CONVERSATIONS ON JEFFERSON AND JEFFERSONIAN POLITICS
The Kinds of Evidence
From the H-SHEAR, subject: "Hemings-Jefferson: a new approach":J. L. Bell:
Eyler Coates, Sr., has presented a long defense and recap of the recent Thomas Jefferson Heritage Foundation report, which he edited. H-SHEAR subscribers may be interested to know that Mr. Coates has a website devoted to Jefferson's political opinions and life: http://www.oocities.org/jefperspective/I find it interesting to compare the writings archived on that site, which has a copyright date indicating it dates from 1996, to Mr. Coates's posting on H-SHEAR. The differences exemplify the sea change in how Jefferson "defenders" are approaching the issue of whether he fathered children by Sally Hemings in the wake of the DNA findings. At one point Mr. Coates wrote on his website, "I believe it is pointless to waste time on this kind of swill sampling." He has now edited a long book about the Hemings issue, implying that he's come to see it as a serious matter.
The website criticizes the January 2000 report from the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation which found it likely that Jefferson fathered Hemings's children. Mr. Coates wrote, "The chief error committed by the committee was in equating oral tradition -- another name for handed-down hearsay -- to solid evidence." In his H-SHEAR posting, however, Mr. Coates calls the Thomas Woodson story "the strongest oral tradition," and adopts its implication that Hemings had a child with someone other than a Jefferson in 1790. He seems to have dropped the judgment of oral tradition as "hearsay."
The question of hearsay also comes up in how Mr. Coates treats James Callender. On his website, he wrote, "When Callender wrote, 'There is not an individual in the neighbourhood of Charlottesville who does not believe the story, and not a few who know it,' he was talking about gossip and hearsay, not evidence." However, in his posting to H-SHEAR, Mr. Coates quotes Callender on Hemings's sex life, seemingly as evidence.
Mr. Coates's statements in his H-SHEAR posting show a tendency to treat evidence differently when it touches directly on Thomas Jefferson. Toward the start of his essay he writes, "The fact is, Sally's mother and several of her sisters each had children by different fathers." Yet in discussing Sally, he declares, "As with most questions of paternity involving an unmarried female, it is often difficult for anyone to know who the father was -- sometimes even the female herself!" Mr. Coates appears quite sure of what "The fact is" when it comes to every Hemings woman but the one most studied--and linked to Thomas Jefferson.
It's good to see that Mr. Coates has come around to seeing oral tradition and gossip as a form of historical evidence, not "swill sampling." I still find his choices of what oral tradition, gossip, and firmer evidence to credit and what to disdain to be inconsistent, however. But as his website shows, we can all make progress.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, May 30, 2001.
Eyler Coates
Mr. Bell suggests that because I called oral tradition "handed-down hearsay" and then referred to the Thomas Woodson story as "the strongest oral tradition," this amounts to dropping the judgment of oral tradition as hearsay. Nothing could be further from the truth! All oral tradition is indeed hearsay by definition (it does not proceed from the person or persons who originated the information), and the fact that the Woodson oral tradition was the "strongest" of all the oral histories that have been passed down by reputed Hemings descendants only illustrates the fact that even the strongest example of such hearsay has been demonstrated conclusively by DNA tests to be absolutely wrong.
Bell sees an apparent contradiction in my noting that Sally Hemings's mother and several of her sisters each had children by different fathers, and my remarking about Sally that, "as with most question of paternity involving an unmarried female it is often difficult to know who the father was." Bell notes that I seem sure of the children of Sally's mother and sisters, but not of those linked to Thomas Jefferson. The reason for this is quite simple: the fact that Sally's mother and sisters had children by different fathers is not disputed. The charge that Sally herself had children by Thomas Jefferson most definitely is disputed. In such a disputed case, we are compelled to look at the evidence, and we find that it is indeed difficult to know who the father was, and the evidence for it being Thomas Jefferson is definitely thin and inconclusive. In fact, the evidence against seems much stronger than the evidence for.
Mr. Bell finds it good that I now see oral tradition and gossip as "a form of historical evidence." But he misconstrues my statements, for I have always considered anything recorded in the past as "evidence" of one sort or another. The question is not whether it can be considered "evidence" or not, but whether it is solid, reliable, and believable. I feel now, and have always felt, that oral tradition and gossip can be a most unreliable forms of evidence, as was proven in the case of the Woodson oral tradition. Thus, there is nothing preventing false accusations in the form of oral tradition and gossip from also being "swill sampling," even if it is still a "form of evidence."
