Episodes

> Prologue Episode 1 Episode 2 Episode 3 Episode 4 Episode 5 Episode 6 Episode 7 Episode 8 Episode 9 Episode 10 Episode 11 Episode 12 Episode 13 Episode 14 Episode 15 Episode 16 Epilogue

> Overview Primary Sources Secondary Sources Clippings Commentary Essays Teaching Images

1) We know Thomas Jefferson was there, but how about Randolph Jefferson and his sons?
David M. Abbey

2) I found the most poignant part of Terry's article to be the concluding line. After the class goes back and forth about the debate, Fareed raises his hand and says, "‘Jefferson may have been the biological father,' he said. ‘But he didn't father any of those children.' And that, the students agreed, was a sin they could not forgive." Even if Jefferson did love the young Sally, and did procreate with her, Jefferson was never their true father. He did not provide his mixed offspring with the same love and protection that he offered his white children. Therefore, any reconciliation the African American community may feel from knowing the relationship was sincere is snuffed out by the reality that Jefferson played no part in raising his children with Sally.
Erica Prosser, Lehigh University

3) The finding set off a flood of news reports declaring that the third U.S. president had, as rumored, fathered an illegitimate child by Sally Hemings. But now the authors of the report say the evidence for that is less than conclusive. Co-authors make it clear that the data establish only that Thomas Jefferson was one of several candidates for the paternity of Eston Hemings, Sally's fifth child. However, they argue that, because Jefferson was Hemings's owner and lived with her at the Monticello plantation outside Charlottesville, "the simplest explanation" is that he was indeed the father.
Eliot Marshall

4) After reading Coates analysis of the evidence in the Jefferson-Hemings controversy, the emotion I sensed when reading echoed the emotions Gordon-Reed and Hyland registered on the pages of their arguments. The passion this controversy elicits beckons one to keep on reading and searching. We could spend an entire summer, maybe even fall, reading and interpreting and still come away with questions.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

5) This was perhaps the most salient result to emerge from the DNA tests. Had there been a match, then it would have been as conclusive a proof as possible that Thomas Jefferson was the father of a child of Sally, since he was the ONLY Jefferson in Paris when Sally's first child was conceived. BUT THERE WAS NO MATCH! This forced proponents of an affair to backtrack and say that, well . . . maybe Tom Woodson was never at Monticello, even though he was specifically named by James Callender in 1802! It is important to remember that just because someone lies or makes an error, that does not mean that every word they wrote is necessarily a lie or an error. And it must also be remembered that paternity is frequently an indiscernible fact, whereas the existence or non-existence of a person is something that IS definitely knowable. Paternity is perfect for gossip, because who can prove it one way or another? But saying there is a 12-year old boy living at the plantation is not that kind of statement.
Eyler Coates

6) The authors of the "Founding Father" article accept that Hemings and Jefferson had an affair, and it is more about what we as Americans do with the information now that it is out there. The authors believe this history can be a learning point. They say, "the new findings give blacks and whites alike an opportunity to confront a largely secret, shared history." I have to agree with them. And after all, the saying goes, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
Elizabeth Guzzo, Lehigh University

7) In 1998, DNA testing on the descendants of Jefferson's uncle, Field Jefferson, identified a distinct chromosome Y haplotype, which was also identified by DNA tests in a single descendant of Eston Hemings. The scientific probability is that Thomas Jefferson also had this haplotype.
Richard E. Dixon

8) Apparently, Foster made sure he received full credit for the DNA testing even though it was not his idea in the first place. When questioned by Winifred Joyce Bennett about his motives, he replied, "I want fame." This makes me wonder, if there was no affair, then there's no controversy, no controversy, no fame, no fame, no money. I can honestly say I am so confused by it all. Is there anyone who does NOT have some agenda?
Anonymous , Lehigh University

9) I am a white man educated in white schools by white teachers. In my education, America's (and Thomas Jefferson's) defining paradox -- the rhetoric of freedom amid the reality of slavery -- was stated only in the most antiseptic way. As a result, I have no real understanding of the paradox of slavery and no real feeling for the trouble it caused and continues to cause. What a gift Jefferson and Sally Hemings will have given to us if we come to recognize the towering importance of the African-American account of American history in our children's education.
Ed McCleskey

10) I can't get past how incredibly stubborn people, especially historians, can be when new information is presented that refutes everything they have defended. I understand it would be devastating to find that the man you have spent so much time and effort attempting to understand and researching is not at all who you imagined him to be -- but I can't understand how it becomes so personal. Does their research make them feel like they knew him personally? How do you make an argument about the way someone feels? The way I see it is so what if you were wrong? Rearrange your approach -- don't let your stubbornness get in the way of your representation of history.
Stephanie DeLuca, Lehigh University

11) The claim that the children of Sally Hemings bore a likeness to Jefferson started with the Callender article of December 8, 1802, referring to Tom Woodson, who, if he did exist, had no Jefferson blood. Later, a letter from Henry Randall to the Jefferson biographer James Parton alleged that his source was Jefferson's grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph. This letter was written in 1868, ten years after the conversation, in which Randall has Randolph say "she had children which resembled Mr. Jefferson," and that a dinner guest was "startled" at the resemblance of a servant. The children who resembled Jefferson are not identified, nor is the one who "startled" the guest, but the point of Randolph's observation is to deny Jefferson is the father. Moreover, the letter is hearsay and inadmissable. Anecdotal stories that Eston bore a "likeness" to a statue of Jefferson are not evidence, but rather stories that have become part of local lore. A slave who looked like Jefferson would have been the most startling circumstance at Monticello, but not a single record survives contemporary with the years the Hemingses lived at Monticello that asserted any of them had a likeness to Jefferson.
Richard E. Dixon

12) One of the pieces of evidence that swayed me away from my feelings about Jefferson and Hemings was the DNA evidence. The DNA basically said that some male with Jefferson's similar DNA fathered Eston Hemings, but there is no proof it was Jefferson himself. I don't know if we know enough about the nature of Sally Hemings to determine if she would have been faithful to one man or even to know if these other men didn't force themselves upon her. Either way, without conclusive evidence that says, yes, in fact TJ was the father, there are many reasons to put reasonable doubt against the affair. Someone pointed out before that human nature, etc., cannot stand up in court. Someone can't be found guilty based on human nature and what is assumed from that, so by all measures of the law Jefferson would be innocent based upon reasonable doubt that he is not the father of Eston Hemings and maybe the other three as well.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

