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

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.

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

 
Total votes: 0

_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

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

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

EAllusion wrote: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.


I think it was something like this:

Modern Research and Interpretations

The November 5, 1998 issue of Nature exploded onto the evening news with the headline, "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child." Due to the fact that any males carry a XY chromosome (in order to be male) and females carry XX, the son of any union of two people must inherit his Y chromosome from his male parent. The test, in question, follows the Y-chromosome in an unbroken chain from father to son. However, since Jefferson had no surviving sons from his marriage, his Y-chromosome cannot be followed directly from Jefferson through his legal heirs. Nonetheless, Jefferson had to inherit his Y-chromosome from his father, Peter, who in turn, of course, inherited it from his father, also named Thomas. So, it became the task of the researchers to find an unbroken male line of Jeffersons originating from the same source as President Jefferson. To do this they followed unbroken male lines of Field Jefferson, President Jefferson's paternal uncle. The Y-chromosome that they followed had a bi-allelic marker that was typically European. Furthermore, the microsatellite haplotype was so rare that "it has not been found in 670 European men" and "it has never been observed outside the Jefferson family."

Do these results conclude absolutely that Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings's children? No, these results demonstrate that the most likely sire of Eston Hemings (the source for unbroken male line of the Hemings) was a male line descendent of Thomas Jefferson's grandfather, of whom Thomas Jefferson was but one. It is through this gap in the currently available scientific knowledge that Herbert Barger, Jefferson genealogist, has plunged. Barger promotes "seven other Jeffersons, any one of which could have fathered Eston Hemings." Apparently, six of these seven are "Thomas'[s] younger brother, Randolph Jefferson" and his five sons whom, Barger points out, "lived about 20 miles away . . . One of these sons, Isham, was `reared' by Jefferson according to the History of Todd Co., Ky." Further, Barger states that:

Thomas's first cousin, once removed, George Jefferson, Jr., educated by Thomas, his agent and manager in Richmond and who must have come to Monticello to discuss business when Thomas came home Could this possibly explain why Sally became pregnant only when Thomas was at Monticello.

Although Barger presents all seven men whose Y-chromosome genetic markers were the same as that of President Thomas Jefferson and Eston Hemings, he primarily champions Randolph Jefferson as the probable culprit in Sally's pregnancies:

My study indicates to me that Thomas Jefferson was NOT the father of Eston or any other Hemings child. The study indicates that Randolph is possibly the father of Eston and the others. Randolph, named for his maternal Randolph family, was a widower and between wives when shortly after his wife's death, Sally became pregnant with her first child, Harriet I. . . She continued having children until 1808 when Eston was born, Randolph Jefferson would marry his second wife the next year, 1809, and would have a child, John, born about 1810. Three of Sally Hemings'[s] children, Harriet, Beverly and Eston (the latter two not common names), were given names of the Randolph family who had earlier owned Randolph's plantation, "Snowden", and who had received it as his inheritance.

Barger, also, states, "I don't suppose there would be any reason for Randolph to visit Monticello except when Thomas would come home."

As to Randolph's sons, Randolph Jefferson married his first wife, Anne Jefferson Lewis, on July 30, 1780. If their first child was a male and was born nine months to a year later, his birthday would fall between late April and August 1781. In order for the oldest son of Randolph and Anne Jefferson to have fathered Sally's Harriet, he needed to have intercourse with the twenty-one year old Sally in January 1795 when he would have been at most thirteen. This scenario is not physiologically impossible, albeit distasteful. However, since this child, if he was the Isham to whom Barger refers, was the oldest of Randolph's children and was so young, one can feel fairly safe in eliminating, at very least, the rest of Randolph's sons as sources of the unique Jefferson Y-chromosome haplotype. Since this was the case, Barger's choice of Randolph as the likely father, appears to be the more reasonable candidate.


SAUCE
_EAllusion
_Emeritus
Posts: 18519
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:39 pm

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

Post by _EAllusion »

MrStakhanovite wrote:I think it was something like this:


Uh, Stak, that doesn't indicate that the genetic evidence better supports Jefferson's brother.
_MrStakhanovite
_Emeritus
Posts: 5269
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 3:32 am

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

Post by _MrStakhanovite »

EAllusion wrote:Uh, Stak, that doesn't indicate that the genetic evidence better supports Jefferson's brother.


Yeah, I remembered wrong. It must have been that there was enough genetic ambiguity to allow plausible alternatives.
_gramps
_Emeritus
Posts: 2485
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 3:43 pm

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

Post by _gramps »

Dr. Peterson, thanks for joining in.

I must apologize for the poorly constructed poll. It is the first poll I have created and it was a little daunting, in the beginning. After four attempts, I was somewhat frustrated, though I had somewhat succeeded. I realized later there were some options clearly missing from the poll.

Be that as it may, you are still free to add what you feel would be an appropriate choice, something that you would feel comfortable with. I am not sure I yet understand where your position actually lies on the spectrum from, 'Yes, there is no question,' to 'No, it is a moral impossibility.' I am presuming you are somewhere in between those two options. But, again, I often have a hard time figuring out just where you stand on any given issue. Even your 'testimony' on MST leaves me a bit perplexed, but that is neither here nor there for the purposes of this thread. I will save that for another day.

I think it is safe to assume that you don't have a testimony of your position, but, rather, it is based on sifting through and weighing evidence, like in any secular enterprise, where your religion does not play a part in how you might weigh evidence. So, if I have assumed correctly, then I am indeed interested in why you don't buy into the consensus on this issue.

Even before the DNA evidence came in some time ago, it appears the consensus was moving towards the 'Yes, it seems highly likely,' position.

And after the DNA evidence came out, it of course made the likelihood that Jefferson fathered at least one of her children even stronger.

Gordon S. Wood, in his essay titled The Ghosts of Monticello from the book, Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson: History, Memory, and Civic Culture, writes:

"..., clearly the burden of proof has shifted: until otherwise disproved, Jefferson is now presumed to have fathered one or more of Sally Heming's children. Indeed, what is remarkable is the alacrity and enthusiasm with which historians, including most in this volume, have now come to accept the truth of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship. Even Annette Gordon-Reed, as she says, was unprepared for a world "without serious opposition" to her beliefs. So accepting of the sexual relationship are most historians now that it will be difficult for any future scholarly cautionary notes to get heard."

Given this, I have just two questions for you, that, if you can spare the time, would love to see your responses to.

First, do you accept Wood's statement, that a prima facie case has been made out for Jefferson being the father of at least one of Sally's children? If not, why?

Second, if you do accept Wood's statement, what evidence do you think they have missed or not weighed in the balance? From the article to which you cited, it even states that there is no new evidence that will come out in the newly published book. Do you know something they don't know?

Dr. Peterson wrote:

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.


See questions above, please.

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.


Only possible? This has to do with the evidence you have apparently sorted through, but yet come to a different conclusion? See questions above, please.

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


I for one am waiting until I can order the new text on Amazon.de. I haven't seen it available yet. I am definitely looking forward to reading it, especially the lone dissenter's opinion.

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.


I can't speak for Scratch, but I have laid out above my concerns I have sometimes trying to figure out just what your position is on any given matter. How you see things has been fascinating to me for a long time. Please indulge me, if you don't mind.

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


Apologies, again. See above.
I detest my loose style and my libertine sentiments. I thank God, who has removed from my eyes the veil...
Adrian Beverland
Post Reply