' programs for kids"

Considering the source, I have a hard time believing this.

Tacitus +1

Well, APDC, if you can prove that it's Thomas Jefferson's DNA that was found in Eston Hemming's descendants, and not "Uncle Randolph's" DNA, or Peter Carr's (nephew known to have spent considerable time with Sally) or some other Jefferson male descended from Thomas Jefferson's grandfather, please bring forth your scientific evidence. I'd like to see it.

There is literally NO primary evidence for the claim against Jefferson. None. No private letters or papers of his. No indications in his legal papers or will. No reports from his family. No commentaries among friends or close associates. No papers from Sally herself. No reports of any behavior by Thomas that would indicate anything untoward. Just spurious claims from a political enemy with an axe to grind (and no firsthand or even secondhand knowledge)— a claim privately disputed by Thomas Jefferson himself twice— while also admitting to a different (and unclear) "indiscretion" with a white woman "when he was young and single." Next come the (supposed) claims of one man, years later, telling an interviewer that his mother told him something. But there is actually no documented evidence that the interview even took place, or what was said in it— there are no notes of any kind, and the phrasing isn't from the mouth of the man supposedly interviewed. It's all the interviewer's words appearing in yet another politically motivated article— which, curiously, contains the same incorrect information as the earlier polemic mentioned above— including identical misspellings. The rest is "family lore"— of dubious quality in any family, but especially so when the claim is to ancestry by a world famous individual.
And against all that we have testimony— actual notes from an actual interview— by a witness (the former overseer) who unequivocally states that Thomas was not the father of Hemming's children. So the documented evidence supports the refutation of the claims rather than the other way around.

The only real evidence that exists is the DNA marker— and the DNA marker isn't exclusively Thomas's to begin with. It belongs to ANY male descendant of his grandfather— and that could include other slaves fathered by other Jeffersons, including Thomas's father and uncle.

So, we have a claim with no real documentary evidence, and no irrefutable scientific evidence. What's left? Rumor and media obsessed with scandal as a way to sell stuff to a gullible public?

The claim wouldn't stand in a court of law, and it certainly doesn't pass the scientific test, either. Astonishing claims require astonishing evidence— what exists is hardly that.

If you wish to refute the article, present the evidence you have. If you cannot, then the article carries more weight than a mere belief that it is wrong.

Thomas Jefferson may have been a slave owner, and that can be condemnable. But there is no irrefutable or even probable evidence he was a sexual predator, of Sally or anyone else. You can't diminish him based on that claim, because you have no proof or evidence that it's true.

+1 Parzival. Well said.

I listened to an interview with a guide at Monticello a few years ago, complete with some snippets of questions being asked by tourists, and the thing that came across most was how little most tourists knew of Jefferson.

Besides the DNA, it is also the case that EVERY contemporary mention of TJ and Sally Hemings originated with his political opponents.

Can I ask when slavery was swept under the rug? I'm 54 and my entire life I have always been told about the horrors of slavery and how bad it truly was. I learned that even in (gasp) school, and in popular culture. I can't remember a time in my life when I wasn't aware of slavery or its horror.

Where is this magical place where slavery wasn't taught?

Well, APDC, if you can prove that it's Thomas Jefferson's DNA that was found in Eston Hemming's descendants, and not "Uncle Randolph's" DNA, or Peter Carr's (nephew known to have spent considerable time with Sally) or some other Jefferson male descended from Thomas Jefferson's grandfather, please bring forth your scientific evidence. I'd like to see it.

This seems to be a recurring tactic on here. I dont have to prove anything, your link is the maverick outlier study. Some lone voice who doesnt seem to be able to get a gig at a real school is crying sour grapes. Even the original DNA study it is based on claims that TJ was most likely the father. That and the argument laid out by the TJ Foundation about TJ's proximity to Hemmings is persuasive.

Meanwhile, the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society seems to have decided that they were going to publish a study to say the opposite primarily to provide people who dont like the original two studies' conclusions that it was probably TJ who was the father with a way to create a distraction. It's not much of a study to say that because it could've been 7 other guys related to him, that it wasnt TJ.

I have no idea why you think we need a letter from TJ admitting he was raping Hemmings to prove it was taking place. People can put together what happened based on circumstantial evidence. Was it common for slave owners to write correspondence about having sex with their slaves? Maybe the custom was to NOT write about it.

Are they even teaching this on the tour? I thought we were talking about the article which seems to have focused on two bad reviews out of close to 8000, most of which are positive? They are obviously doing something right and keeping Monticello afloat with happy customers. Are we supposed to cater to two malcontents who dont want to hear about slavery because they got enough of it in Highschool?

Btw, you seemed to have conveniently ignored my ask/answer to your "You cant judge TJ by our contemporary morals" by suggesting we can and should based on living by his principles from back then, today. Does this mean you find that my concept negates your assertion?

"Can't get a gig at a real school"
How about "Those that can't do, teach."
Just as viable a response.

I read his dissent and found his arguments more compelling based on evidentiary reasons, not "proximity."
:
The "evidence" which called for the test came from political opponents, and was based on hearsay. Since the DNA was present, this does tend to boost the hearsay.
However, that hearsay evidence coincided with documented contemporary statements saying that a Jefferson family member other than Thomas was involved with Sally Hemming. So the "evidence" that it was Thomas— all hearsay— was already refuted by contemporary evidence— direct witness testimony— that someone else had indeed been involved with Hemming. In that case, all the evidence would already suggest that Jefferson family DNA would be found, but that it would not be incontrovertibly Thomas Jefferson's own DNA, but a marker from his father or grandfather, possessed by several known Jefferson males and potentially by other unknown Jefferson males. And that's what the DNA confirmed— that a male member of Jefferson's family was the father, but that the father could not definitively be said to be Thomas.