13) We most certainly should de-mythologize Thomas Jefferson. But let us do so responsibly. The consciences of past leaders are necessarily remote. To rely on sensation and publicity is to legitimize scandalous history.
Andrew Burstein, "Three Perspectives" 27

14) I was most strongly affected by the arguments of David N. Mayer. When I first began reading his article, I couldn't help but think that he sounded like a petty child who just found out he was wrong and would say anything he could to delegitimize the truth in an attempt to salvage his point of view. After consistently referring to the controversy as a "myth," he attacks Anette Gordon-Reed's book, saying, "I refer to both these works as briefs on behalf of the paternity claim, for both share this essential weakness: rather than objectively weighing all the relevant evidence according to established standards of historical scholarship, they both are markedly one-sided, based on a highly selective reading of the evidence, presenting the case for Jefferson's paternity as if it were accepted as an article of faith. And for both Professor Gordon-Reed and for the staff at Monticello, it apparently is." I found this statement to be blaringly hypocritical. He accuses Gordon-Reed of selectively choosing pieces of evidence to support her claims. In my opinion, this is what anyone does who is arguing a point. It is the fundamental method used when trying to prove something, so Mayer's condemnation of this seems a little ridiculous to me. Gordon-Reed also addresses all of the pieces of evidence that have been brought forth in the past, and further elaborates on them, bringing new viewpoints to the table. He also criticizes her for "presenting the case for Jefferson's paternity as if it were accepted as an article of faith." This also seems a little ridiculous to me, because this is exactly what Mayer is doing. Within the three words of his title, Mayer achieves this self-alleged historian faux-pas when he dubs the controversy as a "myth." I found this to completely delegitimize the entire rest of the portion of his article that I read. While Mayer shares the same strong, persuasive language that Gordon-Reed employs, he fails to follow a stream of logic that the reader can buy into, making his arguments ineffectual.
Katie Prosswimmer, Lehigh University

15) It is surprising that the sources and the nature of the information that make up the "Tom and Sally myth" in the Committee Report has put the academic community into such a quandary. It is a tale which should return to its status as no more than a footnote to the Jefferson legacy, based on unproved allegations and fueled by the imagination.
Richard E. Dixon

16) Before I read any further, I had to laugh. Coates begins talking about the deliberate attempt to select and mold the evidence to fit a pre-selected theory and to avoid anything that might resemble genuine balance. In her final comments, Gordon-Reed states that she was deeply troubled by Dumas Malone's selective documentation about Jefferson's behavior and what actions seemed characteristic and uncharacteristic for him. That's exactly the action Coates accuses Gordon-Reed of indulging in; the opposing sides just keep going at it. Controversy can be so entertaining!
Anonymous , Lehigh University

17) It is revealing of our times that Jefferson's legacy is most threatened by what might have taken place with a possibly willing slave woman rather than his long involvement with the system of slavery. He was both a slaveholder and a man. Whatever the truth, the story of the liaison between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings persists because it humanizes the eloquent Jefferson, when the alternative is to imagine him sexless and therefore less human.
Annette Gordon-Reed, "Three Perspectives" 24

18) All this "evidence" and the continuation of the controversy has really made me think about what the New York Times article refers to as "the chasm that has always existed between blacks and whites over the historical assessment of not only Jefferson, but also of the other founding fathers." I thought it was interesting how, unlike most people who idealize Jefferson and find this evidence upsetting, writer Orlando Patterson saw this a connection to Jefferson. I think we all agree that learning about this definitely "humanizes" Jefferson, who seemed beyond great before. But I like how he sees this in a positive light and wants this to move us "toward a more blended and self-chosen definition of group identity." This all makes me think about how we ask why does it matter if you were related to Jefferson, a man who has been dead for so long? And I am reminded of what Viv said about how blacks have been trying to receive acknowledgement of their past. I guess it is hard for me to relate to this completely, but I do understand why one would be concerned. After seeing the film and reading all this I just wonder if something positive could come out of this? Many articles we have read for this class have been saying things along the line of how blacks can now prove they were right and how whites now have to admit they were wrong, furthering the "chasm." It seems this evidence is only dividing people more, instead of making us realize that there are less difference than we earlier perceived.
Elaina Kelly, Lehigh University

19) The effort to redeem Sally Hemings and make her virtuous seems to be strong these days. As a "substitute wife," she is no longer an abused slave but an appropriate partner.
Nancy Isenberg, "Three Perspectives" 24

20) Response and Reply to the Minority Report: Wow, that turned catty quickly! Dr. Wallenborn apparently does not like to be told that he is wrong! First, I should note that save for a few small differences, the refutation in Response sticks pretty close to what Gordon-Reed had to say about the issues of one, Jefferson's inability to lie; two, Bacon's statements; and, three, Madison Hemings's vocabulary. To me these were the three real items that merited consideration. I think I speak for us all when I say I'm a little tired of noting that Jefferson's grandchildren just might have had their own less than pure motives behind their statements. Wallenborn replies to the issue of the timing of Bacon's statement with the claim that he supplied numerous letters of Mr. Jefferson's to him, bills from Monticello, etc., to back up some of his remarks but never even intimates that these documents were dated prior to 1800. Wallenborn then launches into a counter-attack in which he accuses Ms. Stanton of wrongly suggesting that Mr. Bacon would have lied in his interview to protect the reputation of a man he once said he would die for. Dr. Wallenborn's evidence that this accusation was wrong? He claims that since Bacon was being interviewed by a clergyman, he simply could not have lied. I'll note here that by this point in his reply, Dr. Wallenborn has quite clearly convinced me that he is no longer even attempting to form coherent or logical arguments but is instead intent on going down with the ship of his poorly conceived rationalizations. Wallenborn closes his reply with the issue of Madison's vocabulary. The long and the short of Wallenborn's argument is that since we do not have the interviewer's notes and Madison never signed a document explicitly stating his interview was factual, we should not use it as evidence. Logical fallacies aside, this assertion cuts both ways and in my mind really highlights the crux of this whole debate: both the deniers and the promoters of the Jefferson/Hemings affair will forever be able to say to each other "that happened hundreds of years ago, and you're evidence isn't up to snuff," and then turn right back around and offer their similarly comprised evidence as ironclad proof.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

