Customer Reviews

In Defense of Thomas Jefferson: The Sally Hemings Sex Scandal

5 star:		(12)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

My interest in Jefferson began not in history class, but with the recent miniseries by HBO entitled "John Adams." The mild-mannered, opinionated but deeply romantic man from Monticello fascinated me so much I started reading everything I could get my hands on about him. The more I learned about his personal likes and dislikes, his habits, his virtues and failings, and relationship with his wife and daughters, the more implausible it seemed that he would conduct a sexual affair with a much younger servant. But like most "doubters," I remained quiet, convinced the incriminating evidence against him would condemn most of my arguments.

I find it ironic, therefore, that this book would not only mention "John Adams" as evidence of how the Hemings scandal has been absorbed by popular culture (indeed, one of the closing scenes finds Jefferson on his deathbed, with a weeping Sally at his side) but also go about debunking many myths represented in most history books as "fact." Everyone knows Sally Hemings was Martha Jefferson's half sister, right? To my astonishment, there is no actual evidence! It was inferred by later biographers hoping to give a reason for his potential interest, along with the belief that Sally resembled Martha.

Discovering that led me to wonder what else history books were throwing at us without conclusive evidence. Having finished reading this volume, the answer is "a lot." All the points it raises are valid. Many of them have been argued against before, but certain evidence has been all but ignored that deserves to be brought to the forefront (namely, Jefferson's horrendous health, including frequent, crippling migraines, which anyone would admit would hamper sexual shenanigans). It raises significant questions about paternity, whether or not it was feasible that Sally would be monogamous (her mother was not, nor were her sisters), introduces us to the four other most likely suspects (Randolph Jefferson is the most obvious conclusion, and the most likely), reveals the weaknesses in the DNA tests, points out the motivations of our modern "scholars," and reminds us that fathers dictate the sex of the child. If Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally's children, why would he have so many sons with her, and all daughters (minus a miscarried son) with Martha?

The book's one fault is that it often repeats evidence three or four times in different chapters. I understand this is to reinforce the various testimonies and arguments, but it can become rather repetitive.

If you are undecided in this matter (few people are), this presents a solid case for his defense. If like me, you are unwillingly convinced the affair transpired but find it difficult to reconcile with the rest of his actions and principles, this will be a welcome reassurance that you are not the only one who finds the sex scandal hard to comprehend. If you are a true believer, this may raise some important questions.

If nothing else, we must consider the source and remember that a man should never be condemned without damning evidence. And the evidence in this case is hardly damning.

The last 40 years in American historiography have seen the rise of the "revisionist" historian. These historians take a political stance and ramrod all history through this prism. The larger issues of race and gender as well as the "hot potato" of slavery has clouded the judgment of many people when considering the EVIDENCE of the Jefferson-Hemmings "affair". They want to take down the heroic image of a "rich, white, man" and elevate the stature of a poor slave woman. This is all well and good IF and ONLY IF the evidence bears this out. Unfortunately for many paternity believers, the historical evidence points toward another Jefferson as the father of Eston Hemmings (the DNA match). We can see the same brand of revisionism at work in communist theory "popular histories", feminist theory histories, and queer theory histories that manipulate the evidence to prove Jefferson raped a 14 year old slave, or Michelangelo was homosexual, or Julius Caesar was attempting to overthrow Rome's bourgeoisie and thus was murdered. Believe it or not, books have been written attempting to prove all this.

As someone who reads a lot of history, I can give the reader of this review an easy way to tell if you are reading good, solid history, or revisionist BS -- if the author is "psychoanalyzing" the person in question it's bunk. Ask any psychologist if they would feel comfortable offering authoritative statements about a person they have never had "on their couch." Historians can't use Freudian approaches to come to new conclusions about people who lived centuries ago.

If you think Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemmings, read this book. Then read a pro-paternity book. Ask yourself who uses more evidence and who is relying on psychological interpretations and modern ideas to establish historical FACT.

In Defense of Thomas Jefferson chronicles the alleged sexual relationship between Thomas Jefferson and his slave, Sally Hemings. Author William H. Hyland, Jr. has done an exhaustive amount of research and covers a great deal of ground left unexamined by other offerings dedicated to this controversial aspect of American history. It is my belief that Mr. Hyland has presented us with a very important and thought provoking work.

