Posted on 07/03/2017 6:20:40 PM PDT by Bodleian_Girl
Archaeologists have discovered an area in Thomas Jefferson's plantation home that was once the living quarters of Sally Hemings - a slave with whom he is believed to have had six children. Her room, which was built in 1809 and was 14 feet, 8 inches wide and 13 feet long, was next to Thomas Jefferson's room. However, the bedroom went unnoticed for decades and the area was even made into a men's bathroom in 1941.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-4662350/Archaeologists-Sally-Hemings-room-Monticello.html#ixzz4lozvk7ZB Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
It’s important to be able to separate legend from fact, Bodleian_Girl. Do not confuse the two as they are not one and the same. Legend often has factual basis, but it gets confabulated over the centuries, so caution is in order. I stated that in my very first reply to this thread because I know it to be true, having encountered it again and again. You appear to be in love with the legend and want it to be true, that much is evident from selectively editing that letter you posted to the thread twice.
You’re going to believe what you want, but please don’t misrepresent legend or opinion as fact, in either history or genealogy. This is a matter of both.
“Who writes this stuff?” Liberal bilgespittlists
Field-Jefferson-descendant DNA, not necessarily Thomas-Jefferson DNA.
Actually the DNA from the supposed descendant of the Hemings child conceived in Paris -- when Thomas was the only Jefferson in the vicinity -- turned out NOT to have any Jefferson DNA. Also there were other times when Thomas and Sally were at the same place, and could have conceived a child (no birth control back then), but no child was conceived.
Monticello was often closed up when Thomas Jefferson wasn't there. It's only natural to assume that visits from other male Jeffersons would take place when he was there. So it's not surprising that conception dates match those presences (but, interestingly enough, not the one when he and Hemings were too far away for other Jeffersons to visit -- in Paris).
I don’t believe science is a legend.
But that’s just me.
You state that Randolph was not at Monticello when some of the children were conceived. I’d have to see very convincing proof to believe that (preferably from sources with no political agenda). Even if true, though, there’s no reason to assume that all her children had to be fathered by the same Jefferson. For that matter, any slave in the vicinity who was fathered by a Jefferson — in that generation or a previous one — could have passed on Jefferson DNA to a Hemings child.
I think the proper attitude on this matter is extreme skepticism. Though the modern charge had been brought up earlier by the black historian, it wasn’t until the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal that a concerted effort was made to use it to discredit Thomas Jefferson (in an attempt to show that Bill Clinton wasn’t so bad after all). In the historical article that accompanied the publication of the DNA findings in the journal Nature, Joseph Ellis explicitly made the connection with Bill Clinton. (Ellis, by the way, was the Jefferson biographer whose lying about having served in Vietnam was later exposed.).
Even if he was the father of all the children, which is still in doubt, according to the Jefferson Society study, Sally Hemmings didn’t go to work at Monticello until 1784, two years after his wife’s death. So, what’s the big deal? Sally never said anything about it. Jefferson either. And even if they did, as she didn’t complain about it or go public about it and she outlived him by 9 years. After Jefferson’s death in 1826, Sally Hemings lived in Charlottesville with her sons Madison and Eston Hemings . She died in 1835.
rwood
I don’t rule out the possibility that Thomas Jefferson fathered some of the Hemings children, but don’t trust the persons whose interest it is to make that claim. It hasn’t been proven to my satisfaction yet.
I followed the story closely in the early years, but haven’t been following it closely lately. Here’s a critical analysis, though, of the Research Report on the Jefferson-Hemings Controversy — https://jeffersondnastudy.com/rebuttal-to-tjmf-report/ . If you have very specific facts that can refute those objections, which can be confirmed in an objective way, I’d be interested in seeing them.
Until then, my position is that it’s possible that Thomas Jefferson was the father, but absent a finding from Maury Povich, I still remain skeptical. :-) There have been far too many attempts to demagogue this question for me to take such claims at face value.
The Goodson DNA failure is interesting, no doubt, because they had the strongest oral history.
Now that we know where Sally slept, and that one would have to go through Jefferson’s room to get to Sally, that negates the theory that his brother was sneaking in from his own plantation 20 something miles away to bed Sally.
It's interesting to me because history is interesting in general.
You’ve misstated the import of the science and misrepresented the history due to omission of family statements contrary to the legend, Bodleian_Girl. You’ve done so out of being in love with the legend, in my opinion. In other words, you are not being objective.
> Do you really think the man went without sex for the rest of his life?
I’ve been without sex for decades (and I don’t even have much of a reputation to protect).
Fawn Brodie started writing about this many years before Clinton.
To me, it’s not a Clinton thing at all, it’s history. Martin Van Buren had two black daughters. Shrug. It’s history.
The granddaughter said that Sally’s room did not have an interconnection to TJ’s. Was it a secret door?
I think it’s because the founders have been elevated to an almost Devine status.
People lose sight that while they did something pretty amazing, they were just men, with failings and flaws.
Personally, while I think Jefferson wrote some real pretty stuff, I have far more respect for the farmer who left his family, joined a militia, and laid down his life to establish our independence.
It’s the American people that makes America great, not the government or any politician.
Monticello is a very interesting structure with all manner of unusual things built into it. I wouldn’t be at all surprised at a secret door, but I would be surprised that the family didn’t know it existed.
I’m not in love with the legend!
I was all gung-ho that the Carr Brothers did the deed, because that’s what history said. I was outraged that someone, anyone, would try and impugn the man’s character!
Then I read Fawn Browdie’s research in American Heritage and studied some of the original source documents. And then I also got older. I’m not outraged that the man slept with his white slave.
It is what it is. It’s just a part of history. Nothing more, nothing less.
With a nubile and willing female lying just feet from you?
Post of the day!
Well, then, practice objectivity rather than being so doggedly insistent that one and only one possibility could be the truth. Learn to preface such statements qualifying it as opinion, or that you suspect it to be true. Don’t just plow into it claiming truth when the truth has not been adequately demonstrated. Take up genealogy, go try to submit a shaky line to the DAR and see how far it gets you. Then, maybe, you’ll understand the errors you’re making here.
My 10th generation ancestor received a land grant in NC from Lord Granville.
I think I'm good.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.