Minority Report and Responses

DATE: March 23, 2000
TO: Readers of the Attached Reports
FROM: Daniel P. Jordan, President, TJF
SUBJECT: Dr. Wallenborn's Minority Report

White McKenzie (Ken) Wallenborn, M.D., was a conscientious member of the ad hoc staff committee that I appointed in late 1998 to review, comprehensively and critically, all the evidence, scientific and otherwise, relating to the relationship of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings and to report its findings and recommendations to me in a timely manner. Twice in the spring of 1999, during and after the conclusion of the work of the committee, Ken expressed some reservations to me, and I encouraged him to write up his concerns. It was my understanding at the time that he wanted his report to be for my review and consideration, not general circulation, but Ken now feels that it should be distributed more broadly -- and I agree. I subsequently learned that Ken gave a copy to the committee chairman.

For the record, Ken's concerns were reviewed and considered systematically and seriously. I believe the issues he raised are addressed in the research report of the committee, and I concur with the findings of the committee. I would encourage anyone interested in the general subject to read both reports and draw their own conclusions.

I recognize that honorable people can disagree on this subject, as indeed they have for over two hundred years. Further, we know that the historical record has gaps that perhaps can never be filled, and mysteries that may never be fully resolved. The Foundation stands ready to review any fresh evidence at any time and to reassess our understanding of the matter in light of more complete information.

In the meantime, while respecting fully Ken's opinions, I stand by the research report as circulated.

Thomas Jefferson Foundation
DNA Study Committee
Minority Report
April 12, 1999

Preface:

When Daniel P. Jordan, President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, convened the DNA Study Committee on 12/21/98, he asked the committee to evaluate the DNA study (Eugene Foster et al) in context of all evidence, to assess the impact on historical interpretation at Monticello, and to formulate a course of action for the Thomas Jefferson Foundation. As a result, numerous meetings of the committee were held. Voluminous material was presented and studied, outside opinions were obtained, a discussion meeting was held with the African American Advisory Committee, and discussion and debate freely occurred between members of the committee. As the DNA Study Committee began to formulate its report to Mr. Jordan, certain areas of disagreement became apparent and this has prompted the preparation of a minority report. Because there were many areas of agreement among all of the committee members, these will not be included in the minority report.

Areas of Disagreement:

Historical Evidence

The DNA Study Committee majority appears to agree that the DNA study showed that Eston Hemings direct male line descendants had an identical DNA haplotype to that of Field Jefferson's direct male line descendants and that assuming that Thomas Jefferson's DNA haplotype was identical to his uncle's descendants DNA haplotype, this would prove that Thomas Jefferson was related to Eston Hemings (Sally Hemings youngest son). The DNA Study Committee agrees that this finding alone does not prove that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings. However the majority of the committee feels that in view of multiple strands of documentary and statistical evidence combined with the DNA findings substantiates the paternity of all the children listed under Sally Hemings name in Jefferson's Farm Book. The minority report agrees that there is significant historical evidence that would show that Thomas Jefferson could be the father of Eston Hemings but also strongly feels that there is significant historical evidence of equal statue that indicates that Thomas Jefferson was not the father of Eston Hemings (or any of Sally Hemings' children).

These events happened more or less two hundred years ago and only four or possibly five people (Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings, Randolph Jefferson, Peter Carr, and ? Samuel Carr) would have known the truth about the paternity question. Only one of them has left us direct evidence in their own words and handwriting. On July 1, 1805, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Robert Smith, Secretary of the Navy, in which he said: "The inclosed copy of a letter to Mr. Levi Lincoln will so fully explain it's own object, that I need say nothing in that way. I communicate it to particular friends because I wish to stand with them on the ground of truth; neither better nor worse than that makes me. You will perceive that I plead guilty to one of their charges, that when young and single, I offered love to a handsome lady. I acknowledge its incorrectness. It is the only one founded on truth among all their allegations against me ... " This has to be a very straight forward denial of all the Federalist charges which included the report of a sexual liaison with Sally Hemings (that he had fathered Sally Hemings' children). Some feel that this statement is ambiguous but how can it be? Mr. Jefferson and his cabinet members Robert Smith and Levi Lincoln certainly knew all of the Federalist charges against the president. Thomas Jefferson was not known to issue falsehoods to his intimate associates. The minority report maintains that this statement by Thomas Jefferson is a significantly powerful denial.

In a letter to Dr. George Logan (Penn.) in 1816, Thomas Jefferson said "As to Federal slanders, I never wished them to be answered, but by the tenor of my life, half a century of which has been on a theater at which the public have been spectators and competent judges of it's merit. Their approbation has taught a lesson, useful to the world, that the man who fears no truths has nothing to fear from lies. I should have fancied myself half guilty had I condescended to put pen to paper in refutation of their falsehoods, or drawn to them respect by any notice of myself."

In the courtroom-like atmosphere of this committee study, the defendant has made two rather significant denials in his own words and handwriting of the Federalist charges against him. None of the others who would have had first hand knowledge of the facts have put down statements in their own handwriting and their own words.