I found Mr. Hyland's approach to writing, In Defense, quite novel and interesting. As a civil litigator and former prosecuting attorney, Hyland presents his case as it would be presented in a court of law. Reliance on the facts, eyewitness testimony, the elimination of hearsay evidence and the impeachment of witnesses are integral in the making of Hyland's case.

In Defense, opens two specific areas of research that, in my opinion, have been lacking in some other analyses dealing with Jefferson-Hemings. First, Thomas Jefferson's state of health is brought to the fore. Hyland postulates that it would be unlikely that Jefferson, at age 64 and in poor health, would have been able to father Eston Hemings, who was born in 1808. Eston of course was the only one of Sally's children that can be linked to a Jefferson family male via DNA tests. Second, Hyland introduces the viable possibility that Jefferson's younger brother, Randolph, or one of Randolph's sons, may in fact have fathered Eston. Randolph, along with his sons would fit the Y chromosome DNA match. Hyland deserves high grades for incorporating these topics into his book as both are essential to any reasonable discussion of the facts associated with this debate.

In Defense also examines the views and opinions of many major Jeffersonian biographers and scholars. Some have steadfastly maintained one particular position over the years, while others have reversed themselves, both pro and con. Hyland delves into the possible motivating factors for these reversals of opinion. I found this particular aspect of the book to be very interesting and enlightening.

Finally, no book on this topic would be complete without a discussion of the DNA evidence presented to the world by Dr. Eugene Foster in 1998. Mr. Hyland covers the DNA question extensively with quotations, thoughts and opinions of those who actually participated in the study.

These are only a few areas where, In Defense of Thomas Jefferson excels. I encourage anyone interested in the Jefferson-Hemings debate to read this book.

In Defense of Thomas Jefferson will not settle this debate, in fact, it will probably intensify it. However, Mr. Hyland's effort, I believe, offers yet another path of research to all who wish to approach the study of Jefferson-Hemings in a fair and unbiased way. I encourage all new comers to this area of study to read all the major works on this topic, both pro and con, and draw your own conclusions.

Mr. Hyland has covered a topic filled with deceitful manipulations by some foundations, some members of academia, certain book authors and some of the misguided media. Individuals researching the slavery issue have "piggy backed" upon this controversy to tie the two together. This tactic has failed and Mr. Hyland names those responsible. If you are a contributor or visitor to Monticello you may wish to carefully read of their input to this FIASCO.

A major agenda (in the name of slavery research) was launched in Oct. 1992 by Professor Peter Onuf, UVA History Department (his history chair sponsored by Monticello), and is covered in "Jefferson Legacies." Lucia Stanton, senior Monticello researcher, states on pages 173-174, "Oral traditions originating with the children of Sally Hemings strongly support the connection, (her earlier statement that Fawn Brodie revived the old James Callender claim that suggested a romantic claim). The next year, 1993 Dianne Swann-Wright was hired by Monticello to head the Getting Word Project (10 prominent African-Americans including NAACP Chairman, Julian Bond). Mrs Swann-Wright was appointed Chairman of their study group that has been charged with biased and one sided reporting and with a preconceived opinion on how the study should come out. One Monticello senior employee reported (slapping down a document on the table)........."NOW WE HAVE HIM"..........it's all covered in the book.

My own copy of an Eston Hemings family letter states the long believed oral family claim that he descended from "a Jefferson uncle or nephew." This is a reference to Mr. Jefferson's much younger brother, Randolph and his sons, who came among the slaves and danced and played the fiddle until late night hours. My research reveals that they are probably correct.........the CHOSEN DNA of Eston Hemings descendant, John Weeks Jefferson, was the ONLY DNA connected to the Hemings and Dr Foster was well aware of this and I knew if his DNA went to Nature without a genealogical history explanation, as I had suggested, and an almost GUARANTEE there would be a match...and there was. He never submitted the Randolph and sons information to Nature until a later issue (Jan 7, 1999), too late to stop the original false headline. All of this and other deep details of this vast agenda to degrade Mr. Jefferson is well covered in this book.

Every American should read it and demand from Monticello a more FULL detailed and UNBIASED research. They own his home but they do not own his legacy....we all do. Annette Gordon-Reed's books and misguided statements that Thomas Jefferson fathered 7 of Sally's children is a disgrace to the American public, YET she was awarded several book awards.........where was the research that these boards did?? There is absolutely NO proof anywhere (including Monticello), that proves Thomas Jefferson fathered slave children.

