I’ve never doubted the claim since reading John Hartwell Cocke’s diary entries which were not shared with the public until long after his death and were hidden away. The Cocke family were enormously powerful in their time and were hands behind the scenes types. The family were descendants of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (see ‘Other Boleyn Girl’) through Lord Delaware and had a multi generational close association with the Randolphs (Jefferson’s mother’s family). Cocke played an administrative role in the execution of Jefferson’s estate.
“Cocke, John Hartwell. Diary, 1853, 1859. Papers of John Hartwell Cocke. University of Virginia.
Cocke, a close friend of Jefferson, attests decades later to the reality of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship twice in his diaries. In 1853 Cocke complained that many slave owners had children by their slave women, and there's no wonder that this should be so "when Mr. Jefferson's notorious example is considered." And in 1859 Cocke complained about the common practice of unmarried slave owners keeping a slave woman as "a substitute for a wife. . . . In Virginia this damnable practice prevails as much as anywhere -- probably more -- as Mr. Jefferson's example can be pleaded for its defense."
Ordinarily I would trust the results of this kind of analysis, but in this case, I just don't trust the team doing the work. The Smithsonian is an ultra-political environment and the person writing up the report is a "cultural anthropologist".
My credence has risen from 5% to 50%. To get any higher the analysis would have to be redone by people I trust.
Remember, the Jefferson-Sally Hemmings allegation was originally published by James Callender, who was the 1800s version of Alex Jones.
The allegation was not believed by Thomas Jefferson's bitter political enemies, like John Adams and Hamilton, and did not become a mainstream view among historians until the 1990s.
If these scientific results are true, it seriously damages the credibility of history as a discipline.
This is the dumbest hill to die on. The man has been dead for 200 years. What is the reason to be this skeptical that a widower started hooking up with his deceased wife’s younger hotter sister who he lived with and owned?
"During that time, she stayed on as Jefferson’s servant, and over the course of their 26-month French sojourn while she was a free woman, Jefferson and Hemings began a romantic relationship. At the time, she was roughly 15 years old and Jefferson was a mid-40s widower.
When it came time to return to the States, Jefferson negotiated with Hemings: come home, return to slavery, and you’ll be afforded considerably leniency in work, and your kids will all be manumitted when they come of age."
That's pure speculation on your part. The DNA analysis is also not so straightforward as you make it out to be.
The things you quoted are attested to by multiple people. You should try to grapple with facts instead of alleging "pure speculation" that isn't.
And the DNA analysis *is* straightforward. Try to clarify what your issue is. Simply stating there's a problem without identifying it is grating and will result in receiving a ban from commenting.
The question concerning Thomas Jefferson's paternity of the Hemmings children was, as far as I am concerned, answered conclusively in the September 2001 issue of The National Genealogical Society Quarterly (vol 89, no. 3). The entire issue was devoted to that topic. Every objection was answered. The only possible way that President Jefferson was not their father was if he had an enslaved half-brother resident at Monticello (which means that his father had a slave lover) and that Thomas knew of that relationship. There is zero evidence that such a person existed.
Why "5th generation"? Generations can be 13-50 years. You cannot tell it's been exactly 5 generations, nor even "on average" 5 (not independent samples because of common ancestors early on)
I am perfectly willing to accept the hypothesis that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemmings children in light of new evidence.
This does mean we now lose one of those questions that would highlight those who didn't understand the difference between what the evidence actually showed versus what conclusion they drew from pop culture vibes, when all we had was the Y chromosome paper.
Whenever such questions get resolved in light of additional evidence, half of the hasty commentators will have cause to say, "hahah, I told you I knew that," when, in fact, they didn’t know that, they were just bad at understanding the available evidence at the time.
As an aside, I had always thought that the most plausible alternative hypothesis was that an unknown enslaved person who shared a Y chromosome with T.J. was father, given how poorly family history among enslaved people was tracked.
I’ve never doubted the claim since reading John Hartwell Cocke’s diary entries which were not shared with the public until long after his death and were hidden away. The Cocke family were enormously powerful in their time and were hands behind the scenes types. The family were descendants of Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn (see ‘Other Boleyn Girl’) through Lord Delaware and had a multi generational close association with the Randolphs (Jefferson’s mother’s family). Cocke played an administrative role in the execution of Jefferson’s estate.
