Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (Appendix I)
- The Left Spins Another Yarn to Trash the Founders -
(Third in the "Shining City" Series)
by Robert L. Pyles, MD
November 2023
---
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Appendix I
Appendix II
---
Critique of
IV. Research Findings and Implications
Report of the Research Committee on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings
Thomas Jefferson Foundation
January 2000
The following statements in bold type, taken from the documentary and oral history record, “are considered uncontested historical or scientific facts” (bold type mine). When viewed and interpreted in combination, these facts form the basis for our current understanding of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship. The commentary paragraphs explain the committee's interpretation of the facts. Supporting information can be found in cited Appendices.
1. The DNA of Eston Hemings’ descendant matched that of Field Jefferson's descendants. (Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix J)
This is the one accurate fact about the Jefferson family in the report. There is a match between the Jefferson line and the Hemings line.
2. The DNA of John Carr's descendants did not match that of Eston Hemings’ descendant. (Appendix A and Appendix B)
Apparently true.
3. The DNA of Field Jefferson's descendants did not match that of Thomas C. Woodson's descendants. (Appendix K)
Apparently true also.
4. Sally Hemings's birth patterns match Thomas Jefferson's Monticello visitation patterns. (Appendix I)
Misleading and probably false implication. It should be borne in mind that Monticello was the HOME of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, so it certainly would not be peculiar if they were there for some other reason than to have sex. It would also be unlikely that Sally Hemings traveled, except for Paris. Jefferson, on the other hand, was in Washington quite a bit between 1801-1809.
There is also a statistical analysis which postulates a 99% likelihood that Jefferson was the father, based on his presumed presence at Monticello. Using that kind of logic, I suspect he was also at Monticello when the sun came up in the morning, so a similar conclusion would be that Jefferson was responsible for the sun coming up at Monticello. It brings to mind Mark Twain’s quote that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
What is completely absent here is a similar analysis of when Randolph Jefferson (who is a much more likely suspect) and his five sons were present at Monticello. The Committee notes that the correspondence between Thomas and his brother is missing for the years 1792-1807, and they make the unlikely assumption (again using the same kind of logic) that, in effect, he and his sons were never at Monticello during those years, despite the fact that he lived only twenty miles away.
5. Several people close to Jefferson or the Monticello community believed he was the father of Sally Hemings's children. (Appendix F)
Actually, as stated in the text, I found exactly the opposite to be true. With the one exception of Cocke, contemporary witnesses citing a possible relationship between Jefferson and Hemings, were completely missing, both at Monticello and Paris. In addition, Madison Hemings’ claims have already been shown to be unreliable.
However, there was one seemingly very reliable witness-Edmund Bacon, long-time supervisor at Monticello, who stated that he had frequently seen a man emerging from Sally Hemings’ bedroom. He blanked out the name of the individual, so it was obvious it was someone who was well-known, and it was equally obvious from the way he phrased it, that it was not Thomas Jefferson.
6. Madison Hemings stated in 1873 that he and his siblings (Beverly, Harriet, and Eston) were Thomas Jefferson's children. (Appendix E)
Here again, the questionable reliability and probable conflicts of interest of Madison Hemings comes into play.
7. Sally Hemings's children had unique access to freedom. (Appendix H)
More likely reasons for Jefferson’s freeing of the Hemings children are covered in the text above, but a major one would be the fact that Sally Hemings was the half-sister of Jefferson’s deceased wife, and certainly not a matter of color.
8. The history of descent from Jefferson was passed down among Madison Hemings’ descendants. (Appendix G)
The authors repeatedly regard as fact the Hemings family lore, or one could say the family mythology (without meaning to be disrespectful). Certainly a story of descent from Thomas Jefferson would be a more desirable heritage than a descent from his alcoholic brother, Randolph. Who could blame anyone for that? And certainly, the Hemings family could not have foreseen how this version of their family history would be used.
9. Sally Hemings's children bore a striking resemblance to Thomas Jefferson. (Appendix F)
If that was indeed the case, and there is no reason to doubt it, isn’t equally likely that the children of Sally Hemings very likely bore an equally striking resemblance to Randolph Jefferson? Curious that no one commented on that possibility, or made that comparison, but that would have interfered with the preferred narrative.
Here again, the testimony of Edmund Bacon comes into play, along with the tantalizing possibility of what and whom he might have been hinting at.
In regard to the fact of the children of Sally Hemings being light-skinned, here we have the same kind of logic, that the light skin of her children, could only have come from Thomas Jefferson, not some other white man, such as Randolph. In addition, it is well known that Sally Hemings herself was very light-skinned, since she was at least half, and possibly even three-quarters white. So it goes without saying that her children would be light-skinned as well, regardless of who the father was.
Conclusion: The Research Committee of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation in January 2000 came to the conclusion that there was a “high probability” that Thomas Jefferson had fathered all six of Sally Hemings’ children.
A major result of this study is that the tours at both Monticello and the University of Virginia state, unequivocally, that such was the case. This study has also been widely used politically, to damage the reputation of Thomas Jefferson, impugn his incalculable contributions to this country, and even those contributions themselves.
I go into the composition of this committee elsewhere, but they were drawn from the Monticello staff, and it seems that they may have been laboring under a double handicap-not a very high level of expertise, and a predisposing natural bias.
Based on the points presented, it seems as though they made the fatal flaw, of starting with the conclusion, and mustering their arguments accordingly. For example, the single piece of objective evidence is the DNA, for which they only consider a single possible explanation. All the other “evidence” that they consider to be “facts”, are actually hearsay, family lore, mythology, and conjecture.
Unfortunately, these all lead inexorably, to the final conclusion, which has very little basis in fact, evidence, or logic.