You will be proud that Mr. Hyland has exposed this FALSE claim of various people.

Herb Barger

Founder, Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society [...]

Mr. Hyland's book provides a well-written, logical, and technically supported review of an issue which has been abused by the politically-correct crowd and those intent on rewriting history...namely, his alleged paternity of his slave's children as initially published in 1802 by a political muckraker. The issue grew legs after a highly controversial and misleading publication of the dna test and the possibility of Jefferson's paternity and spawned several books and articles denigrating Jefferson's character, motivations, and value to our country, all the while using a misleading application of said dna test, hear-say, innuendo and imagination as the mainstay of their assumptions.

Hyland brings witnesses for and against the defendant, and discusses their significance to the case; their testimony being their written statements (or books) on the subject of Jefferson's character and actions. Most interesting and surprising are those allied against Jefferson. There is an apparent concerted effort and collusion between an eminent Jeffersonian history scholar at the university Jefferson founded, together with individuals at the foundation responsible for the maintenance of Jefferson's home and other noted history and law professors, all intent on denigrating Jefferson's legacy and his effect on our nation for reasons not quite clear.

There is some allusion to an effort at moral equivalency with the timing of the Jefferson/Hemings dna release coinciding with the Clinton impeachment. Then there are those who are apparently intent on making Jefferson the posterboy for racial inequality, mysogeny, and miscegenation and making up history, or dismissing documented history, to effect their ends. Throughout the book the underlying idea is that Jefferson is being assaulted by loosely termed (and in some cases discredited) "historians" with the idea of "presentism"; or a manner of reviewing and judging the subject through the glasses of our present social myopia instead of basing the history on known facts from another place in time. It is one thing to assume that because one child of Hemings carried a Jefferson paternal haplotype (along with about 24 other sexually mature male Jeffersons) that he was related to a Jefferson; it is another thing entirely to base one's credibilty on the available facts and decree that Jefferson fathered any or all Hemings' children.

This book is a refreshing new look at this issue without the emotional, racial, and political foment that has been wrought by those with an axe to grind.

Thomas Jefferson has been on trial in the court of public opinion since 1802 regarding his alleged affair with Sally Hemings. In a democratic society, the defendant does not have to prove innocence. The defense only has to raise reasonable doubt. In Defense of Thomas Jefferson is a resounding success in that light.

Hyland's thesis relies on several key points. Most notably, the famous DNA test in 1998 does not prove that Thomas Jefferson was the father of one, let alone six, of Sally Hemings's children. The test proved only that one of at least seven possible Jefferson descendents (including Thomas) fathered one of the children. Hyland contradicts several other "facts" that have led to the conventional wisdom of Jefferson's guilt. He borrows heavily from previous Jefferson biographies and from original documents such as Jefferson farm records and travel logs to present more than enough evidence to cast reasonable doubt. And, Hyland presents a strong, circumstantial case that Jefferson's brother, Randolph, may have actually been the father of one or more Hemings children. Whether or not the theory holds water, one can safely surmise that the odds are not significantly worse - and perhaps better - that Randolph was the father.

Not all of the evidence is completely in Jefferson's favor. Hyland acknowledges that Jefferson likely was present at Monticello during all six conceptions of Hemings's children. Although in some instances, the timing would have been quite fortuitous (especially for a 64 year old man in frail health) because the overlap between Jefferson's presence and the projected conception window was just a few days. Hyland (and other pro-Jefferson historians) have been criticized for the character defense. This defense states, in essence, that Jefferson's refined status and his open hostility to miscegenation (mixing of the races) made an affair with Hemings a "moral impossibility." This is a relatively minor point in the overall defense argument, however. Finally, Hyland asserts that Jefferson most likely could not have fathered Heming's' male children because Jefferson's "legitimate" children all were girls (except for one nonviable male). This is flatly false, barring some unknown genetic abnormality.

Hyland's writing style is direct; and it sometimes borders on hostile. One may forgive this, however, on several counts. First, an attorney's job (Hyland is an attorney for his "real job") is to make a direct case with much force. Also, Jefferson opponents, including Annette Gordon-Reed and Dianne Swann-Wright, have been so openly vitriolic to Jefferson in their pursuits that one may be forgiven for being, well, defensive. Hyland unfortunately resorts to ad hominem attacks in isolated sections. The only other criticism of the book, as many have pointed out, is that the book is repetitive. Hyland raises the same points sometimes three and four times. This may be a quality tactic in the courtroom. In a book, however, it just seems monotonous.

