Did Jefferson father at least one of Sally Heming's children

[_aussieguy55]

Annette Gordon-Reed in her book The Hemingses of Monticello states that was only when Jefferson was home at Monticello was it that Sally fell pregnant. He took her to France with him, bought her clothes and her given French lessons. Sally could have being in France left him for her freedom but she chose not to. Was it a loving romantic relationship between them? Of course when Brodie wrote her biography of Jefferson, where she argues for a relationship between the two, the likes of people like Midgley castigate her as a historian. She was eventually proven right

See this
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... port4.html

[_Darth J]

It is very unlikely that a man with pretensions with respectability in his community would ever allow himself to think of a female domestic in sexual terms. Even less so, of course, if she had a sister working in the house.

I am thankful that we have the example of righteous men like the Prophet Joseph Smith to show us how a true man of honor and integrity would act.

[_truth dancer]

If you were to visit Monticello and take a tour you would learn that most experts and historians agree that it is highly likely TJ did indeed father at least one of Sally's children, Eston, probably all six of them.

If I recall correctly, there is a group of people (Thomas Jefferson's descendants from Martha) who still deny this and claim Sally's children are from Randolph, TJ's brother but the evidence supports TJ as the father, and it is clear everyone at Monticello believes this.

The historians note that TJ's "relationship" with Sally began several years (I think seven or so) after his wife died. They were together for thirty-eight years.

Just an FYI... Sally's father, John Wayles was also Martha's father so they were half sisters. Sally's mother, Betty Hemings was a slave of John's, If I recall correctly.

~td~

[_gramps]

Thanks for all the replies and votes.

Someone has voted for the fourth option: "No, I highly doubt it."

I wish she had shared with us why, exactly, she chose the fourth option. I would be very interested to hear her ideas.

p.s. I hate doing the 'he/she' crap. Of course, the voter could be a he or a he/she. I don't know, nor care.

[_Daniel Peterson]

Is Dan P ever right?

Probably not.

Except, perhaps, in this instance:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... d-childre/

[_aussieguy55]

Once again we select what evidence that fits our particular bias

1. Why did his enemies bring this relationship up if there was nothing to it?
2. Why did she just fall pregnant just when Jefferson was at home on Monticello?
3. Why did Sally's son claim that his mother was his "concubine"? Why would he lie? What advantage would it have given him?

Fawn Brodie set a cat among the pigeons and now her theory has been vindicated.
I am sure Annette Gordon-Reed will be involved in this debate having written about it. Did you see her on the PBS program?

[_Doctor Scratch]

Is Dan P ever right?

Probably not.

Except, perhaps, in this instance:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... d-childre/

So you've read this book, then?

[_Daniel Peterson]

So you've read this book, then?

No. Not yet. The book is very new.

However, I'm somewhat familiar with the predecessor arguments, and I cite the book only to illustrate the fact that I'm far from the only person who doesn't think that it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt (nor, even, by the preponderance of evidence) that Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more of Sally Hemings's children.

I and the others may be wrong, of course. That's possible. And, if so, that will be fine. Nothing much in my universe hangs on this question.

But the hoots and howls of derision and astonishment at my failure to consider the case closed are premature. Or so it would seem.

Now stop pretending to be interested in a substantive issue. You're only really interested in this question, as you and I both know full well, to the extent that it might serve your half-decade-long crusade against me.

**

P.S. Incidentally, I could not vote in the poll, because none of the options represented my position.

[_Doctor Scratch]

So you've read this book, then?

No. Not yet. The book is very new.

That's what I thought.

However, I'm somewhat familiar with the predecessor arguments, and I cite the book only to illustrate the fact that I'm far from the only person who doesn't think that it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt (nor, even, by the preponderance of evidence) that Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more of Sally Hemings's children.

Fair enough, but it's obviously problematic to cite a book you haven't read. Plus, the book appears to have been "commissioned" by an organization that does apologetics on behalf of Jefferson. Perhaps that's why you felt a sort of kinship with the reported findings?

But the hoots and howls of derision and astonishment at my failure to consider the case closed are premature. Or so it would seem.

Hmmm. Could it be that you perhaps misunderstood the subtext of the OP?

Now stop pretending to be interested in a substantive issue.

I don't consider this a "substantive issue." Do you? If so, that's awfully interesting. To my mind, this represents a bit of historical trivia.

Oh, and there's also the issue of your commentary on the issue, and what that might say about your professional and intellectual relationship with both historical inquiry and apologetics.

[_EAllusion]

Is Dan P ever right?

Probably not.

Except, perhaps, in this instance:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... d-childre/

Um, the article in question still argues the received view is that Jefferson was the father of at least one of Sally Heming's children. It merely notes there is now a book out there disputing this conventional wisdom produced by a panel of scholars commissioned by an organization dedicated to defending the reputation of Thomas Jefferson.

That's not terribly helpful. If you are just pointing out respectable scholars hold the view you are asserting, you can find respectable scholars to argue just about anything. That goes without saying, so you don't have to say it. You might as well have said Shakespeare probably didn't write Shakespeare, then point to some book arguing as such that you've never read.

Stak -

Any idea where you got that impression? I ask because the Jefferson genetic testing was used as an illustrative example in a genetics class I was in when the 2000 report came out. I don't remember that being the case then.