>                 Hello i am doing a research
> paper on jefferson and his affair is it real or not real? any ways i would
> like to know if you would take time out of you busy schedual to send me
> some info supporting both sides of the story.

Please go to the following website:

Analysis of Report on the Jefferson-Hemings Controversy
        http://www.oocities.org/jefperspective/resrpt1.htm

It has the
information you want, plus links to other websites that can help you.





> I do not write this to criticise you. Your points are all well taken. But you
> seem "hell bent" on believing that Thos Jefferson was above all of this.
> I do not put too much stock in the "DNA Tests" because it is not TJ's DNA.
> It is all hypothetical and something that we will never really know. But my
> point to you is, Thos Jefferson could have been the father of "some" of 
> Sally's children.

True.  He "could have" been.  But as soon as you step into the world of
what "could have been," you face an almost infinite number of
possibilities which are easily (and unknowingly) selected based on one's
own biases and prejudices.

> As a researcher of family ancestors and in doing work for others in
> researching the past, I also know that our forefathers did partake of the
> "forbidden fruits".

Of course, and I fully acknnowledged the same.  But such a general
observation can never be used to make conclusions in a particular case.

> To believe it did not happen, is to ignore reality.

Did I anywhere suggest that it did not happen?  But to assume because
it often did happen, that it therefore happened in a particular case, is to
invent "reality."

> It did happen. Are you to lead people to believe that Thos Jefferson
> was above
> all this? I think not. That would be like believing Bill Clinton was the
> victim of Monica.

Are you going to equate the integrity of Thomas Jefferson with Bill
Clinton's?  But in any case, I remain unimpressed with your grasp of the
mind and personality of Jefferson.

> Thos had his flaws like every human being.

True.  But I think it is a mistake to move from such a general
assumption, to a particular one, i.e., TJ had flaws, therefore he fathered
Sally's children.  We must also assume that all 25 of the other men who
had the same DNA as TJ also had flaws, and "could have been" the
father.

> Putting aside all the hype, the DNA, I am a believer that Thos Jefferson
> was the father of "some" of Sally's children. I have always believed this
> even before they did the DNA tests. Fawn M. Brodie in her book, Thomas
> Jefferson An Intimate History also believed as I do.

That is your personal opinion, based on the evidence.  My personal
opinion is that the evidence is really insufficient, and that there is no
justification for calling TJ a liar and a hypocrite based on the evidence
that does exist.

>  But in all honesty, I sincerely believe that Madison
> Hemings knew who his father was. He sincerely believed it was Thos
> Jefferson.

I believe that you are sincere, and that Madison Hemings was sincere
beyond question.  But since there are innumerable men who are not
quite sure that they are the natural father of their legal sons, I am
curious as to how you think Madison Hemings would KNOW who his
father was.

> I realize that the (white) descendants of Jefferson do not want to admit
> that Thos had an intimate relationship with Sally. No family wants to hear
> about an illegitimate ancestor, but it does not change the fact that these things
> happened.

There is no question that Jefferson's wife's father had a black
concubine, and that Sally Hemings was his daughter.  There was no
apparent attempt to change that fact.  The situation is not the same with
TJ, however.

> There is also another flaw with Thos
> Jefferson and that is his view on slavery. If he was so concerned about
> "the equality of man", I have often wondered why he never set his slaves
> free! I also think that Thos Jefferson was thinking only of the "white man"
> when he wrote, "all men are created equal".

I think you are mistaken.  If you had read TJ's writings, you would realize
that he believed that freeing people raised in slavery was like turning
children out on the street.  You would also realize that he worked all his
life for what he considered the real solution to the problem, i.e., not
turning them loose, but returning them to their African homeland.   In the
very same document that he wrote, "all men are created equal," he also
indicted George III, saying "He has waged cruel war against human
nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life and liberty in the
persons of a distant people," i.e., black people.  Therefore when you say
you think he was thinking only of the white man, you are expressing you
own misapprehension, not the mind of Thomas Jefferson.  Moreover,
though he believed blacks MAY have less talents than whites, he stated
explicitly:

"whatever be their degree of talent, it is no measure of their rights.
Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in
understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or
property of others.  On this subject they are gaining daily in the
opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making towards
their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of
the human family." --Thomas Jefferson to Henri Gregoire, 1809.
ME 12:255

Therefore, I think you are totally mistaken in your assumption that
Jefferson thought that only white men are included in the statement "all
men are created equal."  I also believe you are mistaken in most of your
other assumptions about the mind of Jefferson.  But this provides an
illustration of how your own preconceptions about Jefferson form your
interpretation of him and his writings, rather than the other way around.

