"woke Monticello?" Topic

Parzival, you are having entirely too much fun with this!

For the record, again, I attended a seminar with the historian who was the court-appointed investigator in the Heming-descendants' case (suing for the right to be buried at Monticello as TJ's descendants). He told us precisely the same things Parzival has recounted. The judge dismissed the suit as unproven.

Had to leave before really concluding my last point.

Let's examine it this way:

Female A has 6 children of unknown parentage, born over a period of 13 years. Of these, three are males and three are females.
Five potential fathers are known, all of whom share the same y-DNA source. These are our suspects for being the father.
Two of the male children do not have y-DNA which matches the y-DNA of the suspects, and thus none of the suspects can be their father or fathers.
The female children cannot be traced in this manner— any of the men could be their father(s), or any other men could be their father(s).
The last remaining male child has the y-DNA. Therefore, one of the suspects is likely his father, though it could be any of the five, or could be a man also fathered by any of the five.
Of the suspects we have two strong potentials.
The first (Suspect A) is known to have been in the vicinity of the woman over a long term period of many years, including seven or eight years prior to the birth of her first child (a daughter), during which time she neither became pregnant nor gave birth. However, there is no other evidence that Suspect A and the woman were intimate or close companions (aside from rumor spread by an enemy of Suspect A, who had no firsthand knowledge of his claims).
The second potential suspect, Suspect B, is also known to have been in the vicinity of the woman during the time of the conception of the youngest son (which could be within a two to three month window, as birth records do not indicate premature delivery or delayed delivery). Suspect B was also known for engaging in close and even intimate behavior with those in the woman's immediate community, including other women.
Finally, accounts by a third, uninterested party claim to have seen someone other than Suspect A leaving the woman's quarters in the early morning on multiple occasions. While the person seen's identity is not revealed, the witness adamantly states that it was not Suspect A.

Now, of these two strong suspects, which one is more likely to be the father?
Suspect B, of course.

Is it definitive? No. Is it proof? No. But what it does do is establish that the claim that Suspect A is the father cannot unequivocally be put forth as true, nor can by extension any claim that Suspect A as the father of any of the female offspring be so asserted as true (in fact, that really can't be asserted at all).
Both claims might be true… but then, both claims might equally be false, and the weight of circumstantial evidence tends towards this interpretation rather than the other way around.

So without demeaning Sally Hemming in anyway, she was a slave. She was known to have had sexual liaisons with members of the slave community— whether these were consensual or forced isn't relevant to the question. She can be a victim through and through, or an opportunist, or both, or neither. It makes no difference to the question at hand. The only thing we can say definitively is that at least two of her children were NOT fathered by any Jefferson male, but the last one was. Were the daughters fathered by a Jefferson male? A Carr male? A slave? Some other male? We don't know and can't know. That is not demeaning Sally. It is saying that we simply don't know who the father or fathers were, whether she agreed to the conceiving acts or not. She might have been a pitiable victim in all instances; she might have been in love; she might have been out for a good time; she might have been using an untenable circumstance for situational gain. It's irrelevant. As a victim of slavery we can say that in all cases she was a potential victim— had she had the opportunity to make different choices, would she have made them in all cases? We honestly don't know. No doubt she did what she thought she could do in her situation and time. I am not demeaning either her or slaves or members of other races in that statement— *all* people do what they think they can do in their situation to deal with difficult circumstances, for good or ill. But none of that is relevant to the factual question of who fathered her children. All that matters is to whom the evidence— the real evidence— points.
And the fact is, that it points to multiple potential fathers, and not definitively one man. And only in one case does it even point to individuals who can be definitely named— and that would be either Thomas or Randolph or one of Randolph's sons (Isham), all of whom were present at Monticello during the window of potential conception of Eston.
And that's where it ends. We can't say who the father was at all. We can say it was probably one of these three, but there the biological evidence ends, and we are left with claims of witnesses either by their own record or by the claims of others in contact with them, or by family legend.

You believe it was Thomas because an organization with a vested political interest in it being Thomas (because sex sells) has "decided" that it must be— but that organization has gone on to claim that the other children of Sally were fathered by Thomas when two of them clearly were not and three cannot have their parentage determined at all. So they are lying about two, engaging in unsupported assumption on three, and are deliberately ignoring evidence to the contrary on even the most likely claim. (Including the family lore of Hemming's own descendants, who claimed that an "uncle" Jefferson was their ancestor, not Thomas. If you assert their claims are false, are you demeaning them?)