July 30, 2001
Eyler Coates, Sr.:
J. L. Bell notes that I once wrote on one of my websites, that the accusations of having children by one of his slaves leveled against Thomas Jefferson were a "kind of swill sampling," but that I have now edited a "long book" about the Hemings issue (it is only 208 pages -- perhaps Mr. Bell also has it confused with the Scholars Commission near-600 page Report?), suggesting that I have "come to see it as a serious matter." Mr. Bell goes on to compare what was on that website to my recent H-SHEAR posting, and suggests that "the differences exemplify the sea change in how Jefferson "defenders" are approaching the issue of whether he fathered children by Sally Hemings in the wake of the DNA findings." He says this as though change is something to be abhorred, and once a person takes a position, that person should never revise it, no matter what transpires.But it is a mistake to think that it was only the DNA findings that brought about this "sea change." Rather, it is the result of a complete reassessment that has occurred in the way so-called "Jefferson defenders" have viewed the campaign that has been mounted against Jefferson in the wake of the announcement of the DNA tests. If one reads the book referred to above ("The Jefferson-Hemings Myth: An American Travesty"), one comes to understand how the DNA test results were hardly the whole story. The article by Herb Barger, a Jefferson family genealogist, details how the evidence was ignored that suggested some other Jefferson besides Thomas was the father of Sally Hemings's son Eston, and how the presentation of the DNA evidence was staged and centered around the misleading headline in the journal Nature ("Jefferson fathered slave's last child" -- something the DNA evidence did not and could not demonstrate, assuming "Jefferson" refers to Thomas Jefferson). Then, the article by Dr. David Murray of the Statistical Assessment Service details the media frenzy that followed and focused on this distorted information, with headlines such as "Paternity Proved," and "Adulterer on Mt. Rushmore." Then Dr. Ken Wallenborn, a member of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF) Research Committee appointed to evaluate the DNA study, details how his minority report was suppressed and was not even revealed to other members of the committee until the day the main report was released to the public. Not until several weeks after the media event in which the TJMF announced their findings that there was a "high probability" that Thomas Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings, and that he "most likely was the father of all six of Sally Hemings' children" did the public learn there even was a minority report. Unlike the Scholars Commission, which announced the one minority exception along with the full report, the TJMF managed the announcement so that there was nothing to detract from the conclusion they were providing. It was this handling of the entire matter that produced what Mr. Bell describes as a "sea change." It was believed by Jefferson "defenders" that Mr. Jefferson was being railroaded, that this was indeed a "serious matter," and they felt that somebody had to stand up and reveal what was going on.
Mr. Bell is concerned that I wrote in my website essay criticizing the TJMF Report (which essay, in a slightly modified form, is also a part of the TJHS book) that "The chief error committed by the committee was in equating oral tradition -- another name for handed-down hearsay -- to solid evidence," and then he noted that in the H-SHEAR posting, I called "the Thomas Woodson story "the strongest oral tradition." and adopt its implication that Hemings had a child with someone other than a Jefferson in 1790." Bell states further "He seems to have dropped the judgment of oral tradition as "hearsay."
The question being discussed was not whether the Thomas Woodson story was true or not, but whether there was any kind of evidence suggesting that there were multiple fathers for Sally's children. Since Tom Woodson was proven not to be a son of any Jefferson, if he was indeed Sally's son, then that in itself shows Sally had multiple partners (one for Tom, one for Eston). The topic was "multiple fathers," and by taking the material out of context, it can be made to appear to be something other than what it is. Whether it is valid evidence or not, the Thomas Woodson oral history is at least some kind of evidence relating to the question of multiple fathers. The presence of any kind of evidence of multiple fathers indicates that the consideration of that topic is not the contemptible kind of racial profiling that sees black women as promiscuous (an accusation made earlier here by Annette Gordon-Reed). The presence of any kind of evidence for multiple fathers means that those accusations are unfair. No one argued that all black women at that time were promiscuous and therefore Sally Hemings was probably promiscuous also. That was the topic under discussion, and by taking the arguments made against that accusation and then switching them to a different topic, Mr. Bell not surprisingly produces what appears to be an inconsistency.
