Wikipedia

Talk:Sally Hemings/Archive 1

< Talk:Sally Hemings
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Creuzbourg in topic "Owned" by Jefferson
Archive 1Archive 2

Talk with no headings

Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Am I being too hard on Joseph Ellis? --Ed Poor

You are not being nearly hard ENOUGH on Ellis, the notorious concoctor of lies about his military service (among other prevarications).

There probably should be discussion in this article about some interesting background to the "Tom Jefferson had black kids" canard floating around now (sadly, most people "know" he had such children). First, the man who started circulating rumors about Tom's supposed African-American offspring was James Callender -- a man who had tried to strongarm Jefferson into appointing him Postmaster of Richmond. Spurned, Callendar let fly with the accusations.

This was in 1802.

Note that Tom HAS BEEN CLEARED BY THE DNA TESTS OF FATHERING ANY CHILD BEFORE ESTON (this is not to say he fathered the latter, but that this was the only child it is scientifically possible that he DID father).

Thus, the vaunted "oral traditions" that had Thomas Woodson -- the child of whom Callendar was speaking in 1802 -- as a son of TJ WERE DEFINITELY, DEMONSTRABLY WRONG as was Callendar.

I really think this article could usefully be expanded.

Thanks.

"The Y chromosomal haplotype of the Carr family was found to be different from the Jefferson haplotype."

If the Carrs were descended through Jefferson's sister, as the article claims, isn't this to be expected? Perhaps the article meant to state that the Carr haplotype was found to be different from the Hemings haplotype? Or is the intent to rule out ambiguity between the Jefferson and Carr haplotypes? --April Arcus 06:15, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi all -- I came across this article, and I have done some major reworkings of the discussion of the controversy. Most importantly, I have included information about the Thomas Jefferson Foundation report, which was missing; this was a major report, comissioned by the people who run TJ's library and Montecello. With regard to the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission, the article originally stated that it was comissioned by the "Thomas Jefferson Historical Society" -- I have been unable to find any evidence of the existence of this society outside of wiki mirrors of this article.

Secondly, there was some minor OR that I deleted; I also eliminated some quotations in favor of just reporting where the phrasing was unimportant.

I'm still going around filling in sources. Sdedeo 22:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, found the second report. It was commissioned by the "Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society", and I've found the report online. I've included this information, and quoted the report's stated conclusion. Sdedeo 22:23, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

More edits. I have created sections so that the chronology of the controversy is clearer, and also to sort of "separate out" the Ellis stuff from the rest (IMO, the Ellis/impeachment thing is notable, but it does not have much to do with the serious scholarly studies of the question.) The Ellis thing is notable for demonstrating how important people think this question is for the "Jefferson legacy". Sdedeo 22:44, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Unrelated May-June 2005 debate re: Hemmings moved from Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.

Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

The [Martin Luther King, Jr.] article addresses King's marital infidelity. If you want an exposé, then I suggest you go elsewhere. It's not a primary focus of this article -- any more than Jefferson's gaggle of half-white children by his slave Sally Hemmings (who was his wife's half-sister, by the way; how sick is that?) is the primary focus of his article on Wikipedia. In fact, the article barely mentions it. Nor does it address the hypocrisy of Jefferson's words in the Declaration of Independence, his racism/white supremacy. All in all, I'd say the article on King is very fair. deeceevoice 13:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason why Thomas Jefferson's children with Hemmings aren't mentioned is that he had none.

To quote our own Wikipedia:

In 2000, a group of experts commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Historical Society formed the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission and conducted a substantial examination of the paternity question, examining the full range of scholarly, scientific, and historical evidence. On April 12, 2001, they issued a 565-page report detailing their findings. Their near-unanimous (one dissenting member) conclusion was that almost certainly Jefferson did not have a sexual relationship with Hemings and fathered neither Eston nor any of her other children. Rather, they suggest the most likely alternative is that Randolph Jefferson, Thomas's younger brother, was the father of Eston.

Sixpackshakur 03:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC) ---

Since when did "our own Wikipedia" -- written by any Tom, Dick or Harry with access to a computer with a modem -- become anywhere near infallible? Hell, when I first came to Wikipedia, "motherfucker" was supposed to be something slaves called their white fathers instead of "daddy." ROTFLMBAO. Kinda funny dat. It's my experience that a great many articles on this web site treating blacks and black history and culture should be taken with one honking block of salt.
Hogwash. It's simply revisionist history. Jefferson's liaisons w/Hemmings were well known even in his day. He was often the subject of gossip and the butt of jokes because of his fondness for his black "wench" and his gaggle of half-white "pickaninnys." It's a matter of historical record -- something which is mentioned in the writings of several authors who've written about Jefferson over the years. 'S matter of fact, when I was in college, I dated one of Jefferson's descendants. Bottom line: the hypocrite had a taste for dark meat. This issue has been bolstered, in fact, with DNA testing and is reinforced by other historical evidence -- including such well-documented accounts contemporaneous with Jefferson's life. The excuses about Jefferson's brother just don't wash. Almost everyone with any credibility is now accepting of the fact of Thomas Jefferson's half-white offspring, including some of Jefferson's white descendants. Here's a smattering of URLs from just one page of a google search. (It took all of three seconds to turn up.):
In Jefferson's time, it was common practice for white men to rape their black slaves. What? Because he was a "statesman" and helped write the Declaration of Independence," he's supposed to be some kind of saint? He also wrote that "all men are created equal, that they are endowed" -- blah, blah, blah. Uh-huh. And how many who attended the Constitutional Convention owned or managed plantations or large farms with slave ecomomies, or owned slaves? Answer: at least a dozen. How many derived their wealth and status in some way from the slave trade? A hell of a lot more. The hypocrisy of that bunch is simply a given. Amazing that some people still refuse to believe what has been proven time and again by highly reputable scientific and historical inquiry. If white men had kept their hands (and other body parts) off black women, there wouldn't have been so many "mulatto" and "high yellow" black folks walkin' around back in the day. deeceevoice 08:31, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry to see your virulent anti-white racism has blinded you to the truth. As you may be aware, and as you have hinted at, most black Americans are about 25% European stock, so your ignorant hatred is directed at your own ancestors. Your citing opinion pieces of bigots, non-scientists and ignoramuses proves nothing.
Thomas Jefferson was the subject of rumours promulgated by a man -- Thomas Callendar -- whom he had refused to hire as the Postmaster of Richmond. Spurned, Callendar let fly with the accusations.
This was in 1802. Eston was born in 1808.
Note that Tom HAS BEEN CLEARED BY THE DNA TESTS OF FATHERING ANY CHILD BEFORE ESTON (this is not to say he fathered the latter, but that this was the only child it is scientifically possible that he DID father).
Thus, the vaunted "oral traditions" that had Thomas Woodson -- the child of whom Callendar was speaking in 1802 -- as a son of TJ WERE DEFINITELY, DEMONSTRABLY WRONG as was Callendar. REPEAT: The claims that he fathered kids as early as 1802 ARE WRONG.
Even the Monticello Foundation, which is headed by a black revisionist, and which released the now-discredited Jefferson-fathered-Hemings's-kids report now says " The Foundation encourages its visitors and patrons, based on what evidence does exist, to make up their own minds as to the true nature of the relationship." So they are backpedalling fast enough to make Lance Armstrong's head spin.
To quote from a source other than wikipedia:
In 2000, the newly formed Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society asked a group of more than a dozen senior scholars from across the country to carefully examine all of the evidence for and against the allegations that Thomas Jefferson fathered one or more children by Sally Hemings, one of his slaves, and to issue a public report. In April 2001, after a year of study, the Scholars Commission issued the most detailed report to date on the issue.
With but a single mild dissent, the views of the distinguished panel ranged from "serious skepticism" to a conviction that the allegation was "almost certainly false."
http://www.cap-press.com/books/1179
Sixpackshakur 15:59, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Virulent, anti-white racism"? lol I challenge you to find a single thing I've said that is "racist." Just plain speak. Your reaction is typical. When black folks speak bluntly about matters of race and racism in this country, one of the first things so many whites do is they wanna holler "racism." Maybe you should go look the word up -- but I wouldn't necessarily advise you to do so on Wikipedia. :p

Note that the information I referenced from several sources postdates 2000. And, no. You're just flat-out wrong. Callendar didn't originate the rumors of Thomas creeping around at night to assert his "privileges" as lord and master over Hemmings, who -- again -- was his wife's half-sister (disgusting). Locals and Washingtonians, as well, were already abuzz with whispers about the little light, bright "pickaninnys" on the Jefferson plantation who looked just like him. You should visit the official website of Monticello. Not even the preservers of Jefferson's vaunted memory can flat-out deny the allegations. In fact, the site itself offers some pretty damning information on the controversy, concluding with some lame statement about how they 'urge the public to educate themselves and make up their own minds.' Hilarious! :D

Time to get with the times, bwoi, 'n' catch up. :p

And, yep. You're right. I've got an old craKKKer, leacherous, peg-legged, Irish rapist for a great-grandfather and only God knows how many others in the family woodpile. Do I hate him? (That's funny.) Please. I never knew the motherf***** -- of course, I mean that in a purely Wiki way. :p deeceevoice 18:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

You have consistently misspelled "Hemings" throughout your diatribes, as well as accepting uncritically a largely-discredited canard in addition to picking up unquestioningly every bit of libel that has been used to tar Jefferson. Furthermore, there is at least as convincing a case that Sally was the granddaughter of an Englishman as that she was Jefferson's wife's half-sister:
According to Madison Hemings, Sally's mother, Elizabeth Hemings (1735-1807), was the daughter of an African woman and an English sea captain. http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html
Monticello.org are primarily the ones who ran with the "Jefferson and Sally" story, and now no longer stick with it, as I pointed out above. They have consistently slandered him in this matter.
Here was their original statement:
"It likely will take newly uncovered historical evidence or scientific methods still unknown to determine beyond doubt the truth about Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, and the complete story may never be known. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation stands by its original findings - that the weight of evidence suggests that Jefferson probably was the father of Eston Hemings and perhaps the father of all of Sally Hemings' children."
Here is what they NOW say:
"Although the relationship between Jefferson and Sally Hemings has been for many years, and will surely continue to be, a subject of intense interest to historians and the public, the evidence is not definitive, and the complete story may never be known. The Foundation encourages our visitors and patrons, based on what evidence does exist, to make up their own minds as to the true nature of the relationship."
Can you say "backpedal?" I have seldom seen such a stirring example of it.
In May 2000 a group of Jefferson admirers established the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society to reassess the evidence for the Hemings affair, and this collection of essays called The Jefferson-Hemings Myth is the result of their work. Taken together they are a careful summation of all we know, as well as an account of the recklessness and deceit of those who promoted the miscegenation story. As this book clearly shows, the DNA testing disproved the oldest and most persistent accusation against Jefferson, and suggested only that some male in the Jefferson line was the father of the last of Sally Hemings’ children. It paints a devastating portrait of an American intellectual class hungering to crucify Jefferson.[http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2004/12/rescuing_jeffer.php]
I should note that persons who claim descent of Sally Hemings are not welcome at the Monticello Association, a group comprised of descendents of TJ:
In May 2002 the Monticello Association (descendants of Thomas Jefferson) voted to not admit descendants of Sally Hemings into their organization. The decision came after their careful review of all available information resulting in the conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence to prove Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. [1]
Note that there ARE black Americans in the Association, just not those down from the spurious Hemings line.
Oral tradition states that the "yellow children" at Monticello were the offspring of Randolph Jefferson. [2]
So Callendar didn't originate the claims? So people were speaking about Jeff having fathered Hemings's children before 1802? Guess what? Science has conclusively proved that NO JEFFERSON could have fathered ANY of SH's children before Eston in 1808. Those rumours? PATENTLY FALSE.
Note too, that Jefferson denied the claims of his dalliances, acknowledging only a relationship with a certain Mrs. Walker (one wonders if Dr. King could have denied his dalliances to Coretta with the working girls of many cities):
"You will perceive that I plead guilty to one of their charges, that when young and single I offered love to a handsome lady. I acknowledge its incorrectness. It is the only one founded in truth among all their allegations against me." --Thomas Jefferson to Robert Smith, July 1, 1805. (DM 1:448)

More:

"I should have fancied myself half guilty, had I condescended to put pen to paper in refutation of their falsehoods, or drawn them respect by any notice from myself." --Thomas Jefferson to George Logan, June 20, 1816.
Your side lost. Sounds like it's about time you got with the times and admitted you were wrong. :( I will at least take some solace in the fact that, having been badly beaten in this debate has forced you actually to question a lie you were only too willing to accept. Sixpackshakur 19:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Jefferson's half-black children: a response

Yes, I misspelled Hemings' name. A slip. The way some people may occasionally misspell Frederick Douglass' name (though they know better). And your point?

You stated that Callendar made accusations against Jefferson. My point was that the accusations existed before Callendar made his charges; he was not the only one, so the charges were not necessarily politically motivated -- as was your clear suggestion.

Regarding the dates of the birth of Hemings' children, there is no reason to believe that Hemings was Jefferson's only black "wench." He was a slaveholder with lots of black women upon whom he could force himself had he taken a notion to do so. That such rumors existed before he likely began a relationship with Hemings simply indicates that Jefferson's purported conduct fits a common pattern of the time: black slaves often were used to satisfy the sexual appetites of whites. One black wench was pretty much as good as another.