Secondly, as the article pointed out, it's impossible to know when Sally Hemming was or was not present at Monticello, because her presence is not documented, and she was a traveling servant among the Jefferson family. Nor is it actually relevant whether Thomas Jefferson was present in his own home when the pregnancies were likely conceived. Of course he was likely present— he lived there! But that doesn't mean that nobody else was there. Indeed, logically it is more likely that the other potential sires were present when Thomas was at Monticello than when he was not— people don't tend to come to visit family members who aren't home. The argument "he was there— it must have been him" is about as valid as saying that the TV in my house was tuned to the TLC channel when I was home, thus it must have been me watching the Say Yes to the Dress marathon, and not my wife. Coincidence of presence is not proof of anything, especially when that presence is at a vast estate which holds the residences of multiple slaves as well as the estate owner, his family, and frequent other visitors. One might as well suggest that Thomas Jefferson was having gay orgies with all the field hands, because they were all at Monticello at the same time, too.

So at this point, again, what evidence do we have?
On the pro side— yours— political polemics based on hearsay and undocumented claims, and a DNA test that could apply to multiple people, and evidence that Thomas Jefferson (shock, surprise) spent most of the time at his own home, whenever he could. None of that is definitive evidence; it's just coincidence.
One the con side— mine— we have testimony from Thomas Jefferson himself explicitly denying the accusations, written in his own hand and not intended for public distribution, combined with eyewitness accounts explicitly denying that Thomas Jefferson was the predator while also giving strong indications of another culprit (and possibly more than one), and other contemporary sources implicating other Jefferson males as the more likely perpetrators.
None of that is a distraction, it's all evidence— and it's stronger evidence than the pro side has.
It would be one thing if the accusations towards other Jefferson males were not contemporary, and were supplied after the DNA testing was done. But they weren't. In fact, it was commonly acknowledged at the time that some of Hemming's children "resembled" Jefferson— but this knowledge caused the contemporary refutations to be made, as well as the contemporary accusations against "Uncle Randolph" and the nephew, who, being descendants of Jefferson's father, naturally also resembled Thomas, and whose offspring would undoubtably share similar resemblances. It's actually quite interesting that those taking down the accounts deliberately covered up the names of the accused perpetrators— not what you would do if you were actually trying to make up an alternative. You'd be certain to mention a name— blame works so much better if you can name someone to lay it on. So the reluctance not of the accusers to name someone (they did name names, apparently, and quite directly) but of the recorders to include the names is interesting— as if it were enough for the recorders to be convinced, and they didn't see a need to convince the contemporary readers. To me, that actually gives the accusations more weight than less.

Lastly, I do and have criticized Thomas Jefferson for not living up to his ideals in other threads on this very forum. His statements that "all men are Created equal" should indeed have been championed by him to apply to his own slaves, and yes, to Sally Hemming. That he did not, even he knew was a serious failing.
But then, do you like his ideals? Are you not free because of them? And did not freedom come to the slaves because of those ideals? Without Thomas Jefferson, we don't have a nation based on ideals of liberty, and without that basis, we don't have freedom at all— not only in the US, but likely anywhere.
So I can see the man for his flaws, and I can see the man for his ideals. Where he was wrong, I see that he was wrong, and say so. Where he was right, I see that he was right, and say so. But I see no reason to assign wrongs to him that he did not do, nor any reason to assign righteousness to people today who claim superiority over him, while only possessing that position because of what he did long before they were even born.

Parzival +2

The "evidence" which called for the test came from political opponents, and was based on hearsay. Since the DNA was present, this does tend to boost the hearsay.

Does anyone on this entire forum know what "hearsay" means? This gets tiring.

Is this a court of law? Or are the legal standards only invoked when it works in favor of populists?

Why this needs to boil down to a legal standard is troubling but I notice the trend on here is that the legal standard is only invoked when It might serve to prop up a weak political hit job (Even some of the book's amazon reviewers who are fans mention that the book is a repetitive bore) which seems to think that lots of repetition and footnotes are a truth unto themselves. You and others here might do well to bone up on what "hearsay" means as well as what "evidence" consists of.

we have testimony from Thomas Jefferson himself explicitly denying the accusations, written in his own hand and not intended for public distribution, combined with eyewitness accounts explicitly denying that Thomas Jefferson was the predator while also giving strong indications of another culprit (and possibly more than one), and other contemporary sources implicating other Jefferson males as the more likely perpetrators.

We do? I always thought he stayed silent on this matter? How the hell would this be testimony? Secret, non published testimony?

Right, everyone in the Jefferson family was having relations with Hemings…well, except for TJ himself…got it.

And against all that we have testimony— actual notes from an actual interview— by a witness (the former overseer) who unequivocally states that Thomas was not the father of Heming's children. So the documented evidence supports the refutation of the claims rather than the other way around.

A slave driver is an unimpeachable witness? Was his testimony taken under oath and cross examined? Or are legal standards suddenly unimportant with him? Did he see who had relations with Hemings? Did he have an axe to grind, maybe he was being paid by TJ or his estate? It's troubling, troubling, troubling that we consider what's written down as the truth merely because it is old and that things don't take place if you cant find a letter that says "Shh, don't tell anyone but I fathered some children with my slave". It reduces the concepts of research, analysis and speculation in historical writing to a level so selfservingly tight, we would have to throw out the vast majority of what we think of as history.

But then, do you like his ideals? Are you not free because of them? And did not freedom come to the slaves because of those ideals? Without Thomas Jefferson, we don't have a nation based on ideals of liberty, and without that basis, we don't have freedom at all— not only in the US, but likely anywhere.

I do, I am. I like TJ. TJ himself said we should constantly test our beliefs and frequently revise and refresh the constitution. About every generation or so. I take it you agree?