Edmund Bacon (born March 28, 1785 near Monticello) had the title of overseer at Monticello from September 29, 1806 until about October 15, 1822 (sixteen years). Edmund Bacon was interviewed at length (several weeks) by the Rev. Hamilton Wilcox Pierson, president of Cumberland College, Princeton, WVA around 1861 or1862 at Mr. Bacon's home. Mr. Bacon recalled that he went to live with Mr. Jefferson on Dec. 27, 1800 and was with him precisely twenty years but Mr. Jefferson recorded his employment as overseer for sixteen years. Possibly Mr. Bacon had started working as early as age sixteen but was not hired as overseer until age twenty and if so would have been working at Monticello when Harriet Hemings was conceived and born. Mr. Bacon's recollections and letters from Thomas Jefferson provided a remarkable record of the years that he was at Monticello. At times his memory was not absolutely accurate on minor matters. Mr. Bacon had many observations about Mr. Jefferson including: "his skin was very clear and pure-just like he was in principle." He also commented on William C. Rives, a youngster, who would stay and play at Monticello with the other boys (most likely the Randolphs, Carrs, and Maria's son, Francis)...Willie would stay with Mr. Bacon rather than at the house (Monticello) because the other boys were too intimate with the negro women to suit him. Bacon also said "he (TJ) could not bear to have a servant whipped, no odds how much he deserved it."

Edmund Bacon also shed some light on the Sally Hemings controversy. "He freed one girl some years before he died, and there was a great deal of talk about it. She was nearly as white as anybody and very beautiful. People said he freed her because she was his own daughter. She was not his daughter, she was ___'s daughter (Rev. Pierson apparently left the name blank to ? protect that individual.). I know that. I have seen him come out of her mother's room many a morning when I was up to Monticello very early." Bacon had to be referring to Harriet Hemings. If Bacon had actually come to live at Monticello at age sixteen, on December 27, 1800 (before Th. Jefferson was inaugurated for his first term as president), he would have been working at Monticello during the time of conception and birth of Sally Hemings last three children -- Harriet, Madison, and Eston. Bacon's observations are certainly valid information and do strongly suggest that another male was having a sexual liaison with Sally Hemings.

Thomas Jefferson Randolph (1792-1875) was the oldest grandson of Thomas Jefferson and was Mr. Jefferson's farm manager and later executor of his estate. T.J. Randolph is a primary witness who was involved directly and who saw a past situation with his own eyes according to Douglas Adair.

Thomas Jefferson Randolph emphatically denied that Mr. Jefferson had commerce with Sally Hemings or any other of his female slaves. Since he "had spent a good share of his life closely about Mr. Jefferson at home and on journeys-in all sorts of circumstances," he could testify that his grandfather was in sexual matters "chaste and pure" -- indeed as "immaculate a man as God ever created." Randall as quoted in Adair's treatise said that Col. Randolph said that he "Slept within sound of his (TJ's) breathing at night." He said that "he had never seen a motion, or a look, or a circumstance which led him to suspect for an instant that there was a particle of familiarity between Mr. Jefferson and Sally Hemings than between him and the most repulsive servant in the establishment --and that no person ever at Monticello dreamed of such a thing."

Thomas Jefferson Randolph also told Randall "Mr. Jefferson had two nephews, Peter Carr and Samuel Carr whom he brought up in his own house. They were the sons of Jefferson's sister and her husband Dabney Carr...who died in 1773...Sally Hemings was the mistress of Peter and her sister Betsey (she was actually the daughter of Sally's half sister) the mistress of Samuel -and from these the progeny which resembled Mr. Jefferson. Both Hemings girls were light colored and decidedly good looking...Their connection with the Carrs was perfectly notorious at Monticello, and scarcely disguised by the latter-never disavowed by them. Samuel's proceedings were particularly open." Col. Randolph told Randall that his mother, Mrs. Gov. Randolph took the "Dusky Sally" stories much to heart, not long before her death she called two of them-the Colonel and George Wythe Randolph-to her. She asked the Colonel if he remembered when _____Hemings (the slave who most resembled Mr. Jefferson) was born. The Col. turned to the book containing the list of slaves and found his birthdate. Martha Jefferson Randolph directed her sons attention to the fact that Mr. Jefferson and Sally Hemings could not have met and were far distant from each other-for fifteen months prior to such a birth. Col. Randolph later while examining an old account book of Jefferson's came on the birthdate again and was able from well known circumstances to prove the fifteen months separation. T.J. Randolph never recorded those circumstances.

Now if those circumstances confirming the fifteen months separation between Mr. Jefferson and Sally Hemings before the birth of _____ Hemings who most resembled Mr. Jefferson--and this by most accounts would be Eston Hemings--this would dramatically change the thinking in regards to the DNA studies...Thomas Jefferson would not be the father of Eston. Another Jefferson DNA Haplotype carrier would be the father of Eston and the stories about Peter Carr and Sally Hemings would probably indicate Peter as the father of Sally's other four children. Intensive research by outstanding historical investigators may be able to uncover this answer.

The Monte Carlo Simulation:

This is an interesting simulation to determine the probability that the timing of Th. Jefferson's known visits to Monticello were related to the conception dates of Sally Hemings five children (the study used six children but the significant evidence indicates only five children) as opposed to the null hypothesis that they were unrelated. According to the results obtained, there is only a 1% chance that Sally Hemings's conceptions are coincidental to TJ's presence at Monticello. Based on the Monte Carlo Evaluation, the fact that all 6 conceptions occur during TJ's visits is 100 times more likely if TJ or someone with the same pattern of presence and absence at Monticello is the father.