Further, you neglected to mention that, as the Monticello Foundation states:

  • "Although there had been rumors of a sexual relationship between Jefferson and a slave before 1802, Callender's article spread the story widely. It was taken up by Jefferson's Federalist opponents and was published in many newspapers during the remainder of Jefferson's presidency."

The following are other statements from the Monticello Foundation web site regarding the Hemings controversy that lend strong credence to the contention that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children:

  • "Over the years ... belief in a Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings relationship was perpetuated in private. Two of her children - Madison and Eston - indicated that Jefferson was their father, and this belief has been relayed through generations of their descendants as an important family truth." (an account of one of Jefferson's sons follows later)
  • "That a Jefferson-Hemings relationship could be neither refuted nor substantiated was challenged in 1998 by the results of DNA tests conducted by Dr. Eugene Foster and a team of geneticists. The study - which tested Y-chromosomal DNA samples from male-line descendants of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's uncle), John Carr (grandfather of Jefferson's Carr nephews), Eston Hemings, and Thomas C. Woodson - indicated a genetic link between the Jefferson and Hemings descendants. The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings."'
  • "Shortly after the DNA test results were released in November 1998, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation formed a research committee consisting of nine members of the foundation staff, including four with Ph.D.s. In January 2000, the committee reported its finding that the weight of all known evidence - from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data - indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was perhaps the father of all six of Sally Hemings' children listed in Monticello records - Harriet (born 1795; died in infancy); Beverly (born 1798); an unnamed daughter (born 1799; died in infancy); Harriet (born 1801); Madison (born 1805); and Eston (born 1808)."

This from the Thompson-Gale web site (a respected company specializing in reference and source materials for public schools and universities):

  • "In January 2000, the committee reached the conclusion that Foster's 1998 DNA study was valid; that taken along with historical evidence, it showed not only that Jefferson was probably the father of Eston Hemings, but in all likelihood he was also the father of Harriet and Edy (the two deceased infants), Beverly, Harriet, and Madison; and that the paternity of Thomas Woodson is unclear. The president of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation added the question on many historians' minds: "Whether it was love or lust, rape or romance, no one knows and it's unlikely that we will ever know."

Also from Thompson-Gale, an account from one of Jefferson's children by Sally Hemings this verbatim excerpt:

Jefferson and Hemings in Paris

In September of 1782, Martha Jefferson died, leaving Thomas Jefferson a widower at the age of thirty-nine, and the father of two girls, Martha (about to turn ten years old) and Maria (four years old). In 1784 Thomas Jefferson was sent as a diplomat to France by the American colonial government. James Hemings went with him. Jefferson's eldest daughter Martha joined him in Paris a short time later, and was enrolled in a convent school for a formal education. In 1787 Jefferson sent for his other daughter, Maria, who made the voyage from Virginia escorted by Sally Hemings, who was either fourteen or fifteen at the time.

It is impossible for historians to say with any certainty exactly what happened in Paris between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Legally, Sally Hemings was a free person in Paris, and so was her brother James, as slavery had been abolished in France. While in France, Jefferson paid Sally and James a monthly salary for their services. James Hemings, with Jefferson's support, apprenticed under French cooks and became a skilled chef.

One historical witness

In the fall of 1789, Jefferson and his two daughters, as well as Sally and James Hemings, returned to America. By all accounts, Sally Hemings was visibly pregnant at the time of their homecoming to Monticello. Many years later, in 1873, Madison Hemings (1805-77), the sixth child of Sally Hemings, described the circumstances of his mother's return from Paris. Madison is considered the most important historical witness in this story by some, but others point to minor errors and inconsistencies in his rendering of the facts. His account was published in the Pike County Republican, a newspaper in Ohio. The following excerpt from Madison's published story sheds light on his mother's trip to France and its result:

Their stay (my mother's and Maria's) was just about eighteen months [it was really twenty-six months]. But during that time my mother became Mr. Jefferson's concubine, and when he was called back home she was enciente [pregnant] by him. He desired to bring my mother back to Virginia with him but she demurred. She was just beginning to understand the French language well, and in France she was free, while if she returned to Virginia she would be re-enslaved. So she refused to return with him. To induce her to do so, he promised her extraordinary privileges, and made a solemn pledge that her children should be freed at the age of twenty-one years. In consequence of his promises, on which she implicitly relied, she returned with him to Virginia. Soon after their arrival, she gave birth to a child, of whom Thomas Jefferson was the father.

Promises kept

Between 1790 and 1808, Sally Hemings gave birth to seven children, all while residing at Monticello: Thomas, Harriet, Edy, Beverly, Harriet, Madison, and Eston. Hemings' first-born took the name Thomas Woodson and is conspicuously absent from Jefferson's personal records. He was born in 1790, shortly after Hemings and Jefferson returned from France. Thomas Woodson was probably gone from Monticello by the time Madison was born in 1805, although the age of his departure is unknown. Hemings's second child, Harriet was born in 1795 but only lived two years. Edy was born in 1796 and died in her infancy. Hemings's second son, Beverly, was born in 1798, followed by Harriet in 1801, Madison in 1805, and Eston in 1808.

Life at Monticello for the Hemings family is best described by Madison Hemings in his 1873 memoir:

"My brothers, sister Harriet and myself were used alike. They were put to some mechanical trade at age fourteen. Till then we were permitted to stay about the 'great house,' and only required to do such light work as going on errands. Harriet learned to spin and weave in a little factory on the home plantation. We were free from the dread of having to be slaves all our lives long, and were measurably happy. We were always permitted to be with our mother, who was well used. It was her duty, all her life which I can remember, up to the time of our father's death, to take care of his [Jefferson's] chamber and wardrobe, look after us children and do such light work as sewing, &c. Provision was made in the will of our father that we should be free when we arrived at the age of 21 years."

Harriet and Beverly were listed as "runaways" in Thomas Jefferson's personal records from 1822. The reality was that they were allowed to walk away, and because of their light-colored skin, blend into the free white world of Washington, D.C. Madison and Eston were freed in Jefferson's will at his death in 1826. They rented a house together in a nearby county. Sally Hemings was not mentioned in Jefferson's will, and a year later was listed on the official slave inventory as worth $50. Although Hemings was never officially freed from slavery, Jefferson's daughter, Martha, provisionally freed Sally Hemings, by giving her "her time." Unofficial freedom meant that Hemings could stay in Virginia, where the law required freed slaves to leave the state within a year of their emancipation. Hemings spent her remaining years living in a rented house with her sons Madison and Eston. She died in 1835."

(end of excerpt)

Fifty bucks. Day-um.

Now, back to the Monticello Foundation web site for further, fairly damning evidence:

  • "Thomas Jefferson was at Monticello at the likely conception times of Sally Hemings' six known children. There are no records suggesting that she was elsewhere at these times, or records of any births at times that would exclude Jefferson paternity."
  • "There are no indications in contemporary accounts by people familiar with Monticello that Sally Hemings' children had different fathers."
  • "According to contemporary accounts, some of Sally Hemings' children strongly resembled Thomas Jefferson."
  • "Thomas Jefferson freed all of Sally Hemings' children: Beverly and Harriet were allowed to leave Monticello in 1822; Madison and Eston were released in Jefferson's 1826 will. Jefferson gave freedom to no other nuclear slave family."

If this were a modern-day case and the evidence were presented before a judge/jury, Jefferson would be paying child support -- big time. No, my "side" did not "lose." The preponderance of the evidence supports what most modern-day historians -- and some members of Jeffersons own (white) family bloodline have come to accept: Jefferson was no different from hundreds of white men of his time. He sired -- not fathered; sired -- children by at least one black woman because he wanted to, and because he could. He owned her body, and he used her/it as he saw fit.

Curious that the Wikipedia article fails miserably in covering this controversy -- something which should be remedied. :p deeceevoice 03:40, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

And what? Still no response to my challenge that you substantiate your ridiculous comment about my "virulent anti-white racism"? Typical. LMBAO. deeceevoice 03:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

If you can back this up, it would make a good addition to the Sally Hemings article Samboy 20:52, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NOTE: End of talk moved from Talk:Martin Luther King, Jr.

Untitled

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Older talk material has been moved to Talk:Sally Hemings/archive; massive imported flamewars and a discussion of whether or not to include the stuff on Joe Ellis (consensus was "yes".) Sdedeo 18:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Descendants

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is rather more information on Hemings's descendants than Hemings herself. One interesting tidbit I came across once and forgot to bookmark was that Madison Hemings two sons were prisoners held by the confederacy in the civil war, and either their brother or cousin attempted to enlist in the confederate army in order to resuce them. Anyone know of a source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Riverbythebridge (talk • contribs) 04:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Context of Tom Woodson

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

As a casual reader dropping by and reading this article for the first time, I find the material concerning Tom Woodson very confusing. He is first mentioned in the Callender section, with no explanation about who the Woodson family is, or any context for fitting him in to the big picture. There is also some potential for confusion about whether this is or is not "Thomas Eston Hemings", in the list of the six Hemings children, or someone else entirely. Since I'm not an expert in this material, I don't have any suggestions, but I thought it would be worth contributing the views of a first-timer on reading this article. I know it's hard for someone familiar with the material to see things from this viewpoint. Keep up the good work, I found the article otherwise to be very informative.XenonofArcticus (talk) 17:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The discussion of Tom Woodson makes it seem like history would place him at the right place and time, but the DNA doesn't add up. But verifiable paternity across multiple generations is sometimes tricky. Why has there been no attempt to link Woodson's descendants to Sally Hemings? Or to perhaps look at some other branch of the family? I realize that it's fairly easy to track Y-chrom lines and that Harriet Hemings (who would have had the mitochondrial DNA) seems to have vanished into thin air. It makes the matter trickier. But I wonder--could Woodson have been the mysterious Tom, but his father was a Parisian? Or could the Woodson paternal line have ended somewhere in the intervening years? I seem to recall when they DNA tested some fishing villagers that paternity was a mismatch in 20% of cases. It seems as though this entire account could use some more attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.18.2 (talk) 13:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

The people doing the DNA analysis consider the results conclusive in determining the Woodson line was not descended from Jefferson, nor were the Carrs possible ancestors of the Hemings' children. Anything else is speculation. Other historians who have looked at the evidence believe that while there may appear to be confusion, Woodson was not a descendant of Jefferson.Parkwells (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There is some very POV material in this article. Has anyone bothered to read the article used for reference 2? This is not a legitimate source. The article is a diatribe that is not published anywhere except on some blog. The author even says so. "Stix provides news and commentary on the realities of race, education, and urban life that are censored by the mainstream media and education elites." That is pretty standard fair for extremists, only they can see the "realities". This guy Stix rails on about a lack of evidence but then hypocritically does not include references to his sources in his criticism; therefore anything written by Stix is non-verifiable and should be dismissed as POV. Just because its one step away from Wikipedia doesn't make verifiable, and Stix certainly has a ax to grind.

This is a topic that by its nature is a controversy and it should be presented as such, with criticisms from both sides presented. Right now Stix's highly suspect and non-referenced opinion is used directly in the piece. Moomot 00:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This blog should not be used as a source. Stix is not a historian so the exception for experts doesn't apply. -Will Beback · † · 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
"An award-winning journalist, Stix provides news and commentary on the realities of race, education, and urban life that are censored by the mainstream media and education elites. His work has appeared in the (New York) Daily News, New York Post, Washington Times, Newsday, the American Enterprise, weekly standard, Insight, Chronicles, Ideas on Liberty, Middle American News, Front Page Magazine, Academic Questions, CampusReports, and countless other publications." Yakuman (数え役満) 21:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
None of that makes him an authority on 18th-century history. -Will Beback · † · 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sam's Claims

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Sam -- you keep putting a link to your book on Thomas Jefferson, claiming that it is famous and renowned, but I was unable to find it on any library catalog, including the Library of Congress. I have once again removed the link; please wait until someone else comes along to weigh in on its importance. Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sdedeo wants an edit war. My found in the US Linrary of Congress, but every book since then has been based on my book. This Wikipedia page about Sally Hemings contains numerous examples of discoveries made by me which appeared first in my book in 1992. I recommend that Sdedeo take a look at my book (which is available on Amazon and elsewhere) and he will see right away that just about everything he knows about Sally Hemings is based upon my research. Sam Sloan 13:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sam, I can't find the book on amazon; can you provide a link? In the meantime, please do not refer to good-faith edits as "vandalism". Thanks, Sdedeo (tips) 17:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You did not look very hard. Try http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1881373029 http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/4906574009

It has been printed twice and will go into its third printing in a few weeks. Sam Sloan 00:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This is wrong: "In the late 1800s biographers who interviewed Thomas Jefferson's descendants by his wife Martha published their suggestions that either Peter or Samuel Carr fathered the Hemings children." The interview of T.J. Randolph by the biographer Henry Randall took place in the 1850s but Randolph did not want his Carr allegation made public; that information was not published until 1951.

Nevertheless, through the quirks of history and biology, only one set of Americans can show both that their ancestor was born at Monticello and that they share a Y chromosome with the Jefferson...