After all, you're the one who said it's some sort of current fashion to judge the Founders by our own standards in an attempt to undermine the country. What's more, you insinuate that the very organization which is doing a bang up job of keeping Monticello thriving are motivated by some sort of political purpose to destroy TJ and his legacy. I have to ask if you've really thought this all through?

So, Im a fan of TJ. What I am not, is an extremist or a 24/7 political ideologue. It's fascinating to me to watch how it is fascinating to political fanatics that everyone else MUST be with them or against them. The battle lines are drawn for you, not for me. If you want to pound that book, go right ahead, but know this, it was commissioned by a political think tank. They aren't an academic body; they aren't a legal body either. They're propagandists. Yeah, that's what The Thomas Jefferson Institute for blah blah and blah is. Don't believe me, good. Listen to their own words:

Since 1999, the Thomas Jefferson Institute has been dedicated to changing lives through freedom and opportunity.
Through our in-depth research, targeted messaging, and strategic networking, we are the one organization in Virginia that:
• Crafts broad-based policies to lower economic and regulatory barriers
• Reaches and persuades the political middle through compelling messages
• Builds networks and new coalitions of informed citizens
We do this by:
• Creating intellectual ammunition
• Leveraging communications and the power of media
• Persuading the "persuadable middle" with messaging that persuades, not offends.
• Reducing the influence of our adversaries
• Engaging Virginians

Propaganda, lower taxes and anything that props up the past as 100% faultless jingoism.

And the book?

I like the amazon reviewer who says:

Reviewed in the United States on December 13, 2014

This is a must read for anyone interested in learning about and understanding the Hemings controversy. There is much repetition and it is very long, but it provides a comprehensive and detailed look at Jefferson's personal life. The scholars provide a thorough examination of the facts. Every history teacher should read it, use it, and explain to their students the true history of Thomas Jefferson's life and not the drivel that is passed on as historical fact.

link

Yes, let's cancel everything else and spend the school year on this one book. One wonders if the reviewer was ever remotely familiar with a highschool course.

And about all the quality "evils of slavery" lessons in Alabama Highschools of years gone by…pfft:

link

The Thomas Jefferson Foundation isn't political, OK? The Thomas Jefferson Institute of Lower Taxes and Personal Sovereigns against Marxist Agitators is somewhat political. They do nothing to help out Jefferson or Monticello, all they do is get donations from people who become terrorized into donating anytime America's moral perfection is called into question.

Meanwhile it appears the Thomas Jefferson gift shop sells the book! Which brings us to the fact that they admit that the evidence isn't 100% conclusive and try to be reasonable vs the TJ Institute's 100% sure that it wasn't TJ. When it comes to analyzing real world evidence, I'll take "reasonable" over "fire and brimstone" any day.

Heck, the TJ Foundation even gives the book some respect: link

Where the idea comes from that they're running around suppressing the truth, fabricating evidence etc. because they're part of a conspiracy to bring down Jefferson and the nation is puzzling.

Me? I want the Foxes wearing soxes socks:

link

Incidentally, the very article doc initially placed here is from a 100% partisan rag. If you think it's normal for a site to run around and invoke "woke" every third article, have a 3rd rate author attacking the management at Monticello by using slimy political insinuation and two reviews from "git ‘er dun" types who think School House Rock is Academia, then guess again. Incidentally, merely using that site as authority would call into question a person's ability to remain objective and parse what is from what isn't…I mean since we are talking legal standards.

Should we judge all those heroes of our past, by the daily changing moralities of our current times?

Would MLK not have fallen short on Gay Rights (he was a preacher and others believed he would have opposed them.) and his philandering and his sexist attitude about women at home and in the movement.

Should we start Tearing down his statues, rename those things named after him and take away his day? Should we start teaching only his bad aspects?

Of course I don't believe that, but it sounds like those on the opposite side should.

irenemonroe.com/thedream

Oh for the love of…

No one said anything about a court. But "hearsay" isn't just a legal term. It's a logical standard. If Suzy says that Sally said that Billy said X, then Suzy's testimony— what she asserts— is hearsay because Suzy doesn't actually know what Billy said because she did not hear him say it. Therefore, I cannot treat what Suzy said as definitive— especially if Suzy hates Billy and wants to harm his reputation.
That's not a legal thing, it's just a rational thought and logic in weighing what I have been told. That a court of law has a hearsay standard isn't relevant, except that it confirms such a standard is indeed
"Testimony" may also be a legal term, but again, it's also a more generic term for a specific claim made about a specific event or fact, and I am clearly using it in the latter context of meaning "an explicit statement about the truth of an event." What it means under law isn't relevant, except to again highlight that the words of a person about their own experiences are highly relevant to a discussion about other elements tied to that experience.

In the case of the overseer his name was Captain Edmund Bacon, and he was actually the business manager for Jefferson, overseeing the whole estate, not merely the slaves. The testimony is from his memoirs, written long after he had left Jefferson's employ and moved to Kentucky. Jefferson at this point was dead. There was no one to bribe Bacon, and no reason to do so. In fact, to hit you with the irony you deserve, when no longer an employee, Bacon had loaned his own money to Jefferson when the latter was in dire financial straits!!!
So much for your unsupported accusations of bribery. .

But it turns out I am wrong about the DNA… but wrong in the favor of my argument. In actuality, the DNA study did NOT prove that Jefferson fathered any of Hemming's children— indeed, it eliminated Jefferson as a possibility in all but one case— Eston— who was not even the person claimed to be Jefferson's child! That was Thomas Woodson (who may not even have existed as described), and the family supposedly descended from him have NO Jefferson markers at all. Nor do any of the other descendants.So the basis for the test— the polemic articles from Jefferson's political opponents— were entirely wrong in the accusation they made! And that also means that is irrelevant whether Thomas was in residence at Monticello when Sally's other children were conceived because they are probably not his!
Which leaves us with Eston— and the problem with Eston is that the y-DNA marker in Eston's family isn't most likely from Thomas, but indeed from Randolph. It *could* be Thomas— but we've already established that the rumored affair from his days in Paris was false; Sally had no child from any rumored liaison with Thomas during the time from the trip to Paris to the birth of Eston. Which makes it unlikely that she ever had any affair with Thomas, or that Eston was his.