Comments from the minority:

Statistics can be misleading. The basis for the numbers used in calculating statistical results have to be proven as true representations. In this simulation, two of the three proofs necessary are probably reliable...conception dates and timing of Mr. Jefferson's visits to Monticello. The third proof cannot be proven...Sally Hemings presence at Monticello is not accurately recorded and her presence or absence cannot be proven as also coinciding with Mr. Jefferson's presence.

A good example would be that if Martha Jefferson's message to her sons that Mr. Jefferson was not in the presence of Sally Hemings for fifteen months prior to the birth of Eston (assuming that she was referring to Eston), the odds that were one hundred to one that TJ was the father would be meaningless.

Also because it is impossible to determine the timing of the presence or absence of other males with the Jefferson DNA haplotype at Monticello, you have no way to compare the probability of their being the father of Sally Hemings children with the probability that Mr. Thomas Jefferson was the father. This evidence just is not there for vital comparison studies.

Wetmore's "Memoirs of Madison Hemings":

The minority feels that Madison was telling the truth as he remembered it in his interview by Mr. Wetmore. However it appears that Mr. Wetmore might have harmed his case because of the use of journalistic license. Mr. Madison Hemings admittedly had no formal education but in the memoirs, Mr. Wetmore has Madison using an amazing vocabulary and grammar, and having a remarkable knowledge of history. All of this was remembered some thirty five or forty years after he was at Monticello. Wetmore's use of direct quotes instead of paraphrasing would have helped make the memoirs more believable. As far as the minority can tell, Wetmore's handwritten notes covering his interview have not been found and as a result it is hard to tell when the words were Madison's or Wetmore's.

Summary:

The results of the DNA studies enhance the possibility that Thomas Jefferson was the father of one of Sally Hemings children, Eston Hemings, but the findings do not prove that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston. This is a very important difference.

There is historical evidence of more or less equal statue on both sides of this issue that prevent a definitive answer as to Thomas Jefferson's paternity of Sally Hemings' son Eston Hemings or for that matter the other four of her children. In fairness to the descendants of Sally Hemings and the descendants of Thomas Jefferson and Martha Wayle Jefferson, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation should continue to encourage in depth historical research in hopes that accurate answers to very sensitive questions may be found.

In regards to the historical interpretation of Thomas Jefferson and his family, Monticello, and slavery at Monticello, The Thomas Jefferson Foundation should continue to present a properly weighted historical interpretation to visitors. As new historical evidence is found, it should continue to be incorporated into interpretive presentations. However, historical accuracy should never be overwhelmed by political correctness, for if it is, history becomes meaningless. Construction of historically inaccurate buildings on the mountaintop at Monticello would detract from the historically accurate picture that the Thomas Jefferson Foundation is trying to portray.

In summary, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation should continue to seek the truth. If the truth is not known, it should be so stated. The minority feels that it would be improper to accept that portion of the DNA Study Committee's report that says "the DNA study when combined with the multiple strands of documentary and statistical evidence, substantiates Thomas Jefferson's paternity of all the children listed under Sally Hemings name in Jefferson's Farm Book." The historical evidence is not substantial enough to confirm nor for that matter to refute his paternity of any of the children of Sally Hemings. The DNA studies certainly enhance the possibility but to repeat, do not prove Thomas Jefferson's paternity. These events happened almost two hundred year ago and there were four (?five) people who might have known the truth about this issue. Only one of them has answered in his own handwriting and words. Thomas Jefferson denied all the allegations except for the "Walker" affair which he admitted.

Respectfully Submitted,
White McKenzie Wallenborn, M.D.
Author of the Minority Report

For a response to these arguments, please see Response to the Minority Report below, prepared by Lucia C. Stanton, Shannon Senior Research Historian of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, April 2000.

DATE: May 18, 2000
TO: All Interested Parties
FROM: Daniel P. Jordan, President, TJF
SUBJECT: TJF Response to the Minority Report

At my request, Lucia C. Stanton, Monticello's Shannon Senior Research Historian, prepared the attached response to the Minority Report.

Ms. Stanton, a Harvard graduate, has studied African-American life at Monticello for almost thirty years and has authored, among other titles, Slavery at Monticello (1996). She is the foremost scholarly authority on the subject, and several other scholars reviewed her document before it was made available to all interested parties.

While fully respecting the right of the author of the Minority Report to express his views, I felt it was appropriate to respond to the issues he raised, and I'm grateful to Ms. Stanton for her clear analysis and commentary. Her views reflect my own -- and, I believe, those of the full committee. We have posted Ms. Stanton's document on our Web site (www.monticello.org), where it joins the original TJF research report as well as the subsequent Minority Report. I encourage the reading of all three items.

_______________________________________________________________

Thomas Jefferson Foundation
Response to the Minority Report
Prepared by Lucia C. Stanton, Shannon Senior Research Historian

April 2000

The issues raised in the Minority Report were discussed at some length in the meetings of the Research Committee on Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson in early 1999. While Committee members recognized that some of the evidence cited in the Minority Report was inconsistent with the Research Report conclusion about Jefferson paternity, the Committee as a whole did not feel it was of sufficient weight to warrant a different conclusion. The five major points of the Minority Report appear below, with responses to them based on the Committee's meetings in 1999 and subsequent discussion among staff and scholars.