> Your articles are interesting. But, I tend to disagree with your  analysis
> of Thos Jefferson. I am of the minority that believe he did father some
> mulatto children and Sally was their mother.

That, I am afraid, is the majority view, not the minority.  The headlines
proclaim that Jefferson has been "proved" to be the father of Sally's
children, and most people have accepted that.

> The evidence is all circumstancial and will be debated for probably another 
> 200 years. In genealogy we sometimes call this a "gut feeling".

But your "gut feeling" is not based on an intimate acquaintance with
Jefferson's writings or, through those, his personality.   My own "gut
feeling" is not based on hero worship.  I have read, analyzed and
categorized 20 volumes of TJ's writings.  In doing so, I was constantly
looking for duplicity and inconsistency.  Instead, I found a brilliant, over-
arching structure of political thought.  I felt that, to a great extent, I was
able to "see into" the mind of Thomas Jefferson, based not on the ideas
I had formed about him beforehand, but based on what I learned from
studying the writings themselves.  I deliberately avoided reading the
opinions of historians on Jefferson, because I wanted to form my own
view from HIM, not from the opiinions of others.

> There is also another old saying in genealogy. "It is
> dangerous business to name someones issues some two hundred years after the
> fact.  If we are wrong in our assumptions, then we have  in essence lost
> our credibility as a genealogist."

But isn't that what you are doing by concluding that some of Sally's
children are the issue of TJ?

Thank you for visiting the website, and for writing.  I respect your right to
form your own opinion on these matters, but I do not feel that your
opinions are based on solid grounds.  Rather, they seem to be based on
assumptions that you have formed on the character and mind of
Jefferson, and these assumptions do not seem to be based on real
evidence.  You may, of course, believe what you wish.  Most thoughtful
people refuse to believe anything unless it is based on adequate, valid
evidence.



> I read your articles and I did get to see the last part of the movie that
> was on tv. It is a very intersting story and I there is a possiblty he could
> be the father.  Only he would know.  Seems that no one belives her family
> and his don't want to acept it either.
> 
> I to have been tracing my family history because like them I am related to a
> part of history: Francis Scott Key.  What is so bad about it is, he had other
> families that don't matter.  If it weren't for his ancestor John Key that
> was a founder of New Jeresy he would not be here.  His line (Francis) and
> my line runs together.
> 
> No matter what the out come is, we all are related some how if you really
> look at it rather we like it or not.  Thomas Jefferson was a very famous man
> for what he did for our country.  What he and other presidents done in their
> personal lives is no one's business.  If there is anyone on this earth that
> was NEVER at fault I would like to know.  Otherwise we should not judge
> others.
> 
> I do hope the outcome to this story ends happy for all.  They should be
> proud who they are related to cause it is a part of history we can't bring
> back.

I agree with you.  Frankly, I couldn't care less whether Jefferson had a
black slave as a lover or not.  Like you said, it is nobody's business.
What I care about is, in order to make their case, the proponents of an
affair are compelled to call Thomas Jefferson a liar, a hypocrite, a
deceiver, and every other direputable thing.  They must do this, because
Jefferson indicated that the affair never happened.  Therefore, for people to
say that it DID happen, they are forced to make Jefferson, his family, his
overseer, all out to be liars.  It is this tearing down of Jefferson 
and his reputation that I object to.  And in tearing him down, they
are also trying to tear down what he stood for.   That I object to also.



> I find your remarks on your study of any "Jefferson-Hemings
> Controversy" quite bias within itself.  It insults the reader to read about
> the historical bigotry for a scholar.

You are entitled to your own opinion.  I have received emails from many
people, some of them praising and some of them condemning the article.  I
tried to back up every accusation of bias I made with evidence and reason.

> Sure, there may be loopholes in Sally
> Hemings' story.  However, to adamantly label her story as entirely false is
> unfair either.  You did no know her as you say that the Americans today or
> her "descendants from TJ" did not know him.  In order to be truthful in the
> history of America, scholars like yourself, must be open to both sides of
> the story.

Sally Hemings does not have a story.  Everything about her was written by
someone else.  We may assume that Madison got all of his information from
Sally, but we do not really know that.

>      I graduated with degrees in Political Science and East Asian Studies,
> and a minor in International Studies.  I know that different people from
> various cultures will see history in "their eyes" which most likely contain
> their own bias and ethnocentric take.  Reading American history is more like
> reading "his story" from a white man's take.