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

What is the basis for this indcendiary claim? Numerous of Jefferson's descendents could presumably satisfy this test. BulldogPete 22:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Jefferson had only one legitimate child who survived to maturity, a daughter, Martha Wayles Skelton. She did not inherit his Y chromosome. Gnosticdogma 16:05, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
This is incorrect. Jefferson's daughter Martha had children and her descendants survive to this day. VirginiaProp 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
A daughter carries no Y chromosomes so the Y's of Martha junior's children would be those of her husband. Monado 18:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Correction: the only way that Jefferson's daughter's children would get Jefferson's Y chromosome would be by incest. Monado 18:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Jefferson had two daughters and neither one of them was named Martha Wayles Skelton. That was his wife's name. There are descendants alive today from his younger daughter Maria Jefferson Eppes. Most descendants of Thomas Jefferson are through his oldest daughter. Her name was Martha Jefferson Randolph. There are descendants of Peter Jefferson that have the same DNA as Thomas Jefferson and there are descendants of his brother Field Jefferson that have this DNA. There is no set of Americans. Only one man had the same DNA. The rest of the Hemings descendants either have different male line DNA or have no male line DNA to test. Welsh4ever76 20:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sally Hemings and her children black?

Latest comment: 13 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

If Sally Hemmings was a quadroon or octoroon, how can she be considered black? She was a slave by descent, but she was more white than black. Even if she did have children by Thomas Jefferson, these children would most likely be pretty indistinguishable from typical white people (hence the fact that [at least?] three of them lived as free white persons). So the question is if Thomas Jefferson did father Sally's children, did he violate his principles by miscegenating?--68.54.154.79 04:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sally Hemmings can be considered black for the purposes of miscegenation in the 18th century because of the one-drop theory. Regardless of her race, she was indisputably a slave. One would hope, however, that whomever did father her children was able to do so without violating his own principles, or at the very least, was able to rationalize them away. Gnosticdogma 20:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I know I'm responding to an old post, but the above error should be corrected: the "one-drop rule" of racial classification is associated with the 19th century, not the 18th. The definition of "white" and "black" people was different in Jefferson and Hemings's Virginia. Their children would be considered legally "white" in some jurisdictions of that era. —Kevin Myers 14:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent point. There should be some type of note to this article. 69.201.154.28 (talk) 00:56, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Find a reliable source and make the change. Cresix (talk) 15:39, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
In fact, the one-drop rule was a 20th-century law in Virginia (1924) and other states. In the 18th century, there was more a tendency to judge by appearances, community and how people were known by their neighbors, even when race was challenged in court (usually over property.) In the eighteenth century and early nineteenth century, persons such as the Hemings children, who were 7/8 white, were legally white. The difference is that they were born into slavery as their mother was a slave, and her mother was a slave. Their European ancestry is the reason 3 of the 4 surviving children could easily assimilate into white society. Southern states passed laws for racial segregation after Reconstruction in the late 19th century. Parkwells (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Number of Children

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I changed this entry to five children. Going by Thomas Jefferson's farm books there is not an entry for a son born in 1789 or 1790. He only records five children ever being born to Sally Hemings. There is a letter in which he talks about a child being born to Maria's maid but it is now thought that this was a different slave. Officially there are only five children recorded, a daughter Harriet born in 1795 who died about two years later, a son named Beverly who was born in 1798, a daughter named Harriet who was born in 1801, a son named Madison born in 1805 and a son named Eston born in 1808.Welsh4ever76 17:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I thought that I would copy and paste the revert notation by Bww1 According to 1996 Thomas Jefferson Foundation publication, Slavery at Monticello, Hemings produced seven children. No dispute about two early deaths. Timing of one death is in dispute. I wanted to explain that they have now updated that at their website http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/appendixh.html . The consensus is that two daughters previously thought to be Sally Hemings were actually the daughters of someone else. Both Edy and Thenia were not her children but have been mistaken to have been. Thomas Woodson may not have been her son and there is no record of him or a child being born at that time. They list six children on their website but I think to be on the safe side wiki should only list the five children that are known. Welsh4ever76 20:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just dropping by to say "well done" for this work. Sdedeo (tips) 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Number of Children

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

So, Welsh4ever went to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation's (TJF) 1996 publication to find out that it stated that Sally Hemings produced seven children. The children are listed there. Now the TJF has changed its mind. Do you ever wonder why Jeffersonian historians keep changing their positions regarding this aspect of American history? If they keep changing their minds, what is the real story? What are they dodging? And since they keep changing their story how do they retain any credibility?

What Welsh4ever and the TJF have not acknowledged is that Thomas Jefferson wrote the name of his son, Thomas, in the Farm Book, which he wrote with his own hand. Welsh4ever should go to Boston to witness the erasure in person, although the printed version of the Farm Book clearly acknowledges the existence of the erasure of a male slave, born in 1790. Welsh4ever should have expressed disappointment and outrage regarding the mutilation of the Farm Book long ago. The Farm Book is a priceless piece of American history. It is one of the most valuable documents Americans have to gain an understanding of American history. It was written by one of the greatest Americans. Nevertheless, it has been mutilated several times by persons who do not like the history Thomas Jefferson recorded. In addition to erasures, certain pages have been ripped out. Of course historians and curators, who are stewards for the physical items that Thomas Jefferson left behind have not commented on the mutilations or protected items from further mutilation. Historians construct their version of American history using such mutilations as shields. If the records that Thomas Jefferson had been left in tact, then historians like Andrew Berstein and Joshua Rothman would have to frame their history as Thomas Jefferson would have or, in fact, did write it. Robert C. Baron (Ed.), The Garden and Farm Books of Thomas Jefferson, (Golden, CO, Fulcrum, 1987), 247.

In 1999 Rothman wrote that, "Hemings herself claimed this child died shortly after being born." How does he know that? Hemings did not leave letters or a diary. No one that lived in her time quoted a single word that she spoke. Rothman could not have interviewed Sally Hemings, as she died over 100 years before he was born. I'm glad that I did not attend the University of Virginia. If I had I might be as confused as Rothman as to how to record and recite the historic record. His work is a disgrace. That error is not the only abomination in his 1999 article. Why the frantic attempt to kill off Sally Hemings' child over 100 years after he died? And why the hyper-energetic attempt to make Sally Hemings into a white woman? Even Joe "Full Metal Jacket" Ellis went on television to claim, "she was mighty nar white." Nar?? Why, she used to be called 'Black Sal.'

Speaking of Ellis and hyper-energy. Dr. Foster told the DNA participants that the historians would not be involved with the DNA process. In his words, it would be, "lifted from the historians to create objective evidence." Well, Foster was out of the loop and Ellis was all in the soup, when the reported DNA results were reported. Ellis was in the soup prior to the public release, oops, that is, leak. Remember? Two days before the mid-term election, just in time. Why, what a coincidence. Remember, the unscienticfic report that Nature was forced to "clarify."

Anyway, Welsh4ever did a little homework. By golly, that's the solution. Well, almost. Now we have to teach Rothman and Andrew "[He didn't] imagine Africa" Berstein which end of the pencil is the one that writes.

It will be interesting to hear whether Welsh4ever expresses praise for the mutilation of Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book or disgust. -- If the (male, 1790) erasure was literally complete, then we would not know that there was an erasure, so.. what name ends with a Y? bww1


I have stated numerous times on the Thomas Jefferson talk page that I disagreed with the way the DNA testing was handled. It really did nothing to answer any question except that Thomas Woodson is not a descendant of Field Jefferson and Eston Hemings may be a descendant of Field Jefferson. The rest is assumption and while it may be correct it was never proof of anything concerning Thomas Jefferson.
I have heard of the erasure in the 1790 farm book. It is very suspicious because indeed Thomas Jefferson himself was not known to erase things but cross out names with a single line. I have seen scans of some of these pages and have noticed other things wrong with them. That being said....it is unclear who did the erasures, scribbles and tearing out of pages and why they did so. I have heard historians, his family and souvenir seekers all be blamed for the mysterious condition. Making a big conspiracy out of it is pointless and frankly disingenuous because we do not know what exactly happened.
We have to go by what we do know. Thomas Jefferson only recorded five children being born to Sally Hemings in his farm books. Thenia may have been the daughter of another couple. There had been other children listed with her that were not her daughters. The bottomline is that we should stick to what we know and be cautious of taking guesses because that just clouds what the truth may be. Welsh4ever76 20:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

I was reading this, and its title is "Hemings", but in the article, she is repeatedly refered to as "Hennings." I don't know which is right, but it really needs to be cleared up.


I checked the archive and didn't see anything about this, so hopefully I'm not bringing up a previously discussed-to-death topic. That said, the intro doesn't actually explain why she is in Wikipedia. The intro describes her as TJs chambermaid, which is true, but not important. We don't have articles on every president's chambermaid. The reason she is well known is because many people think that she and TJ had children. So I added "who may have had one or more children with Thomas Jefferson." to the first sentence. If someone can come up with better wording (alleged, supposedly, etc. sounded wrong to me) please do so.


JEFFERSON THE FATHER OF SALLY HEMINGS' CHILDREN?

Actually, I don't see how you're ever going to prove it. Any DNA evidence could just as easily nail Tom Jefferson's brother Randolph as Tom himself. And remember that the guy who first said it was Tom Jefferson was a notorious Federalist scandal monger.

BILL CLINTON AND SALLY HEMMINGS?

What exactly does Bill Clinton have to do with Sally Hemmings, other than the fact that the DNA study was released during his presidency? If you want to include it, create an article called the 'Jefferson DNA controversy'. It's questionable as to whether he should be mentioned all, and certainly nothing more than a footnote.

I haven't removed the content, but I have placed it at the bottom of the page as I feel it's more of a footnote than anything else.

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "reed160" :
    • Gordon-Reed, Annette. ''Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy''. University of Virginia Press (April 1997). p.160. ISBN 0813916984.
    • Gordon-Reed, Annette. ''Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy''. University of Virginia Press (April 1997). p 59-61. ISBN 0813916984.

DumZiBoT (talk) 14:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

is there another possible article name?

Latest comment: 16 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article seems more like "sally hennings and thomas jefferson paternity controversy" than a biography. Katsam (talk) 09:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

For better or worse, she is most noted as the likely bearer of some of Jefferson's children. Since bio data on slaves is usually quite limited, the controversy is the bulk of her bio. We already have an article Jefferson DNA data. Leave the article title as it is. Ward3001 (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Unproven Paternity Claims

Latest comment: 13 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I was surprised to have my comments on this subject, posted here yesterday, suddenly disappear off the face of the earth overnight. Maybe whoever it is who disagrees with me should try to cough up a rational argument instead of wielding a machete...

Basically, there is no DNA evidence whatsoever that proves that Jefferson fathered Hemings' children. This is simply a scientific fact, and we have to accept it. Period. There is definite evidence that Sally Hemings' youngest child, Eston, was fathered by someone with Jefferson blood--whose, we do not know. There were several Jefferson males in or around Thomas Jefferson's family home at different times. The father may have been any of them. Or, another theory holds that it may have been a slave whose father or grandfather was a Jefferson.

Character is not something that can be measured scientifically. But everything we know about Thomas Jefferson tells us that he had a strong sense of his own dignity and position in the world. He stated strongly that he disapproved of miscegenation and believed that it degraded both races. The suggestion that in his late middle age this Founding Father was creeping around Monticello in the middle of the night, crawling through private passages so he could exploit his teenage sister-in-law (Hemings was his wife's half-sister)is, in my opinion, unlikely. What does seem likely is that a younger and more shameless Jefferson relative did this.

One circumstance that's frequently mentioned as "evidence" of Jefferson's paternity is his kindness and generous behavior toward Sally Heming's children. It makes more sense to explain this kindness as arising from the fact that Hemings' children were the nephews and nieces of Jefferson's adored late wife. Mrs. Jefferson and Hemings had the same father. Jefferson would have respected this blood bond, which was tacitly understood by everyone in the family. He would have considered it his duty to behave well to these children, for his late wife's sake.