1. Jefferson denied the relationship (and by implication, Jefferson would not lie).

This is based mostly on the 1805 cover letter to Robert Smith, where Jefferson admits improper advances to Betsy Walker but adds that "it is the only one founded on truth among all their allegations against me." This has definitely been interpreted as a denial by Malone and some other historians, but it remains ambiguous in the absence of the missing enclosure. Federalist attacks in this period did include the Jefferson-Hemings relationship, but no one has yet identified exactly who or what Jefferson was responding to in this instance. Therefore, it is still impossible to say with certainty what "all their allegations" means.

I too would like to believe Jefferson never lied, but realize that would make him superhuman, and we know (from the work of Joanne Freeman and others) that he sometimes had an elastic conception of the truth, when he believed the stakes for the nation were high. Also, it is important to take into account the ethical values of the day and to consider the possibility that Jefferson might not have viewed a relationship with Sally Hemings as inconsistent with a virtuous life. Americans in general, as Robert McDonald has shown, were not very exercised about the Hemings issue. They were far more disturbed by the Betsy Walker "affair." We know Jefferson's rationalizing talents and can imagine ways he could find a fairly comfortable place for this relationship in his view of himself. As one Jefferson scholar has recently pointed out, Jefferson might have considered it necessary for his health (he had books on the subject of health and sexual activity).

Short answer: While the 1805 cover letter is a piece of evidence to be seriously considered, there is no way it can be viewed as a "direct" or "powerful" denial. It is fraught with ambiguity.

2. Edmund Bacon denied the relationship (and by implication, Bacon too would not lie).

Bacon named someone else (deleted by Rev. Pierson, presumably) as the father of Harriet Hemings. First we had to consider reasons Bacon might have had for absolving Jefferson of the Hemings connection (he was talking to a clergyman in 1860, when mores were decidedly different from those of 1800; he was deeply loyal to Jefferson and proud of his association with a great man, and so forth).

Then there is the issue of timing. Dr. Wallenborn suggests Bacon was at Monticello at the time Harriet Hemings was conceived, in 1800, when Bacon was fifteen. Bacon himself stated he first came to Monticello in 1800. Jefferson's records, however, indicate that Bacon began working at Monticello sometime in 1806, becoming overseer on Sep. 29. Nothing in the records indicates his presence at Monticello before this. Since Bacon's family lived not far from Monticello, it is certainly possible he was on the mountain on an occasional basis. But a regular early-morning presence at the mountaintop -- implied by Bacon's comments -- would suggest that he resided at and was employed at Monticello. Bacon's employment from 1800 to 1806 is extremely unlikely, however, since he is not mentioned in the Memorandum Books until Sep. 1806. After this date, he appears in the Memorandum Books with great frequency.

Short answer: Bacon's statement, because it is in direct conflict with the Madison Hemings account, is one of the stronger pieces of evidence against Jefferson paternity. At the moment, however, it stands alone -- since the Thomas Jefferson Randolph version is undermined by DNA evidence. Additionally, Bacon's (and Pierson's) partisanship and his misrepresentation of crucial dates weaken trust in his testimony.

3. Thomas Jefferson Randolph denied the relationship (and, by implication, Thomas Jefferson Randolph would not lie).

Thomas Jefferson Randolph's version of events was greatly weakened by the DNA evidence, which seems to explode the Carr brothers argument. Dr. Wallenborn adopts the view that only Eston Hemings had a Jefferson father, while Sally Hemings's other children were fathered by a Carr. The Report's findings explained the Committee's view on this issue: that birth patterns, Madison Hemings's account, the freeing of all Sally Hemings's children, and so forth, indicate that the possibility of multiple fathers is very unlikely. Randolph's accounts have the same problems of loyalty and timing as Edmund Bacon's; he told Henry Randall he was in charge of Monticello when Sally Hemings's children were born, years when in fact he was three to sixteen years old. Both Bacon and Randolph misrepresented their ability to know the situation, by changing the chronology.

Dr. Wallenborn puts a lot of emphasis (here and in #4 below) on the issue raised in Henry Randall's account: that Thomas Jefferson Randolph told him Martha Randolph pointed out to him that Jefferson and Sally Hemings "were far distant from each other" for fifteen months before the birth of the Hemings child that most resembled Jefferson. Dr. Wallenborn erroneously states that Randolph found this to be true when examining an old account book. It was Henry Randall who later found the birth date of the child in an old account book and was able to prove, "from well known circumstances," that it was impossible for Jefferson to have been the father. We know, however, from the Memorandum Book and other sources that Jefferson was at Monticello at the right time to father all of Sally Hemings's children. Recognizing this, Dr. Wallenborn suggests instead that it was Sally Hemings who was absent from Monticello. This supposition, however, is irrelevant in this instance. It would be impossible to know "from well known circumstances" about her absence from Monticello. So Randall's conclusion was either recalled incorrectly, misrepresented, or it dealt with a child of someone other than Sally Hemings.

Short answer: Thomas Jefferson Randolph's versions of events have been seriously called into question by the DNA evidence eliminating the Carr brothers and by inconsistencies and misrepresentations in his reports to others. The argument about Sally Hemings's possible absence from Monticello does not apply to the Randolph-Randall accounts.

4. There is insufficient information about Sally Hemings and other Jeffersons to make a valid statistical estimate of probability.