This is one thing that is wrong with the way history is written.  It does
not present both sides, but rather the side the historian thinks is correct.
A better history would present ALL the relevant information and ALL the
reasonable explanations, with a fair case for each one.  That would enable
the reader to make his own judgments, rather than having to accept the
historian's judgment and conclusions.

> For instance, in our history
> books, calling Native Americans "savages and beasts" were not coined by
> Indians themselves, but from bigots who wrote what we read today.  In
> addition, Columbus as a national holiday is such an insult to the Native
> Americans.

The Indians acted as savages.  They brutally slaughtered innocent women and
children.  Anyone who does that, whether white, red, or any other color, is
a savage.  It is still going on today.  That does not excuse it.

> Which brings another point, that in history, the Norsemen were
> said to accidentally sailed to America.  However, since it was not a big
> deal for them of accidentally finding it, they did not feel that they needed
> credit for their discovery.
>      Anyways, I've read, I've traveled, and I've seen people who are very
> proud of their heritage.  It is very honorable to defend a great American
> leader like Thomas Jefferson.  However, to not tell the entire truth or to
> write a story that defames another person, Sally Hemings herself, without
> evidence that Eston was 100% not TJ's son is an injustice to the Hemings and
> all African Americans.  This is my perspective, and you can take it or leave
> it.

If Thomas Jefferson is accused of fathering a slave's children, no one
should be required to prove 100% he did NOT do so.  Those who accuse him
should prove 100% that he did it, and they cannot do that.

> P.S. I am neither Caucasian or of African descent.  I am a Asian American
> trying to read history for what it is and not what other people see it as.

If you wish to read history for what it is, you should read the evidence and
reasoning for BOTH SIDES, and then carefully evaluate the evidence that
supports the different interpretations.  If you do that with the evidence
for the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, you will see that the evidence
pointing to Jefferson's innocence is personal testimony, and the evidence
pointing to his guilt is hearsay, gossip and speculation.



Thank you for writing.  I am glad to receive literate and intelligent
responses from people who disagree with the position I have taken on the
Jefferson-Hemings controversy.  Most of the emails I receive are not in that
category.  In fact, the vast majority of those in opposition to my position
have been semi-literate and abusive.  Over the last year or so, I have
received only two or three that were literate and intelligent responses.
The truth is, I would gladly welcome an ongoing, sensible discussion of
these issues with someone with a different point of view than my own.
Unfortunately, previous correspondents seem to drop out after one or two
exchanges.  Nevertheless, I consider such a discussion potentially important
because it could possibly point out weaknesses in the argument, or show how
some points were not made sufficiently clear.  I don't think there is much
chance of anyone coming up with a big solution to the puzzle that no one has
thought of before, since all the facts and evidence have already been
carefully gone over many times by both sides to the controversy.  But it may
be possible to make the matter clearer and perhaps even more convincing by
carefully examining all the available evidence.

In adding my comments below to those you sent, I will assume that you have
read my "critical analysis" of the Research Report issued by the Thomas
Jefferson Memorial Foundation.  The URL for that article is in my sig below.
Some of your comments seem unaware of some of the major points I made in
that analysis.  I will point those out, but if you have not actually read
the analysis, I hope that you will, since that will save much time.  It is a
very long article, but because there is so much detail, the length was
unavoidable.  The TJMF report which it critiques was many times longer.

> I do find your argument about Thomas Woodson compelling. However, is it
> really out the realm of possibility that Jefferson COULDN'T have
> fathered one or more of Sally Hemming's children?

Of course not!  "Possibility" allows for almost anything.  What we must do
is consider what is PROBABLE, based on the available facts and evidence.
Just about the only thing in this whole controversy that approaches the
realm of "not possible" is that TJ was the father of Thomas Woodson.  Yet
you will see that some of the diehards on the other side are STILL trying to
prove that he was.

> Why would the likely
> culprits be limited to TJ's  relatives---namely his brother and
> others---and not TJ himself? It seems like the evidence exonerating him
> is as equally thin if not thinner than that which would exonerate his
> brother and others.

TJ is counted as one of eight persons who were around Monticello and who
"could-have-been" the father of Eston.  We are mainly concerned with TJ and
his guilt or innocence for the obvious reason that but for him, we would not
even be discussing this matter.

