Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson: History, Memory, and Civic Culture (Jeffersonian America)

Black oral family histories were painstakingly recollected and passed down from generation to generation.The only possessions black families were allowed to possess were their memories- powerful and precious they were,and accurate as well.It is a tragedy that the descendants of Sally Hemmings are criticized for bringing forth what they already knew to be truth.To quibble over the fact that Jefferson's brother carried similar DNA misses this book's point entirely-Hemming's children had been told who their father was.Her descendants knew!The DNA evidence confirmed it.The central message of this book is not about the biological evidence,however.It is about the psychological and cultural issues that cause us to react in extreme ways(anger, fear, disbelief)to complex racial issues, particulary those regarding sexuality.In this respect the book is outstanding.It causes each of us to examine our personal and cultural viewpoints from both black and white perspectives. Americans of all races will benefit from reading this book.

I was present at this open house discussion that this book is based upon because as Assistant to Dr. E. A. Foster, I had requested to be present and was invited by Professor Peter Onuf, one of the authors of this book. Upon arrival I was denied a seat on the panel and told to seat myself in the audience and if I wished to say anything that the "open mike" at the end of the discussion was my conduit. I was immediately opposing this august panel's findings as it applied to the actual DNA findings. In my opinion it was a seemingly overwhelming desire to have the prevailing combined force that DNA had proven Thomas Jefferson guilty of fathering slave children. This book conveys this image for the reader. Many, many statements in this book are absolutely inaccurate and have not been proven by DNA.The very first page has a Jefferson-Hemings Family Tree that is outrageous in that it portrays Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings as being the parents of Madison and Eston Hemings (absolutely unproven). A note states that Eston Hemings is "almost" certain the son of Thomas Jefferson. Are these "authorities" educators or soothsayers?) The notes further state that descendants of Madison Hemings were not tested. This is true, HOWEVER, after deep research I found a deceased son of Madison and suggested to Dr. Foster, the Hemings, Dr. Daniel Jordan, Monticello President, and others that the DNA of William Hemings be tested adainst the Jefferson DNA and also against Eston Hemings DNA. ALL have refused to move forward to test this valuable science......WHY?Later they suggest that some sort of long term relationship existed between Jefferson and Hemings. How can this otherwise learned group make such an obvious incorrect assertation? This shows their lack of details of the long running controversy. The long believed, by some for obvious reasons , theory that Jefferson fathered Tom (Hemings) Woodson was completely obliteraterd by the DNA test......No Jefferson/Woodson match, thus James Callender was proven a liar. Not only that, it was almost 6 years after Sally returned to Monticello that she had a first recorded child, Harriet I.An assumption is made that if Jefferson wasn't guilty then some other white man on the plantation was and the Carr brothers are mentioned. This again provides evidence of the very limited knowledge that the authors have of the DNA subject. Thomas Jefferson inherited a mullato named Sandy from his father, Peter. It is not too far removed to see that this man, possibly having Jefferson DNA and sandy or reddish hair, could have fathered "yellow people", as referenced by story tellers. These male offspring, having the Jefferson DNA and physical traits, could have fathered Eston Hemings the ONLY Hemings tested. The original Dr. Foster plan was to "prove or disprove" the Carr brothers implication in this slave parentage. Because Dr. Foster had not given Nature Journal the valuable family genealogy that I had given him, when there was no Carr match with any other of those tested, THEN Nature Journal in the absence of being aware of any other Jefferson, "assumed" and wrote a false and definitive headline that it was Jefferson, yes, just "SOME" Jefferson....but not necessarily Thomas.It is stated that Jan Lewis, one of the authors, "analyzed" that Jefferson was evading the truth by not denying the rumors. Jefferson DID write his Secretary of the Treasury, Levi Lincoln and Secretary of the Navy Robert Smith that he did admit to seeing a married lady friend when he was young and unmarried BUT that was the only rumor about him that he would admit to and denied the others. Jan lewis is also very anilitical in stating that the white Jeffersons told lies in that they said the Carr brothers implicated themselves as fathers, however DNA told otherwise. It must be remembered that ONLY ONE of Sally's children's DNA was tested. Since the Hemings refuse to test William Hemings (son of Madison), how are we to know that Madison is not one of those referenced by the Carr brothers or one of the others. Annette Gordon-Reed says that Jefferson must be the doting father, described by daughter, Martha, and not the indifferent one described by his son(what proof), Madison. I have no faith at all in what Madison is supposed to have said in the Pike Co., Ohio article. Who could believe that tale about Dolley Madison being present at Monticello when he was born on January 19, 1805. She was acting as Mr. Jefferson's Hostess and her husband, James Madison was Secretary of State. Are we to believe that she suddenly announces to these two that she has heard that a male slave is to be born at Monticello and she must be present to name him for her husband, James Madison. Never mind that predicting the sex of a child is a fairly late feat. Leaving both men in Washington she heads out in the cold, muddy and frozen roads over rivers and creeks and uphill to Monticello. Never mind also that Monticello was closed and under constuction most of the time when Jefferson was away. The Madison Papers indicate that the Madisons NEVER visited Virginia during the winter from Washington. This book places much glory upon this Pike Co., Ohio article written by Samuel Wetmore, from an abolitionist family.As for Annette Gordon-Reed......she now states in later versions of her book that DNA does not prove that Jefferson fathered the descendanmt of Eston Hemings. She was also taken to task by the blue ribbon panel of 13 senior scholars known as the Scholars Commission ([...]),for taking and rearranging words and complete meaning of a letter from Ellen Randolph Coolidge (Thomas Jefferson's granddaughter), to a family member.This book cites Dr. Foster's statement that the DNA evidence "neither definitely excludes nor solely impliocates" Jefferson in the paternity of Sally Hemings' children. He has stated this in e-mails to me, in Nature Journal (January 7, 1999), the New York Times article of early 1999 and in other publications. Then HOW and WHY do non-DNA literate "authorities" come rushing forward to assume that since Jefferson owned slaves he "MUST" now to have been found to share Jefferson DNA with a slave descendant. DNA does not honor given names. There are many too many other citations that try to prove anything to substantiate their claims. If the group of contributors to this book wish to do something constructive let them pursue the DNA of another male Hemings, William, and also read what the Scholars Commission Report says. Why don't they challenge those from "the other side of research" to a nationally broadcast debate? So far none of them have come forward for this.I recommend reading this book to at least learn how a group of people can sway the minds of some people by ignoring the research of the other side. Let us hear BOTH sides of any question.May I please ask readers to order the new book, "Jefferson Vindicated" with a forward by the distinguished past Director of Monticello. Ordering information may be secured from the cited web pages.I recognized most of the well recognized names on this panel and knew they were authorities on the slavery issue. Other than Dr. Eugene Foster, none of them knew any of the "nuts and bolts" of the DNA Study that I had participated in advising Dr. Foster in family genealogy and history and securing sources for DNA study.Herbert BargerJefferson Family HistorianAssistant to Dr. E.A. Foster