Even without the Monte Carlo simulation, the correlation of Jefferson's presence at Monticello and Sally Hemings's conceptions is striking, with no conception taking place in Jefferson's absences and four of them taking place within three weeks of his arrival back at Monticello. The Monte Carlo statistics merely give a probability percentage to that striking correlation.

The fifteen-month argument is again raised. Since there is nothing to indicate with any certainty which child Randolph and Randall considered most resembled Jefferson, there seems to be no particular grounds for applying the fifteenth-month argument to Eston Hemings. Even if one did, it would mean that Sally Hemings was absent from Monticello from July 1806 to September 1807, a case unusual enough to be mentioned in accounts or family and overseer's letters.

Dr. Wallenborn questions the validity of a Monte Carlo simulation made without comparative data on other Jefferson males, about whom little is known. While it is true that the movements of Jefferson's brother Randolph and his sons is little documented, the fragments of information that have survived do indicate that they were sometimes at Monticello during Jefferson's absences. Yet Sally Hemings never conceived in Jefferson's absence.

Short answer: It is highly unlikely that Sally Hemings was absent from Monticello for any extended period after 1789. The fragmentary documentation about other male Jeffersons provides as much information about their presence at Monticello during Jefferson's absence as during his presence.

5. Madison Hemings's recollections lack credibility because of the language used ("amazing" grammar and vocabulary) and his age (68).

While S. F. Wetmore's 1873 publication of Madison Hemings's memoir -- taken down before the days of audiotaping technology -- is probably not an absolutely verbatim transcript, but it does seem to be an accurate reflection of Hemings's statements. Other interviews Wetmore conducted are very different in language and tone, as is Wetmore's own introduction to the piece. In the case of Hemings's "remarkable knowledge of history," he was not remembering facts heard forty years before, as Dr. Wallenborn says, but, as Hemings states, he learned about Jefferson's public life in the years after he became free. Also, there are abundant examples of individuals with rudimentary educations who could speak or even write with great eloquence. Wetmore was obviously impressed by Madison Hemings, "who would have shone out as a star of the first magnitude," had he lived his life in different circumstances.

However much of the interview was Hemings's exact wording, his claim that Jefferson was his father is not something that bears on precise language. Hemings would not have forgotten who his father was, no matter his age.

Short answer: The details of language and historical facts are irrelevant to the main issue: paternity.

July 28, 2000
TO: Readers of the Attached Reports
FROM: Daniel P. Jordan, President, TJF
SUBJECT: COMMENT ON DR. WALLENBORN'S RESPONSE

The Foundation welcomes the thoughts of our friend and former colleague, Ken Wallenborn, M.D. In the absence of new evidence, the Foundation stands firmly behind the comments of Cinder Stanton, its Shannon Senior Research Historian, as well as the scholarly report the Foundation issued in January 2000. We encourage everyone to read all of the various reports and responses and to form their own opinions on this complicated matter, about which honorable people have disagreed for over two hundred years.

Reply by White McKenzie Wallenborn, M.D.
Author of the Minority Report
Former Clinical Professor, University of Virginia School of Medicine
Former Historical Interpreter, Monticello
June 2000

This is the reply to the response to the Minority Report of the DNA Study Committee by the Thomas Jefferson Foundation through Lucia C. Stanton. With respect to the introductory comments by Mr. Daniel P. Jordan, President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, on March 23, 2000 presenting the "Minority Report": Mr. Jordan's invitation to the public to read both reports (DNA Study Committee and Minority Report) and draw their own conclusions has produced an immense positive response to the "Minority Report" from Jefferson scholars, historians, physicians, scientists, statisticians, active and retired college professors, attorneys, geneaologists, and the general public. Many of those who have taken the time to read the TJMF report have been shocked to see the evidence that the committee used to reach their conclusions.

Several opening comments should be recorded before beginning the point by point discussion. The Foundation response by Ms. Stanton said that the committee as a whole did not feel the Minority Report was of sufficient weight to warrant a different conclusion. This statement is anything but the truth because the committee as a whole did not see the Minority Report until well after the release of the final committee report on January 27, 2000. In other words, the chair of the committee did not share the dissenting report (which was submitted on April 12, 1999) with the complete committee. As a matter of fact, the committee as a whole did not even see the final DNA Study Committee report until 72 hours prior to the release of this report to the public and there was no time to discuss the contents at that time (the committee had finished its deliberations in April 1999 - nine months earlier). There will be more comment about the elastic conception of the truth in section 1.

1. Jefferson denied the relationship (and Ms. Stanton says: "and by implication, Jefferson would not lie.").

In the fall of 1802, James Thomson Callender in a series of scandalous articles in a pro-Federalist weekly newspaper, the "Richmond Recorder" charged Thomas Jefferson with three basic misdeeds. These were as follows: 1) he had a son called Tom by Sally Hemings; 2) that he had an affair with a married woman; and 3) that he had paid off a loan with devaluated currency. Although the Federalists continued to attack Mr. Jefferson most of his public life and throughout his retirement, primarily their charges echoed Callender's charges of 1802. The Federalists used them repeatedly against Jefferson.

Callender's allegations concerning the Walker affair with a reference to the "sable damsel", to whom Mr. Jefferson supposedly turned to after he was rejected by Mrs. Walker, were revived and printed again in 1805 in northern papers. This brought about a national political debate about Th. Jefferson's morality in the cases of Mrs. Walker and the concubinage of Sally Hemings.