Finally, it's completely understandable that the Woodsons and Hemings descendents have an "oral tradition" that they're descended from Thomas Jefferson. It's understandable how strongly they want it to be true. But the sad truth is that our wishful thinking is not the same as truth, fact, or reality. 75.42.235.164 (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Is this the same editor as Younggoldchip? If so, I'm the one who deleted your addition.[3] I removed them because you were making assertions based on your own opinions rather than citing reliable sources. Further, the additoins weren't phrased in an encyclopedic tone. We're not here to make arguments, but to summarize sources. If there is a notable commentator who says the same things, then similar material could be added. For example, "John Smith, professor of history at Big U., writes that the orial tradition of descent from Thomas Jefferson is an unprovable creation myth." So my advice is to go back to the sources and see what they say.   Will Beback  talk  20:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your explanation, Will Beback. I agree with you that most of the information in Wikipedia articles can and should arise from reliable, verifiable source material.The DNA information in the Jefferson article is an example of this. However, history sometimes presents us with behaviors or alleged behaviors of historical figures, which cannot absolutely be verified to mean one thing rather than another. In my comments, I spoke of the reasons Jefferson may have had for showing special kindnesses to Hemings's children. We have no choice except to speculate about these behaviors, because no definite "truth" about them has been revealed. And no matter how distinguished or well-informed a biographer might be, he too will be speculating. In matters which can be exactly verified, they should be; but when the available materials don't point to a single definite interpretation, you and I may legitimately consult our own intelligence, and I think we should. To me, the worst blight on a Wikipedia Discussion page is not a writer's honest attempt to sort out confusing or controversial material. It's the drive some have to interpret the material according to what they WANT to be true. Younggoldchip (talk) 22:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There are often conflicting views, or even incomplete views, of a topic. As Wikipedia editors, it isn't our job to decide which is correct, if any. We should just verifiably summarize reliable sources using the neutral point of view. If sources are speculating then we should say they are speculating. If three sources agree but another disagrees we should reflect that disagreement. If we can't verify something then we should just leave it our, and let the readers do their own guessing.   Will Beback  talk  00:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I was just in the Jefferson article and I figured there would a section on this in Hemming's article as well. Lo and behold there is. The only way to prove with absolute certainty that Jefferson was the father is to dig him up. I don't think they're going to dig up old Tom. Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson are old news. The weight of the historical evidence, plus the DNA evidence (Eston Hemmings was a Jefferson), the extensive research on the topic, makes it more than likely that Jefferson was the father of some, if not all, of Hemmings children. The level of proof that some are demanding for events that happened 200 years ago is impossible and I doubt that you would apply the same harsh standard elsewhere. I'm quite surprised at the level of POV pushing I've been seeing over a 200 year old affair. In my opinion this subject has had a fork stuck in it... a million times before. --Joe bob attacks (talk) 04:36, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
The book is by the Commission of Scholars hired by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society in 2000 - in 2001 they reported their conclusion there wasn't enough evidence to support TJ, and they like Randolph Jefferson as the father. He was never seriously proposed until after the DNA evidence showed the match with the Jefferson line. They have many mistakes in fact and their report (and a book at the time) were roundly criticized by historians and genealogists for ignoring the body of evidence, showing bias, and over-emphasizing exceptions. It doesn't sound as if the new book has much to add. As noted on Monticello's current website, most historians have accepted that TJ was the father of all 6 of Hemings' children - as reflected in books about him and the era published in the last decade.Parkwells (talk) 17:46, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Removing bias

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Parkwells has introduced a huge amount of bias in this article, and for that reason I am reverting to the prior version. Examples include editorializing: "None of this proves anything", "People tried to attack the memoir, rather than dealing with the facts, which were substantiated by other evidence", "This carries assumptions about "what slaves are supposed to sound like" and does not take into account that all the Hemings children were able to move and do well in general society"; unwarranted attacks on critics: "as a way of avoiding looking at the facts", "In this, they showed their bias and interest in preserving Jefferson's "reputation" as someone above activities typical of male slaveholders in slave societies", "[historians'] own biases" (from the lead); and... I could go on and on. It has been turned into a long argument for one position in this controversial issue. It is also just wrong: e.g., historians' skepticism of Callendar's claims are due to his lack of credibility, a fact acknowledged even by Jefferson's enemies. Tyuia (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not introduce bias but introduced sources, such as the Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Annette Gordon-Reed who evaluated earlier historians and substantiated her statements, unlike the POV arguments above on the Talk page. Some of what you were objecting to were Gordon-Reed's statements, which I had citations for. The article has gotten way off topic, with too much discussion of Callender's inflammatory quotes. People refuse to deal with valid scholarly sources rather than arguing over their own interpretations of primary and other data. In 2000 and 2001 the Monticello Foundation, the National Genealogical Society and the biographer Joseph Ellis, among other scholarly sources, changed their positions and concluded that the weight of historical evidence plus the DNA results support the conclusion that Jefferson had a long-term relationship with Hemings and was the father of her children. Yes, some historians continue to disagree, but that is a long way from trying to represent here that there is no way to come to a conclusion, or that the controversy is totally unsettled. Read the sources and report what they say. History is written on the weight of evidence and not everything can be scientifically determined. That is not the standard of proof.Parkwells (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see the very first paragraph revised to reflect exact dates re the death of Martha Jefferson. I would want to know exactly how old she was, exactly how old Thomas Jefferson was. I would also like to know how old Sally Hemings was when she first gave birth to Thomas Jefferson's children. This time line seems important to lay out at the outset of the article.StevenJTorrey (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Rename to controversy over Sally Hemmings' children?

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article is named incorrectly. Most of this article is not about Sally Hemings. It is about the paternity of her children. FurrySings (talk) 00:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because very little is known about Hemings, but the possibility that Thomas Jefferson fathered some of her children has received widespread interest for a very long time, including recent DNA analysis of her descendents. Bio articles generally provide information that is known about the subject, and in this case, most of what is known involves the paternity issues. The article does not need renaming. Cresix (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
We are changing this article to focus on Sally Hemings and her family. There is a separate one in preparation on the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, which was, after all, a controversy about Jefferson and his position - not a controversy that Hemings caused or was the subject of. Odd, the way people kept wanting to push the controversy off his article onto Hemings, when he obviously was the one with the power to initiate and sustain the relationship, and he was the reason it was controversial. There is a new book about The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family (2008), that provides considerable some information about them.Parkwells (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Alice Adams ?

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

İn the sentence "While somewhat critical of Sally, Alice Adams also described her as being "an industrious and orderly creature in her behaviour" is 'Alice' supposed to be Abigail? --İnfoCan (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrected - thanks for noting it.Parkwells (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Shorten Woodson section

Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The DNA study disproved the Woodson claims; also, most of the cites are from a descendant's book, rather than from another historian. This section should be made much shorter and more direct - the DNA evidence is stronger than attempts to argue from records. Other sources than Woodson should be used for discussion.

Agree - there is little to support the claim that he was Sally Hemings' child. The DNA disproves he was Jefferson's child, although there was European ancestry.Parkwells (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Nationality, Abby Adams

Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed two recent changes that I find somewhat questionable. First, is "African American" a nationality? It might be an ethnicity (although even that is somewhat questionable, given that we are talking about a time more than 200 years ago, and arguably before a unified African American ethnicity evolved). I'm tempted to change it back to "American".

Secondly, this edit by Parkwells removes the description of Hemings by Abigail Adams. Given that overall material on Sally Hemings is quite scarce, I don't see why this is not important. Abigail Adams was an unusually accomplished person, a major influence on her husband, and a frequent correspondent with Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Stephen -Agree with you on nationality as United States. Not sure when the other change was made. Will restore the AA quote. Yes, AA was accomplished in her own right.Parkwells (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
Also deleted Christianity as religion from Infobox, as it was unsourced.Parkwells (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy term

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone changed "mixed race" to "of multiracial descent." I believe that "mixed race" is acceptable; it seems overworked to use seven syllables instead of two. Sally Hemings' parents were biracial and white; it wasn't as if her mixed-race ancestry were so many generations past that no one knew who they were.Parkwells (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Reverted edits

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've just reverted this bunch of edits. In my opinion, they had too many problems to fix individually. Some were simply technically bad, some were plain wrong, and some showed a lack of understanding of the history. As an example, by Virginia law of the time, people of 7/8th white descent were legally white - that did not mean they they could not be slaves. I seriously doubt that Sally Hemings was ever identified as "white", but most of here children were indeed, passed into white society, and had white families. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it, you just don't get it. I'm undoing your reverts because your "cause" is unjustified and merely a byproduct of a bunch of historians who don't use logic in their research. Joshua the Independent 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia is about what "a bunch of historians" write, not your own personal opinion. Please see WP:OR and WP:V. Since I have some passing experience with logic, let me tell you that a sound argument based on wrong assumptions does not guarantee a sound result. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

"Consensus"?

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article states "Following renewed historic analysis and a 1998 DNA study that found a match between the Jefferson male line and a descendant of her last son, Eston Hemings, a consensus among historians supports that the widower Jefferson fathered her son Eston Hemings and likely all her children.[2] Some historians disagree.[3] A "consensus" is an overwhelming majority in agreement, not a 51% (or whatever) belief. As the historicity of paternity is a scientific issue, and science isn't determined by vote, this should be changed to something more objective like "many historians..." or perhaps "a majority of historians...", but not "consensus". There exists reasonable doubt that Thomas Jefferson is the father of Sally Hemings' children (which DNA results go no further towards resolving, since any of the 20 or so male Jeffersons living in the area could've been the father), so it is nonsensical to say that consensus could exist. Bricology (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Sally's sons played "fiddle"

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Just wondering why the article states the 3 sons learned to play "fiddle" whereas immediately after it says "(Jefferson played the violin)"? Seems like if we call it "violin" in one case it ought to be called "violin" in the other case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The0ther (talk • contribs) 22:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yup, fixed DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

GAN sorting

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Subtopic is unambiguously "World history". Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 17 April 2014 (UTC)


GA Review

Latest comment: 10 years ago54 comments3 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sally Hemings/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: TonyTheTiger (talk · contribs) 01:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

When you click on external links look for links highlighted in pink. Those need to be fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


WP:LEAD

THE LEAD the lead says it because it addressed in the biography section, Sally Hemings was born to Elizabeth Hemings (1735–1807), the daughter of Susanna, an enslaved African, and John Hemings, an English sea captain.[8] Susanna and Elizabeth Hemings (also known as Betty Hemings) were first held by Francis Eppes IV, where Susanna was referred to as Susanna Epps.[9] John Hemings tried to buy them from Eppes, but the planter refused to give them up.[8] The mother and daughter were inherited by Francis' daughter, Martha Eppes, who took them with her as personal servants upon her marriage to the planter John Wayles.

sally was born to her mother who was named Elizabeth Hemings, but was called betty by all, that is addressed in the second sentence (also know as Betty Hemings) Betty was born to Susanna, slave woman, and a captain John Hemings, it later explains that John Wayles became Betty and Susanna's master, and took Betty as his concubine after becoming a widower.... hope this is addressed, however I rewrote it to make much less confusing. (Monkelese (talk) 17:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Hemingses in Paris
Jefferson–Hemings controversy
Descendants
Grandchildren and other descendants
Representation in other media
See also
Other
Added a photo of Sally's grandson John Wayles Jefferson, who was said to look like Jefferson, including having red hair and grey eyes. He served as a colonel in the Union Army. (From the JW Jefferson article.) Have never made a family tree so am not sure if I can do that.Parkwells (talk) 20:27, 27 August 2014 (UTC)


Elizabeth or Betty?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I noticed that Sally's mother is referred to as both Betty and Elizabeth. Which name should be used consistently throughout the entire article? Nanodudek (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)nanodudek

Betty is what she was referred to (Monkelese (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Half-sisters as Lady's Maids

Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Somewhere along the way, I learned that it was cultural practice for the daughter of a wealthy individual to have his daughters, by his favorite slave(s), become the lady's maid to his full (white) daughters. I beieve that it was said of John Wayles wife that she came to the marriage to John with a lady's maid that was her half-sister. No one ever mentions this in relation to Sally Hemmings, but as she came with Martha as her lady's maid when she married Thomas Jefferson, could she not have been a half-sister of Martha, too? If it is true that this was a common practice, and Sally was actually Martha Jefferson's half-sister, it would be very understandable that Thomas Jefferson would find her, Sally, not just very beautiful, but intelligent, and possibly very much like his deceased wife in mannerisms and culture, as well as in her breeding. It also makes much more sense that he would have dressed Sally like his wife in Paris, and that Sally would have taken classes to learn French. It might even help us to understand why Sally never left Jefferson, was still "owned" by him at Thomas Jefferson's death, and was not set free like her children. Sally would have been "property" like all women were, even "white" women under the law prior to equal rights. This story of 18th century life also lets us see into the family, social, and economic dynamic of the period where some "slaves" were treated like family and inherited like family, and stayed in the South before and after the Civil War. I have to wonder what records of Thomas Jefferson might have been removed or destroyed at his death to hide this part of his life and times, and that of other's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.206.79 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is widely accepted that Sally Hemings was the half-sister of Martha (nee Wayles), by John Wayles and his slave Betty Hemings. We describe this in the first paragraph. Possible similarity between Sally and Martha is fairly widely considered one possible reason why Jefferson fell in love with her. However, we do not have very good descriptions of Sally Hemings, and no picture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Alleged raping

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Nygdan--I removed your uncited allegations of rape. Such allegations can be made in Wikipedia's voice only with citations from reliable sources. YoPienso (talk) 05:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Quote from article: "the photo to the right shows his resemblance to the president." There is no photo. Where was this copied from? ;) --Nellie Nüms (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Still no picture of Sally Hemings? -- AstroU (talk) 12:05, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
No image exists. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

This doesn't follow

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

"Jefferson inherited a great amount of wealth at a young age, but was bankrupt by the time he died; making it almost impossible for him to free his slaves, including Sally Hemings.[26] His entire estate, including his slaves, had to be resold to repay his debts."

This sentence makes no sense. Jefferson inherited wealth via his marriage to Martha Wayles. He was indeed in deep debt by the time of his death. However, those facts in no way made it "impossible" for him to free any slaves. He chose not to free them, perhaps in order to settle his debts (we cannot know why), perhaps to preserve wealth fro his white daughter to inherit - but he was also free to manumit all his slaves had he chosen to do so. They didn't "have to" be sold to pay his debts.

By the way, some of those slaves were also descendants of John Wayles (martha's father, i.e., the source of Jefferson's wealth) and they didn't get to inherit any of it.

I suggest we break this sentence apart into its pieces and sever the causal bit, since it does not follow from the facts.

DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Done. DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hyland

Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

If you will read In Defense of Thomas Jefferson (2009) by William G. Hyland, Jr., you will get a clearer picture of this issue. Hyland is a lawyer and approached this topic in that fashion. He dealt with facts and, after reading his book, it is unthinkable that a person could conclude that Thomas Jefferson fathered any children with Sally.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarylady77 (talk • contribs)

It's generally acknowledged that Hyland wrote what amounts to a good legal brief for the "No Sex" side. But he is no historian, and his work, while convincing on the surface, is generally full of historical errors and unsound methodology. Would you decide a court case based on the presentation of only one side? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
Read Annette Gordon-Reed's "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy", (1999, with a preface to reflect the DNA study) and you may understand why she was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 2010 for "changing the course of Jeffersonian scholarship". She is also a lawyer and analyzed the failure of historians to use available evidence, relying on Jefferson family testimony (since found absolutely inaccurate) and not assessing the body of evidence. The historic consensus is that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' four children who reached adulthood.Parkwells (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Hyland's book was criticized by the Publishers Weekly for his failure to "see the historical context of the evidence or to provide a balanced assessment of the known facts. In this respect, he's ill-equipped to take on great contemporary experts of the matter, especially award-winning historian Annette Gordon-Reed, whose work he terms a concocted myth. Surely not the last word on the matter, regrettably it's not dependable word either.", on Amazon.com page for the book.Parkwells (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Turner WSJ editorial

Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Turner is the editor of the "Scholars Commission" report. There is no value in adding his opinion twice, and popular press editorials are not, in general, good sources for anything but the opinion of the author. Editorials in the WSJ are not scholarly, and they are not peer-reviewed. On the other hand, the Scholars Commission report has been severely criticized in Jones, Thomas W. (2001). "The "Scholars Commission" Report on the Jeffersons-Hemings Matter: An Evaluation by Genealogical Proof Standards". National Genealogical Society Quarterly. 89 (3): 208–218. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help), which was published in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

1998 DNA findings

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The wikipedia submission for Sally Hemings appears to be outdated and required editing to include the below information.

Please revise the posting to include the findings of the 1998 DNA study. The study concluded that Thomas Woodson was not a descendant of Thomas Jefferson (Eugene A. Foster et al., "Jefferson Fathered Slave's Last Child," Nature 396 (November 5, 1998), Page 27-28.

And, because it did not specifically test Thomas Jefferson's DNA that there are ten possible fathers of Sally Heming's other children, including two brothers of Thomas Jefferson and their sons, all with access to Monticello and all spending time there (The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy Report of the Scholars Commission, ed. Robert F. Turner (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2011), Page 11).

Herbert Barger suggests, because three of Heming's children were given names of the Randolph family the most likely father is Randolph or one of his sons (Herbert Barger, "The Jefferson Hemings DNA Study", Angel Fire, last updated, August 30, 2000, http://www.angelfire.com/va/TJTruth/background.html).

Jimbarola (talk) 22:40, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Barger is not a reliable source. The Scholars Commission Report has been widely discredited - it is one opinion, but definitely the minority opinion on the topic. See e.g. Jones, Thomas W. (2001). "The "Scholars Commission" report on the Jefferson-Hemings matter: An evaluation by genealogical standards". National Genealogical Society Quarterly. 89 (3). for a discussion of its shortcomings. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Press reports and rumors

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

This is inappropriate here, as it does not provide any substance. The reports were of interest to those who were trying to attack Jefferson; they do not relate directly to the facts of the case and if used at all, should be put in the Jefferson article rather than here. Having extensive quotes to show how racist people were is really beside the point.Parkwells (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you mean. This section has problems: [4]] I noticed that in a different section last week. Seems the text just dismisses everything Callender said as unfounded (lack of NPOV), even though not all historians say that. Looks like a bit of editing. Maybe a very small amount could go in the Jefferson article, but I'd limit it to a sentence. Your ideas on fixing it? Ebanony (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
I removed most of the commentary on the Callender and other reports, which really were attacking Jefferson politically. This is supposed to be about Sally Hemings and her family.Parkwells (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

You're missing the big picture here which is about reality of the relationship between a negro slave--Sally Hemings--and Jefferson. Callender knew of the relationship by hearsay, in 1802 wrote articles in the Fedeeralist 'Richmond Recorder' press about that relationship--partly to discredit Jefferson, partly to be sure Jefferson was defeated. After all, in the 1800 election, the Federalist Hamilton thought the nation would surely fail with a President Jefferson The relationship was very much a part of the 1804 campaign. Debate about the reality of this relationship had been for long years dismissed as nothing more than Callender's insane conjecture and rumor mongering; only the DNA test of the 1998 proved beyond doubt that Jefferson fathered children with Sally Hemings. So Callender's 1802 newspaper articles' assertion was not just insane conjecture based on hearsay and rumor, but a well bruted rumour and an important part of the 1804 campaign... Not to mention Callender's 1802 assertions about this relationship here in an article about Sally Hemings shortchanges her pressence in the historical event of the era. ("Madison and Jefferson" by Andrew Burstein and Nancy Isenberg devote several paragraphs to Callender's episode--page 411-414).StevenTorrey (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Paternity is unproven

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

The assertion that Thomas Jefferson "likely" had an intimate relationship with Sally Hemmings, causing her to bear six children, is simply not true. The DNA evidence, per Nature's 1998 article, makes clear that he was not the father of Thomas Woodson, the eldest son, and there is no direct evidence that he is the father of any of her other children. The most that the DNA evidence shows is a connection to some Jefferson male, of which there were over 20, with at least ten of them as likely candidates. This article uses words which imply but do not prove. Readers should see the retraction published by Nature, and the summary of the evidence given in 2012 by author David Barton, in The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson. See also, The Jefferson-Hemmings Controversy Report of the Scholars' Commission, 2011. A close reading of the Brodie and Gordon-Reed books will likewise make clear the weakness of their assertions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gallagheralan2000 (talk • contribs) 02:12, 22 August 2013 ‎(UTC)

Woodson was not considered one of Hemings' sons by Jefferson, although the family has an oral tradition of his descent by Jefferson. The DNA test showed his descendant to be unrelated to the Jefferson line, although of European paternity. A close reading of Brodie and especially Gordon-Reed shows that they demonstrate Madison Hemings' account of his (and siblings) paternity by Jefferson is more demonstrated by the weight of historical evidence than Thomas Jefferson Randolph's assertion that Peter Carr was their father (utterly disproved by DNA testing.)Parkwells (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
@Gallagheralan2000: My understanding is that it is true that the genetic testing results seem to disprove the notion of Thomas Woodson as Thomas Jefferson's son. However, my understanding is that Woodson was already not considered one of Hemings' six "children of record", even before the genetic testing was done. Is the "retraction" article from Nature available online? How about those other works cited above? (Please also see the Jefferson–Hemings controversy article, although neither this article nor that one seems to discuss Woodson at all.) My understanding is that, as you pointed out, there was a substantial number of other men sharing Jefferson's paternal line of descent who lived near Hemings or visited the area where she lived during the relevant period of time (and that a couple of them stayed in the Thomas Jefferson household for extended periods). And also that the genetic testing only seems to establish a connection to one of Hemings' children (specifically, the youngest one, who was born when Thomas Jefferson was 65, which does seem a bit old for engaging in such shenanigans with a woman who was, apparently, about 35 at the time). However, my understanding is that there's more to this topic than genetic analysis. The difficulty of trying answer such questions more than 200 years after the fact seems to cast doubt on the possibility of reaching a firm conclusion one way or the other. Perhaps some future genetic analysis technique, the exhumation of remains, or greater cooperation of descendants may someday make the picture somewhat less cloudy, but perhaps some cloudiness will always remain. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note that Barton's book has been widely panned from academics all around the political spectrum, and has been withdrawn by the publisher. This is not a reliable source. The so-called "Scholars Commission" report has been effectively disassembled in Jones, Thomas W. (September 2001). "The "Scholars Commission" Report on the Jefferson-Hemings Matter: An Evaluation by Genealogical Standards". National Genealogical Society Quarterly. 89 (3): 208–219., which also contain a number of other articles on the topic. I have two modern biographies of Jefferson on my shelves, both largely sympathetic to Jefferson: Hitchen's Thomas Jefferson: Author of America and Bernstein's Jefferson. Both accept paternity as a matter of fact. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Jefferson's paternity is also acknowledged in the Smithsonian 2012 exhibit on Slavery at Jefferson's Monticello, a groundbreaking exhibit about major slave families there. Woodson has not recently been considered a son of Hemings and Jefferson, as noted by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (Monticello).Parkwells (talk) 02:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

What controversy?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This article is so violently biased in favor of the Jefferson-fathered-Hemings's-children myth that no sense whatsoever is given that there IS another side to the controversy.

"Yet, even during Jefferson's life it was known at Monticello and in Charlottesville that he had fathered Hemings' children."

Wow. Really? It was known, or it was the topic of hearsay and scuttlebutt circulated by the sorts of people that would enjoy spreading a little gossip about a great man?

It would be more accurate to say that it was a charge brought about by other great men who were Jefferson's opponents, the Federalists. Not to say whether its true or not, but "known even in his time" is a bit disingenuous. The Federalists hated Jefferson and partisan bickering is older than we sometimes realize. They would have spread this rumor about him whether it was true or not. Its a bit like saying "it was widely known even in her time that Hillary Clinton was physically ill and unfit for presidency."

NPOV left the building a LONG time ago on this one. HedgeFundBob (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed rumor-mongering http://www.amren.com/features/2012/12/did-jefferson-sleep-with-his-slave/ --41.150.236.201 (talk) 16:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, Ms. Hemings knew. Her brothers knew. Evidently the children knew. So I guess it depends on whose views you consider worthy of attention. In other news, opinions about the shape of the earth continue to differ. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:37, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Ludicrous Unproven Claims Damage Article

Latest comment: 7 years ago27 comments4 people in discussion

I'm scratching my head, trying to figure out why any serious historian would include unproven claims from the very first paragraph: that Sally Hemings was Thomas Jefferson's "concubine," and that he fathered her six children. The writer expresses as fact what has not only not been proven, but which is unlikely. Extensive DNA tests have been inconclusive. They have shown only that one of Heming's children was fathered by a Jefferson---not necessarily Thomas. Given Jefferson's middle age during this period, and the fact that several younger nephews were in and out of his house at the time, and that contemporaries assumed these young relatives were the fathers of Heming's children--well,the Thomas/Sally connection evaporates when you really look at it. For example, much has been made of the fact that he was kind to Hemings' children. Isn't it quite natural that he would be kind to his late wife's nephews and nieces? (Jefferson's wife and Hemings were half-sisters.)

Contemporaries did not "assume" his Carr nephews were the fathers - his grandson and granddaughter in the late 19th c. named them as the fathers, despite the fact that each was married with his own family, probably to try to account for the Hemings' children's resemblance to Jefferson. This is the family oral history which later historians relied on without checking such facts as they could, and the claim was disproved conclusively by the DNA study.Parkwells (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand how this article states as facts what are characterized as only "a high probability", "likely" -- and even "very unlikely" -- by the cited reference. The Thomas Jefferson Foundation (monticello.org) reports in "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account" (emphasis added): "In January 2000, the committee reported that the weight of all known evidence--from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data--indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was likely the father of all six of Sally Hemings's children listed in Monticello records--Harriet (born 1795; died in infancy); Beverly (born 1798); an unnamed daughter (born 1799; died in infancy); Harriet (born 1801); Madison (born 1805); and Eston (born 1808). The Foundation also reports that "Since then, a committee commissioned by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, after reviewing essentially the same material, reached different conclusions, namely that Sally Hemings was only a minor figure in Thomas Jefferson's life and that it is very unlikely he fathered any of her children. This committee also suggested in its report, issued in April 2001 and revised in 2011, that Jefferson's younger brother Randolph (1755-1815) was more likely the father of at least some of Sally Hemings's children." The reference thus reports a difference of opinion among historians on this matter. The reference reports varying degrees of confidence that Thomas Jefferson fathered one -- or more than one -- or none of Sally Hemings's children. Nowhere does the reference state as fact -- nor state even as a high probability -- that Thomas Jefferson fathered all of Sally Hemings's children. Even the reference's (the Foundation's) own 2000 report does not make such a conclusion. The reference cited does not support -- and is actually in conflict with -- the opening statement of this article, which nonetheless uses that reference as its support. The reference does not state as fact that "She was the mother of six children fathered by [Thomas Jefferson]" The reference can be fairly represented to report that "She was likely the mother of six children fathered by [Thomas Jefferson]" or more appropriately "She is believed by most historians to be..." (which is a conclusion stated elsewhere on monticello.org.). It is hard to imagine any other reference that could overcome the carefully worded conclusions of the Foundation, which is the definitive source of information on this subject. Unless there is such a reference, the opening statement of this article is without support and is not appropriate content for Wikipedia. Ruedetocqueville (talk) 11:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure we all wish we were descendants of a Founding Father, but wishing will not make it so. Do the article a favor and clean up this dim-witted mess. Younggoldchip (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There were six Hemings children by John Wayles; Sally was the youngest one. Jefferson only freed his own four children, plus a few male Hemings relatives who had served him for many years - not by any means all of the many Betty Hemings-Wayles descendants, of whom there were in total about 75 at Monticello, if you read the article on her. Read the sources - Jeffersonian scholarship has changed to incorporate the widely held agreement, due to the body of historical evidence and the DNA study, that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children and had a 38-year relationship with her. The National Genealogical Society, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (which runs Monticello), historians such as Joseph Ellis and Andrew Burstein, as well as younger historians, all have changed their opinions and work to reflect that Jefferson's paternity is now widely accepted. Annette Gordon-Reed, who showed the inaccuracies and shortcomings of earlier histories in her 1997 "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy" (the 1999 revised edition incorporates the DNA material) was awarded a MacArthur fellowship in 2010 for "changing the course of Jeffersonian scholarship." Her second book on the Hemingses (2008) won the Pulitzer Prize and 15 other major historical/literary awards. For the last decade and more this has been the accepted scholarship, which Wikipedia is supposed to reflect.Parkwells (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Parkwells (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Science is science. You can't simply choose what you prefer to believe. No grasping at straws, no Genius Award, no currently fashionable opinion (which will probably shift in another ten years) can dispute the plain fact that the DNA evidence is not conclusive. It identifies Jefferson blood, not necessarily Thomas's. For that reason, your reference to Jefferson freeing "his own four children" is unscientific and inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. And you did not address my point that Jefferson's kindnesses to Hemings' children may have been due to the close friendship, as well as relationship, between Jefferson's wife and her sister Sally Hemings. These children had grown up in her house. There is no evidence that his wife was similarly close to her other half-brothers and half-sisters (from the Wayles/Hemings connection.) That would explain why Jefferson didn't free their sons and daughters as well--that, and the obvious fact that his family wealth was founded on slavery, and he did not really enjoy freeing slaves. Younggoldchip (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