But hey, don't take my word for it— FOLLOW THE SCIENCE! link

Checkmate.

I trailed off above when discussing the existence of a court standard for hearsay. What I meant to say was the fact that a court standard for hearsay exists supports the understanding that hearsay cannot be accepted as logical evidence or proof of anything. If the courts see that it is "bad logic" and not really evidence, then that strengthens the understanding that it is indeed bad logic, whether in a court argument or a debate or a discussion on the Internet. QED.

So again we have the breakdown:
No evidence outside of hearsay based on rumor rising from political opponents that Thomas Jefferson had relationships with any of his slaves, much less Sally Hemmings. And the hearsay is unsubstantiated, without even providing a supposed source. Furthermore, the hearsay was regarding an individual whom the DNA evidence proves was not the offspring of Thomas Jefferson or any Jefferson male.
Next we have the DNA evidence, which cannot be restricted to Thomas Jefferson, and actually rules out Thomas Jefferson as the father of nearly all of Sally Hemming's children, except for one son— her youngest— born when Jefferson was in his sixties and no longer a young man. But even in that case, the DNA in reality is not Thomas Jefferson's, but his grandfather's, and thus was carried by five other Jefferson males at the time of the conception of Eston. And we have slave accounts that Randolph Jefferson, Thomas's younger brother, often fraternized with the slaves, and had a reputation only slightly better than Hunter Biden's today. And we have a recollection from a respected business associate and former employee of Jefferson who stated that he knew whom the father of Eston was, and that it was not Thomas. We also have a direct denial by Thomas (two, actually) in private correspondence of any affair— correspondence which he had no reason to believe would be made public, and which would not have altered the situation, so why even bring the matter up? And in that same correspondence, Jefferson admitted to "making love to" a woman when he was single— which phrase, by the way, did not have the modern meaning of sexual intercourse, but could mean anything from an innocent pass to an extended attempt at romance, possibly even in pursuit of marriage. But the woman in question was not a slave, but presumably a social equal of some sort, and Thomas was embarrassed about the incident— yet had no qualms about admitting to it, either. This was not a man who tried to bury his mistakes or pretend they didn't happen.

So again, the evidence doesn't support the original political rumormongering at all, nor does it fit the scandal level desired by the modern media and the Woke left. In fact, the evidence points to someone else.

But alas, that's boring. Scandal sells books. Scandals sells tour tickets. So print the scandal— Thomas can't sue. And if you repeat a lie often enough… well, y'all know the rest.

Finally, why is it so important to some that Jefferson actually be a rapist, so much so that they will deliberately ignore the evidence that proves he was not one? What purpose does that serve?
If you want to criticize the man for his faults, then criticize the man for his actual faults— don't make stuff up. The Hemmings story? Was, is, and always will be entirely made up. Why is that so hard to accept? What's the goal here?
I'm not calling for hagiographies of fallen men— if you can prove and show failings, show ‘em. But don't attach radical claims just because it makes you feel superior today. Sorry, you're not. Heck, even if it were true, you're still not.

By the way, I disagree with Jefferson's argument that each generation should change its form of government, if only because it's impractical. (Though, ironically, that's exactly what elections do.) But mostly because a continuous concept of law is absolutely necessary for real freedom to exist. If law is cast aside by every generation, then true freedom cannot last, because it is only by recognizing that laws MUST have permanence and that men must be governed by them and not the whims of the mob that we can have not only a stable society but a free one. Without the recognition of the supremacy of law, rights cannot be protected— indeed, they cannot even be recognized. Without law, there is no freedom.

OK, well, it's not a couple of phrases for the sake of art, you're constantly using legal terms like "primary evidence" "testimony" as well as standards of proof etc. It makes me think this is a trial of sorts sometimes. I've never been on the Monticello tour but do we know if they even discuss this paternity and to what extent?

…But this isn't that. It's obfuscation, misdirection, and emotional manipulation and the willing effort to mislead not only the ignorant but also the innocent into accepting a world view which supports a political stance Which Cannot Be Questioned…

I don't see this on the Monticello website. Instead, they seem to take into account everything, whether it is evidence or research both pro and con, in order to arrive a measured, reasonable conclusion without declaring that it is 100% accurate. Whereas it seems like the sources that don't want Jefferson to be the father of Heming's children, appear to either omit or dismiss any studies, or evidence, they don't like while they constantly declare THEY are 100% right and the other side is completely wrong.

Although the question probably should be where did you get that anyone is being deceitful about Jefferson's paternity, I'll settle for how could you possibly believe that there isnt a shred of evidence that Jefferson is the father?

Additionally, this recurring theme that I have to prove to you that Jefferson is the father or adopt your view has all the hallmarks of bullying. I find this tactic curious, although not rare on here, that persons with the minority, (often fringe) viewpoint think that by making a declaration, the rest of the world needs to either dispprove it to the declarer's satisfaction or submit. This sounds like the very heart of irration.

In any case, this new website you've introduced was begun in April-ish 2021, has no names associated with it and its value seems to reside in innumerable pages of blither; which falls under the category of if there's a lot of writing, it has to be true. I cant give any credence to some nameless, faceless website which suddenly springs up to examine TJ's DNA; it has all the hallmarks of dishonesty like a project veritas stunt.