But in any case, there is no debate about "oral history" being hearsay -- by definition it clearly is a story told time and again from generation to generation. As such, it is inherently less reliable than a written account by the original "witness," since at each step of the process there are new opportunities for inadvertent or intentional errors. And the risk of embellishment when people are bragging about their famous ancestors is obvious. We can never drop the judgment that oral tradition is hearsay. It is that by definition. And to say that the Woodson oral history is the "strongest" only states a fact, regardless of whether we consider oral history of any value or not. In fact, the DNA evidence proved beyond a rational doubt that the Woodson oral history claiming Jefferson was the father of Tom Woodson was absolutely wrong. Thus, whatever anyone thinks about oral history, we have here demonstrated scientific proof that in this instance, the "strongest" oral history was flat-out wrong.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, June 5, 2001.
From the H-SHEAR, subject: "Hemings-Jefferson: legal vs. historical evidence":Clayton E. Cramer:
[Eyler Coates wrote:]"But in any case, there is no debate about "oral history" being hearsay -- by definition it clearly is a story told time and again from generation to generation. As such, it is inherently less reliable than a written account by the original "witness," since at each step of the process there are new opportunities for inadvertent or intentional errors. And the risk of embellishment when people are bragging about their famous ancestors is obvious. We can never drop the judgment that ..."
Indeed, slaves often bragged about how rich their masters were to other slaves. It is not at all surprising that someone for whom there was a family tradition of descent from Thomas Jefferson might be inclined to embellish or repeat hearsay.
I don't discount family history. But neither should it be given the weight of eyewitness accounts written down at the time.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, June 5, 2001.
J. L. Bell:
Eyler Coates, Sr., wrote:"Mr. Bell goes on to compare what was on that website to my recent H-SHEAR posting, and suggests that 'the differences exemplify the sea change in how Jefferson "defenders" are approaching the issue of whether he fathered children by Sally Hemings in the wake of the DNA findings.' He says this as though change is something to be abhorred, and once a person take a position, that person should never revise it, no matter what transpires."
I'm afraid this remark inaccurately represents the content of my message posted on 30 May and stored in the H-SHEAR archives.
Far from implying that "change is something to be abhorred," I wrote, "It's good to see that Mr. Coates has come around to seeing oral tradition and gossip as a form of historical evidence, not 'swill sampling.' . . . as his website shows, we can all make progress."
Mr. Coates is trying to convince the historians' community of the validity of how he now reads documents from previous centuries. Saying that a message from only last month implied the exact opposite of what it stated can only undercut that effort.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, June 7, 2001.
Eyler Coates
Again, Mr. Bell seeks to make a point by distorting what was said -- and it is an insignificant, technical point at that. When I wrote that Mr. Bell was noticing a "sea change" in how Jefferson "defenders" were responding to this issue of Jefferson's supposed paternity, I remarked that this was AS THOUGH a person should not ever change, regardless of changing circumstances. The "as though" refers not to what Bell said, but to what was the implication of his even bothering to point out that changing circumstances produced a change in my response. Of course they do!!! They always should! And although Mr. Bell may have fantasized that I changed my opinion of oral tradition, that is his mistaken impression. As pointed out above, the DNA test results proved beyond even a rational doubt that in the case of the Woodson oral tradition -- the strongest oral tradition coming down from all the alleged descendants of Sally Hemings -- that tradition is absolutely wrong, and that only confirms my jaundiced view of such so-called "evidence." Mr. Bell may take some kind of rhetorical comfort from his fantasy that I have "made progress" because my views of oral tradition have changed, but that is only the product of his confusion.
Incidentally, it should also be noted that the webpage on which the phrase, "swill sampling," occurs is about the scurrilous accusations that have been made against Thomas Jefferson. That webpage contains no mention of "oral history" or "gossip" (see Sally Hemings and Jefferson's Moral Character). What Mr. Bell did was to take my description of accusations related to Jefferson's alleged paternity, apply those in his own mind to "oral history" and "gossip," and then accuse me of describing all oral history and gossip as "swill sampling." But that is yet another example of how a point can be made by confusing what someone has written, either deliberately or unknowingly.
July 31, 2001
E. C. Walterscheid:
I have read the on-going exchange of postings with increasing bemusement. I consider myself an agnostic on the subject of whether Jefferson fathered any of Hemings's children, although I do not rule out the very real possibility that he did. Rather, what interests me is that this controversy has taken on all the aspects of a holy war. I am particularly fascinated by the terminology used by Mr. Coates as he decries the "campaign" against Jefferson. If members of the academy (and others) have honest differences of opinion on the subject, why is this to be construed as a "campaign" one way or the other?In the last few years I have written several articles debunking the mythology created by the Supreme Court concerning the role of Jefferson in the creation of the American patent system and his views concerning that system. My purpose was simply to point out that the Supreme Court's use of the historical record was not only highly selective but in a number of instances simply incorrect. I suppose that one could argue that I had mounted a campaign against Jefferson in so doing, but if mythology is the order of the day, then one wonders why history has any relevance. It seems to me that in the twentieth century a great deal of mythology arose concerning Jefferson which sought to place him on a very high pedestal. The difficulty with that is that the higher the pedestal the easier it is for pigeons to roost...