Usually the Walker story and the Sally Hemings affair were lumped together in the same articles which confirm his distinct denial in the following letter. On July 1, 1805, Thomas Jefferson wrote a cover letter to Robert Smith, Secretary of the Navy, and enclosed a copy of a letter to Mr. Levi Lincoln, the Attorney General. In this letter Mr. Jefferson pled guilty to one of the Federalists' charges, that when young and single, he offered love to a handsome lady. He acknowledged the incorrectness of the act but said that it is the only one founded on truth among all their allegations against me. There is no element of ambiguity in Jefferson's denial. The other allegations were well known to all.

In his letter to Dr. George Logan in 1816 he uses the exact phrase and capitalization as James T. Callender used, e.g. "As to Federal slanders, I never wished them to be answered, . . .Their approbation has taught a lesson, useful to the world that the man who fears no truths, has nothing to fear from lies. I should have fancied myself half guilty had I condescended to put pen to paper in refutation of their falsehoods, or drawn to them respect by any notice of myself." So it would appear that in this denial he was again specifically referring to Callender's slanders as picked up by the Federalists.

Ms. Stanton quotes Joanne Freeman as saying Mr. Jefferson had an elastic conception of the truth, when he believed the stakes of the nation were high. We are not talking about the stakes of the nation here but the private communication between Th. Jefferson and two of his close personal and political friends. There is no proof, that I am aware of, that would show that Mr. Jefferson told anything but the truth to any of his adult family, friends, or close political associates.

Ms. Stanton also states: "We know Jefferson's rationalizing talents and can imagine ways he could find a fairly comfortable place for this relationship in his view of himself". This statement belies all of Mr. Jefferson's professions of morality, his assertions that a slave master must not abuse those under his control, and especially his strong and well known feelings about miscegenation. An even less scholarly comment was referenced by Ms. Stanton that Jefferson might have considered a sexual liaison with a slave necessary for his health as he had books on the subject of health and sexual activity. This is preposterous . . .in my library are books by Fawn Brodie and Annette Gordon-Reed but by no means do I agree with them nor should anyone make a supposition that I do just because they are in my collection. Th. Jefferson himself never wrote about or was quoted as saying anything that would give credence to these statements.

Robert McDonald writing in "Southern Cultures" said that Callender's allegations had "scant credibility" to readers, and even "Jefferson's reticence which regularly characterized his responses to attacks" did nothing to enhance their believability.

In summary, the 1805 letter to Robert Smith is both an incisive and direct denial by a primary subject and is certainly not fraught with ambiguity or falsehood. Daniel P. Jordan, President of the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, said in reference to Ms. Stanton's responses "Her views reflect my own" but in commenting on the possibility of Mr. Jefferson having a sexual relationship with a slave said in an interview for the Ken Burns documentary on PBS-TV: "My own belief is that, as one of the contemporaries of Jefferson said, it would be morally impossible for that to have occurred."

To view the corresponding portion of Ms. Stanton's comments click here.

2. Edmund Bacon denied the relationship (and Ms. Stanton says: "and by implication, Bacon too would not lie").

Edmund Bacon said in his interview with Rev. H. Pierson that he began working for Mr. Jefferson on Dec. 27, 1800 and had the title of overseer from Sept. 29, 1806 until Oct. 15, 1822. In Thomas Jefferson's Farm Book and Garden Book there are at least two references to Bacon having several jobs at Monticello before he became overseer in 1806. His father had apparently done some contract jobs for Mr. Jefferson and so Edmund Bacon was known to Mr. Jefferson well before 1806. In his interview with Rev. Pierson, Mr. Bacon produced letters of Mr. Jefferson's to him, bills from Monticello, etc. to back up some of his remarks. Thomas Jefferson provided a letter of recommendation for Mr. Bacon when he went West looking for land and employment. Whether or not he was at Monticello at Harriet's or Madison's conception is not nearly as important as his observation that Sally Hemings's male companion was not Thomas Jefferson. Remember that he was there by all accounts when Eston was conceived (if Eston was conceived at Monticello). There are no secrets on a farm and Monticello was no different, so Edmund Bacon would have been aware of who was having an affair with Sally Hemings even if the affair had been going on before Bacon's arrival. Edmund Bacon, being a primary witness, gives a significant observation that Mr. Thomas Jefferson was not involved with Sally Hemings at least for one of her conceptions.

Now again we see undocumented assumptions on the part of the TJMF responder with an attempt to read the mind of Edmund Bacon. Ms. Stanton says: "First we have to consider reasons Bacon might have had for absolving Jefferson of the Hemings connection (he was talking to a clergyman in 1860, when mores were decidedly different from those of 1800; he was deeply loyal to Jefferson and proud of his association with a great man, and so forth)". Of course the main reason Bacon had for absolving Mr. Jefferson was that he was telling the truth about the situation. As to the mores being different in 1860 from those of 1800, it is doubtful that telling a truism (or a falsehood) to a clergyman in 1860 would be different from telling one in 1800. And what would be wrong with being proud of your association with a great man as long as you are willing to tell the truth about him? There just is no good reason for Mr. Bacon to tell lies during his interview. Being forgetful on minor points is understandable after not being around Mr. Jefferson for thirty eight years. As a primary witness, Edmund Bacon's revelations are of significant value in discrediting the purported Jefferson-Hemings affair.