However, when some credentialed institution does a study on TJ's DNA like UVA or some other institution of actual higher learning vs a set of political fanatics who think they're pushing back against the enemies of our race/heritage, I will give it full credence.

In the meantime, rather than "Checkmate" this seems to be more a case of "Check, please"

One the con side— mine— we have testimony from Thomas Jefferson himself explicitly denying the accusations, written in his own hand and not intended for public distribution,

Where are these letters?

In the case of the overseer his name was Captain Edmund Bacon, and he was actually the business manager for Jefferson, overseeing the whole estate, not merely the slaves. The testimony is from his memoirs, written long after he had left Jefferson's employ and moved to Kentucky. Jefferson at this point was dead. There was no one to bribe Bacon, and no reason to do so. In fact, to hit you with the irony you deserve, when no longer an employee, Bacon had loaned his own money to Jefferson when the latter was in dire financial straits!!!
So much for your unsupported accusations of bribery. .

Again with this testimony business. We don't know anything about his motives, the quality of his recollections or why he would know who had sex with whom. We keep bumping into this fallacy that if someone wrote it it has to be true and if no one wrote it down, it never happened. Where are your soft legal standards when you really need them?

Jefferson might've been dead but his estate and descendants lived on. For all we know, having lent money to Jefferson, he was worried about getting repaid and wanted to make sure he didn't upset the Jefferson family. Thus he might have wanted to ensure that by writing flattering memoirs, he would bring home the bacon. Thus, there might've been ample reason to bribe Bacon, you cant say that there wasn't.

Alternatively, his memoirs might be honestly written and still Bacon might've been mistaken; or he could've thrown caution to the wind and gone hog wild.

You make a lot of assertions which are very easily countered or dispelled. Generally speaking, hard evidence isnt always the most dispositive form of evidence. Sometimes the absence of evidence or customary evidence come into play. For example, did slave rapists generally boast about these exploits? Frankly, the assertion that Jefferson left no letters admitting having sex with Hemings as proof he didn't is an absurdity. There are other ways to reliably deduce behavior or recreate a record of events.

But it occurs to me here, that you don't accept anything that might prove that Jefferson was the father and in fact seem comfortable with 100% surety that he wasn't.

For my part, and I didn't bring it up, nor do I obsess over it, the TJ Foundation conclusion seems right to me and I'm going with that. They come across as the most responsible and credible organization for Jefferson's legacy. They are the ones keeping it going and preserving the totality of Jefferson's legacy. Meanwhile, iIt seems like the voices trying to disprove Jefferson's paternity are only interested in Jefferson the cardboard cutout, a symbol that represents unapologetic American patriotism without any analysis of the man or his philosophy. If there is an irony here, it's that these voices will ignore a lot of what he said but endlessly chatter to preserve his faultlessness in some sort of never ending ideological struggle which really has little to do with America or Jefferson; just resistance and fear to changing ideas which is something Jefferson would've found alienating.

By the way, I disagree with Jefferson's argument that each generation should change its form of government, if only because it's impractical. (Though, ironically, that's exactly what elections do.) But mostly because a continuous concept of law is absolutely necessary for real freedom to exist. If law is cast aside by every generation, then true freedom cannot last, because it is only by recognizing that laws MUST have permanence and that men must be governed by them and not the whims of the mob that we can have not only a stable society but a free one. Without the recognition of the supremacy of law, rights cannot be protected— indeed, they cannot even be recognized. Without law, there is no freedom.

More legal standards that aren't legal standards? Do you think freedom and rights are all about stability?

Apparently, when it comes to Jefferson's social legacy, you're "100% in" on his innocence but for what he actually said and stood for, well, yore more Jefferson "al a carte", picking and choosing what parts of his governmental philosophy you like or find problematic?

He never said there should be chaos or no law or that the mob should make rules. He never said that. Why would you think he is such a great legal creator but suddenly decide you know better how to keep it going? You know him to be 100% not a rapist but only 50% able to protect freedom?

Charge, Jefferson is a commodity and there is a Jefferson establishment. I went to school in the heart of it for three years. There is a commercial aspect, and also he is a pawn in ideological warfare. "Protecting Jefferson's legacy" is the last thing on their mind.

Charge, in this instance you are not cynical enough.

You keep asserting a fact, APDC, which is not supported by the evidence. "Evidence" is not strictly a legal word, though it is used by the legal system with specific meaning. Not everything involving evidence is legal— science relies on evidence. History and historical analysis rely on evidence. Heck, successful marketing relies on evidence.
This isn't a court APDC, but the fact that it isn't doesn't help your position. I use terms because they offer clarity, not because I'm making a legal argument.

The ONLY primary evidence you have is the following:
TJ and SH were in the vicinity of each other at the same times (though that's not 100% certain).
EH, SH's youngest son, bears DNA from the Jefferson family, indicating solely that TJ's grandfather was EH's great-grandfather.

