Posted on 07/03/2017 6:20:40 PM PDT by Bodleian_Girl
I’ve meant to reply to some of your well-thought-out replies to me on this thread, but got preoccupied, my apologies. I’m going to go ahead and lay out just why I find these claims suspicious to the point of strongly doubtful, and it springs to an extent from personal experience in my own genealogical research.
I’ve made mention in a previous reply that individuals of mixed heritage were not particularly well treated in Virginia, and that can be verified fairly easily via means as simple as census records among other sources. This somewhat hostile environment led to certain behaviors among those who did not flee, to North Carolina or Tennessee or to some redoubt way back in the hills of what later became Kentucky or West Virginia, or wherever. The opposition to the planter societies (and to an extent the State Church) of each is correctly attributed to Scotch-Irish who populated and continue to populate southern Appalachia to an almost but not entirely overwhelming degree, above and beyond the native tribes. There were also these people, and they had their own reasons to resent planter society as well you can imagine I’m sure.
While in Virginia, and certainly elsewhere too but it was particularly noteworthy in Virginia, they adopted strategies to survive, I’ve likened this somewhat to “protective coloration” as exists elsewhere in creation, whether that was to appear as something benign, to disappear entirely, to appear larger or as a predator, etcetera. I’m sure you can think of a few examples in the animal kingdom. For “mulattoes” in Virginia, that could mean a few different things, most notably “passing” for white among those who could.
But, there was also a sort of appeal to prestige and authority among some in order to protect themselves, and not just merely “passing” but status-seeking is present here. I have good reason to doubt legends that bestow status, having discredited a few among my own lines. To me, status-seeking is an immediate red flag and suspicious until proven otherwise, whereas such legends that do not confer any perceivable advantage are less so, and those that do not remotely confer any advantage at all to the point of disadvantage, I go into under the assumption that they’re fairly credible.
Such legends tend to grow over time, particularly time measured in centuries. Whether this was intentional or not I’m not going to speculate, but I tend to take a charitable view and term it “confabulation,” which would essentially be misremembering in a favorable light, compounded by the retelling. That, to me, is forgivable and understandable. But, it’s not when the harsh light of day is shown upon it and strong disagreement is fostered due to putting other individuals in a potentially bad light while seeking status for oneself. That, I have a problem with, and that is what I see here.
If I’m ever proved wrong I will certainly back down and issue a mea culpa. But, I won’t lie about this, I’ve seen it before and it seems like self-aggrandizement to me. That is the source of my doubt.
Thanks for your perceptive account of some of the psychological considerations.
> When he [Martha’s son, Jefferson’s grandson] wrote that the child looked so much like Jefferson [”at dusk”] that one would think it WAS Jefferson, what is the inference?
That the child looked a lot like Jefferson — “at dusk”. :-) Yes, a resemblance does arose suspicion, and has some evidentiary value, but others saw one too, and didn’t reach the conclusion that Thomas was the father. Also modern “who’s the father?” tv shows often demonstrate that close resemblances do not necessarily indicate paternity.
By the way, do you have a source for the claim that a Jefferson grandson wrote that? Resemblance or not, I’m not aware of any grandson making the claim that the Hemings children were Thomas’s.
I’d like to see the exact passage. I googled “Jefferson”, “grandson”, and “at dusk”, and didn’t come up with anything about a grandson. All I saw was this non-specific claim from the black historian I mentioned previously (Annette Gordon-Reed ), using the word “would” — “All of Jefferson’s children with Hemings were said to resemble him, one of the sons so much that a person coming upon the young man at dusk dressed as Jefferson would have assumed that it was Jefferson himself.”
> The Monticello foundation tried to refute that info [the claim that Hemimgs lived in a loft above Jefferson’s room] in times past by saying the “closet” was too small...
I just don’t believe he’d have the effrontery to do that — a loft just for her with direct access to Jefferson’s bedroom? It sounds like fanciful speculation to me, based merely on there being some space above his bedroom. That’s why I’d like to know specifics about the source.
If based on credible evidence, her being there would be overwhelming evidence that something sexual was going on (not just that, but in a brazenly open manner). It would be big news. I googled “loft”, “Thomas Jefferson”, and “Hemings”, though, and didn’t see any mention of such a claim in the first two pages of results.