21) [Herbert] Barger argues that the most likely father of Eston Hemings is not Thomas Jefferson, who was 65 at the time Eston was conceived, but Jefferson's brother Randolph, 12 years his junior, who lived 20 miles away. Other candidates, Barger suggests, are Randolph's sons, all of whom lived near Monticello, visited from time to time, and had the same Y chromosome as their father and uncle. Barger notes that one unsubstantiated account mentions that Randolph's son, Isham, spent his adolescence at Monticello, and that one contemporary recalled that Randolph liked to party in the slave quarters at night.
Eliot Marshall

22) What I found myself most interested in while reading these various responses to the DNA evidence was the way that people's perception of Jefferson fluctuated. It was extremely interesting to see the way some people loved Jefferson all the more for it, such as Orlando Patterson, and the way some people felt growing contempt for him, such as Brent Staples. I found myself also thinking of the Annette Gordon-Reed article in which she discusses how some people seemed to think of the relationship between TJ and SH as a crime on TJ's part. While no feelings can necessarily be objectively right, I felt myself torn between trying to figure out who was more rational or whose sentiments seemed more appropriate. I then remembered the discussion we had during the first week of class in which we all struggled ourselves with how to grapple with the idea of Jefferson having a relationship with his slave. I remember being initially indignant at the thought of his outrageous hypocrisy -- but now I feel like I've come to embrace the relationship, in some weird way. Part of me wonders if it is because of the Barbara Chase-Riboud novel, the Jefferson in Paris movie, et cetera -- if it is because I have come to develop a somewhat romanticized idea of the relationship that is more akin to "lovers caught in the wrong time" rather than simply looking at it as Jefferson hypocritically sleeping with his slave.
Mary O'Reilly, Lehigh University

23) It is interesting to note that the Hemings children did not have a right to establish paternity under Virginia law during their life time. See, Brown v. Brown, 183 Va. 353, 355, 32 S.E. 2nd 79 (1944). The obligation for support of illegitimate children existed in Jefferson's time, but not for slave women. The purpose of the statute was to allow the county to seek reimbursement for any expense incurred to support illegitimate children. Fall v. The Overseers of the Poor of Augusta County, 3 Munf. (17 Va.) 495; Acts, 1972, § 18. Actions for support for illegitimate children were enacted in 1952. During their lifetime, the Hemings children could only have inherited from their mother, Revised Code of 1919 c.96. Illegitimate children now have rights equivalent to children born within a marriage.
Richard E. Dixon

24) Ok, so basically this evidence doesn't prove anything except the father of the Hemings's children was one of 12 Jeffersons. In the conclusion of the study [Dixon's?] it says that unless there is an admission of paternity by the father nothing can be for certain. It goes on to say that the case against Thomas Jefferson is devoid of admissible evidence. Therefore, while Jefferson may very well be the father, we will never truly know because Jefferson did not admit to fathering any of Sally Hemings's children. While being technically sound, we need to use our skills of deduction to form our own conclusions about the truth. Although Jefferson was at Monticello during each of Sally's conceptions, there is no proof that she was at Monticello during these periods. Well, then, where was she? She was a slave belonging to Thomas Jefferson, and she probably was at Monticello all the time except when she was in Paris, and we know exactly when that was because we have proof. So . . . in order to say we do not know where she was is not any sort of evidence against in my opinion. In my final opinion, Thomas Jefferson was the father of one if not more than one of Sally Hemings's children.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

25) Depending on who you are, the notion that Jefferson fathered children with Hemings could be testament to almost anything: the splendor of an interracial love relationship, the predatory sickness of slavery, the degradation of a moral hero of long standing.
Andrew Burstein, "Three Perspectives" 23

26) I found the way the Thomas Jefferson Foundation at Monticello handled the evidence to be very admirable. The formation of the commission to discuss findings was presented in a way which was realistic, yet seemingly unbiased. They acknowledged the fact that the evidence allowed for the possibility that the relationship did exist, while also discounting the claim that the Carr brothers had any involvement in the paternity of Sally's children. Further, they were also open about the fact that the Woodson's DNA was not found to be a match to Jefferson's lineage. This account seemed to address all facets of the DNA, as opposed to picking and choosing what they wanted to manipulate a response one way or another. Last, I think the Thomas Jefferson Foundation did a really nice job of using this DNA to promote the integrity and the continued progress of all historians. One quote from their website which I think especially encapsulates this idea is "The implications of the relationship between Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson should be explored and used to enrich the understanding and interpretation of Jefferson and the entire Monticello community" (Jefferson Monticello.)
Kimbrilee Weber, Lehigh University

27) It is revealing of our times that Jefferson's legacy is most threatened by what might have taken place with a possibly willing slave woman rather than his long involvement with the system of slavery. He was both a slaveholder and a man. Whatever the truth, the story of the liaison between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings persists because it humanizes the eloquent Jefferson, when the alternative is to imagine him sexless and therefore less human.
Annette Gordon-Reed, "Three Perspectives" 24