By that standard of proof, we cannot claim that Elisabeth I is a child of Henry VIII, or that Alexandre Dumas wrote The Three Musketeers, or, probably, that any of the members of the Monticello Association is descended from Jefferson at all. Absolute proof is the domain of mathematics, not the humanities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


But there is no dispute about Elizabeth I's parentage. If you really wanted a riproaring DNA hunt, pursue the descendants of Anne Boleyn's sister Mary--who's alleged to have had a son with Henry VIII. And there's no dispute about who wrote The Three Musketeers. If there were, handwriting experts would be examining manuscripts--and, at a higher level, "touch" DNA testing would come into play.

At its best and freshest, DNA is the ultimate reality. In Heming's case, it's just a possibility insecurely backed up by dubious assumptions. (Why would someone confidently state, for example, that Jefferson had a 38-year affair with Hemings? Did they have access to her dance card?)The mistake that historians have made over and over is to believe that opportunity equals the deed. It does not.

I have hope that DNA testing will continue to improve, and that in the near future we'll know for sure. But that day is not today. Younggoldchip (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware of the fact that Annette Gordon-Reed published Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, the book that led to the change of the prevailing opinion a year before the DNA evidence came to light. That was just the icing on the cake. We neither have nor require DNA evidence for most historical facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. DNA is not the icing on the cake. In a case of identifying parentage, it is the meat of the matter, and you do require it. Everything else is speculation. The Jefferson case is particularly difficult because, like most aristocratic households of the time, Thomas Jefferson and his houseguests, relatives, slaves and other constant visitors basically formed a not-so-small village--many of whom shared a blood relationship. Younggoldchip (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

People have determined paternity for several thousand years without knowing about DNA. A good, modern DNA test is sufficient to establish paternity, but it is not required. Have you read Gordon-Reed to know what she bases her arguments on? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What you are basically saying is that people have determined paternity by guess and by golly for several thousand years---and in many, many cases, without significant accuracy. A modern DNA test is required to establish Thomas Jefferson's paternity, unless he and Sally Hemings spent her childbearing years alone on a desert island. They definitely did not. To give only one example, a Monticello manager reported seeing the same man (not Thomas) leaving Hemings' bedroom on many occasions.

Yes, that's how they determined paternity. And the overseer who claimed to have seen someone leaving Hemings' bedroom didn't even work there when her last child was conceived (as noted in Gordon-Reed's book.) Your should read it; you might learn something.Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
As one of the Wayles-Jefferson descendants and member of the Monticello Association said, none of them really has proof of parentage either. Just claims to be Jefferson's children. Why not ask what other opportunities Martha Jefferson had for another partner, with Jefferson traveling? As Stephan Schulz notes (and as the National Geneaological Society and others have noted), historians and biographers have indeed asserted paternity on just this kind of evidence. By the way, the Monticello Association (so-called lineal descendants of Jefferson-Wayles) have refused to allow Jefferson's remains to be disturbed to take DNA from him - so don't expect that confirmation. Younggoldchip, your comments and arguments are not about the article, but about your disagreement with the recent changes in Jeffersonian scholarship, which we are supposed to reflect here. There is clearly no way you can be satisfied, as the article needs to reflect the state of the field.Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
You might find it interesting to read the following article by a Wayles-Jefferson claimed descendant and member of the Monticello Ass'n: http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2001/1/2001_1_50.shtml Lucian K. Truscott IV, "Children of Monticello"], American Heritage Magazine, February/March 2001, Vol. 52, Issue 1, accessed 24 March 2011. Quote: "...the story of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson has always been about blood and race and land.
Once consigned to a footnote in the history books or at best a few paragraphs in Jefferson biographies, the story of Hemings and him is by now well known, the subject of talk shows, documentaries, even a mini-series. Yet as familiar as the story of the two may seem, we are only now beginning to agree on a new version of our history." Further, "There is no disagreement that Jefferson’s wife, Martha, and Sally Hemings were half-sisters; both had the same father, John Wayles. So all the members of the Monticello Association are descended from Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings’s half-sister, Martha. That means that the members of the Monticello Association are cousins of every descendant of Sally Hemings, because we share a maternal great-great-great (etc., etc.) grandfather, Mr. Wayles." Truscott is an accepted member of the Monticello Association who invited Hemings' descendants to their annual meeting in 1999. He made the point in this article that all he had to do to have his children enrolled in the MA was to sign a brief application. No one asked for DNA or documentation. So don't assume that every lineage society is scrupulous about documentation. The association got more worried about documentation after the Hemings' descendants showed up.Parkwells (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Gordon-Reed's book is based on inferences and assumptions. And anyone who supposes it is the last word on the subject is naive indeed. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Younggoldchip (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of historians' work is inference and assumptions, as it is necessarily based on the evidence that remains, and sometimes there is not much of that after family censorship, wars, etc. - certainly previous ones were. Have you even read it? Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


I'm familiar with Gordon-Reed's arguments, and don't find them compelling. Your statement that historians often reach conclusions through inference and conjecture is all too true. But when the best historians run across a question whose answer, inspite of the most scrupulous research, they don't know--they say they don't know. They don't scrape together, like a jackdaw, every possible speculation, wisp of gossip, (but only the gossip which is useful to their case),fable and myth, pump them up as though by a bicycle pump, and proudly present this dubious assemblage to their colleagues. The best historians don't present something as proof which is not proof.

Any argument which presents a "family oral tradition" as evidence is in deep trouble indeed. It's almost as illogical as those who dismiss the plain fact that Hemings had a not-Thomas partner for years.

You need to ask yourself if the critical reception to Gordon-Reed's book has been as intellectually tough as it should be. What I see is the softball response of reviewers and historians who're suffering from a weird critical mass of collective guilt: they seem afraid to ask the hard questions. It's as though they fear being thought of as old, possibly racist meanies who are robbing the Hemings of a distinguished heritage. A real historian, always, is unafraid to ask the tough questions.

You are exactly right that I'm not satisfied with the proofs as they stand, because they're not satisfactory. But I have genuine faith that improvements in DNA testing will clear this up in the near future. And I thank you for including this statement:"Members of the Monticello Association are cousins of every descendent of Sally Hemings, because we share a maternal great-great-great(etc.) grandfather..." Yes. That is an emotionally generous statement, which celebrates true connections, and I applaud it. Younggoldchip (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

  • What Gordon-Reed did was not just accept an oral tradition, but check Madison Hemings' memoir against independently verifiable facts: Jefferson's activities and presence at Monticello, Hemings' conceptions, the names of the children reflecting Jefferson's family and friends, his freeing the children. Madison Hemings' account has been supported by more independent facts than the "family oral history" of the Jefferson grandson and granddaughter, who had named the married Carr nephews as father(s) of Hemings' children, which was disproven by the DNA results. In addition, their mother's oral tradition, which said Jefferson was gone for more than a year from Monticello before the birth of one of Hemings' children, was conclusively disproven by the well-documented timeline of Jefferson's activities by Dumas Malone, who was not trying to prove Jefferson's paternity, but collected the data for other purposes.
  • Funny that you should say "Any argument which presents a "family oral tradition" as evidence is in deep trouble indeed". That's exactly what historians did who denied the evidence for Jefferson's paternity, as they relied on what Jefferson descendants said - hardly disinterested parties. It was the oral tradition of the Jefferson daughter and grandchildren that was the basis of the mainstream historians' denial of Jefferson's paternity for about 180 years, and they've been proven utterly wrong in their story. The historians denied the oral tradition that was supported by facts that are independent of the tradition, such as Jefferson's freeing Hemings' children. There were many more Hemings' nephews and nieces at Monticello than Sally's, but he freed only all of her family. People only started proposing other Jefferson males (such as his brother Randolph) after the DNA study showed a match to the Jefferson male line.
  • Funny you should accept the overseer's word that he'd seen another man go into Hemings' room when he wasn't even working at Monticello at the time. But you don't appear to be concerned about his account that Jefferson directed him to give money to Harriet Hemings for her journey north when she left the plantation at age 21, nor for his repeating that people said Harriet was Jefferson's daughter. So you are picking and choosing what you pay attention to. Parkwells (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


Actually, you are picking and choosing what you pay attention to. You seem not to have read, attentively, my previous comments. Therefore, I'll repeat the gist of them.

  • A "family oral tradition" is untrustworthy, from whichever direction it comes.
  • Jefferson's possible presence in the same huge mansion as Sally Hemings, whether in Paris or at Monticello, at the time her children were conceived, proves exactly nothing at all. The mistake Gordon-Reed made, and which you are making, is to assume that the opportunity to copulate is proof that copulation took place. There is no such proof. By contrast, we have Jefferson's public statement that he found the idea of miscegenation repugnant. We know that Jefferson was a very intelligent man. It seems unlikely to me that he would even have brought the subject up if he were guilty of what he considered serious misconduct.
  • Jefferson's kindness to Hemings' children does not prove paternity. Sally Hemings was his wife's beloved half-sister. There is no record that his wife was similarly close to her other half-siblings. Therefore, it's natural that Jefferson would have taken a particular interest in Sally's children--as his wife would have done, had she lived.
  • You seem confused about the Monticello manager's sighting of a not-Thomas man coming out of Hemings' bedroom. In a previous comment, you said the manager was not present at Monticello, and therefore could not have spotted a possible "father", when Hemings' last child was born. Now you seem to have dispensed with the manager altogether throughout Hemings' entire childbearing period. Check your sources. He was there. As for the manager repeating gossip of the time-- that "people said" Jefferson was Harriet's father--anyone who's reached a thoughtful adulthood knows that "people will say" anything at all. A rumor is a rumor. Moses did not carry it down from the mountaintop engraved on tablets of stone.

You assume, wrongly, that I don't want Jefferson to have been the father of Sally Hemings' children. Actually, what I want is solid proof, one way or the other.

This whole debate has its sadly comical side. Basically, we're trying to prove or disprove a 19th century creation myth. If I were one of Hemings' descendents, I wouldn't really care which white overlord forced himself on my young and vulnerable ancestor, because their racist society had deprived her of the right to defend herself. I'd just despise the raping bastard, and get on with my life. Younggoldchip (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have some problems with understanding your standard of proof. On the one hand, you dismiss large amounts of historical and scientific evidence pointing to Jefferson the father of Hemings. On the other hand, you seem to have no problem at all at characterizing the relationship that produced her children as "forced" and "rape". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Edmund Bacon, the overseer quoted above, who gave Harriet money for her journey and claimed to have seen another man at Hemings' room, worked at Monticello from 1806-1822, per the Monticello website. This was not during most of Hemings's childbearing years, 1795-1808.Parkwells (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't dismiss evidence, I dismiss twaddle parading as evidence.