Eureka! I found the source of grandson’s “at dusk” claim — a letter from Henry Stephens Randall in 1868 in which he speaks of what Jefferson’s grandson (Col. T. J. Randolph) said to him. A most interesting letter! http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/cron/1868randall.html
“He said in one case that the resemblance was so close, that at some distance or in the dusk the slave, dressed in the same way, might be mistaken for Mr. Jefferson.” He goes on to say that “...she [Hemings] had children which resembled Mr. Jefferson so closely that it was plain that they had his blood in their veins.”
Wow! “His blood” sounds as if it means Thomas’s own blood, but don’t jump to conclusions. :-) Later Randolph makes clear that he merely means Jefferson family blood. He attributes its presence to other Jefferson relatives, and flatly denies that Thomas was the father — “Col. Randolph informed me that there was not the shadow of suspicion that Mr. Jefferson in this or any other instance ever had commerce with his female slaves...and that no person ever living at Monticello dreamed of such a thing.”
Jefferson’s grandson also gives some information about where Sally lived — “Walking about mouldering Monticello one day with Col. T. J. Randolph (Mr. Jefferson’s oldest grandson) he showed me a smoke blackened and sooty room in one of the collonades [outside the main building], and informed me it was Sally Henings’ room.”
The letter contains a great deal of information that’s pertinent to some of the questions we’ve been considering — from a person who said, “At the periods when these Carr [Hemings] children were born, he, Col. Randolph, had charge of Monticello...He said Mr. Jefferson never locked the door of his room by day: and that he (Col. R.) slept within sound of his breathing at night.”
At least one of the children (Eston) was not sired by a Carr (who had Jefferson blood from a female parent, not a male) — the DNA shows Randolph was wrong about him — but what he says about life at Monticello is pertinent in many respects.
Eston had male Jefferson DNA, not female.
There is something of a misperception regarding the X chromosome, and that would be that it’s exclusively female. If it were exclusively female, there would be no female genetic inheritance from Thomas Jefferson, it would be entirely maternal, not paternal.
However, paternity certainly does involve the X chromosome, for female children, just as maternity certainly does involve an X chromosome for male children. There exists a possible route to lay this matter to rest and cease with the scurrilous speculation damaging to one of our most illustrious Founding Fathers.
Of the female Hemings descendants, which of them possess an X chromosome that can be directly attributed to Thomas Jefferson and his maternal line?
None that I’m aware.
This claim is falls in the face of historical records. Until the time period after the Nate Turner murders, MANY mixed race people, including free people of color, mulattos, octoroons and quadroons lived, owned property and worked in Albemarle County.
Court records show that they weren't afraid to take even wealthy planters to court if they felt they had been wronged.
Free people of color even owned land abutting the Dabney/Carr land.
Why do you feel this damages him in this day and age?
He was known as a randy person even back then, he had an affair with a friends wife.
You seem to have a rather idealized view of the status of freed slaves, mulattoes and indians in Virginia. I can assure you that it was not entirely pleasant. Better than slavery? I’d say so, but owners of liberated slaves were still obligated by law to support them under certain circumstances, such as youth, advanced age, disability, etc. so can one honestly claim that they were actually free in a legal sense, if their owners were still obligated?
Black Laws Of Virginia
http://www.racetimeplace.com/ugrr/slavelawsofvirginiasince1705.htm
Interesting - thanks for sharing.
It damages him by impugning his honor. This day and age, in case you’ve somehow managed not to notice, seems to delight in tearing down the Founders of this country. Trading in scurrilous claims while declining to also include family denying them would seem to indicate to me that you’re biased, as I’ve mentioned repeatedly before. Why are you so doggedly determined to create the impression that Thomas Jefferson took advantage of a female in bondage to him?