You may believe whatever you want. But I'll base my belief on evidence and logic, not political expediency, marketing claims, and the moral self-righteousness of the "social justice" crowd.

Parzival, you are having entirely too much fun with this!

Me too, I didnt realize just how widespread the denial of Alabama's racist public school textbooks were until he declared that they weren't.

Don't remember Alabama's racist textbooks? You're probably white

Some people don't remember. They say it's not true. It couldn't possibly be true. Surely Alabama never taught racism in school, never glorified the Ku Klux Klan.

If it did, they say, they'd surely remember. And they don't.

link

Lot's of laughs there. Collective amnesia?

For the record, again, I attended a seminar with the historian who was the court-appointed investigator in the Heming-descendants' case (suing for the right to be buried at Monticello as TJ's descendants). He told us precisely the same things Parzival has recounted. The judge dismissed the suit as unproven.

Who was this? What suit? What judge? Where? More personal anecdotes.

The only item I found said that the society of Jefferson's white children wanted the one's from the partly black line to be excluded from the Jefferson family burial ground and that the evidence was lacking primarily because official records had to be produced which even the Jefferson family admitted would be a problem for slaves and disenfranchised persons to ever have gotten issued to them. Thus the Monticello Association pulled the old, "well the records dont exist, so it never happened" and we're not racist but thems the rules.

Incidentally a credentialed genealogical expert says that Jefferson was the father of Heming's children.

The Children of Sally Hemings
Genealogist Gives Annual Austin Lecture
Thomas Jefferson's Monticello estate
Thomas Jefferson's Monticello estate, where, according to Helen Leary, Sally Hemings bore the third president seven children.

By REBECCA GATES-COON

Thomas Jefferson, third president of the United States, was most likely the father of all of Sally Hemings' children, genealogist Helen F. M. Leary, an expert on early families of the Upper South, reported at the Library's 2002 Judith P. Austin Memorial Lecture on April 16.

Leary contended that much of the evidence marshaled against the Hemings-Jefferson relationship has proved to be flawed by reason of bias, inaccuracy or inconsistent reporting. Too many coincidences must be accounted for and too many unique circumstances "explained away," she said, if a competing theory is to be accepted. She concluded by saying that the sum of the evidence points to Jefferson as the father of Hemings' children.

That would certainly explain all that endless jibber jabber by the anti jefferson-Hemings liaison crowd.

link

Charge, it was at UT Chattanooga, back around 2001 or so, and I have forgotten the details. Sorry, but it is not worth trying to dig them up. If you don't believe me, that is your loss.

Fwiw, the likelihood of TJ having an intimate relationship with SH is strengthened by the fact that she and TJ's dead wife were half-sisters, and looked a lot alike. SH was very light-complexioned. And TJ's wife had made him swear not to remarry after she was gone. So a relationship is certainly imaginable -- and as Parzival says, could have been anything from rape to a fully consensual long-term love; we simply do not know. But Parzival is correct that the DNA evidence precludes ALL of her children being fathered by a Jefferson male. This whole situation is more an area for romance novelists to let their imaginations run through, than a topic for a serious historian. Once again, ALL contemporary accounts originate with Jefferson's political enemies. Doesn't mean they are false, but it does mean be careful what you believe.

+1 Doc

So now APDC is calling me a racist because I remember learning about slavery and racism when I went to school in Alabama. I guess because I'm a Southerner? Classy, APDC. And typical of the left's approach in a debate— they start losing, so they start attacking the other person's character.

And a "credentialed genealogical expert"? ‌‌ What the hell is that supposed to be? Credentialed by whom? Expert according to whom— herself?
If she doesn't understand how y-DNA works, I don't give a flip for her "credentials" or whatever expertise she claims to have. She's ignorant of science. But that's par for the course on these days. Family trees (genealogy) have nothing to do with it. She needs to consult a geneticist— a real scientist specializing in the human genome, DNA, and how these work— because she clearly knows squat about it. This argument has ceased to be about who was where when or who's sister was whose or what birth records say or anything of the sort. That's all speculation, not science. It's about DNA, and DNA doesn't lie.

