Replies

I tend to disagree with your notion of "Historical activism" The question of Hemming's paternity is one that has existed for nearly 200 years. It is only within the last decade or so that technology has advanced to the point that some reasonably conclusive evidence could he had. The Commission was one that seemed emminently fair to me and followed good historical investigative process. The evidence was weighed in toto and conclusions were drawn on the basis of preponderance of historical and current evidence. There was a full throated minority report and the commission's findings were subject to rigorous peer review

I have no axe to grind in the Jefferson paternity issue and could careless about some obscure political spin placed on the results of their inquiries. That wasn't their charge.

For me the evidence while not absolutely definitive in the sense of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard used in a criminal trial it overwhelmingly met the preponderance of evidence standard used by historians. The evidence of supporting the conclusion tha Jefferson fathered one or more of Hemmings children dwarfs the evidence that he didn't father Hemming's child.

Those who oppose the conclusion posit what I consider to be strained and tortured explanations that are unsupported by evidence. In the end they are reduced to the position of entertaining speculations of how Jefferson might not be the father of Hemming's child. They remain speculations devoid of evidence.

First a disclaimer. I am a descendant of Field Jefferson, the uncle whose descendants provided the DNA used to test the paternity.

I fully support the findings that Eston Hemmings is a Jefferson descendanty, and thereby, my cousin. We have known for decades that such misogyny occurred and was common among white slave owners and their slaves. We now know for certain that the Jefferson family engaged in this practice. Recent revelations about Senator Thurmond confirm that the practice did not end with emancipation.

We must also accept that Thomas Jefferson must be counted among the several potential candidates. Statistically, he must stand as the favored candidate by virtue of opportunity and circumstance. But, since conception requires but one encounter, a statistical case is hardly appropriate. So we are left with several candidates who also had at least some opportunity to produce this offspring. The case would be much stronger if other descendants proved to be Jefferson progeny, but so far only Eston's descendants have been confirmed. There are other possible lines of research, but descendants have thus far declined to cooperate.

I do not question the research premise. It was a legimate line of questioning from both a technical and historical perspective and one well worth doing. My objection is to the conclusion that so many so quickly embraced. Any who have taken the position that this conclusion is not supported by the facts have been labeled racist, ignorant, and worse. Its not healthy these days to refute the dogmatic views of the Academy.

You need to read the Blue Ribbon Commission report before you again say that conclusions are speculation devoid of evidence. I certainly do not consider their work to be strained and tortured - that characterization would better fit the views of the other side.