Your secondary evidence is the claims of a political polemic published by a known muckraker with a vendetta against TJ for not giving him a cushy government sinecure. Your other secondary evidence is the family lore of the Woodsons and the Hemmings, the former who claimed that their ancestor, Thomas Woodson, was the son of TJ amd SH.
Except the DNA proves he wasn't. The family lore was wrong. The polemic was wrong. So now your only evidence is that TJ and SH were in the vicinity of each other at opportune times. But then, so were other people. And since the DNA evidence establishes that only EH was related to TJ (and not directly to TJ), other evidence must be provided to correctly state that TJ fathered EH, and evidence which disputes or refutes that, or offers other possibilities, must be considered by anyone with a sincere desire to arrive at the truth, or at least the most likely scenario.
So now we take into the mix who else might have had the motive, opportunity, and ability to assault SH and provide the Jefferson family DNA to EH.
First of all, Edmund Bacon recalled in his memoirs that when Jefferson returned to Monticello, he would be flooded with visitors— sometimes as many as 50 people, all staying at the estate, including family members. Among these was Randolph Jefferson, age 52 at the time of EH's conception. We have eyewitness accounts of Randolph's behavior and character, which were hedonistic, selfish and undisciplined— he was, in the language of the day, a lecher, a lush, and a rake, and he was often pursuing his various pleasures among the slaves of Monticello. In terms of the DNA, RJ is as equally likely to be EH's father as is TJ. A comparison of the characters and ages of the two men thus is a good indicator of which is the more likely father.
EH was born in May, 1808, for a likely conception in August or September of 1807. TJ, born 1743= 64 years of age at the time. RJ, born 1755: 52 years of age at the time. In the 18th century-early 19th century, which man was more likely to be both vigorous and virile? Which man demonstrated the character likely to commit a seduction of a slave woman, if not an outright rape? Both had opportunity— we've seen that— but who had motive and character and past behavior that fits the incident? Surely the more likely candidate is the dissolute Randolph Jefferson!

Could it have been TJ? Yes… but really, the preponderance of evidence doesn't point to him at all, and in fact implies quite the opposite.

This is all I have said. If showing you actual facts and actual evidence which refutes your position on the matter is bullying, then all debate is bullying. I don't know you; I neither like nor dislike you, and if we met, I'd be happy to play a game with you. But I disagree with your beliefs on TJ's relationship with SH, and I will argue against that. It's not personal at all; it's just about the evidence.

And Doc is correct— the Monticello group exists to sell tickets and raise money to pay for the upkeep of Monticello. Scandal sells tickets. Always has, always will. But that doesn't make it true— in fact, it makes it less likely to be true.

You keep asserting a fact, APDC, which is not supported by the evidence.

Am I asserting a fact? I don think I am. But then, you might not know what asserting a fact looks like.

Let's take a walk down memory lane.

And when was slavery glossed over in the modern era? I learned about the brutality, cruelty and evil which was slavery back when I was a boy, growing up in the ‘70s and ‘80s in Alabama. (If any state had cause to "gloss over" and "hide" a history of slavery and racism, it did. But yet the textbooks generated by the state didn't do that,

I posted the link to a book called "know Alabama" used in Alabama public Highschools until at least the early 1980s which glossed over both slavery and reconstruction. No comment from you. I let it slide but if youre going to start manufacturing that I'm making unsubstantiated assertions which I most emphatically am not, I have to point out one of your own actual unsubstantiated assertions. Now maybe you didn't get exposed to this book for some reason but it certainly sounds like the rest of the State of Alabama was.

"Evidence" is not strictly a legal word, though it is used by the legal system with specific meaning. Not everything involving evidence is legal— science relies on evidence. History and historical analysis rely on evidence. Heck, successful marketing relies on evidence.

The theme that I get here is that, legal or otherwise, you don't fully understand what evidence is and that further, you think evidence is what you prefer and the absence of evidence (or "unreliable" "non" evidence) is what you find uncomfortable. Bone up on the concept of non verbal, circumstantial and other forms of evidence and their probative weight in putting together a narrative because this is embarrassing.

And this Bacon character writes like an ignoramus which might call into question to properly observe goings on around him. Aside from that, I don't know the veracity of his recollections. Maybe when he wrote, he was senile. There are lots of reasons to question his writing and you do it not all all.

Again, the fact that he wrote something doesn't make it true and the fact that TJ didn't write something doesn't mean he didn't do something. Be careful with evidence which you just happen to like or dislike; it may work for you but you cant ask anyone else to swallow it without…what did you say?…Kicking it hard?

And about "kicking it hard", you never gave us an opinion about why your "checkmate evidence" from that recently formed, nameless, faceless website about TJ's DNA isn the most unreliable type of source? Frankly it makes doc's originally linked article look like responsible journalism.

It never occurred to you that it's a little more than convenient that the TJ Foundation's "outrageous slavery tours" which have been featured on FOX etc might spawn a mysterious "truth" about TJ's DNA? Kind of weakens my belief that you know what evidence is or are able to weigh good evidence from bad evidence. I suppose if Whoopi Goldberg tweeted that she believed TJ wasnt the father, you'd consider that "case closed" evidence?

This isn't a court APDC, but the fact that it isn't doesn't help your position.

I don't have a position nor am I arguing one. I am adopting that of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation.

This is all I have said. If showing you actual facts and actual evidence which refutes your position on the matter is bullying, then all debate is bullying.

You declare the things you like to be actual facts/evidence but anything that you dislike to not be facts or evidence. Additionally, you demand either proof to the contrary of your position or an admission that the non TJ paternity viewpoint is the correct one. I find someone telling me there can be no other opinion but their own to be stronger than debate; moving into the theocratic.

And Doc is correct— the Monticello group exists to sell tickets and raise money to pay for the upkeep of Monticello.

Who ever said otherwise?

Scandal sells tickets. Always has, always will. But that doesn't make it true— in fact, it makes it less likely to be true.

How does it make it less likely to be true?

You know what else sells tickets? Conspiracy. I'll wager dollars to navy beans that the same people who don't want to TJ to be the father of SH's children would come to the same 100% faultless conclusion about any other traditional icon of American history. Their reports don't come across as "evidence" so much as attempts to throw enough dust into the air to jam the system and create doubt to confuse the jury.

Could it have been TJ? Yes… but really, the preponderance of evidence doesn't point to him at all, and in fact implies quite the opposite.

Does it? The counter argument seems to boil down to Hemings having sex with every other Jefferson male but TJ himself. The people doing this argument apparently don't realize how demeaning to women, slaves and people of color this is. Unbelievable; especially considering certain concerns over reputations and muckraking.