The DNA has spoken. TJ is not the father of SH's other male children, and therefore the whole argument of a "life-long" affair collapses.. Only one child is descended from a Jefferson male, and that male is as equally likely, according to science, to be any of 5 or 6 known descendants of TJ's grandfather. It could be TJ, but since none of the other children were his, it becomes less likely that he had any sexual relationship with SH at all, and more likely that someone else did. And we have a viable and more likely father in Randolph, no matter what some twit with a family tree chart has to say.

But I guess if one don't understand how DNA works and what the Y chromosome is, does, or what it's presence means, one will never get that.

I think this discussion is pretty much settled. The rest of y'all can decide what you think of the information presented.

But Parzival is correct that the DNA evidence precludes ALL of her children being fathered by a Jefferson male.

That's not what Im reading. I read that they've only been able to confirm one by DNA, that one claimant was the child of neither, that the two girls dont carry that Y gene and of the other males, one's descendants cant be traced (Apparently he didn't want people to kn ow about his black heritage) and of the other, the family wont let scientists extract DNA from the corpse.

So now APDC is calling me a racist because I remember learning about slavery and racism when I went to school in Alabama. I guess because I'm a Southerner? Classy, APDC. And typical of the left's approach in a debate— they start losing, so they start attacking the other person's character.

No not at all. But I think it calls into question a person's ability to analyze 2nd and third party facts when they are seemingly unaware of the facts around them. You claimed the public school system didnt have a racist textbook and not only did Alabama have one of the worst in that regard but there seems to be some sort of phenomenon that white adults growing up in that era cant seem to recall that textbook.

That and your continued refusal to consider that your statement about teaching slavery in Alabama public schools might've been in error can also call into question your ability to reasonably look at all the evidence vs just focusing on and insisting that the evidence you prefer is dispositive.

Additionally, why would the left want Jefferson to be the father and, presumably, the right want him not to be the father? Is it political to want to know the truth?

I mean the DNA test can only get you so far which is why you need other research and experts. But the speculation the TJI study comes up with has some very gymnastic fact patterns. Additionally, we talk of muckrakers but:

1. The original muckraker's story by Callender about Jefferson had more than a scintilla of truth to it. Maybe he and others knew more than they were likely to admit

2. No one ever said that Sally Hemmings was promiscuous. That really does suggest that some side is trying desperately to create doubt by trampling the poor woman's reputation.

3. It isn't anyone's fault that because of slavery and racism, that the records are missing, that descendants lived in fear of being considered black and the Jefferson family for centuries tried to cover up and deny these "rumors". The DNA test proves that at a minimum, they were gravely mistaken and at a maximum, they were lying and covering up. I dont know why we as historians should be penalized because of their and their societies behavior. If criminals destroy evidence, do we then say, "Oh well, I guess you aren't guilty because there's no proof?"

So without demeaning Sally Hemming in anyway, she was a slave. She was known to have had sexual liaisons with members of the slave community

I must've missed this. Source please?

You believe it was Thomas because an organization with a vested political interest in it being Thomas (because sex sells) has "decided" that it must be— but that organization has gone on to claim that the other children of Sally were fathered by Thomas when two of them clearly were not and three cannot have their parentage determined at all. So they are lying about two, engaging in unsupported assumption on three, and are deliberately ignoring evidence to the contrary on even the most likely claim.

I haven't seen most of these claims. Who makes them. The TJI study itself claims that he could've been the father of her children but "probably" was not, with one dissenter.

There involves some speculation on both sides of the issue but the difference is that the pro-TJ-paternity side seems to consider both sides. I cant say that the other side always doesn't consider both sides but they seem to sometimes conveniently ignore historical facts and conclusions they don't find helpful.

Meanwhile, you seem to have morphed speculation, which is your prerogative to engage in, into science which is not your prerogative to engage in.

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.

You keep mentioning this letter where TJ denies and affair with Sally. I asked once and now again, where is this letter? I'd like to read it too.