- The Left Spins Another Yarn to Trash the Founders -
(Third in the "Shining City" Series)
by Robert L. Pyles, MD
November 2023
---
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Appendix I
Appendix II
---
Critique of
IV. Research Findings and Implications
Report of the Research Committee on Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings
Thomas Jefferson Foundation
January 2000
The following statements in bold type, taken from the documentary and oral history record, “are considered uncontested historical or scientific facts” (bold type mine). When viewed and interpreted in combination, these facts form the basis for our current understanding of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship. The commentary paragraphs explain the committee's interpretation of the facts. Supporting information can be found in cited Appendices.
1. The DNA of Eston Hemings’ descendant matched that of Field Jefferson's descendants. (Appendix A, Appendix B, and Appendix J)
This is the one accurate fact about the Jefferson family in the report. There is a match between the Jefferson line and the Hemings line.
2. The DNA of John Carr's descendants did not match that of Eston Hemings’ descendant. (Appendix A and Appendix B)
Apparently true.
3. The DNA of Field Jefferson's descendants did not match that of Thomas C. Woodson's descendants. (Appendix K)
Apparently true also.
4. Sally Hemings's birth patterns match Thomas Jefferson's Monticello visitation patterns. (Appendix I)
Misleading and probably false implication. It should be borne in mind that Monticello was the HOME of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings, so it certainly would not be peculiar if they were there for some other reason than to have sex. It would also be unlikely that Sally Hemings traveled, except for Paris. Jefferson, on the other hand, was in Washington quite a bit between 1801-1809.
There is also a statistical analysis which postulates a 99% likelihood that Jefferson was the father, based on his presumed presence at Monticello. Using that kind of logic, I suspect he was also at Monticello when the sun came up in the morning, so a similar conclusion would be that Jefferson was responsible for the sun coming up at Monticello. It brings to mind Mark Twain’s quote that there are “lies, damned lies, and statistics”.
What is completely absent here is a similar analysis of when Randolph Jefferson (who is a much more likely suspect) and his five sons were present at Monticello. The Committee notes that the correspondence between Thomas and his brother is missing for the years 1792-1807, and they make the unlikely assumption (again using the same kind of logic) that, in effect, he and his sons were never at Monticello during those years, despite the fact that he lived only twenty miles away.
5. Several people close to Jefferson or the Monticello community believed he was the father of Sally Hemings's children. (Appendix F)
Actually, as stated in the text, I found exactly the opposite to be true. With the one exception of Cocke, contemporary witnesses citing a possible relationship between Jefferson and Hemings, were completely missing, both at Monticello and Paris. In addition, Madison Hemings’ claims have already been shown to be unreliable.
However, there was one seemingly very reliable witness-Edmund Bacon, long-time supervisor at Monticello, who stated that he had frequently seen a man emerging from Sally Hemings’ bedroom. He blanked out the name of the individual, so it was obvious it was someone who was well-known, and it was equally obvious from the way he phrased it, that it was not Thomas Jefferson.
6. Madison Hemings stated in 1873 that he and his siblings (Beverly, Harriet, and Eston) were Thomas Jefferson's children. (Appendix E)
Here again, the questionable reliability and probable conflicts of interest of Madison Hemings comes into play.
7. Sally Hemings's children had unique access to freedom. (Appendix H)
More likely reasons for Jefferson’s freeing of the Hemings children are covered in the text above, but a major one would be the fact that Sally Hemings was the half-sister of Jefferson’s deceased wife, and certainly not a matter of color.
8. The history of descent from Jefferson was passed down among Madison Hemings’ descendants. (Appendix G)
The authors repeatedly regard as fact the Hemings family lore, or one could say the family mythology (without meaning to be disrespectful). Certainly a story of descent from Thomas Jefferson would be a more desirable heritage than a descent from his alcoholic brother, Randolph. Who could blame anyone for that? And certainly, the Hemings family could not have foreseen how this version of their family history would be used.
9. Sally Hemings's children bore a striking resemblance to Thomas Jefferson. (Appendix F)
If that was indeed the case, and there is no reason to doubt it, isn’t equally likely that the children of Sally Hemings very likely bore an equally striking resemblance to Randolph Jefferson? Curious that no one commented on that possibility, or made that comparison, but that would have interfered with the preferred narrative.
Here again, the testimony of Edmund Bacon comes into play, along with the tantalizing possibility of what and whom he might have been hinting at.
In regard to the fact of the children of Sally Hemings being light-skinned, here we have the same kind of logic, that the light skin of her children, could only have come from Thomas Jefferson, not some other white man, such as Randolph. In addition, it is well known that Sally Hemings herself was very light-skinned, since she was at least half, and possibly even three-quarters white. So it goes without saying that her children would be light-skinned as well, regardless of who the father was.
Conclusion: The Research Committee of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation in January 2000 came to the conclusion that there was a “high probability” that Thomas Jefferson had fathered all six of Sally Hemings’ children.
A major result of this study is that the tours at both Monticello and the University of Virginia state, unequivocally, that such was the case. This study has also been widely used politically, to damage the reputation of Thomas Jefferson, impugn his incalculable contributions to this country, and even those contributions themselves.
I go into the composition of this committee elsewhere, but they were drawn from the Monticello staff, and it seems that they may have been laboring under a double handicap-not a very high level of expertise, and a predisposing natural bias.
Based on the points presented, it seems as though they made the fatal flaw, of starting with the conclusion, and mustering their arguments accordingly. For example, the single piece of objective evidence is the DNA, for which they only consider a single possible explanation. All the other “evidence” that they consider to be “facts”, are actually hearsay, family lore, mythology, and conjecture.
Unfortunately, these all lead inexorably, to the final conclusion, which has very little basis in fact, evidence, or logic.