Overall, Hyland presents a very compelling case. It is not conclusive. But, it does not have to be if Jefferson is the figure on trial. Unfortunately, I think Hyland is largely preaching to choir. The issue is so divisive that most have already decided on Jefferson's guilt or innocence. If this is the first Jefferson read, one should read several other accounts, including Gordon-Reed's, and draw one's own conclusions.

The discussion concerning whether Thomas Jefferson sired children by his slave Sally Hemings continues. Author William G. Hyland argues against the majority position that Jefferson probably did. Hyland, who's an attorney, states up front that his aim in this book is to serve as Jefferson's defense attorney. While an interesting approach, readers should beware, since the role of a defense attorney is to vindicate his client. It is not to consider the preponderance of evidence and adjudicate the matter in a non-partisan manner. Accordingly, Hyland serves as Jefferson's attorney rather than a historian of American history. Whether Hyland would win this case in a court of law is not the subject of this review. Instead, I wish to offer a critique of Hyland's handling of the historical data.

A book length review would be required to address such an abundance of historiographical problem present in the pages of Hyland's book. Therefore, I will mention the most glaring and troubling items. For more balanced approaches, interested readers may wish to consult John Adams by David McCullough; Alexander Hamilton by Ron Chernow; Adams vs. Jefferson: The Tumultuous Election of 1800 by John Ferling; Thomas Jefferson by R. B. Bernstein; Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy and "The Hemingses of Monticello by Annette Gordon-Reed).

Did Jefferson possess an impeccable moral character? Hyland contends that Jefferson was so moral a man that a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings would certainly not have occurred. Really? Jefferson admitted to making advances on multiple occasions toward a married woman named Betsy Walker. Eventually, Walker told her husband who demanded satisfaction. This was prior to Jefferson's marriage. So, we must consider that he may have matured with years. Unfortunately, he did not. Jefferson's "head and heart" letter to Maria Cosway reveals he was in an inappropriate relationship with a married woman while in France after the death of his wife. Though it is uncertain if the relationship was sexually consummated, it is not in dispute that Jefferson had an inappropriate emotional attachment to the married Maria, enjoyed flirting with and spending an inordinate amount of time with her. Although this does not establish that Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Hemings, it renders ineffectual Hyland's contention that Jefferson's moral character would prohibit him from such a relationship.

Does Hyland apply differing standards of evidence? Hyland rejects the testimony of Madison Hemings, one of Sally's children who claimed Jefferson was his father. Hyland asserts without evidence that Madison was coerced by the journalist who wrote the piece and discounts Madison's testimony because it was given a little more than 40 years after Jefferson's death. However, he does not apply the same standard to the testimony of his "unimpeachable" witness Edmund Bacon. He further assumes without any evidence that Madison was not told by his mother Sally that Jefferson was his father and that he concocted the story whole cloth. It is noteworthy that there is a notation in the United States Census three years prior to the Madison Hemings interview which states that Madison was "Thomas Jefferson's son."

Hyland regards the testimony of Jefferson's family (i.e., daughter, granddaughter, grandson) as unimpeachable, disregarding any motive they may have had to protect the name of their beloved father/grandfather. All three of these family members pointed to the Carr brothers as the father(s) of the Hemings children. Once the DNA tests discredited that possibility and the Carr brothers were exonerated as a possible father of Eston Hemings, a new culprit was needed. Since the DNA test confirmed that a Jefferson fathered the Hemings children, another Jefferson needed to be found to fit the bill...enter Randolph Jefferson. Curiously, one of the arguments Hyland uses for Randolph being the father was that the names given to the Hemings children were not Jefferson family names but rather names from Randolph's mother's family. This is laughable, since Thomas Jefferson and Randolph Jefferson were brothers with the same mother. This is only an example of the sort of arguments repeatedly put forth by Hyland.