28) I really want to touch on the letters to the editors regarding the DNA. I feel like, at this point, it is less about proof of guilt or innocence, but more about placing this scandal in appropriate perspective and acknowledging that it is significant either way. History is rarely clear, and it seems almost any event of centuries past can be spun in a different direction simply by pointing out a flaw in the person who recorded it or a slim piece of doubt amongst more logical and concrete evidence. The point that makes me appreciate this class is that there is something missing from the current narrative of not only our country's past but from the narrative of human history in general. Whether or not Jefferson did sleep with Hemings and whether or not he fathered her children is somewhat irrelevant because we can be sure that equally esteemed men have been found guilty of equally profound scandals. What is important is that history classes, along with science and math and whatever else, give students the most up to date, unbiased, and supported "truths" about human life and history. Excluding information like this is akin to censorship. It is a shame that it takes so long for us to learn about the real tragedy of slavery and other events and that until now we have the "white" narrative that paints the founders as gods among men. What I am trying to say is that, in the bigger picture, this scandal represents a mass of knowledge that the everyday person doesn't get in their education. This is a problem to me. I have only recently gravitated away from the scandal itself and am trying to put it into a more profound perspective, for better or worse. Like the man from Oregon says in his letter, growing up in predominantly white towns and going to white schools, we are most likely given a skewed view of reality. Scandals like this really do serve as an opportunity for us to expand common knowledge and provide perspective. Maybe this is more important than who is right or wrong; the possibility is enough.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

29) There is no direct evidence from any source during Jefferson's life that he was the father of any of the children born to Sally Hemings between 1790 and 1808. Although Jefferson may have been present at Monticello during each of Sally's conceptions, there is no proof that she was at Monticello during these periods. There is also not a scintilla of proof of any cohabitation or physical intimacy between Jefferson and Hemings during the approximate thirty-seven years she resided at Monticello after her return from Paris until Jefferson's death.
Richard E. Dixon

30) I found the response from the Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission to be very biased and closed minded. From the beginning, as this commission presents their evidence, they manipulate word usage to shape a reader's understanding of the general facts surrounding Jefferson and Hemings. For example, Callender is described as "a journalist who had fled Scotland for alleged sedition," having "a proclivity for attacking those in power," and as having "skill with words exceed[ing] his concern for truth" (Jefferson-Hemings Scholars Commission.) Immediately, this report comes out swinging, and I think that this defensive and explosive report is a much less effective way to write. Further, the title of the report seems to further demonstrate skepticism. The title, instead of acknowledging the potential relationship, refers to its research as research in the Jefferson-Hemings "Matter." Whether one believes the relationship occurred or not, one cannot deny that the debate IS in fact about a relationship. The fact that the commission cannot even use this language in the title further demonstrates its bias.
Kimbrilee Weber, Lehigh University

31) Various historical treatments of whether Jefferson could be the father of slave children generally manipulate the facts and inferences to achieve a desired conclusion. The claim of the descendants of Sally Hemings does not rest on how many historians find Jefferson's paternity plausible, but whether potential claimants are able to establish that they are lineal descendants of Thomas Jefferson. That is a legal question and must be tested by legal rules of evidence, irrespective of the passage of time.
Richard E. Dixon

32) The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society's report . . . bothered me. They attempted to pretend as if they went about things objectively but even said that they were commissioned by a group of people precisely because that group of "admirers" felt as if Jefferson did not get a fair hearing in Brodie's book, AGR's book, or the DNA testing. What do you think they are going to decide? Only one member cast a dissenting vote, and even he was careful about it. The Society did what every other white historian or group of white historians has done through the ages. They approached the story with a bias toward "clearing Jefferson." This was not "Fair and Balanced" reporting. It was cleverly-disguised, barely concealed bigotry. Why bother if you're going to do the very same thing everyone else has done for almost two hundred years?
Anonymous , Lehigh University

33) Some may think this will lay the matter of Jefferson and Hemings to rest. I don't think so, because DNA testing can only reveal parentage. It cannot reveal character. And it will not stop Americans from conjuring the amorphous relationship either as one of exploitation and victimization or else true love.
Andrew Burstein, "Three Perspectives" 24

34) Finally some concrete, scientific evidence linking Jefferson to Hemings. Of course, there is no way to prove it was Sally and Thomas per se, but much like the standard character defense, it seems that pointing the "penis" to other Jefferson family members is as desperate a defense for the hardcore Jefferson historians who simply cannot let the image of Jefferson and Sally together be true. To me, this possibility just doesn't really fit with all of the other, more subjective evidence we have considered up to this point. It is fascinating to see how the argument changes at each turning point we have encountered. In addition, it is interesting watching the Jefferson defenders lose a bit of credence at each step and finally to see the backbone of their argument fracture with the release of genetic evidence linking the master with his slave on a more believable basis. The minority report establishes their viewpoint in the summary of the report, saying: "There is historical evidence of more or less equal statue on both sides of this issue that prevent a definitive answer as to Thomas Jefferson's paternity of Sally Hemings's son Eston Hemings or for that matter the other four of her children. In fairness to the descendants of Sally Hemings and the descendants of Thomas Jefferson and Martha Wayles Jefferson, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation should continue to encourage in depth historical research in hopes that accurate answers to very sensitive questions may be found." Wow, that is a classic standpoint from an organization trying very hard to remain emotionally neutral in a very emotional discussion. Though the defenders still have the ability to make the claim that Jefferson was a man of character, and "pure and chaste" in matters of sexuality, this DNA report only serves to make their argument a little less grounded and a bit more like a last stubborn, desperate clasp to conservative and indignant thinking.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

35) The DNA results for me was something that removed the idea of the other man defense or the character defense and finally caused people to fact the facts and find new, and more valid, evidence to support the possibility that the relationship did not occur. I also found that generally, there was a better attitude taken towards Sally in these readings that we had seen in many of the earlier works. Clearly this is due to the time period and the culture changes that have occurred, however, I did find it refreshing.
Samantha Christal, Lehigh University

36) What I want to know is where does this debate end? At what point do the historians officially lose all credence? The answer may be never, unfortunately, as it seems that no bit of increased knowledge or evidence or logic pointed against them has sufficed to date. It seems that there will always be shrouds of doubt over the relationship simply because so much time has elapsed and so little primary evidence is out there. Why is it so hard to admit the man had faults? I still like what AGR wrote about the man, saying that this was not his biggest flaw if it is true, and therefore it is odd that historians so adamantly deny its truth. Maybe this is a relatively humanitarian point of view, but I feel historians owe it to the descendants of slaves and to everyone, really, to acknowledge the possibility of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship at some level. The master-slave sexual relationship did exist and was a problem. It is almost akin to a bible-belt school system ignoring the possibility of the theory of evolution; it is simply unfair to the general public to fail to cover all the bases, even if it paints a heroic historical figure in a less than god-like light.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