And a "credentialed genealogical expert"? laugh‌laugh‌laugh What the hell is that supposed to be? Credentialed by whom? Expert according to whom— herself?
If she doesn't understand how y-DNA works, I don't give a flip for her "credentials" or whatever expertise she claims to have. She's ignorant of science. But that's par for the course on these days. Family trees (genealogy) have nothing to do with it. She needs to consult a geneticist— a real scientist specializing in the human genome, DNA, and how these work— because she clearly knows squat about it. This argument has ceased to be about who was where when or who's sister was whose or what birth records say or anything of the sort. That's all speculation, not science. It's about DNA, and DNA doesn't lie.

The scientists assert that paternity evidence can only get you so far. Which is why we need other experts to help out. Although, apart from the nameless historical expert doc likes, he doesn't think historians are qualified to be involved, I don't have a problem with historians helping out to recreate the narrative.

A genealogical expert is just that, an expert that helps piece together family trees especially when records are missing or incomplete. In addition, this one seems to be knowledgeable about Southern society and race relations during that time.

The historians ( and maybe the lawyers too)can come up with all sorts of fancy "what if " scenarios but the genealogist can demonstrate what sorts of human relationships were most likely to take place based on her knowledge of human and cultural practices.

Here is a video interview of her about TJ's paternity of SH's children:

YouTube link

Here are her qualifications:

link

I dont know why this has to be a right vs left thing. However, it does occur to me that you are convinced that anyone who isn't with you on this, is necessarily against you. That sort of approach makes it hard for me to see your arguments as sincere or based on science when you constantly make utterances to the effect that this is some sort greater ideological struggle.

Incidentally, considering that 90% of historians in this TJ history discipline along with other experts hold TJ to be the father, it sounds like the anti-paternity clique has really lost the struggle. Are all of them leftists too?

Frankly, the claims about Hemming are so tainted by revisionism it's impossible these days to determine what liaisons, if any, she may have had. And I'm not "demeaning" the "poor woman." I'm stating that as a matter of fact no fact can be established. I have indeed read that she had at least one lover among the other slaves, possibly two, but I can no longer find the source without extensive searching at research libraries (my last reading of it was several decades ago). Neither Google nor Wikipedia nor the Monticello organization can be put forth as viable search platforms, alas, Wikipedia being subject to constant "editing" by biased individuals from all sides, Monticello org having a vested interested in interpretation, and Google being… well, we all know how reliable Google is when anything has a hint of politics to it. Plus, hits today on the subject invariably point to left wing populist magazine articles of dubious research or understanding.

And no, I don't agree that Callendar is a viable source. The rumor was based upon the children "being light skinned" (which Sally herself already was and naturally passed on to her children), and the claim that one child "looked like Jefferson"— and that one child (Thomas Woodson) was definitively ruled out by the DNA evidence. Which, of course, means that SH must have had sex with someone other than TJ or a Jefferson male— so "at least one lover." I'm not suggesting she was "wanton" or "polyamorous" or even wanted to have sex in that instance— I'm just saying it happened, willingly or otherwise, and not with TJ. In any case, there is no way that Callendar has any first hand knowledge, and the second hand knowledge he looked to as the source for his scandal sheet has now been proven to be false. So his scandal sheet cannot be accepted as evidence or even a pointer to evidence. It's rumor, motivated by political hatred, produced by denied greed. That you keep returning to it is astonishing. Callendar has been thoroughly repudiated as fundamentally dishonest and self-serving individual with no possible way of having any actual knowledge of anything regarding the events. He's about as reliable as Parson Weems! His opinions and statements belong in the ash heap of history, not in the revered sources column.