Preponderance of the evidence? Another non-legal legal term?

I've read the evidence and I believe the TJ Foundation. It hasnt changed my opinion of him and I like his writings and viewpoints. All of them. Not just the ones that I find convenient to preserving the country the way I want it to stay.

You're free to believe what you want to believe.

Charge, Jefferson is a commodity and there is a Jefferson establishment. I went to school in the heart of it for three years. There is a commercial aspect, and also he is a pawn in ideological warfare. "Protecting Jefferson's legacy" is the last thing on their mind.

Maybe. Really what's the concern? I see the site is doing well and I couldn't find a single disrespectful or degrading article in the gift shop.

Do you think symbols are paramount? Do you believe people unable to do further research? In short do you believe that propaganda controls like the oft quoted 1984 maxim? If that's the case, then there is no reason to believe that the motives behind re-propping TJ up is anything more than what you indicate, a sort of prop to justify resistance to or endless social change.

But I have to wonder how much you believe in all of TJ's writings on government. Do you adopt them wholesale or merely the views that you think preserve what you like?

Hardly wholesale, given he wanted an agriculturally-based society of small yeomen farmers. I'm much more comfortable with Hamilton's vision. And TJ, politically active for half a century of great change, can be quoted on both sides of many issues. But there are aspects of his vision and legacy that I very much appreciate. I am very proud to have graduated from his University, for example. But he is an example of how important -- and also how difficult -- it is to judge people and events in history in terms of their own times.

We really need a facepalm emoji.

Yeah, I didn't follow your link to the Alabama textbook. I grew up there. I remember the books I read and the images I saw and what I learned, and what I know. Slavery is wrong. Brutality is evil. Every human being has rights. Wow, what big concessions I have to make… oh, wait, those aren't concessions from me at all. They're what I already believe. And they're what I was taught.

What I mean by the terms I use:

Hearsay: When a witness asserts as fact something they were told about an incident by someone else, and that statement is not confirmed by either the other person or by actual witnesses to the event. You know, claiming somebody told you that someone else did something and asserting that what they told you was true even though you weren't there and didn't confirm that the person telling you was there and others who were there state that the other person wasn't there either and that the incident didn't happen. Or, things reported as factual news on CNN that later are proven false.

Evidence: Information that corroborates a claim of fact. Primary evidence is directly related to the fact, such as physical conditions or things that can only result from the fact or could only result in the fact. Eyewitness accounts from participants or individuals who were present are also primary, but are generally considered less reliable, at least on specific details. Secondary evidence would be claims made by someone who was not a participant or not present, or physical evidence or conditions that could be derived from the fact or could have produced the fact, but not necessarily so. So, a news article, even a well sourced and well researched one, is secondary evidence. Secondary evidence isn't necessarily wrong, and can be quite strong, it's just not proof. We rely a lot on secondary evidence in life— nothing wrong with that— but if the primary evidence goes against the secondary evidence, then the secondary evidence should be discounted.

Assert: To claim that an idea, statement, or concept is definitive or true. I hereby assert that the previous sentence is an acceptable definition for "assert."

Proof: An assertion of fact that is incontrovertible that indicates that something related to the asserted fact— typically an idea that is in question in some way— is indisputably true.

True: Factual. Not false. Not made up. Indisputable. Immutable. Universal. Not alterable by opinion, desire, longing, favoritism, bias, personal feelings, political leanings, or preferences of any kind or degree. The claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemming's children is either true or it is false. Now, we may not actually be able to determine the truth of any given question— but that doesn't mean that there isn't a true answer. Nor should we accept a claim as true except based on the evidence which supports the claim, and in consideration of the evidence which refutes the claim.
Evidence which supports the claim:
Primary evidence:
y-DNA from Jefferson's grandfather was found in the descendants of Eston Hemming, Sally Hemming's youngest son.
- Supporting primary evidence: Records of Monticello which indicate that Thomas Jefferson was home in Monticello when Sally's various children were likely conceived.

Secondary evidence:
- Family lore from the Woodson Family, supposedly descended from Thomas Woodson, a son of Sally Hemming. (This evidence is hearsay.)
- A published pamphlet/opinion piece by a man named Callendar asserting that Thomas Woodson was fathered by Thomas Jefferson. (This evidence is hearsay.) No source information is given by Callendar for the claim.
- The account of Madison Hemming, who claimed that his mother, Sally Hemming, told him that Thomas Jefferson was his father. (This evidence is also hearsay, but marginally stronger, being from someone related to the claim, recounting a statement supposedly made to him by a participant in the claim.)

Refuting evidence:
- The y-DNA is not from Thomas Jefferson's own known descendants, as his descendants are from his legitimate daughters, who cannot carry the y-DNA, which is only carried by males. The y-DNA is instead from family members descended from Thomas Jefferson's grandfather— two generations removed from Thomas himself— and thus equally present in Thomas's uncle, brother, nephews and male cousins. Note that this also makes it possible for the y-DNA to be present in illegitimate half-brothers, uncles, nephews and cousins, as say slaves raped by Thomas Jefferson's grandfather, father, uncle, nephews, and cousins. I am not asserting that any of the above happened, I'm just showing how the scientific evidence of the y-DNA cannot be ruled as conclusive in and of itself.
- Regardless of immediate source (that is, the male who had sex with Sally Hemming), the y-DNA is not present in the Woodson family, meaning that Thomas Woodson was not fathered by any Jefferson male, and neither he nor his descendants have any biological relation to Thomas Jefferson. This statement of scientific fact discounts the claims of the Woodson family (strike one), and the political attack piece published by Callendar (strike two). Both of these pieces of secondary evidence must be cast aside; they are false.
- Similarly, the Jefferson family y-DNA does not exist in the descendants of Madison Hemming. Therefore, he was not fathered by Thomas Jefferson, and either he misunderstood his mother's statement or she made a false statement to him. (This does not rule out the possibility that she had sex with Thomas and also other Jefferson men during the time of his conception, and assumed that Thomas was the one who impregnated her, but that would be a suggestion which stretches the evidence quite a bit.) (Strike three, but maybe it's just a foul.)
- It is not possible to know the origins of Sally's daughters. Females do not carry y-DNA, and therefore cannot pass it on to their descendants. (It's the whole XX/XY thing. Only males carry the Y-chromosome, and it is passed along only to and through male offspring.) (Fouled away…)

So much for primary evidence. Two strikes down, and a third possible… but the umpire is feeling generous.