Perhaps Sally Hemings was not "forced" and "raped" as we would think of the term today--somebody physically savaging her. But surely a relationship which one partner does not have the right to refuse is, at least, dubious. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is absurd - it is your argument against the historians' and genealogists' conclusions, not against me. You can disagree all you want, but the field of Jeffersonian scholarship has changed, and that is what we are reflecting. I've seen no reference to Sally having been Martha's "beloved" half-sister. She was only nine when Martha died. No one has characterized the relationship with Jefferson as one we would recognize today, only that it existed, just as his father-in-law Wayles had a liaison with Betty Hemings. Burstein's 2005 book on Jefferson, Death and Desire at Monticello, struggled to understand how he might have been thinking. The Hemings descendants certainly got on with their lives; it was Jefferson-Wayles descendants who commissioned the DNA study, hoping to put the story to rest.Parkwells (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You're claiming quite a bit more monolithic authority than you have. It is not your place to frame the debate. "The field of Jefferson scholarship" has changed--for some people, and for now. Until some real evidence--and it will have to be DNA evidence--puts the matter to rest, this question will remain undecided. When a historian who is researching a particular subject becomes emotionally invested in one outcome rather than another, research and science go out the window. He's no longer an historian; he's an obsessive. Younggoldchip (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not my authority, but representing scholarship. As PBS noted in a Frontline program, "More than 20 years after CBS executives were pressured by Jefferson historians to drop plans for a mini-series on Jefferson and Hemings, the network airs, "Sally Hemings: An American Scandal." Though many quarrelled with the portrayal of Hemings as unrealistically modern and heroic, no major historian challenged the series' premise that Hemings and Jefferson had a 38-year relationship that produced children.""The History of a Secret", 1995-2011, accessed 5 May 2011Parkwells (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to realize how ephemeral TV programming is, and how little respected. I can't imagine a major historian bothering to respond to a mini-series' premise--whether on CBS or PBS. Younggoldchip (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you reading this? You say you can't imagine it, but as note above, about 1980, major historians Virginius Dabney and Dumas Malone in fact reacted to rumors that CBS was considering a mini-series on Jefferson-Hemings, and persuaded its president William Paley to drop the project.Parkwells (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm reading this. 1980 is a very long time ago, in terms of television programming and standards of appropriateness in general. These days, an historian who considered a mini-series to be a total pile of crap, thematically speaking, would probably confine himself to a snide comment--if even that. Younggoldchip (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Rape allegation

Latest comment: 7 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

I see that there was some minor discussion of "rape" on this page. I noticed this CNN article that makes this same allegation:

Why we can't tell hard truths on race

There are some authors who address this:

Though it seems that there is no consensus, it is clear that some scholars consider the rape a distinct possibility (and certainly in popular culture there are many who assume it to be true). It seems worth at least mentioning this. Omitting this possibility tends to imply that the relationship is known to be consensual (in the same way that not mentioning someone's death was murder implies that it was innocent). I would argue that the possibility needs to be at least mentioned.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:EC25:EF00:9036:D583:D28E:1EEB (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

There's no question it was rape by the modern definition, -he literally owned her, it's not possibly for her to give free consent by definition. Not to mention her age. I'm surprised to find the page avoids the use of this word.219.88.68.195 (talk) 01:42, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Because reliable sources don't agree on this. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:00, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
The modern definition is not relevant, not to mention that definition is not universally shared by all modern scholars.

-- On the contrary, it seems from what you have linked that there is a general consensus stating that the term "rape" is inappropriate here. What contemporary journalists claim is not relevant; only what reliable secondary sources think. It's especially telling that Gordon-Reed, probably the leading expert here and cited multiple times in the article, has argued comprehensively against the rape allegation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.111.181.124 (talk) 19:56, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

"The modern definition is not relevant" -the article is written in contemporary English, so yeah, it is relevant. The situation was one where consent was explicitly and inherently compromised, and that's even before the point that he was 44 and she was 14. Trying to spin it as a normal relationship within an unfortunate but irrelevant context where there was no aspect of coercion is fairly suspect by any reasonable standard.219.88.68.195 (talk) 00:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
"The situation was one where consent was explicitly and inherently compromised..." of course, I agree completely and so do the RSes. However, "a normal relationship" is not what anyone is suggesting either, I don't think. Annette Gordon-Reed is one of the leading scholars on this and doesn't call it 'rape' either. She is pretty explicit on this point. DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Consent is inherently compromised as you've agreed; so whether someone wants to use the word -and presumably historical biases would come into play, it still applies. Initiating sex with someone who does not give their free consent to that, inherently applies in a situation/context where that person *can not* give their free consent, whether because of age, or because they're a literal slave, or for whatever reason; where consent is not given it is rape, that where free consent can not be given; it is not given, is tautological. Once the former is conceded the latter necessarily follows.219.88.68.195 (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't disagree with your logic or conclusion. However , neither of us is a RS. Gordon-Reed, again, is probably the leading authority on this issue and she grapples with this word explicitly in her book. DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:47, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

This is a red herring. By modern definitions, most eighteenth-century marriages were also "rape"; the woman married whomever she was told to marry and had no choice in the matter, and she submitted to her husband sexually, by societal and legal coercion, whether she wanted to or not. In Jefferson's time this would not have been considered rape by either of them or by anyone else, and it would be Original Research on our part to bring it up. --MelanieN (talk) 19:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Trying to draw a comparison between a 44 man having sex with a 14 year old girl he literally owned as a slave, and marriage, even in that day and age, is a questionable false equivalence at best, so yes, that would be a red herring. Calling it an 'intimate relationship' as the article does at present is misleading language given the context of that 'relationship'.219.88.68.195 (talk) 21:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

February birth?

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The article says Sally was born in February 1773, but it has no source to back up the month claim. In Jefferson's Field Book reproduced on the Montcello.org site only lists the year 1773 for her birth. Is there some source for the February claim? Libertybison (talk) 23:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Sexual relationship?????

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments6 people in discussion

a) She was 14 year old b) She was slave with no choice

Instead "have begun a sexual relationship" "he rape her" will be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.115.65.17 (talk) 13:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

  • News to you: In the 18th century, 14 was well into the "marriageable age" by both law and social custom. Quoth Wiki: "Towards the end of the 18th century, other European countries also began to enact age of consent laws. The first French Constitution established an age of consent of 11 years in 1791, which was raised to 13 in 1863. Portugal, Spain, Denmark and the Swiss cantons, initially set the age of consent at 10–12 years and then raised it to between 13 and 16 years in the second half of the 19th century.[3] Historically, the English common law set the age of consent to range from 10 to 12.[4] In the United States, by the 1880s, most states set the age of consent at 10–12, and in one state, Delaware, the age of consent was only 7. A New York Times article states that it was still aged 7 in Delaware in 1895. So, Sally Hemings would have been considered a legally sexually active agent at age 14 and hardly considered unusual for the time, and therefore, could not have been "raped", so long as she gave consent. There is nothing to suggest that she withheld consent. Bricology (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, well, that's obviously fine, then. Sex with 14-year-olds that you own as slaves is obviously perfectly fine. (John 11:35 -- 'Jesus wept.') Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Right--age is a factor, but it's not the only factor here. Even if she were 18, 25, 60--she was still his slave, and as such was unable to consent. Can't fathom the amount of rape apologism in this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.28.216.39 (talk) 13:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Without testimony from Sally Hemmings, we don't know whether she consented or not. All we know is she was a slave, and that they came to be in love, and so the relationship was very complicated. Walterego (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Whoa there, I don't know where you're getting this 'in love' conclusion. Stick to what is known. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Read Annette Gordon-Reed's Pulitzer-prize-winning book on this very subject, then come back and discuss the word. She 'wrote the book' on this subject and teaches the history of law at Harvard. Might be considered a reliable source. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:25, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Forced?

Latest comment: 7 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

The first paragraph of the "Jefferson-Hemings controversy" section says, "Jefferson forcing a nonconsensual sexual relationship on Hemings was first reported in 1802 by one of Jefferson’s enemies, a political journalist named James T. Callender, after he noticed several light skinned slaves at Monticello.[42]"

The second paragraph of that section says, "Since 1998 and the DNA study,[45] many historians have concluded that the widower Jefferson had forced a long nonconsensual sexual relationship onto Hemings, and fathered six children with her, four of whom survived to adulthood."

I can't see all of the references since not all are online. Do some of them specify "nonconsensual"? Or is that an addition by us, a kind of Original Research based on the fact that as a slave she had no choice whether to consent or not, and therefore people feel justified pointing out in Wikipedia's voice that it was nonconsensual kind of by definition? As for "forced" - isn't that a bit much? Do "many historians" actually say that? I see there was discussion above about whether to say "rape", which the article does not say - but isn't "forced" just as bad, implying physical force on his part and resistance on hers? I would really like to know what references or sources justify the use (twice) of the word "forced". --MelanieN (talk) 21:16, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

-- No, in fact most historians say the opposite, that the relationship should not be described as "rape" or "nonconsensual". Our sources, like Annette Gordon-Reed, are very clear on these points. This is vandalism, and it should be removed. 47.35.119.183 (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll removed "forced". I'd like to hear more discussion about "nonconsensual." --MelanieN (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
While I was at it I also removed "nonconsensual" from those two sentences. I think it may still be in the article in a few places and would like discussion about whether it belongs here. --MelanieN (talk) 22:00, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
Gordon-Reed makes her perspective that slaves could consent fairly clear in Ch. 5:
″It makes perfect sense when faced with the devastating effects of such patently vicious, yet extremely influential, thinking— no protection for black female rape victims— to adopt a position to rebut such nonsense. There are, however, some problematic conclusions that flow from countering the Cobbses of the world with the idea that no enslaved woman would ever want to consent to sex with a white man, and if there was sex, there was rape. First, rape is determined by the race of the partners without reference to anything we know about the individuals or the circumstances involved. We will always know little or nothing about the vast majority of enslaved women and the scores of them who suffered rape. One might adopt a presumption about those anonymous women in deference to their unquestionable status as victims of slavery. What we know about the way slave women were treated generally should most inform our thoughts about their lives. We are on different terrain when there is information suggesting another possible understanding about what has gone on between one specific man and one specific woman. In those very rare cases, it would be intellectually unsound to ignore evidence, or skip over reasonable inferences, in order to return to the presumption based upon the experiences of the overall group of enslaved women.″ - Gordon-Reed, Annette. The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family (Kindle Locations 5588-5593). W. W. Norton & Company. Kindle Edition.
69.136.137.85 (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
I definitely agree with Gordon-Reed's assessment in regards to Hemings and Jefferson's relationship, although I don't think it would apply to Sally's rumored father, John Wayles. However, as far as I can tell there aren't really any reliable sources by scholars presenting Wayles rumored paternity in that way, so we shouldn't present it as such. Libertybison (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

"Slaves" vs. "People he enslaved"

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

A recent edit changed the word "slave" in multiple places to "(woman) (people) (etc.) he enslaved" - the "he referring to Jefferson. I understand the distinction that is trying to be made here - that this was a PERSON, not a "slave", but rather a person who had been enslaved by others. However, I object to the terminology "a woman he enslaved" as if he done it personally - as if he had taken a free person and enslaved them. Can we just say "enslaved woman", "enslaved person", etc. - as a reasonable substitute for "slave" that does not suggest that Jefferson personally made them into slaves? --MelanieN (talk) 01:56, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your point about using the term "woman he enslaved" being inaccurate. However, I must strongly disagree with your point about the word "slave". Of course, a slave is a person. Libertybison (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
You're right of course, but this is part of the new kind of political correctness. IMHO it's an awkward construction. I think it's silly to replace every usage of the word "slave" with "enslaved person," but I won't be reverting such changes. YoPienso (talk) 07:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sally Hemings. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Number of children

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see that Sally Hemmings gave birth to six children in the synopsis at the top of the article, but later it is stated that she only had five children with Thomas Jefferson. Am I to infer that she had a sixth child with another man (which seems inconsistent with her ages at both the beginning and end of her relationship with TJ) or is there a mistake between the two article sections? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.135.206.151 (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

No Sally did not have any children with anybody other than Thomas Jefferson. But there is confusion and debate over whether they had 5 or 6 children together. Madison Hemings' 1873 newspaper account said they had five children together, including their first child who "lived but a short time". Jefferson's Farm Book also lists five children born to Sally, with the eldest being her first daughter named Harriet born in 1795 and dying in 1797 (Sally had another daughter with Jefferson named Harriet in 1801). It's unclear if the first child of Thomas Jefferson and Sally who died young mentioned in Madison's account is supposed to be Harriet I or not. Madison claims that Sally was already pregnant when they left Paris in 1789, but Harriet I wasn't born until five years later. Since all of these events happened prior to Madison's 1805 birth, he didn't have any firsthand knowledge of them. So we can't be sure if Madison was mistaken on the number of children born to Sally and Thomas or if he was mistaken on exactly when their first child was born. Sadly, the article is an incoherent and contradictory mess on this point because different editors have made edits based on the 5 or 6 children numbers and there is also no mention of the uncertainty on this point in the article. Libertybison (talk) 21:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Reference re consensus of historians

Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

At the beginning of the article it states, "A consensus of historians believe Jefferson was the father of her five children." The sole Wikipedia reference to this claim is the link, www.monticello.org/sallyhemings/. I don't see where in this link it establishes the fact of this consensus of historians. I do see that this link does clearly note two studies, one by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, and one by the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society...which studies came to diametrically opposing conclusions on the matter.

I guess a sort of legalistic claim could be made that within the confines of each of these two studies an isolated consensus of historians reached their (respective, disparate) conclusions, such that it could be technically claimed that, "[One isolated] consensus of historians believe [Thomas] Jefferson was the father of her five children," but this sort of defense of the existing wording would be highly misleading, to say the least, without also noting that a different, isolated consensus of historians in the other study arrived at the polar opposite conclusion.

Another, even more cynical defense of the current wording would be that it doesn't specify Thomas Jefferson as the Jefferson, even though virtually 100% of naive readers would assume that it was referring to Thomas Jefferson in this sentence. It is technically true that the DNA evidence apparently established that one Jefferson male was a father, but therein lies the rub, as the other study concluded it was highly unlikely that this Jefferson male could have been Thomas Jefferson.