Jefferson was--and remains--a fascinating individual. He will remain the subject of a great deal of discussion in years to come, but it is doubtful that we will ever know with certainty his role vis-a-vis his slaves, and Sally Hemings in particular.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, June 5, 2001.
Eyler Coates
Mr. Walterscheid wonders why the term "campaign" should be used when referring to this subject, i.e., the paternity allegations against Jefferson, if it is merely honest differences of opinion on the part of members of the academy and others.
This is a good and honest question, and it deserves a straightforward answer. The dictionary defines "campaign" in this context as "a connected series of operations designed to bring about a particular result." Let us examine the way this subject has been pursued and see if it appears to be a connected series of acts with a particular result in mind.
We shall begin by specifying that the particular result aimed for has been to identify Thomas Jefferson as the father of Sally Hemings's children. The question then becomes, has the investigation into this possibility been conducted as a free and open inquiry, or has it been manipulated so as to produce the specified result by suppressing evidence, stifling debate, and avoiding opposing views? Consider these points:
- Dr. Foster, who conducted the DNA tests, was informed of other Jefferson males who visited Monticello and could have been the father of Sally's children, but he refused to include that information in his article.
- The article in Nature had a headline, "Jefferson fathered slaves last child," but the DNA evidence did not and could not specify any Jefferson male as the father. That could only be postulated by combining the DNA evidence with other circumstantial evidence -- an explanation that was not included in the Nature article.
- In the same issue of Nature, Joseph Ellis, now famous for falsifying his military record in Vietnam, stated "Now, DNA analysis confirms that Jefferson was indeed the father of at least one of Hemings' children" -- something the DNA analysis did not and could not do.
- The above sensational headline was picked up by the news media and broadcast widely. Two months later, after the story had passed from public attention, Dr. Foster admitted in a letter to Nature that the DNA evidence did not specifically identify Thomas Jefferson as the father of Sally's children.
- The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation (TJMF) established a research committee to consider the results of the DNA evidence and concluded that it was a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston, and probably of all of the children of Sally Hemings. There was a minority report from one committee member, but it was not shared with the members of the committee until after the public announcement, and was not shared with the public until well after the sensation in the media had died down.
- A statistical analysis, part of the TJHS committee report, ignored the fact other possible fathers with the Jefferson Y chromosome were only likely to visit Monticello when Jefferson was there, and postulated that any other candidate for father would need to arrive and depart Monticello when Jefferson did so.
- A key passage in a letter written by Jefferson's granddaughter had ten words omitted and one new word introduced, which totally reversed the meaning of the passage.
- The Hemings family, after initially giving verbal consent, has refused to allow the exhumation and DNA testing of a son of Madison Hemings in order to determine if his father was a Jefferson. The results of such a test would supply additional scientific information, and could potentially explode the theory that Jefferson fathered all of Sally Hemings's children.
This is not a complete list, but only a few of the dozens of items indicating that this has not been a free and open academic inquiry into the facts and evidence but a "connected series of operations" designed to push a certain conclusion onto the public consciousness. Others may see this as normal attempts to get one's point across, such as occur in advertising or political campaigns, but there's that word again. I must say that I have even witnessed what appears to be an attempt to suppress my side on this H-SHEAR discussion list. One of my posting was suppressed after being initially accepted because it followed too closely upon a previous one, even though some persons on the other side have been allowed to post every other day. The fact that it appeared to be a devastating rebuttal to the opposing side may or may not have had anything to do with it (see Morality at Monticello). Whether resistance to such manipulations amounts to a "holy war" is for each person to decide for themselves.
Whether Mr. Walterscheid's articles concerning the role of Jefferson in the creation of the American patent system would be considered a campaign depends on whether he conducted a series of events to push his view across. Not all campaigns are necessarily evil, and not all involve the suppression of evidence, although such activities are a sure sign of one.
It may well be that we will never know with absolute certainty whether Jefferson actually fathered the children of Sally Hemings or not. But suppressing opposing views only indicates that some people don't really want us to know.
August 1, 2001