I do not think it is possible to say that the evidence exonerating TJ is
equally as "thin if not thinner than that which would exonerate his brother
and others."  In fact, there is NO evidence that says that TJ's brother or
others did NOT father Eston, and there is some that says they did.  But
there IS evidence that TJ denied fathering Sally's children, and there is
evidence from his daughter, his grandson, and his overseer of the time, that 
he was not guilty.  Thus, there is NOTHING saying his brother was not guilty, 
and much saying TJ was not guilty.

We only have "some" evidence that indicates that TJ himself DID father
Eston.  At the same time, we have some evidence that indicates that TJ
himself DID NOT father Eston.  Our problem then becomes one of weighing and
considering the evidence that says he did, as compared to that which says he
did not.  It also helps to show that there is good reason to suspect TJ's
brother and others.  But the main focus, obviously, is, Did TJ do it or not?

As I emphasized in my article, when we consider the evidence FROM PERSONS
that bear on TJ's guilt or innocence, we see that that which says that TJ
was NOT the father comes first-hand from designated individuals.  That
evidence FROM PERSONS that says TJ was the father comes from handed-down
hearsay (gossip) originated by unknown persons, and passed on by persons who
could not possibly of their own knowledge know the truth of what they were
relating.  In fact, such persons relaying this information were not present
at Monticello when the events they speak of took place, and often had not
even been born.  Therefore, the evidence from persons indicating TJ was
innocent is specific and from actual identifiable individuals.  The evidence
indicating TJ was guilty is from unknown persons, and is just passed on as a
form of gossip.

The other evidence, not from personal testimony, indicating TJ is guilty
involves birth patterns coincident to TJ's presence, the freeing of Sally's
children, and family resemblances.  None of these are specific in pointing
to TJ, and all have perfectly reasonable explanations.  I won't repeat those
explanations here because of the length, but they are detailed in the
analysis article.

> History has told us time and time again that Presidents are among the
> most notorious for engaging in illicut sexual activities. Is it an
> alpha-male, high-testosterone phenomenon? Or is it merely because
> Presidents and the powerful come to believe that the rules apply to
> others and not to them?

What you say is often true.  But when you are considering the guilt or
innocence of an individual, such stereotypes only equate to prejudice.  It
is like saying "All Southern slaveowners had sex with their female slaves,
therefore TJ had sex with Sally," or "All Negroes are thieves, therefore
this Negro standing accused in a court of law is a thief."  Such
generalizations should never be used when considering the guilt or innocence
of a single individual.

> For my opinion, there is no reason to believe that Jefferson can be
> exonerated any more than there is reason to believe that he had a long
> and loving affair with Sally Hemmings (albeit there are many among us
> who would like to romanticize such an ending).

I agree that a "loving affair" is just the product of someone's imagination.
But I think I have provided good reason in my article for believing that
Jefferson should be exonerated: his own testimony, his daughter's, the
confessions of the Carr brothers, and Edmund Bacon's eyewitness testimony.
Against that is gossip and ambiguous, inconclusive facts.  I don't think the
latter equates to or is better than the former at all.

> If anything, your conclusions led me to a few of my own: The most likely
> story is that Sally Hemmings was a powerless, female slave, forced into
> sexual relations (is "raped" to strong of a word, here?) by more than
> one white man in her lifetime.

I think that the completely powerless female slave is, for the most part, a
stereotype and a fiction.  The conditions in slavery were not the same as in
prison, except under certain exceptional conditions.  No person, not even a
child, is completely powerless, except in very extreme conditions.  How many
households are ruled by a six year old child?  And regardless of the
propaganda that is now current, for most people in slavery, the conditions
were not that extreme.  Sure they were awful and tragic with certain
slaveowners.  And the fact of being owned by someone else was degrading for
all, regardless of how humane they might have been treated.  But TJ was not
one of those kinds of persons, and there is no evidence suggesting he was.

> Further, I doubt that if indeed one of
> these men were Thomas Jefferson, he held her in high regard---in any
> more regard than he would have, say, a family pet.

There is no evidence that TJ would have treated any human being as an
animal, and there is much to indicate that he believed that "all men are
created equal" SHOULD apply equally to persons in bondage.  When these
matters are discussed, however, his statements indicating that are carefully
omitted.  It is all part of a scam to tear down TJ and push a racial -- and
racist -- agenda.

> Anyway, that's my opinion, for what it is worth.

Thank you for your opinion.  Anyone is entitled to hold any opinion they
wish, of course.  "It's a free country."  But for opinions to carry any
weight in a rational discussion, they should -- they must -- be supported
with facts and evidence.  I would be very glad to continue this discussion
on such a rational basis, and I look forward to any comments you might have
on the points I raised.