To view the corresponding portion of Ms. Stanton's comments click here.

3. Thomas Jefferson Randolph denied the relationship (and Ms. Stanton says: "and by implication, Thomas Jefferson Randolph would not lie").

Actually the DNA evidence may have strengthened Thomas Jefferson Randolph's version of the events. The DNA applies only to Eston Hemings and not to Sally Hemings other four children and in no way eliminates Peter or Samuel Carr from being the father of those four children. The DNA evidence indicates that Eston's father was someone carrying the Jefferson Y-Chromosome. Thomas Jefferson Randolph (and Henry S. Randall) reported that Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings could not have met-were far distant from each other-for fifteen months prior to the birth of the Hemings who looked most like Thomas Jefferson and this most likely would have been Eston . . .and here Ms. Stanton erroneously gives these dates as July 1806 to September 1807 when these dates of 15 months separation should be February 1807 to May 1808 (see section 4 of the response). Thus if Eston's father was a Jefferson and Mr. Jefferson was not around Sally Hemings for fifteen months prior to Eston's birth, then the most likely father would be Randolph Jefferson or one of his sons. Eston is said to be the son of Hemings that most resembled Thomas Jefferson. He was six feet one inch tall and decidedly very light skinned. Madison Hemings was five feet seven inches and a darker mulatto. Beverly's appearance is only vaguely described. Eston was noted by one person in Cincinnati to look just like a Jefferson bust in Washington, thus it would appear that Eston was most likely the one referred to in TJR's comments to Henry S. Randall.

In response to Ms. Stanton's statement that "we know, however, from the Memorandum Books and other sources that Jefferson was at Monticello at the right time to father all of Sally Hemings children". A study of the Memorandum Books, the Farm Book, the Garden Book, and the Monticello Research Staff's Chronology Record of time and location of Mr. Jefferson do not support Ms. Stanton's statement. We do know the dates of Mr. Jefferson's departures from Philadelphia and Washington and the dates of his departures from Monticello to return to those cities. However it is difficult to pinpoint his presence at Monticello on or near the estimated dates of conception. Mr. Jefferson was a man on the move when he returned to Monticello and would make visits overnight or for longer periods to places such as Poplar Forest, Enniscorthy, Warren, Scottsville, Montpelier, Natural Bridge, etc. We do know that he was at Monticello on April 17, 1804 which is ten days before the estimated date of Madison Hemings's conception. He was there at the time of the death of his younger daughter, Maria Jefferson Eppes. She was the daughter that looked most like Th. Jefferson's wife and died from the same cause, late complications of childbirth. It is extremely unlikely that he would show his grief at that time with all of the family around by having a sexual liaison with Sally Hemings ten days after Maria's death. As to Hemings's presence or absence from Monticello, there is only sketchy evidence of her whereabouts prior to 1801. From 1801 until 1810, there is almost no evidence bearing on this matter. While Mr. Jefferson was serving as President (1801-1809) and away from Monticello, the house was kept locked. During this time he leased some of his slaves out and it would not be unreasonable to think that Hemings and some of the other house staff might have been loaned out to neighbors or nearby relatives at Edgehill, Snowden, Varina, Farmington, etc.

In summary, Thomas Jefferson Randolph's comments to Henry S. Randall were quite candid and were most likely closer to the truth on these matters. And because he was a primary witness, they are very meaningful.

4. There is insufficient information about Sally Hemings and other Jeffersons to make a valid statistical estimate of probability.

This was discussed in point three but to be more specific let me give here the estimated dates of conception (EDC), F. Neiman's dates that Th. Jefferson was supposed to be at Monticello (FND), and the dates that the Farm Book, Garden Book, Memorandum Books, and Monticello Research Department's Chronological Record can give Mr. Jefferson's exact location on specific date (SLD):

Harriet 1
  EDC - Jan. 11, 1795
  FND - Jan. 16, 1794-Feb. 20, 1797 (No exclusions by Neiman)
  SLD - Jan. 1, 1795 and Feb. 1, 1795 only [See 1st Note]

Beverly
  EDC - July 8, 1797
  FND - July 11, 1797-Dec. 4, 1797 (No exclusions by Neiman)
  SLD - July 1, 1797 (only date with reference to TJ's presence inthis entire time). [See 2nd Note]

Harriet
  EDC - Aug. 21, 1800
  FND - May 29, 1800-Nov. 1800 (No exclusions by Neiman)
  SLD - From Aug. 12 until Sept. 8, TJ's location unknown [See 3rd Note]

Madison
  EDC - Apr. 27, 1804
  FND - Apr. 5, 1804- May 11, 1804 (No exclusions by Neiman)
  SLD - Apr. 8, 12, and May 9 are the only dates listing TJ's location at Monticello. [See 4th Note]

Eston
  EDC - Aug. 28, 1807
  FND - Aug. 5, 1807-Oct. 1, 1807 (No exclusions by Neiman)
  SLD - July 23, 1807 only. The next date recording TJ's location was Sept. 13, 1807 and he  was actually at Warren and Enniscorthy this
            date. [See 5th Note]

THOMAS JEFFERSON FOUNDATION NOTES: Jefferson's Memorandum Books, his nearly day-by-day account of his expenses, show him at Monticello on many more dates than Dr. Wallenborn notes. A chronology based on the Memorandum Books and compiled by James A. Bear, Jr., has been available in Monticello's research files for decades. The complete Memorandum Books, annotated by Mr. Bear and Lucia Stanton, were published in print in 1997 and are available online at founders.archives.gov. Notes on relevant dates are below.