Benjamin Franklin, Advice to a Young Man on the Choice of a Mistress (1745)
I know of no Medicine fit to diminish the violent natural Inclinations you mention; and if I did, I think I should not communicate it to you. Marriage is the proper Remedy. It is the most natural State of Man, and therefore the State in which you are most likely to find solid Happiness. Your Reasons against entering into it at present, appear to me not well-founded. The circumstantial Advantages you have in View by postponing it, are not only uncertain, but they are small in comparison with that of the Thing itself, the being married and settled. It is the Man and Woman united that make the compleat human Being. Separate, she wants his Force of Body and Strength of Reason; he, her Softness, Sensibility and acute Discernment. Together they are more likely to succeed in the World. A single Man has not nearly the Value he would have in that State of Union. He is an incomplete Animal. He resembles the odd Half of a Pair of Scissars. If you get a prudent healthy Wife, your Industry in your Profession, with her good Economy, will be a Fortune sufficient.
But if you will not take this Counsel, and persist in thinking a Commerce with the Sex inevitable, then I repeat my former Advice, that in all your Amours you should prefer old Women to young ones. You call this a Paradox, and demand my Reasons. They are these:
1. Because as they have more Knowledge of the World and their Minds are better stor'd with Observations, their Conversation is more improving and more lastingly agreable.
2. Because when Women cease to be handsome, they study to be good. To maintain their Influence over Men, they supply the Diminution of Beauty by an Augmentation of Utility. They learn to do a 1000 Services small and great, and are the most tender and useful of all Friends when you are sick. Thus they continue amiable. And hence there is hardly such a thing to be found as an old Woman who is not a good Woman.
3. Because there is no hazard of Children, which irregularly produc'd may be attended with much Inconvenience.
4. Because thro' more Experience, they are more prudent and discreet in conducting an Intrigue to prevent Suspicion. The Commerce with them is therefore safer with regard to your Reputation. And with regard to theirs, if the Affair should happen to be known, considerate People might be rather inclin'd to excuse an old Woman who would kindly take care of a young Man, form his Manners by her good Counsels, and prevent his ruining his Health and Fortune among mercenary Prostitutes.
5. Because in every Animal that walks upright, the Deficiency of the Fluids that fill the Muscles appears first in the highest Part: The Face first grows lank and wrinkled; then the Neck; then the Breast and Arms; the lower Parts continuing to the last as plump as ever: So that covering all above with a Basket, and regarding2 only what is below the Girdle, it is impossible of two Women to know an old from a young one. And as in the dark all Cats are grey, the Pleasure of corporal Enjoyment with an old Woman is at least equal, and frequently superior, every Knack being by Practice capable of Improvement.
6. Because the Sin is less. The debauching a Virgin may be her Ruin, and make her for Life unhappy.
7. Because the Compunction is less. The having made a young Girl miserable may give you frequent bitter Reflections; none of which can attend the making an old Woman happy.
8thly and Lastly They are so grateful!!
Thus much for my Paradox. But still I advise you to marry directly; being sincerely Your affectionate Friend.
-PJ
Why do you think he took advantage of her? It seems like a relationship that was advantageous to both of them.
For me, it doesn’t “destroy” his reputation. He was simply a man of his times. It was what it was.
I’d think worse of him if it turned out he was letting his brother come up on his plantation and rape his wife’s little sister willy-nilly.
Your Oprah-esque pop culture sensibilities do not apply to 18th and 19th century Virginia.
As a people group, the four children of Sally Hemings do not seem to be given to self-aggrandizement.
The two white children of Sally that Thomas Jefferson allowed to leave as adults, (it's noted that he gave the daughter money to leave), melted into white society and disappeared into history.
The one son who stayed within the black community only spoke out at age 68. (James Madison Hemings.)
The son Eston, who entered the white community and who's direct male line descendants carry the Jefferson Y DNA doesn't seem to have used the information for self-aggrandizement as his great great grandchildren had no idea. They only found out when Fawn Brodie published her book in 2010.
1. Not an Oprah fan, I assure you.
2. "In 1833, there were 452 free people of color in Albemarle County, 397 of whom were recognized as mulatto. Nearly nine out of every ten free people of color in Albemarle had white ancestors."
It was what it was.
Why do you care so much about only one side of this matter, to the point of repeatedly posting incomplete published accounts, omitting strongly worded Jefferson family denials, Bodleian_Girl?
Can you give a satisfactory accounting of your motivation for doing this? The sin of omission is still a polite way of saying “lies.”
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.