“Cocke, John Hartwell. Diary, 1853, 1859. Papers of John Hartwell Cocke. University of Virginia.
http://www2.lib.virginia.edu/small/collections/tj/jhc.html
Cocke, a close friend of Jefferson, attests decades later to the reality of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship twice in his diaries. In 1853 Cocke complained that many slave owners had children by their slave women, and there's no wonder that this should be so "when Mr. Jefferson's notorious example is considered." And in 1859 Cocke complained about the common practice of unmarried slave owners keeping a slave woman as "a substitute for a wife. . . . In Virginia this damnable practice prevails as much as anywhere -- probably more -- as Mr. Jefferson's example can be pleaded for its defense."
Finally proof that Thomas Jefferson wasn’t racist. Will woke ever recover from this blow?
lmao
Ordinarily I would trust the results of this kind of analysis, but in this case, I just don't trust the team doing the work. The Smithsonian is an ultra-political environment and the person writing up the report is a "cultural anthropologist".
My credence has risen from 5% to 50%. To get any higher the analysis would have to be redone by people I trust.
Realistically, what would that entail - reanalysis of the data gathered by the authors, or entirely new data being gathered by a different team?
Either, but the second would be preferable.
Remember, the Jefferson-Sally Hemmings allegation was originally published by James Callender, who was the 1800s version of Alex Jones.
The allegation was not believed by Thomas Jefferson's bitter political enemies, like John Adams and Hamilton, and did not become a mainstream view among historians until the 1990s.
If these scientific results are true, it seriously damages the credibility of history as a discipline.
This is the dumbest hill to die on. The man has been dead for 200 years. What is the reason to be this skeptical that a widower started hooking up with his deceased wife’s younger hotter sister who he lived with and owned?
I agree it's plausible, but it's odd that historians overwhelmingly rejected this view for nearly 200 years.
Re: my comment above. Delaware was descendant of Mary Boleyn and Henry VIII.
"During that time, she stayed on as Jefferson’s servant, and over the course of their 26-month French sojourn while she was a free woman, Jefferson and Hemings began a romantic relationship. At the time, she was roughly 15 years old and Jefferson was a mid-40s widower.
When it came time to return to the States, Jefferson negotiated with Hemings: come home, return to slavery, and you’ll be afforded considerably leniency in work, and your kids will all be manumitted when they come of age."
That's pure speculation on your part. The DNA analysis is also not so straightforward as you make it out to be.
________________________________________
The things you quoted are attested to by multiple people. You should try to grapple with facts instead of alleging "pure speculation" that isn't.
And the DNA analysis *is* straightforward. Try to clarify what your issue is. Simply stating there's a problem without identifying it is grating and will result in receiving a ban from commenting.
NO SHIT??
we been knowing that
The question concerning Thomas Jefferson's paternity of the Hemmings children was, as far as I am concerned, answered conclusively in the September 2001 issue of The National Genealogical Society Quarterly (vol 89, no. 3). The entire issue was devoted to that topic. Every objection was answered. The only possible way that President Jefferson was not their father was if he had an enslaved half-brother resident at Monticello (which means that his father had a slave lover) and that Thomas knew of that relationship. There is zero evidence that such a person existed.
Why "5th generation"? Generations can be 13-50 years. You cannot tell it's been exactly 5 generations, nor even "on average" 5 (not independent samples because of common ancestors early on)
By chance, the people sampled were fifth-generation descendants.
Every one, exactly 5th? And their full genealogy is recorded reliably?
And a spread from 0.5% to 5% is expected at that sample size??
Yes. Yes. Not expected, but not outlandish.
I am perfectly willing to accept the hypothesis that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemmings children in light of new evidence.
This does mean we now lose one of those questions that would highlight those who didn't understand the difference between what the evidence actually showed versus what conclusion they drew from pop culture vibes, when all we had was the Y chromosome paper.
Whenever such questions get resolved in light of additional evidence, half of the hasty commentators will have cause to say, "hahah, I told you I knew that," when, in fact, they didn’t know that, they were just bad at understanding the available evidence at the time.
As an aside, I had always thought that the most plausible alternative hypothesis was that an unknown enslaved person who shared a Y chromosome with T.J. was father, given how poorly family history among enslaved people was tracked.