[Note 1: The Memorandum Books entries for 1795 indicate there is no reason to believe Jefferson was anywhere other than Monticello from January 16 - February 20. On January 8, Jefferson notes that he wrote to his son-in-law asking him to pay "the balance of Stras’s money to Mussi of Philadelphia," indicating that he was not in the Capital at the time. Following notations show Jefferson making payments related to the operation of the Monticello plantation.  A review of Jefferson's correspondence show him writing letters from Monticello on December 26, 1794, and January 28, 1795, with no indication of intervening travel.]

[Note 2: The Memorandum Books entries for 1797 indicate Jefferson arrived at Monticello on July 11 and did not leave until December 4, when he "Set out in the evening for Philadelphia."]

[Note 3: The Memorandum Books entries for 1800 indicate Jefferson arrived at Monticello on May 29 and did not leave until November 24, when he "Set out from Monticello for Washington."]

[Note 4: Jefferson was known to be at Monticello on April 17, 1804, because this is the date that his daughter Maria died at Monticello. The Memorandum Books entries for 1804 indicate Jefferson departed Washington on April 1 and arrived at at Monticello on April 4 and then left Monticello on May 11 and paid for a ferry at Georgetown, Washington, DC, on May 13.]

[Note 5: The Memorandum Books entries for 1807 indicate Jefferson departed Washington on August 1 (paid for a ferry at Georgetown) and likely arrived at Monticello on April 4 or 5, having paid for dinner at "Gordon's," often his last stop before Monticello. The 1807 entries also indicate he left Monticello on September 11, having stopped by Enniscorthy and paid for a ferry at "Warren's" on his way to Poplar Forest, but that he returned to Monticello on September 16, having paid for the return ferry at Warren's. He did not leave Monticello for Washington until October 1, on which date he noted being at Montpelier, James Madison's home, a day's journey north.]

There are some striking coincidences which also add to the perplexity. For example, when Jefferson finally came home after his second term as President, for some reason Hemings quit having children. Randolph Jefferson (TJ's brother and a possible father of Eston) was widowed probably as early as 1796 but as soon as he remarried in late 1808 or early 1809, Hemings had no more children. Thomas Jefferson, Jr. (Randolph's son and a possible father of Eston) married on Oct. 3, 1808 and after this date, she had no more children. Obstetrical calculations are notoriously fallible and coupled with early or late deliveries being entirely possible, throw more doubt on the Monte Carlo Simulation studies based on these factors. At any rate, Neiman's statistics cry out for valid comparative studies of the other Jefferson males who might have fathered Eston and in the absence of these comparisons, the results are inconclusive. Because no accurate records were kept of these other Jefferson male visits to Monticello, no comparisons can be performed. And given the fact that there is no proof of Sally Hemings's presence at Monticello when Eston was conceived, the picture really becomes muddled.

5. Madison Hemings recollection lack credibility because of language used (Ms. Stanton says: "amazing grammar and vocabulary") and his age 68.

Wetmore's article about Madison Hemings can not be called an "accurate reflection of Hemings's statements" as there are not direct quotations of Madison Hemings before and/or subsequent to the publication that reaffirm Wetmore's opinions. To make such a statement without access to Wetmore's interview notes just is not acceptable. Madison Hemings did not sign the original document or at least there is no record of a signature to affirm concurrence with Wetmore's statements. There can be no doubt that the language is Wetmore's and whether or not he changed the content to fit his (Wetmore's) strong political agenda is unknown but becomes suspect. In other words, this document is very problematic and should not be considered as a primary source of evidence.

In response to Ms. Stanton's statement that "Hemings would not have forgotten who his father was, no matter his age", it is almost impossible for anyone to say with absolute certainty who his father was. DNA can rule out paternity but does not prove it as we have seen in the case of Eston Hemings. Your parent(s) can tell you who your father is but even this is sometimes wrong, as is seen in the case of Thomas Woodson, who certainly did not know who his father was. If you read Wetmore's article carefully, at no time does Madison Hemings say that his mother told him that Thomas Jefferson was his father.

In final response to Ms. Stanton's comment that "the details of language and historical facts are irrelevant to the main issue: paternity", the entire questionable composition of Wetmore's publication, coupled with the fact that Madison never acknowledged the source of his information as to whom his father was, are very relevant to the main issue of paternity.

The author of the Minority Report of the DNA Study Committee would like to conclude with a statement: If the Thomas Jefferson Foundation and the DNA Study Committee majority had been seeking the truth and had used accurate legal and historical information rather than politically correct motivation, their statement should have been something like this: "After almost two hundred years of study including recent DNA information, it is still impossible to prove with absolute certainty whether Thomas Jefferson did or did not father any of Sally Hemings five children." This statement is accurate and honest and it would have helped discourage the campaign by leading universities (including Thomas Jefferson's own University of Virginia), magazines, university publications, national commercial and public TV networks, and newspapers to denigrate and destroy the legacy of one of the greatest of our founding fathers and one of the greatest of all of our citizens.

White McKenzie Wallenborn, M.D.

Second Revision: June 29, 2000