37) I find much to admire in Jefferson, but I suspect that while he is called "unfathomable" by the predominantly white historians who write about him, I can't imagine that he would seem particularly puzzling to black Americans. Rather he appears completely predictable and depressingly familiar, a fairly garden-variety version of a white man, struggling (not too hard) to come to grips with this ultimately weird relationship with black people.
Annette Gordon-Reed, "Three Perspectives" 24

38) Another article that stuck out to me in particular was the New York Times article written by Don Terry. When he mentions the quote about "sanitizing history" or the idea that "Jefferson was the biological father but he did not father any of those children," I felt somewhat taken aback. It is as if when there was the possibility that the liaison between Hemings and Jefferson was not real, people could hold on to the character card in defense of Jefferson. Now that there is scientific proof, it is as if a lot of respect has been lost for the third president of our country.
Samantha Christal, Lehigh University

39) The Foster article was titled: "Jefferson fathered slave's last child," and the comment included a heading that said: "Now, DNA analysis confirms that Jefferson was indeed the father of at least one of Hemings' children. Foster agrees that the headlines were "misleading" because they suggested that the data were conclusive.
Eliot Marshall

40) a. The tests do not support the paternity of Thomas Jefferson for the claimant Thomas Woodson. b. There are no tests to establish a DNA match for the claimants Beverley, Harriet, or Madison. c. There is a match for the claimant Eston Hemings. His Y chromosome haplotype is identical to the male line descendants of Field Jefferson. d. There is no match between any of the claimants and Samuel or Peter Carr.
Richard E. Dixon

41) The Minority Report (a tragically ironic title) first offers up a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Robert Smith as evidence that Thomas Jefferson is not the father of the Hemings children. In this letter Jefferson admits ONLY to having "offered love to a handsome lady" and not to being the father of Sally Hemings's children. At least this is Dr. Wallenborn's assertion. In fact, Jefferson makes no direct mention of either Hemings or her children. But given that he does refer to slanderous charges leveled against him, it would appear he was referring to Hemings. The question then becomes one of whether or not Jefferson was telling the truth. Wallenborn believes he was, but I'm not so sure. First, Wallenborn's one-line assertion that "Thomas Jefferson was not known to issue falsehoods to his intimate associates" is not exactly a concretely persuasive statement. Secondly, Jefferson wrote this to a political ally during an election year. Thirdly, classifying this semi-ambiguous statement as a "powerful denial" seems to be a gross mischaracterization of the situation. Next, Wallenborn cooks up a Gordon-Reed-esque ulterior solution to Bacon's 1861 statement that he saw a different man leaving Sally's room in the mornings. Wallenborn posits that Bacon, though neither he nor nobody else has ever made any mention of this, worked at Monticello from the age of 16 before he was hired on as overseer at age 20. This would have made it theoretically possible for Bacon's statement to have been true. Unfortunately this is nothing more than Wallenborn's own theory created from nothing more than an elderly man's statement that he had worked at Monticello for 20 years instead of the real 16. As unsavory as character defenses are, allow me to suggest here that it was not in Jefferson's nature to omit the first four years of a man working for him in the Farm Book. In fact, the entry in the Farm Book at which Jefferson writes that he HIRED not PROMOTED Mr. Bacon is the only concrete evidence relevant to this issue. Wallenborn never makes any completely racist allegations towards the Hemings, though he skirts around the edges by suggesting that Madison Hemings would not have possessed the vocabulary exhibited in his memoirs. Ultimately, Wallenborn says virtually nothing novel on this issue and opts to espouse the previously heard and refuted views of Jefferson historians. The fact that this medical doctor opted not to even attempt a refutation of the medical basis of the DNA paternity test but rather chose to regurgitate the same old bunk that had been spewed for years is rather telling.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

42) Under Virginia law, unless there is an admission of paternity by the father, a claim must be pursued under the statutory procedure. Evidence to establish paternity means oral testimony or documents that pass the legal test of admissibility. The case against Thomas Jefferson is devoid of admissible evidence.
Richard E. Dixon

43) I find much to admire in Jefferson, but I suspect that while he is called "unfathomable" by the predominantly white historians who write about him, I can't imagine that he would seem particularly puzzling to black Americans. Rather he appears completely predictable and depressingly familiar, a fairly garden-variety version of a white man, struggling (not too hard) to come to grips with this ultimately weird relationship with black people.
Annette Gordon-Reed, "Three Perspectives" 24

44) Unfortunately for me, I have believed since the beginning of the course that a sexual relationship existed between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. What I am waiting and hoping to learn is what this relationship was founded on. Love? Submission? DNA does little by way of proving this but I am optimistic that our research during the last section of the course will lead us that much closer to a better understanding of the feelings or lack thereof that were part of this 38 year saga.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

45) If the data of Foster et al. are accurate, then any male ancestor in Thomas Jefferson's line, white or black, could have fathered Eston Hemings. As slave families were passed as property to the owner's offspring along with land and other property, it is possible that Thomas Jefferson's father, grandfather or paternal uncles fathered a male slave whose line later impregnated another slave, in this case Sally Hemings.
Gary Davis

46) The DNA is cause for re-evaluation of the relationship, but, more importantly, the need to re-evaluate the historians who wrote down such histories regarding this subject.
Kristen Dalton, Lehigh University

47) The Madison Hemings interview does not claim his mother told him Jefferson was the father of her children. Even if he had been told by someone of these events which occurred before his birth, these claims in the newspaper article would be hearsay. There is no such claim by his sister Harriet or his two brothers, Beverley or Eston. There is no other source to support Madison that Sally Hemings made such a claim. If Sally had been Jefferson's "concubine," and had borne him six children over a period of thirteen years, her status at Monticello would have been unique and known. She lived for eight years as a free woman. No one in the entire thirty-six year span of her time at Monticello reports a claim by her that Jefferson was the father of any of her children.
Richard E. Dixon

