New Books Adds Fuel to Jefferson-Hemings Controversy
The controversy over whether Thomas Jefferson fathered children by his slave, Sally Hemings, has raged for the better part of two centuries. Now, publicity materials for a new book declare that it “definitively destroys the cultural myth that Jefferson had any relationship with Ms. Hemings.”
The book, “In Defense Of Thomas Jefferson” by William G. Hyland Jr., purports to prove “not only that the evidence against Jefferson is lacking, but that in fact he is entirely innocent of the charge of having sexual relations with Hemings.”
Interestingly, the release notes that the book was nominated for a “2009 Virginia Literacy (sic) Award.” The winner of the Library of Virginia’s Virginia Literary Award in the nonfiction category for 2009 (as well as the Pulitzer Prize for history)? “The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family,” by Annette Gordon-Reed, a leading proponent of the Hemings-Jefferson link whose first book, “Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy” (1998), touched of the latest round of historical debate.
Given that both Hyland and Gordon-Reed are lawyers by training, I think a mock trial might be in order here. How ’bout it, Law School?
Please make sure to keep your comments respectful and free from abusive language or personal attacks. Comments will not appear until approved by site moderator. Thank you for reading the blog and we encourage all users to interact with the blog by posting comments and feedback.
Posting your comment
Herbert Barger | March 11, 2010 @ 3:20 pm
I have read Mr. Hyland’s excellent and revealing book and recommend it to anyone concerned with Mr. Jefferson’s legacy and his many accomplishments around UVA and Charlottesville. Read how a simple amateurish and maligned DNA Study was mishandeled from inception to Monticello’s support of unfounded and biased research. I know this because I assisted Dr. E.A. Foster and know the inside workings of this study. He tested a KNOWN carrier of both the Jefferson and Hemings DNA (Eston Hemings family claimed only descent from “a Jefferson uncle or nephew”….NOT THomas). Monticello defective research found that not only one but possibly all of Sally’s children were fathered by Mr. Jefferson. This is inaccurate because only ONE Hemings was tested……..what is their proof…..they have none. Please read the book and suggest to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation’s Monticello that a NEW study be conducted using ALL research. Read the Scholars Commission Report (13 top level scholars including UVA’s Professor Robert Turner’s study) from a link on http://www.tjheritage.org. Their findings: NO proof that Thomas Jefferson fathered slave children.
Herbert Barger
herbar@comcast.net
Founder, Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
Steven T. Corneliussen | March 11, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
Mock trial? The controversy is already too much like litigation and too little like a search for the truth. But it’d be a great idea to have a debate. However, the obvious natural opponent to law professor Gordon-Reed is U.Va.’s own legal scholar Robert Turner. Mr. Hyland got much of his material from Prof. Turner, who — along with Charlottesville’s Cynthia Burton — is an accomplished expert on the controversy, and who is the leading legal mind in opposition to Prof. Gordon-Reed. He led the Scholars Commission that disputed the paternity view that became widely known after the DNA evidence came out in 1998. Thanks (from a Hemings-TJ paternity agnostic) for the chance to comment.
Kenneth W. Burchell | March 11, 2010 @ 4:40 pm
Having read virtually all the literature on this subject and, of course, Hyland’s recent contribution to the debate, there really IS no debate that I can see. The Jefferson/Hemings allegations were spawned by James Callender and never had any more substance than the shoddiest of rumor and innuendo. Hyland’s book destroys the so-called “evidence” of Gordon-Reed and others against Thomas Jefferson and should be read by all interested parties. I’d be happy to see a mock trial if for no other reason than I believe it would reveal that the calumny has little to support it but hearsay.