I don't dispute that sex with slaves was common, but I do dispute that it was looked upon favorably even in Southern culture. Deliberately overlooked, yes. But with approbation or even a nod and a wink? No. Sexual immorality was frowned on, even though it happened. Else the whole thing wouldn't have been a scandal. Jefferson could have said, "Yes, my wife was dead. I fell in love with Sally and we've been lovers ever since, and she's given me many fine children. Alas, a marriage is not possible, but she is my wife." And, since he was no longer President and had no further political aspirations, it would have caused some mild outrage, but he was frickin' Thomas Jefferson, writer of the Declaration of Independence, former President of the United States, beloved across the country and around the world (excepting England and the Barbary Coast), and aside from some shocked matrons and a few finger-wagging parsons, nobody would have given a damn. Hell, he could have done that even if it WAS a social scandal. Yet he didn't. In fact, there is no evidence of favoritism towards Sally or her children, even in the will, which seems a very odd thing in Jefferson, who showed great pride in his daughters and had publicly promoted the accomplishments of intelligent, educated black men (Benjamin Bannister being one). Why would he not have done so with his own children, if they were his? He had nothing to lose by it, and much potential to be gained for them.
He even had the example of Benjamin Franklin, who was known to have been "very friendly" with the ladies of Paris during his service there in the American Revolution, and nobody cared about it (except maybe John Adams, who didn't really understand French court politics or behavior). That Thomas Jefferson felt shame about slavery is evident in his own writings on the matter— yet, aside from freeing slaves at his death, he took no action to remedy that even among slaves you assert were actually his own children. It just doesn't track with the overall character of the man. No, he wasn't a saint. But he wasn't a devil, either.
Did he know that Eston was his nephew?
You keep going on about "demeaning the poor woman—" well, what about demeaning Thomas Jefferson? How is that better? How is that different? Because he's a man and women need to be defended? (How chivalrous— or is that "how chauvinistic?") Or because he was white, and black people need to be defended? (How magnanimous— or is that "how racist?")
My position is that people are people and have a measure of good or ill in them. I don't know who Sally did or didn't have sex with or her motivations. She certainly had sex multiple times, but so did any woman who had multiple children. I don't know the circumstances of their intimate lives either— and all though I would hope for them that it was always consensual and an act of love, and the same for Sally, but that's irrelevant to the logical question of who fathered Sally's children. As I said, she could have been wanton, she could have been forced, she could have been faithful to one person, she could have been faithful yet forced, or she could have simply taken whatever advantage she could get to provide a better life for herself and her children. We can't know her motivations or desires. We can only know that she had children, that these were the results of sexual liaisons with more than one man— could be just two, could be as many men as she had children. And that's all we can really know. Anything else is a fiction we're constructing for our own entertainment or political goals.

I agree with Parzival.

Things I missed:

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.

Apparently, the original scientific study rules out the Carr line as a possible father for Eston Hemmings.

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…

This isnt what I've read. What I've seen is that Randolph was only considered a possible father by the anti-paternity faction after the DNA evidence came out. If you would point me to where these Randy rumors were set down, I'd appreciate it.

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.

This is both inaccurate and misleading. In fact, several of your prior statements appear to be both inaccurate and misleading but this one in particular seems wrong. The DNA testing did not rule out Jefferson in all but one case; just the opposite, it confirmed him as a possible father in one instance with the others remaining unconfirmed because DNA testing hadn't been done.

Thomas Woodson's own claims have been disproved because he is neither a child of TJ nor SH. It's not just a case of his Lacking Jefferson DNA but that there are no records of his birth or existence at Monticello nor mention by his supposed mother SH.

I havent really looked at this matter at all before a few days ago. I assume you've been pondering it for a long time. However, now that I understand the record more clearly and I re-read some of what you've written, it does come across like a lot of wild speculation. Ordinarily, that would be fine but then you say to follow the science but also codify your speculations into incontrovertible fact. This is alright for either an ideologue or a fanatic but not for a researcher or historian. A fanatic doesn't ever believe they're wrong and an ideologue doesn't care if they are wrong. However, neither approach can be useful in putting together an objective historical record. In the world of speculation, there are reasonable, well measured, fair minded approaches and there is propaganda.

Now, I understand that the anti TJ-Paternity faction claims the other side also engages in this but it isn't readily apparent under any other understanding than a belief that if you think TJ fathered those children, it cant be evidence based and HAS to be politically motivated. I could be wrong but I haven't seen any indication of that whatsoever.

There's a lot of speculation on both sides but that doesn't mean that the speculation that one side likes is "science" and the speculation is doesn't like is either partisan deceit or pure "hearsay" (as you might say). Additionally, the study from TJI seems to be both flawed and sloppy. Consider this:

In the fall of 2001, the National Genealogical Society Quarterly reported that the "weight of historical evidence" and the DNA study were sufficient to conclude that Jefferson had a long relationship with Hemings and fathered all her children. They strongly criticized a report issued that year by the newly formed Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society (TJHS); they said it failed to follow best practices in historical and genealogical analysis.