> You state that the Y-chromosome specimen was taken from the presumptive
> decendants of Field Jefferson (President Jefferson's paternal uncle).
> Sir, I must say that this ASSUMES that Field Jefferson and Thomas
> Jefferson's father were indeed whole brothers (having the same father as
> well as mother).  As, you know we cannot assume paternal lineage.

There are some things we must assume in the absence of contrary evidence.
All available evidence suggests that Peter (TJ's father) and Field Jefferson
were indeed whole borthers, NO available evidence suggests that they were
not, therefore we are compelled to assume they were.  If we did not make
such uncontested assumptions, the writing of history would be impossible.
It is only when paternal lineage is challenged on apparent valid grounds
that we must drop such natural assumptions and evaluate the controversy
carefully.





> Thanks for your response.  I realize that we legally
> ASSUME that the natural father of any child is a
> woman's husband.  However, in reality we realize that
> this truly cannot be ascertained without DNA.

This is technically correct.

> Therefore, it is possible that Field Jefferson and
> Peter Jefferson are not whole brothers.

This is indeed POSSIBLE.  But in order to make a reasonable argument one way
or the other, one must proceed on the basis of reasonable and PROBABLE
evidence, not just possibilities.  To use an absurd example, one could say
that an alien from outer space could have been the father of Peter
Jefferson.  That is "possible," but so improbable as to be completely
unworthy of consideration.  In other words, we only sink into a state of
confusion if we begin considering every possibility.  But if we can
introduce evidence that supports the possibility, then we have something
substantial to go on.  For example, if it was known that a space ship landed
on the Jefferson estate nine months before Peter was born, then we have
something to argue about.  But a naked possibility contributes little except
to show that the accepted conclusion is not absolute, and that is something
that should always be taken for granted.

> Sir, I agree
> with you that they more than likely are--but to base
> the conclusion that Eston Hemmings is or is not the
> natural son of Thomas Jefferson by examining the
> SUPPOSITION that Peter and Field Jefferson ARE whole
> brothers is questionable.  I just always question
> anything that gives paternal lineage as proof.

Your questioning is justified, provided you can find some evidence to
support it.  It is always a good idea to question, and to use that
questioning in order to search for supportive evidence.  But until you can
find something, however tenuous, to substantiate the question, we are
compelled to accept the records as they stand and to make ordinary
assumptions.

All history is based on these kinds of assumptions.  It is only when dealing
with DNA that we can move from the uncertainties of history, to the
definiteness of science.





> I just read your brilliant refutation of the Monticello Foundation's shameful
> propaganda report.As a law enforcemnt officer I can I have investigated many
> crimes and traffic collisions.  I have never entered any of them with a
> pre-conceived idea of what happened.I have investigated fatal traffic
> collisions(which are treated basically as a homicide)and many times what I
> thought had occurred was not what happened at all once I began
> investigating.  If I handled a collision like the Monticello report,needless to
> say I would be unemployed now.Their report was a politically
> correct,slanderous,assault not just on Thomas Jefferson,but on his ideals.  I
> mean look at who runs Monticello:Dan Jordan(a man with a massive amount of
> guilt for slavery of which he had no part), Peter Onuf: a man who excoriates
> Jefferson on every occasion he gets,and who at the 1993 Legacies conference
> proceeded with other modern scholars to discredit Jefferson's ideals,and his
> Legacy.Not only were they not unbiased,they have an agenda to discredit
> republicanism.After reading what they say,I can draw no other
> conclusion.Thank God,people like you have the means and ability to have a
> website such as this to refute such abominal lies.The sad fact is the modern
> historian feels his job is to tear down,destroy,and show the American people
> that our Founders were not only not great,but people to be ashamed of.  These
> people are SICK! Keep up the good work!

Thanks for writing, and for your complimentary words.  It is disgusting what so
many of these "scholars" are trying to do.  It is, as you say, all part of a
political agenda.  What was so remarkable about the Memorial Foundation's
Report is, there was no attempt at even-handedness.  If they had lined up
all the items of evidence, both pro and con, and then evaluated each one
with some degree of objectivity, whatever the results were would have been more
acceptable.  But the report so obviously presented only one side, it was
obvious that they pursued their ends "with singleness of mind."

We know that it is the job of the historian to nurture the foundations upon
which our nation is built -- to examine it, criticize it, but in the end, to
help it to flourish.  One wonders about the concept of mission historians 
have when they are bent on destruction of the foundations on which a nation 
rests.  We can only hope that future generations will view them as the 
intellectual traitors that they are.