48) Coates provides arguments about what he calls the fabricated tissue of hearsay; and how the Foundation, charged with defending Jefferson's reputation, chooses to cling to gossip and self-serving, handed-down stories rather than the scientific light DNA testing sheds on the question of paternity. Coates discusses the possible exhumation of William Hemings, son of Madison Hemings, and the family's refusal to do so. He asserts that testing Sally's other children would be infinitely more valuable than testing other Woodson descendants whose DNA testing revealed no match with Jefferson. He questions why those directly involved in finding the truth would choose to stop when so many questions still arise. I really agree with him.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

49) Asked why he failed to mention Randolph and Isham Jefferson in the initial article, Foster says it was because they weren't suspects. For years, members of the Jefferson family had claimed that sons of Thomas Jefferson's sister--Peter or Samuel Carr, who lived at Monticello--were the most likely to have fathered Hemings's children. The DNA study was intended chiefly to settle that question, Foster says: "The Carr connection was what [our article was] about." Besides, Y chromosome data cannot be used to identify individual paternity within the Jefferson clan. That's a job for historians, Foster says.
Eliot Marshall

50) Depending on who you are, the notion that Jefferson fathered children with Hemings could be testament to almost anything: the splendor of an interracial love relationship, the predatory sickness of slavery, the degradation of a moral hero of long standing.
Andrew Burstein, "Three Perspectives" 23

51) The effort to redeem Sally Hemings and make her virtuous seems to be strong these days. As a "substitute wife," she is no longer an abused slave but an appropriate partner.
Nancy Isenberg, "Three Perspectives" 24

52) As the teacher says in Terry's article, "Look at the black people in this class. We are the color of the rainbow. Our ancestors didn't come over from Africa this way." Ms. Butler has a great point. Miscegenation happened and we would be naïve to think that mixing didn't commence until after it was legal. Generations of black men and women have become aware of the racial diversity within their families, and it is obvious why such outright denial of Jefferson-Hemings is so frustrating. So, then the argument becomes that a president of the United States would never have such a bad moral compass. But, as the article points out, his compass told him it was acceptable to enslave hundreds of human beings. Hmm…
Erica Prosser, Lehigh University

53) As to Jefferson, some historians view his alleged involvement with Hemings as a greater blot on his character than his involvement with slavery. At one point, he was negotiating the sale of a 3-year-old girl from her mother. He and the buyer were clearly uncomfortable and the deal eventually fell through. But that he would even contemplate this is stomach-churning. Yet if he got into bed with Sally, he is meant to be unworthy of our regard. That logic, if you can call it that, should not be very comforting to black Americans.
Annette Gordon-Reed, "Three Perspectives" 27

54) Minority Report and Responses to the report: I was always pretty dead set with the idea that Jefferson was having an affair with Hemings and that he did father her four children. Now this DNA evidence makes me question that more than it affirms my beliefs. Kinda the opposite of what its aims were, I guess. One of the main arguments that my section of the reading focused on was basically Jefferson's morality and the fact that he was a man who never lied, or at least not to his closest friends. One of the strongest supports that is used for this defense is that Jefferson wrote a letter basically admitting to a one-time affair with a woman whom he did not cite as being Hemings. People argue that why would he lie and then not tell the whole truth if he were going to come clean about it anyway. Frankly I don't buy that for a minute. Not only is it the perfect plan to admit to lesser indiscretions to take the heat off of yourself, but, frankly, I find it hard to believe that Jefferson had the pristine morals that everyone claimed here. This defense is not so much a defense as people scrambling to find reasons to show Jefferson's innocence based on moral character, which I question its existence at all.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

55) The Woodson family has maintained an oral history that their ancestor was the Tom born to Sally Hemings after her return from Paris. Recent DNA evidence indicates that their ancestor was not the son of Thomas Jefferson. The fallacy in the Woodson oral history demonstrates the reason that oral history is not evidence and not admissible. The Madison Hemings family claim an "oral history" as proof that Jefferson was father to Sally's children. There is no original source for their belief other than the Callender articles and the Madison Hemings interview. The Eston Hemings family had a tradition they were descended from a Jefferson relative, which was confirmed by the DNA tests. Now, to claim descent from Thomas Jefferson, they must revise their oral history.
Richard E. Dixon

56) Neither side offers enough solid evidence to prove anything, which furthers my opinion that whether or not Hemings and Jefferson slept together is irrelevant. I personally always believed that Jefferson did father at least one of Hemings's children, and the DNA results show him as one of the many possibilities. I think this further shows how different a society it was back then (just as we saw through the lack of response to Callender's gossip & etc). Sure, it's easy for us to sit here and judge the past. Future generations will judge us as well. Slavery is wrong, and African Americans as well as whites proved that throughout American History. I do agree that these things should be exposed to students, but in an unbiased manner. I will neither excuse nor judge Jefferson's sexual actions because, in my opinion, they are completely unimportant to present historical progress. Thankfully, Jefferson's written words spoke towards the future and America acted on them accordingly.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

57) Her [Annette Gordon-Reed] thesis of paternity relies heavily on the Madison Hemings "memoirs" which she mistakenly terms "direct evidence," and on the Callender articles, which she believes have enough correct details to show that Callender was picking up on believable gossip.
Richard E. Dixon

58) The DNA tests certainly provided us with some facts, something that have been hard-pressed to find throughout the Jefferson-Hemings study. However, the facts that resulted from the tests simply provide more questions. The most intriguing result for me was that Jefferson did not father Woodson, Hemings's first child. Quoting Barger: Remember there was NO Jefferson/Woodson (alleged first child) match, thus, no long running love affair. After all of our studies with the films and novels, and now we find out that Jefferson and Hemings did not conceive a child while in Paris? I think that in the description for this course, the question is posed as to whether or not this relationship was a long-lasting, loving relationship or systematic rape. Perhaps with these DNA tests, we can see that it was neither. Another piece of information that comes to light is the fact that Jefferson's brother Randolph is a very possible candidate to be the real father of Eston Hemings. To me, it almost makes more sense that Randolph could be the father. I would rather believe that story than one of Jefferson simply becoming lonely and having a one-night-stand with his slave. It just seems to be getting worse and worse for our former president.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