Excellent study of the topic.

The problem with books about history is that they are almost always an interpretation: the author's. At best the author is willing to share the conflicting evidence with his reader, at worst the author omits it and pretends it doesn't even exist. But even the most faithful author can't put everything in a book so a selection has to be made. That's why the critical reader ends up reading a lot of books about the same subject. To be able to grasp most of the material, evidence and theories that are circulating. That way he/she is able to form his/her own opinion about an issue. But if the issue is Thomas Jefferson & Sally Hemings the reader will likely end up digging through tons of material and will still be very confused and very indecisive. Until recently one of the only books on the topic worth reading was Anette Gordon-Reed's "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Heming: An American Controversy". Because of it's painstakingly revealing of the mistakes, omissions and lies that previous writers had committed and for it's refusal to take a final stand.This book however was written after the 1999 DNA tests that revealed that Thomas Jefferson very likely fathered Sally's last child Eston. And that he didn't father Thomas C. Woodson. But one has to keep in mind that the recent testing still don't prove Jefferson's paternity exclusively. Another male relative from the Jefferson line could have fathered Sally's last child, since they share the same Y chromosome. The book offers a number of refreshing essays written by scholars. Each one of them looks at the relationship from his/her own field. Trying to describe and explain what this new evidence means to themselves and their previous writings and views on TJ. Sometimes describing how they fell into the trap that so many historians fell into when dealing with TJ. They also try to describe the way the American mind thought about TJ and how this new evidence will influence peoples views and opinions.The strength of the book is that it has been written after the revealing DNA tests. It also presents a lot of authors, each with his/her specific knowledge, views and convictions. Rather than just one author. But the really weak point is that the book fails to give a clear outline and explanation of the recent DNA test. That's the chapter that it should have started with. Since that test is the core, the very foundation upon which all these "revisionist" writings build. And also because a test like this needs explanation: not everyone is familiar with cellular biology and what it really means.

THIS BOOK IS ON THE BAND WAGON OF "I WANT MY REPARATIONS." OTHER SOURCES CITE THAT A RELATIVE OF THOMAS JEFFERSON (PERHAPS UNCLE) WAS THE LIKELY FATHER. YOU CANNOT DO A DNA TEST 200 YRS LATER ON A DISTANT RELATIVE OF HEMMINGS, AND CONCLUDE POSITIVELY ANYTHING. AVOID THE BOOK AND THE JUICY GOSSIPY NATURE OF PUBLICATIONS LIKE THESE. ONCE INUENDO IS MADE PUBLIC THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC ASSUMPTION THAT IT WAS SOME KIND OF 'HIDDEN SECRET.'