Hyland also ignores the testimonies of Lighthorse Harry Lee, a Revolutionary War hero and father of General Robert E. Lee, and John Hartwell Cocke, a University of VA Board member. Hyland asserts these men are not credible witnesses since they were Federalists with a political agenda. But if agendas are on the table, why should readers dismiss Lee and Cocke while accepting the testimonies of Jefferson's family members at the time who would want to avoid the scandal of a southern patriot siring children through a negro slave?

False and Misleading Information: Hyland quotes David McCullough's John Adams in order to establish that John Adams did not believe the accusations against Jefferson. However, if you read the passage in its entirety you see that McCullough clearly states that Adams did believe the reports. In addition, Hyland gives the impression that Abigail Adams invited Jefferson over for tea shortly before Jefferson's inauguration and writes of their deep and affectionate friendship of 40 years. He states, "Abigail was charmed by Jefferson's perfect manners, his variety of interests, and depth of reading." However, the statement is anachronistic and refers to her thoughts of a much earlier time. Abigail was not in the least "charmed" by Jefferson at this point in time. Her husband had just lost the election of 1800, which was likely the nastiest election in American history. Jefferson had loosed his henchman James Callender on Adams who wrote scathingly of Adams calling him a "repulsive pedant, a "gross hypocrite," and "in his private life, one of the most egregious fools upon the continent." Callender also charged that Adams was "that strange compound of ignorance and ferocity, of deceit and weakness," a "hideous hermaphroditical character which was neither the force of firmness of a man, nor the gentleness and sensibility of a woman." So, Abigail was not on friendly terms with Jefferson at this time. In fact, it severed their relationship with Jefferson for many years.

Miscellaneous Observations

Hyland's presentation of the "expert witnesses" to his readers is somewhat misleading. The bios of those who oppose Jefferson's fathering the children of Sally Hemings are replete with complete academic titles and honors received while those of an opposite view are described simply as "Professor" of such and such university with no mention of distinguished academic titles or honors. This is surprising, since two of these historians are Pulitzer Prize winning authors.

In the Preface, Hyland states that Thomas Jefferson died a debtor having spent his fortune launching a nation and praises Jefferson for selling a large portion of his library to the Library of Congress after the British destroyed it during the War of 1812. Readers are not likewise informed, however, that Jefferson spent his fortune building and rebuilding Monticello and living a lifestyle that was well above his means. The selling of his library for $23,000 came at a time when Jefferson desperately needed it for his debt.

Hyland rightly criticizes the moral character of James Callender, the tabloid journalist who broke the "Sally" story. Callendar was a despicable character who was responsible for attacking both Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. Hyland states that his attack on Jefferson was motivated by revenge because he would not give him a desired political appointment. This part of the story is correct. However, he conveniently leaves out a pertinent part of the story. Callender was upset with Jefferson because he had been jailed as a result of the Alien and Sedition Acts for writing a scathing piece on John Adams during the Election of 1800. When Jefferson took office, Callender was released and given money by Jefferson. Why? Because Callender was jailed for doing Jefferson's dirty work with the piece he had written about Adams. Jefferson not only financially supported Callender during this time he also saw the proofs of the Adams story and gave hearty approval writing, "Such papers cannot fail to produce the best effects." After the "Sally" story, Abigail Adams wrote concerning Callender that the serpent Jefferson "cherished and warmed had turned and bit the hand that nourished him."

This is only a fraction of the egregious errors found in this book. Certainty eludes historians pertaining to the father(s) of Sally Hemings's children. However, there is a very good possibility that Thomas Jefferson was indeed the father of one or more and maybe all of her children. The Monticello Foundation has said as much and has never claimed we now know with absolute certainty that Jefferson fathered the Hemings children. However, Hyland takes the view that he has given irrefutable proof that Jefferson was NOT the father. But this is claiming far more than the evidence can bear. This is not an issue that can be proven in a court of law. All of the witnesses are dead. This should be approached with appropriate historical methodology and even then intelligent people will likely come to different conclusions. So be it.

"Everyone is entitle to their own opinion but not their own facts." Senator D. Patrick Moynihan

I've been reading Presidential history for about 20 years and the Thomas Jefferson-Sally Hemings story remains, in my opinion, the most controversial and persistent Presidential rumor, among Presidents who left office before I was born in early 1963. And intelligent, thoughtful, open-minded people can disagree as parts of the story remain inconclusive. As an analytical engineer, I review data all the time and attempt to recreate what really happened. Even when reviewing what just happened, it's often possible only to develop a theory that fits the facts, which isn't the same as "the truth."