59) We most certainly should de-mythologize Thomas Jefferson. But let us do so responsibly. The consciences of past leaders are necessarily remote. To rely on sensation and publicity is to legitimize scandalous history.
Andrew Burstein, "Three Perspectives" 27

60) After reading most of the texts provided surrounding the DNA results and the responses thereto, I found that there was one quote that sums up my feelings overall. This quote is from the Brent Staples article. It reads, "The proof that Thomas Jefferson fathered a child with Sally Hemings has embarrassed historians who saw him as too noble for sex with a slave -- and vindicated black descendants who knew all along that he was as lusty as anyone else." I think this quote really brings in most of the elements that have been swimming around in my brain for the past few weeks. As I was reading I kept thinking to myself, "I wonder what all those people who said it couldn't be true are feeling now?" I basically thought they would be kicking themselves in the butt and would have to find a different way to defend their strongly held views of the noble Thomas Jefferson.
Samantha Christal, Lehigh University

61) She [Annette Gordon-Reed] accepts the validity of the "resemblance claim," and never questions why such a dramatic circumstance is not mentioned for forty-five years, and only then by Jefferson's grandson, Thomas Jefferson Randolph, who supposedly has related in confidence this information, which would been obvious to the hundreds of persons who passed through.
Richard E. Dixon

62) But people attach to Jefferson a kind of aura, they see him as larger than life and expect him to be either a sexual athlete or sexual deviant--the eighteenth century's JFK. He is a celebrity like any other whose intimate acts the public presumes a right to dissect.
Andrew Burstein, "Three Perspectives" 26

63) The DNA definitely puts the pressure back onto the Jefferson defenders, especially those who didn't have many facts on their sides. Now, they must justify HOW they could possibly continue to deny the relationship, in light of the evidence pointing toward its existence. It is difficult for me to come to terms with the fact that it took the DNA for many people to believe the stories that had been passed down through African American oral tradition for years. However, I hope that as our "miniseries" continues to unfold, we will now begin to see a more welcome response to the idea of the relationship. In my mind, this is a HUGE turning point. Maybe the most important of the whole controversy. I can imagine this made many doubters believers, and many skeptics open to the possibility of the relationship, which had been the goal of many scholars for so long.
Kimbrilee Weber, Lehigh University

64) Some may think this will lay the matter of Jefferson and Hemings to rest. I don't think so, because DNA testing can only reveal parentage. It cannot reveal character. And it will not stop Americans from conjuring the amorphous relationship either as one of exploitation and victimization or else true love.
Andrew Burstein, "Three Perspectives" 24

65) It's plain that Americans use sexual behavior as the primary barometer of character, in Clinton's case and Jefferson's. In Clinton we have, probably for the first time in American history, a President who counts more than one black among his closest friends and key advisers. Yet this is not taken as a measure of character--in a country with a long history of racial division. It's all about his alleged sexual adventures.
Annette Gordon-Reed, "Three Perspectives" 27

66) Reading the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society's report was really frustrating because they tried to make their evaluation look objective, but they did the same thing as all other stodgy Jefferson admirers: they said that his character would make it impossible for him to have a liaison with Sally Hemings (or any other black or slave woman) or be the father of at least one of her children. However, they then say that there were "two dozen" other Jeffersons in Virginia at the time of any of Sally Hemings's conceptions, and therefore Jefferson "obviously" could not have been the father because of his character, etc. They also acknowledge his age (64 really is not that old) and say that other Jeffersons would have been more likely than him to father a slave woman's children. Doesn't this defense seem a little too defensive and a bit far-fetched?
Anonymous , Lehigh University

67) The 1998 DNA test results identify a chromosomal link between Eston Hemings and the male Jefferson line. Thomas Jefferson is included among the twenty-five possible fathers, but he is eliminated because of the lack of admissible evidence. The unproved single father postulate is a device that substitutes imagination for verifiable evidence.
Richard E. Dixon

68) As a black person I said to myself, Oh, no, here we go: the romanticization of the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings affair. For white people to even imagine that Jefferson could be interested in a slave, she has to look white. What happened to these women is an American tragedy. They were sexually exploited, impregnated by men who in most cases didn't have the guts to recognize them or their offspring: the original deadbeat dads. So let's not forget that although Sally Hemings was "mulatto" and essentially Jefferson's common-law wife and the mother of his only living sons, she and their children were still slaves.
Elaine Colquitt

69) Scientific evidence that Thomas Jefferson almost certainly sired at least one of Sally Hemings's sons (letters, Nov. 6) has prompted some to proclaim that Americans are all one family. Such observation echo the pro-slavery language of the old South and should remind us of the complexities inherent in coming to a revised understanding of Jefferson.
Drew G. Faust

70) Mr. Safire neglects to mention which candidate women and blacks supported [in the 1804 presidential election]. Oh, but of course, women and black people couldn't vote.
Donald J. Isler

71) As a black woman who is a partner in an interracial marriage, I am appalled that Thomas Jefferson's apologists would use words like "liaison" and "affair" to describe his relationship with Sally Hemings, his slave. One does not have an "affair" or a "liaison" with one's property. Any such relationship is characterized by force, whether or not it is explicit.
Michele S. Frank

72) To some, including two men writing in Nature magazine, where the DNA conclusions are reported, this is scientific proof of Jefferson's flawed humanity. To others, it's more testimony to the colorful history of an America that extends, like a rainbow, from the era when there were laws against miscegenation to the multicultural society of Tiger Woods. For still others, what matters is Tom and Sally. Was the 38-year affair between Jefferson and the half-sister of his late wife as romantic as it was doomed? As one visitor to Monticello asked, "If they were in love at that time, what could they do?" What a stake we all seem to have in this history. And how much of it rests on what we can never know -- the feelings of the woman.
Ellen Goodman

73) History is and ought to be emotional. It lives in contentious minds. Certainly it is right for us to ask --in the context of his times--why this man of decent intentions, whose language continues to stir us, was incapable of transcending racial prejudice. It is only fair that Americans hold Jefferson to the high standards that his own words demand.
Andrew Burstein, "Three Perspectives" 27