Secondary evidence:
- While Thomas presence is a matter of record, Sally Hemming's presence is not. Granted, she was a slave, and thus here movements were greatly controlled by her social state, but it was not uncommon— and even a practice among the Jefferson family— for slaves to be loaned to other family members at various times for various tasks and events. Call this one another foul ball, though depending on the thoroughness of records at the plantation it might be possible to know when or if Sally was loaned out (we do know that she was assigned by name along with other slaves named to help a female relative of Thomas's on at least one incident, and was often sent along as a servant and companion of Jefferson's daughters when the latter travelled— this happened for Mary's trip to Paris which scandalmongers usually claim is when the alleged affair began with Thomas (albeit without any proof or evidence). However, at the time Martha and Mary lived at a young lady's convent school several miles away from Thomas's residence, and Sally lived with them there— hardly a place where any liaison was probable, even if possible. In the winter of 1788 Mary and Martha both contracted typhus, and lived with Thomas while they recovered, presumably with Sally present. Again, it's difficult to argue that during such a time of quarantine for his daughters that Thomas would exhibit such a gross change in personal character as to assault their nurse. The likelihood of sexual congress between Thomas and Sally during this time seems very thin indeed. Not impossible, but improbable. In any case, Sally notably bore no children and evidenced no pregnancies during this period, even into 1789 when the family fled the French Revolution. Given her later apparent fecundity, this seems to discount the claim of any relationship with Thomas— in fact, Sally's first child was not born until 1795 (when Jefferson was 52)— six years after the scandalmongers claim the affair began! Are we to believe that a repeated sexual liaison between Jefferson and a teenage slave girl produced no children for seven or eight years, only to erupt in a plethora of offspring in Thomas's fifties and sixties? Most men become less virile with age… Thomas seems to have invented Viagra as well as the swivel chair! But I digress— the point is that coincidence of residence on a 5,000 acre estate isn't proof, and is the thinnest evidence of all. (The umpire calls ball one, because this ‘evidence' wasn't really in the strike zone to begin with.)

Refuting Primary evidence:
Alleged participant's account: Thomas Jefferson wrote two private letters to a close confidant regarding the allegations made against him in the political account. He admitted in one of these letters to have attempted some sort of romantic relationship with an unnamed woman— a free white woman of his own social class— "when he was single." This is vague, and it's impossible to determine if this was before his marriage to his wife Martha (when Sally Hemmings wasn't even in the picture, as she belonged to Martha's family, not Jefferson's) or after Martha's death in 1782. I lean towards the latter, as Jefferson tends to be precise in his language, and "single" at that time was not synonymous with "widowed." However, Jefferson tended not to discuss his dead wife, even in private, so he may have been using a term to avoid a painful memory of her loss. In any case, in the same missive where he admits to this failing, he then flatly denies the affair with Sally, even though there is no reason to do so with his friend and confidant. If Jefferson thought the man would betray his confidences, then why admit to any indiscretion at all? Why even address the allegations? But if he knows the man won't reveal his confidences, and since sexual relations among owners and slaves were not unheard of and even acknowledge (Sally was such an offspring), why wouldn't he then acknowledge a relationship with Sally, if he is confiding in a confession of sorts to a friend who will keep the matter private? Again, this is not definitive, but it seems to me, at least, that the circumstances of the letters suggest that Jefferson's denial is truthful.

- Edmund Bacon's account: For the record, this was not written by Edmund, but was produce by an interview he did with Reverend Hamilton Pierson for a biography of Thomas Jefferson, for which Edmund also provided his memoirs, notes, and papers of Jefferson. Edmund received no pay for this account, nor benefits from the biography. His recollection of Sally Hemmings was that Thomas was not the father of any of her children, but that another white man was, whom Edmund had seen frequently leaving the Hemming's dwelling early in the morning. He named the individual in the interview, but Rev. Pierson declined to include it.

Now, yes, Edmund Bacon was an overseer. But interestingly, he gives an account of Jefferson's behavior in the treatment of a slave caught red-handed having stolen a supply of nails. The man became so distraught upon being confronted that Jefferson ordered he receive no further punishment, accepting the man's dismay and confession as punishment enough. Bacon was impressed with Thomas's mercy in the incident (and praised it), which also gives us a further indication of Thomas's character and personal compassion. Coupled with Bacon's claim about the person responsible for fathering Sally's children, I think his account does suggest that Thomas was indeed unlikely to have abused Sally himself.

My assertion is not the every other Jefferson male had sex with Sally, but Thomas did not. That's absurd. I'm saying that when the physical evidence points to multiple suspects, then one must weigh other evidence to find the most likely suspect. That evidence must be eyewitness accounts as well as the behavior and characters of the various suspects. Thomas said privately that it wasn't him. Thomas does not display either the public nor private behavior which would suggest that it was him— actually, the claim goes against his established and known personal character and beliefs. Thomas remains a suspect— but the more likely suspect would be an individual who displayed low character on multiple occasions and was know for consorting with slaves. And that suspect is Randolph Jefferson.

In saying so, I am not demeaning anyone except Randolph.