This National Genealogical Society is held in high regard and the North Carolina genealogical Society that Leary is also a member of has been helping NC families piece together their heritage for decades including many Revolutionary War ancestors.

The fact that you seem willing to cast doubt on it could lead one to suspect you are more of a decision in search of an explanation. If indeed there are no experts and only political points of view, then really why would someone bother to argue at all? Would the "fix" already be in?

Again, I am not qualified to evaluate DNA evidence or its lack, but as a historian I can and do say with assurance that ALL the other evidence alleging TJ as the father is tainted because it either comes (originally) from his political enemies or from those with vested interests in TJ being the father. Doesn't mean it is NECESSARILY false, but it is very far from being proved.

My whole purpose is to state that the claim that Thomas Jefferson fathered any of SH's children is unprovable, and, given his own statements on the matter and the accounts of others in a position to have actual information, more unlikely than likely.

My motivation is quite simply that I don't like speculations being put forth as fact, particularly for political reasons— and these reasons are political. The desire to discredit the Founders' personal lives so as to undermine the ideals and principles of the nation is a very real thing. (In fact, that's exactly what the 1619 Project is all about.)

I don't have a problem with speculation— but I do have a problem with speculation being asserted as incontrovertible fact.

If Monticello wished to state that there are allegations that Thomas Jefferson had a lengthy affair with Sally Hemmings, it's fine for them to say so if they put it in the proper context— that the original allegations were made by a vehement political opponent of Jefferson with no firsthand knowledge, that Jefferson privately denied the claim while publicly ignoring it, that a contemporary eye witness identified someone else as being the actual predator, and that Ms. Hemmings and her family received no significant special treatment compared to other "house servants" at the time, or later in Jefferson's will as compared to other slaves also freed in the document. And finally that the DNA test was inconclusive— that while it did show that the descendants of the youngest son were related to Jefferson, this relationship cannot be definitively said to be through Thomas Jefferson himself, but could be attributed to any other male descendant of his grandfather*— of which five are known possibilities. And finally that circumstantial evidence puts forth Randolph Jefferson as equally likely to be Eston Hemmings's father as Thomas, and in fact Randolph was known for his disreputable behavior with slaves and women in general.

But finding a room for which they did not know any purpose, assuming it was Sally's room, and assuming that a covered walkway between the main house and the servants quarters was a path for Jefferson to make liaisons, when such connecting walkways are quite common in large homes of the period so as to allow servants access to the family living quarters for the purpose of cleaning the same and delivering meals, etc., is frankly stretching the claim beyond all credulity. I cannot attribute that to anything other than a desire to pander to scandal and mislead the public for either financial or political purposes.

*On the science side of things, the nature of y-DNA could also mean that a potential bearer of the y-DNA descended from the grandfather but NOT sired by TJ could have been the father of a Hemming's descendant, too, thus actually skipping Eston entirely. Think of it this way: if A female has sex with B male and also with C male, and presents the offspring as B's offspring when C is actually the father. The child is then legally given the name of B, and is assumed to be B's child, but doesn't actually carry B's DNA but C's instead. I don't think that's likely, and no, I don't think it happened in this case, but the science of DNA makes it possible, meaning that we have to put an assumption that it did not happen in place to arrive at the conclusion that the line of descent is from B and not anyone else. Therefore, biologically, the only way to definitively state that Eston's Hemmings descendants are indeed his descendants is to compare his exact DNA to theirs. The same is true of Thomas Jefferson. The only way to determine if anyone is descended from Thomas is to take his exact DNA and compare it to the potential descendant's exact DNA. Without that, the claim cannot be asserted as scientific fact.

Doc, Parzival, you know I agree with you.

But playing devils advocate. So let us say Jefferson was the father and it was Consensual sex. How does that distract from what he did otherwise?

Were not all the founding fathers traitors? Is that not worse than fathering children with a slave in a consensual relationship? I say traitors, because they did rebel against their legitimate government. From my perspective, that was a good thing, but legally it was still treason. What would the British had done to Adams, Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, etc., if they had been victorious?

Can we not find fault with almost anyone if we really try? I made an earlier statement about MLK, but you can do the same with most. Especially with our almost daily changing of beliefs in what are "correct" views.