74) As to Jefferson, some historians view his alleged involvement with Hemings as a greater blot on his character than his involvement with slavery. At one point, he was negotiating the sale of a 3-year-old girl from her mother. He and the buyer were clearly uncomfortable and the deal eventually fell through. But that he would even contemplate this is stomach-churning. Yet if he got into bed with Sally, he is meant to be unworthy of our regard. That logic, if you can call it that, should not be very comforting to black Americans.
Annette Gordon-Reed, "Three Perspectives" 27

75) One of the pieces of evidence that is used to absolve Jefferson is the testimony of his former employee, Bacon. Bacon claimed that he had been at Monticello for a long period of time and he would have had knowledge if such an affair had been taking place. Basically, Bacon's statements make a strong case for the idea that Hemings was, in fact, having an affair -- it just wasn't with Jefferson. But then we have to ask ourselves did Bacon tell the truth? The whole truth? Or did he happen to leave some things out because of his loyalty to Jefferson. We all know that Bacon saw Jefferson as one of the best masters, and he even went so far as to write about the way in which Jefferson treated his slaves with such kindness and what a great man he was. There are many reasons that Bacon would wish to absolve Jefferson from the slanderous claims of such an affair, so although Bacon's account is first-hand, the legitimacy of it is questionable. I found myself unconvinced after reading the DNA evidence that Jefferson was the father of Hemings children. I don't necessarily discount their affair, because there is so much information that leads me to believe their relationship was more than that of a master and slave, but now I question whether the relationship was at all physical.
Anonymous , Lehigh University

76) In retrospect, one wonders two things. First, why some eminent scholars would agree to the placement of their names on a published document that, on the one hand, purports to be their views but, on the other hand, asserts that they "should not be held accountable for specific facts or arguments" because they had not seen and approved the "expanded" document (p. 40). And, second, why the Commissioners' summary report is captioned Final, since it appears to be the first report the commission has issued and it clearly is not the final word on its subject. Attempting to address an ambiguous and inadequate objective and to base a conclusion on deficient research, its conclusion is tentative at best. The Commission's eminent
scholars could have applied decades of genealogical scholarship in their approach to a genealogical question. Instead, their report-rather than clarifying the question Who fathered Sally Hemings's children? contributes to the plague of confusion. The only clear proof the Report on the Jefferson-Hemings Matter offers is that recognized achievement in one discipline does not make one an expert in another, even one that is related.
Thomas Jones 218

77) We are seeking to deconstruct the notion of one collective Truth or master narrative by demonstrating that there are, in actuality, a myriad of truths. Master narratives are narratives or stories that represent the viewpoint of those in power. While these narratives are collective in that they represent the thinking of a number of people, they are limited to those who are empowered to speak and thus often eliminate divergent views held by those who do not have the power to make their voices heard. These master narratives frequently purport to be the Truth, rather than one version of the truth. Ultimately, we will discuss how competing truths are handled as well as the ethical dilemmas that arise as a result of these competing narratives. When competing narratives are silenced in order to promote one kind of collective Truth, human rights are often jeopardized, thereby creating ethical dilemmas for those who seek to protect oppressed groups.
Venetria K. Patton

78) Can we truly love in captivity? There is no evidence that Jefferson and Hemings were Tom and Sally, that they were loving companions. Nothing, that is, beyond our own romantic images and a wish born of contemporary dismay at the abuse of power in what should be love. Today, we have come to believe in the connection between love and equality. Too much dependency and too much power make us suspicious. How can a powerful man know if he is loved or just feared? Can a totally dependent woman know if she loves or fears? In our contemporary scandals, we focus on the line between consensual sex and sexual harassment because we believe that real love is based on mutuality. There was no "free love" for Tom and Sally because there was no freedom. Even in our scandal-obsessed generation, the issue isn't that Thomas Jefferson had sex with Sally Hemings. It's that he owned her. All the rest is the stuff of DNA and novels.
Ellen Goodman

79) "It's a great thing, it's a blessing, that the president of the United States is recognizing both sides of the family as legitimate descendants," [Shannon] Lanier told the Associated Press. "Maybe Thomas Jefferson didn't have the opportunity to unify the family when he was alive. Now we're having the opportunity." John H. Works Jr., the head of a group of Jefferson descendants that sponsored the most recent study [the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society report], called the White House gathering "an embarrassment" and said Bush had been "duped."
William Branigin

80) Although the Commission's title and the credentials of its members imply that conventional standards of scholarship have been applied, the "Final Report" offers no source citations.' Only the disavowed "individual views" (the longest of which is lightly laced with sarcasm, innuendo, and gossip) give readers a sense of the type of documentation on which the panel relied and the scholarship it applied. The Commission grants liberal reproduction rights for the "Final Report," whose lack of documentation will prevent the public from testing its assertions; but it restricts dissemination or quoting from the documented portions of the report. . . . This reviewer agrees that the Commission's report itself leaves the allegation of
Jefferson's responsibility for the Hemings children "by no means proven." The report also leaves the allegation by no means disproved, because the scholars applied an inappropriate paradigm that led them to overlook prevailing standards for genealogical sources, methods, and proof-all of which are essential to answering genealogical questions with confidence and credibility.
Thomas Jones 209

81) It may be that every generation gets the Jefferson it deserves. The Jefferson of my childhood was the face on a nickel and Mount Rushmore, the signature on the Declaration of Independence. The Jefferson of today is one of DNA tests, sex, scandal, the Jefferson between the William and the Clinton. But now DNA tests have proved that the Jefferson of my childhood -- the third president of the United States -- had an "improper relationship" with Sally Hemings -- as if the relationship of master and slave were not improper enough. This Founding Father was the father of at least one of her children.
Ellen Goodman

82) Herbert Barger, who had assisted in gathering the DNA sample for the tests, indefatigably fired off lengthy, impassioned letters of protest whenever a newspaper or magazine referred to the Hemings-Jefferson link as a fact. He succeeded in persuading The Washington Post to admit that its reporting on the story required a clarification. The newspaper's ombudsman wrote: "The Post often has failed to make clear what is fact (DNA testing shows that a Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings but not which Jefferson), what is speculation and what is convenient."
Henry Wiencek 203