William Hyland's book presents all the applicable data that I've ever heard of in lawyerly fashion: 1) Here is the data. 2) Here are parts of the data that are irrefutable. 3) Here are parts that are demonstrably false. 4) Here are parts of that data that we can't be sure about one way or the other, and why. 5) Here is my interpretation of what's left, weighing those parts that are debatable. In this case, Mr. Hyland presents more data on the subject than I knew existed. Travel records, medical histories, DNA evidence, visitors recollections, family stories, newspaper interviews, and expert opinion.

- Some is unquestioned and accepted by all reasonable observers: i) The scandal started when James Callender, a drunken sot and frustrated office seeker, wrote scathing articles in a Federalist Newspaper. If Mr. Callender were alive today, he would be writing stories about "batboy" for supermarket tabloids. ii) Thomas Jefferson and Eston Hemings share a male ancestor. The DNA evidence clearly supports this claim.

- Some data is demonstrably false: i) Madison Hemings claimed he was named by Dolly Madison during a winter visit but Madison and Jefferson records show that she was never there during the winter. ii) One pro-paternity author (Annette Gordon-Reed) quotes family letters, implying exact transcriptions, but left out words (accidentally or intentionally, no one knows) that change the meaning of those quotes. iii) The Woodson family has long held that they had a "President in the family" but the DNA test clearly shows this to be patently false.

- Some data is debatable: i) an early biographer claimed he had records indicating that Thomas and Sally were apart for 15 months making it impossible for the two of them to be the parents of one of Sally's documented children. That record has been lost, though the claim is well documented. ii) Was is possible for an old man (Jefferson was twice the colonial life expectancy at the time) to have a vigorous, decade long, love life with a girl 30 years his junior? It's not impossible but several doctors say not likely. The list of medical problems Jefferson suffered during the affair period would have quelled his lust for any woman.

In a court of law, the data presented, accepted, refuted and debated would not lead to a conviction in court. Hyland points out that the difference between criminal versus civil guilty standards (beyond a reasonable doubt versus more likely than not). Thomas Jefferson could never be convicted of rape, a charge leveled by some paternity advocates. There are too many other possible fathers and too much evidence suggesting that he did not do it. It is also unlikely that he could be forced to pay child support for the children whose paternity has not been genetically excluded.

Reviewing all the evidence presented, it is much more likely that Randolph Jefferson or Peter Carr fathered children with Sally Hemings. The descendants of Easton Hemings held that Uncle Randolph was their ancestor for 17 decades, based on slave oral tradition.

I would love to see a book as well-written and as well-researched as this one written by the "pro-paternity" side. If the best that group can do is Annette Gordon-Reed's "The Hemings of Monticello" then I'll remain disappointed. She fits the facts to her theory with a sledge hammer while facts slide into Mr. Hyland's theory with little or no effort.

Intelligent, reasonable people can still reach different conclusions but I think Mr. Hyland makes an excellent case: Thomas Jefferson had six children, with his wife.

As a forensic psychologist, obtaining the relevant data, discussing them objectively, and arriving at a conclusion based on these data is important to me. From what I have gleaned from the media and other sources over the years, I had assumed that Jefferson did have an ongoing affair with Sally Hemmings. In this fascinating book, Hyland does an excellent job of meeting the basic requirements of forensic research. Jefferson's original accuser was a reprehensible man who was known for making false allegations against persons in power. Some of the children delivered by Ms. Hemmings had genetic profiles that ruled out Thomas Jefferson as a father. The only DNA evidence of interest simply indicated that someone in the Jefferson family sired a child by Ms. Hemmings. Thomas Jefferson was a member of this gene pool. However, other members of the family had a greater likelihood of being the person who had relations with Ms. Hemmings. Of significant interest was the fact that the rumors regarding Jefferson essentially died for many years since they made no sense. They were resurrected by a socially correct person who would appear to have an agenda to impugn Jefferson in absence of the data because it was convenient to do so. An excellent read.

I found it amazing that everything about the alleged Sally Hemmings affair with Mr. Jefferson was open to serious question. I could not believe that so-called historians had failed to present all the evidence and the meaning of the evidence. It appears that most present day historians are writing to cash in and are on the level of the tabloids. I am so glad this book was written. It gives the full picture and then you can make up your own mind.