As far as Hemmings, if they are going to talk about it at Monticello, do so only by saying, at best, this is all conjecture and has never been proven to be true to this point.

As far as slavery. I started getting interested in the Civil War by the age of 8. My first book "The Golden Book of The Civil War" talked about it. I never was under the assumption that slavery was anything like "Gone With the Wind". I also knew Washington and Jefferson owned slaves and had visited Mount Vernon. All by the age of 10.

As far as Gone with the Wind, I am sure there are some that are that Naïve, but they probably believe we fought the Germans in the Revolutionary War. Then there is the group who just don't care.

35thOVI, no, to me none of the Founders' failings, real or imagined, diminish what they did. But then, like you I try to understand history within the context of the times. It is one thing to acknowledge that we today see certain things as evil, and can even admit that no belief at any time truly alters that (as, say, human sacrifice among the Aztecs. They believed they were doing good and pleasing their gods, but that belief does not excuse their actions, even if it explains it). Same of slavery; indeed, up until the post-Renaissance, slavery was generally treated as only bad if you or your countrymen were slaves. As long as it was someone from a different culture, well, they were just meant to be slaves. I'm not saying anyone really looked at it that closely— it was just "the way things were." Some people are slaves and some people are peasants and some people are nobles and some people are kings. The idea that these states were not only not inevitable but also morally wrong was astonishingly new— and, quite frankly, still hasn't found true agreement even in the Western World. Snobs are snobs the world over, and they come in all classes.

I don't know if I would classify the Founders as true "traitors" to the British crown. Up until 1776, they were British citizens who had demonstrably been denied their just rights as such, and were essentially defending those rights from the actions of a tyrant, even if he didn't think he was being one. So it's finger pointing that goes both ways— he was a tyrant from their point of view (and they had valid arguments) and they were traitors from his point of view (and those were valid arguments). Personally, I don't see rebels as necessarily deserving the immediate condemnation of treason; it's more nuanced than that. It may technically be treason to turn against an unjust ruler, but is it condemnable? Sort of depends on the ruler and his actions, and the rebels and their actions. Tom Clancy's A Cardinal in the Kremlin to some extent examines this— the titular character is an agent for the CIA, yet considers himself a Russian patriot acting to undermine what he sees as the evils of the Soviet system. At the end, the reader is left to consider that one man's traitor can be another man's hero, and it is possible for an act of treason to be an act of patriotism— but sometimes the recognition of this hangs entirely on the viewer's perspective. It also opens up a can of moral worms, as one is squarely looking at the ends justifying the means and having to decide whether that's right or not.

Which is why I don't like playing absolutes with history, especially American history. We do ourselves a great disservice when we try to make the Founders saints; but we do a worse disservice when we try to make them villains. I think there are those on both sides of the political spectrum who are too eager to do both, for their own political ends— and the Monticello thing is part of that. There are those today who think that if they can discredit their forebears then that somehow elevates their own radical concepts to an equal level— never mind that they are using the principles established by their forebears as the rule with which to measure— and that rule condemns the descendants' concepts even more. And there are those who live by the "well, he did it first" and "he's worse than me" arguments (which they failed to outgrow as children), thinking to justify their own values (or lack of the same) by condemning a failure to live up to greater values in people whom society reveres.

Whether one agrees with that or not, I will remain opposed to the declarations of certainty for accusations which cannot be proven, and for which other rational and supported explanations are equally if not more likely. And that doesn't matter whom the accusation is against, or who makes it.

When you continue to dig deeper, you keep finding interesting tid bits.

For instance, this Bacon who claims that Harriet wasn't TJ's daughter bc he saw a man not TJ leave SH's room. But Bacon apparently didnt work at Monticello until five years after Harriet Hemings was born. Thus, we really need to question what he actually knew and whether what he saw wasnt completely irrelevant. Further it calls ito question his wits, his veracity, whether his words were faithfully recorded and what the motives of the chronicler were.

That and this business that TJ denied having an affair with SH. You keep asserting it, I keep asking where it is, and I keep getting no response. I cant find it, no one seems to mention it and if there is a source you have that none of the experts do, then we really need to alert them about it.

Out of the 7 other possible Jefferson males that could've been the father of SH's children none but this Randolph seems to have ever really been put forward and there are a lot of problems with why he would be a likely candidate.