Or alternatively, perhaps I'm just missing in this monticello.org link the noting of a study of historians establishing a current consensus, in which case the article should do a better job bringing that unequivocal factual support to an interested reader's attention. Otherwise, if there is no such study or other basis of requisite academic weight establishing this "consensus of historians", it seems like the intro section of the article should simply highlight the fact that two nearly contemporaneous studies involving historians have reached opposite conclusions on the matter.

I don't care one iota whether Thomas Jefferson was the father or not, so please don't argue the case either way. I do want the article to be accurate with respect to the academic reality and to provide an appropriate reference to the existing claim that a consensus of historians supports only one conclusion. 19:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)Bdmwiki (talk)

I changed to a more neutral newspaper source to describe the general consensus of historians on Jefferson's paternity of Hemings' children (instead of using the TJF website, which produced one of the reports). There's a reason why there's a consensus towards Jefferson's paternity (at least of the paternity of Sally's children born from 1795 - 1808, there isn't a consensus on whether Jefferson began a relationship with Hemings in Paris). The original Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society report from 2001 arguing against Jefferson's paternity was badly flawed in parts and didn't really address the written historical records/documents that built up the case for Thomas Jefferson's paternity. The male-Jefferson DNA link for Eston isn't the strongest evidence for Thomas Jefferson's paternity, it supplements the other stronger evidence. One cannot really refute an argument if you don't address its strongest parts. That is why a good deal more of historians favor Thomas Jefferson's paternity than don't. That's the best answer I can give without going more into specific evidence for and against Jefferson's paternity and the relative strengths of both reports which you don't wish to discuss. Libertybison (talk) 23:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
For reference, here's an article by an opponent of Jefferson's paternity who also acknowledges that most historians believe the relationship happened. Libertybison (talk) 23:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sally Hemings and her "relationship" with Thomas Jefferson

Latest comment: 6 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

At several points in this article, a "relationship" is referred to between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Any casual, regular, user of the English language knows what the word "relationship" connotes, especially in the sexual context; it connotes romance, it connotes intimacy, and above all, it connotes consent. Neither Jefferson nor Hemings commented on the nature of the sexual contact they had, unlike Hemings, Jefferson left extensive papers which reveal no evidence that he and Sally had a romantic relationship. The facts stand thus: A man who owned 600 human beings in his lifetime regularly had sex with one of them, beginning (In all probability) when she was 14 and he was 44. We have no way of knowing whether her consent was solicited or offered. We do know that her consent was not legally necessary because under Virginia law Hemings was Jefferson's chattel to use as he pleased, which in the custom of the time included using her sexually. To call this a "relationship" without significant evidence of consent on her part is ludicrous and dehumanizing to Black people, women and most especially Black women. It makes as much sense as saying Japanese soldiers "courted" captive comfort women, it makes as much sense as referring to pedophiles as having "relationships" with children. I have changed this numerous times and each time it has been reverted. The language as it exists is historiographically unjustifiable and is a holdover from a tradition of hagiography that has no place on a critical, accurate platform in this day and age. Jefferson owned her body, he owned her labor, he had as much legal "right" to make her perform the manual labor required to pick 800 pounds of tobacco as to make her satisfy his pleasure with sexual labor. Any rational, dispassionate analysis of the facts shows a widower forcing a teenager he wholly owned to submit to him sexually over the course of decades. Any other interpretation is hagiography, not history. Vicintel21 (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

What ever is said on this point, needs to be matter of fact (with citations to reliable sources) and a lot less loaded than the tone you set in the text you've tried to insert in the article and a lot less loaded than what you present in your summary above. I don't, personally, know the details of the "relationship" between Jefferson and Hemings. Hence, my suggestions, Attic Salt (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Saying they had a "relationship" is quite loaded. "Thomas Jefferson owned Sally Hemings." That is a factual statement, it is also loaded, but it states the reality. If we were to change that to: "Sally Hemings was a woman who lived on Monticello." That would also be loaded, but in the direction of inaccuracy, just like the word "relationship" in this context. "Slave owners used the people they held for labor. Sally Hemings regularly performed sexual labor for Thomas Jefferson." What exactly is loaded, or, more to the point, inaccurate about such a statement? My commentary above was "loaded" in order to reveal the absurdity of referring to the sexual contact between a woman and a man who held her captive as a "relationship." Being "loaded" or not "loaded" is not the issue here, the issue is one of clarity and accuracy. It is, technically speaking, accurate to refer to a "relationship" between Jerry Sandusky and the boys with whom he had sexual contact, but, it is a connotative monstrosity. To say he raped those boys, or molested them, or sexually abused them is "loaded" but accurate and more clear. I did not even suggest using the word rape, which applies; or the word pedophilia; which also applies. I don't include a source because this issue is one of language not fact. We all agree that Thomas Jefferson regularly vaginally penetrated a woman who was his property, nowhere have you offered evidence that this should logically be described as a "relationship." Vicintel21 (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The following source (NY Times) offers a view on this subject: [5]. Attic Salt (talk) 22:02, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, Annette Gordon-Reed, already cited in the article, has some interesting discussion on this subject. Attic Salt (talk) 22:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I have read Reed's essay and I read the New York Times piece, I'm a graduate student in history who has written papers on slavery, I'm not coming from an uninformed place. I could make the philosophical argument that any sexual congress between a man and a woman where the woman had no legal right to withhold consent should be considered rape, but I'm not. I'm arguing that in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary, we should describe sexual congress in this context as a labor like any other. If all we knew about Hemings was that she picked tobacco on Monticello and was Jefferson's slave, the logical presumption would be that she was being forced to do so. We would not feel the need to leave open the possibility that she might have decided, coincident with her enslaved status, that what she really wanted to do with her life was pick tobacco. The only reason we have this controversy is that forced sex makes us more uncomfortable than forced tobacco picking. I think sexual labor tells the truth that presents itself to us by a preponderance of the evidence. It is a much more connotatively neutral phrase than "relationship with Hemings." If you can suggest a better one, I'm open to it. Vicintel21 (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

There's no way to put relationships of that time into any context comparable to our current understandings of words like "relationship" and "consent". We have no name for what went on between Jefferson and Sally. What we do know is that he treated her and her children (and her siblings, but especially her) better than he treated the field slaves you keep comparing her to; she never "picked tobacco". He kept her and her family indoors as household workers, where she apparently had a room of her own in the "big house"; he made sure that her sons were taught a decent trade; and she seems to have been treated as a semi-member of the family by Jefferson's legitimate children. Certainly, after his death she was allowed to leave the slave situation (although not formally emancipated) and to retire to her son's house for the rest of her life. I'm not saying this makes his sexual treatment of her OK, but I'm saying that through the eyes of the time it seems the situation was not unpleasant for her; it was certainly better than most of her contemporaries. I don't know a better word for this than "relationship". It would be pure Original Research to describe her situation as "performing sexual labor," and I doubt if you can find any Reliable Sources using that term. --MelanieN (talk) 02:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

"There's no way to put relationships of that time into any context comparable to our current understandings of words like "relationship" and "consent". We're not writing in the 18th century, we are writing in the 21st century where the word "relationship" has connotations which are not typically used when a man has sex with a woman that is being legally held against her will. "What we do know is that he treated her and her children (and her siblings, but especially her) better than he treated the field slaves you keep comparing her to; she never "picked tobacco." I never compared her treatment to that of "field slaves" I said Jefferson owned her, which he did, and she performed labor for him, which she did. Picking tobacco, making tea, having sex, all three activities when done by an enslaved person for the person that owned them legally should be described as forms of coerced labor, that is my argument. Your argument about "treatment" is irrelevant to this discussion. None of what you described inherently means that the sexual contact, begun when Hemings was 14 and Jefferson was 44, was consensual. Again, my argument is that in the absence of any commentary from Hemings and the fact that she had zero legal protection against Jefferson whatsoever, it is logical to assume that everything she did for her "owner," Jefferson, was a form of coerced labor. Which is why I think "performed sexual labor" is a more logical term than "had a relationship." "through the eyes of the time it seems the situation was not unpleasant for her;" I'm not sure what that means. Whose eyes matter but hers in judging whether or not she thought the experience was unpleasant? You're accusing me of being anachronistic while presuming to know what Sally Hemings felt based on the fact that her children were not treated as poorly as they could have been. Once again, her treatment isn't really relevant, enslaved people made bargains all the time to secure slightly less horrible lives, that doesn't mean they found it "pleasant." Here's a source that uses "coerced sex" and "labor" to refer to enslaved women engaged in sexual contact with men that owned them. Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.jstor.org/stable/2692741?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents Here's one that uses rape: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).https://www.lincolncottage.org/the-loathsome-den-sexual-assault-on-the-plantation-metoo/ one Vicintel21 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I would disagree that "we have no word" - the problem is that we do not know enough about the case to pick one of the more specific ones. "Relationship" does not, as claimed above, automatically imply romance and consent. We sometimes use the word in that specialised sense, but we also use it more generally - see "abusive relationship" or "the relationship between the president and his staff quickly broke down". It is the least specific word available, and hence the most suitable one if we lack data to be more specific. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 05:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Would you refer to the "relationship" between Elizabeth Smart and her captors? Even an "abusive relationship" is consensual, as is the "relationship" between an employer and his or her staff. None of the examples you use include the "relationship" of ownership between one human being and another. Vicintel21 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Sure I would. I even refer to the relationship between Guantanamo inmates and their guards, or between a A Boy and His Dog. See "relationship" on Wictionary (it's similar in other dictionaries). You seem to be stuck on meaning 4. But see meanings 1 and 5. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Stephan's assessment of the use of the word "relationship". I would also like to point out that the term "sexual relationship" is used these two news stories, here and here, that could hardly called consensual. As far as I can tell, everyday use of the term is like those used in those article and pretty neutral in itself and it's the rest of the wording around it that can give the situation more context. Libertybison (talk) 06:41, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

In the both stories you cite, the word "relationship" is modified by the word "inappropriate," which is very different than just using the word "sexual relationship" without immediate modification. I don't think "inappropriate" meets the standard for neutral accuracy. In addition, in these two cases, the students had recourse in the law against their teachers' advances, not having taken advantage of such recourse implies a greater degree of consent than we can find in the Hemings case. I'm all for finding an appropriate word or set of words to modify relationship, though I think that will get wordy which is why I suggest abandoning the term altogether. "Sexual relationship not legally requiring her consent," is a mouthful. Vicintel21 (talk) 14:15, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You say you've read the book by Annette Gordon-Reed. Perhaps your recognise that her treatment of this subject is more nuanced than your preferred depiction. Attic Salt (talk) 14:24, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Look, “consent” is a very modern concept when it applies to sex. In most of historic time, and certainly in Jefferson’s time, there was no such thing as “consent” required for a man and a woman to have sex. Certainly a MARRIED woman throughout most of history had no such right; her husband was pretty much entitled to do with her whatever he wanted whenever he wanted, and for her to refuse him was a sin [6] if not actually a crime. Marital rape was legal in the U.S. until the 1970s.[7] The question of whether or not she “consented” to his advances probably never occurred to either of them - but that did not make their relationship any different from the vast majority of all sexual relationships at the time. We can’t force our 21st-century viewpoint onto 18th-century situations. Their relationship was not uncommon at the time, and there is no evidence that she found it unpleasant or offensive, and quite a bit of evidence that he treated her well; they may even have developed a mutual affection. We just don’t know - partly because Jefferson and his daughter Patsy did such a thorough job of destroying all written evidence of the affair. “Relationship” is the only appropriate word here; it is a neutral term meaning that there is a connection between the parties. As Stephan demonstrated, it doesn’t imply any more than that. Your belief that "sexual relationship" necessarily implies consent is your belief, nothing more. --MelanieN (talk) 14:45, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Some details about Jefferson's children

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The "Hemingses in Paris" chapter of the article contains the following sentence: "After Lucy died of whooping cough in 1787, Jefferson sent for his surviving daughter, nine-year-old Maria (Polly) Jefferson, to live with him." Problem is, Lucy has not been previously mentioned in the article, so the reader will be confused on who she was. And, then, according to the Thomas Jefferson article, he had two daughters named "Lucy", both of whom died while very young. The sentence *might* be referring to "Lucy Elizabeth", but according to the Thomas Jefferson article, she died in 1785, not 1787. So we've got a few problems of detail here. Attic Salt (talk) 14:31, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is the Monticello website's account of Lucy II's death. She died in October 1784, and Jefferson first received word of her death from a letter by the attending physician brought to France and delivered by Lafayette. Libertybison (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Thank you. MelanieN and I have made some fixes. Attic Salt (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

"Owned" by Jefferson

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is saying that Hemings was "owned" by Jefferson not avoidably derogatory? I realize the woman was kept in slavery, and I have no intention of detracting from the importance and inhumanity of that act by euphemising; rather, I think instead the issue is a better word may exist that both connotes the magnitude of her slave status while still providing greater dignity to the woman in question (especially in the opening line)? I ask powers that may be better informed in this arena. Not trying to rehash the argument above; I am asking about this specific occurrence in particular. AnyyVen (talk) 02:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Its the ugly truth. Its not derogatory for the victim. Creuzbourg (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sally_Hemings/Archive_1&oldid=1069867873"