New Book Disputes Claim Jefferson Fathered Children of Slave Hemings

Stephen Dinan, Washington Times, August 30, 2011

In a book due out Thursday, eminent scholars say it’s unlikely that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemings’ children, disputing a decade’s worth of conventional wisdom that the author of the Declaration of Independence sired offspring with one of his slaves.

The debate has ensnared historians for years, and many thought the issue was settled when DNA testing in the late 1990s confirmed that a Jefferson male fathered Hemings’ youngest son, Eston. But, with one lone dissenter, the panel of 13 scholars doubted the claim and said the evidence points instead to Jefferson’s brother Randolph as the father.

{snip}

“It is true that Sally’s sons Madison and Eston were freed in Jefferson’s will, but so were all but two of the sons and grandsons of Sally’s mother Betty Hemings who still belonged to Thomas Jefferson at the time of his death. Sally’s sons received by far the least favorable treatment of those freed in Thomas Jefferson’s will,” said Robert F. Turner, a former professor at the University of Virginia who served as chairman of the commission.

Mr. Turner made the remark in a statement announcing the release of the book, “The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy: Report of the Scholars Commission.”

The commission, which worked without compensation, was formed at the behest of the Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society, an outside group that seeks to defend Jefferson’s image.

Richard Dixon, who edits the newsletter for the Jefferson Heritage Society, which sponsored the scholars panel, said the book will provide academic heft for the ongoing debate.

“The reason that this book is important is that it does address these, we might call them, reasons why Jefferson could have been the father, in a detailed manner, and shows the fallacies in these reasons, and should bring the reader back to a point where the issue is not proven,” he said.

{snip}

The claims about Jefferson date back to at least 1802, when Jefferson was serving his first term as president. A former ally of Jefferson’s wrote in a Richmond newspaper that he kept a slave named Sally as a concubine, and had fathered “several children” with her.

Hemings’ children, Madison and Eston, kept the story alive. In November 1998, results of DNA testing were released and showed a genetic link between descendants of the Jefferson family and of Eston Hemings.

A committee formed by the Jefferson foundation concluded in 2000 that the weight of evidence suggested Jefferson was most likely the father ofEston, and perhaps the father of all six of Hemings’ children recorded at Monticello.

The Heritage Society fought back with its own commission, which issued its report in 2001 disputing the conclusions. The 400-page book being released Thursday is the commission’s final product, complete with footnotes and references to rebut the other side’s claims.

{snip}

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • gg

    Not really surprising. Our late good friend Sam Francis wrote about this for The New American in the mid 1990s: some slave owners did have have sex w/some slaves. But all the DNA evidence can say is that some member of Jefferson’s extended family had sex w/some plantation workers.

  • John L.

    Its amazing how widely publicized the Story of Jefferson and His non White offspring has been. I mentionned Thomas Jefferson to someone a little while ago and the First thing They said was that

    He had Kids with a Slave. Obviously, the Story of Jefferson and His half Black Kids is a part of the anti-Racism tool kit along with the out of Africa theory and a bunch of other stuff.

  • Scott

    Prior to the DNA testing era, one of my college history professors suggested that Jefferson had a nephew who could have been the father.

  • Anonymous

    As I understand it, the DNA established that Thomas Jefferson was one of about 25 Jeffersons in the area at that time who could have been the father of Sally Hemings’s children. If the O.J. Simpson prosecution had that level of DNA evidence, I think they would not have charged him. Thomas being the father makes some sense because Sally was his late wife’s half sister, and was only about 1/4 black, maybe 1/8, if I recall, and there might have been a resemblance. Still, it’s good to fight back. I am nowhere near a Jefferson descendant or even a distant cousin, but it angered me that some members of his family folded when that DNA evidence first came out, of course to take the public’s mind off of Clinton getting Lewinskys from Lewinsky. I dearly hope they can come up with something that would torpedo the claims entirely.

  • Anonymous

    Where does Jefferson go to get his reputation back?

    The claim was pushed hard for one reason, to make Bill Clinton seem ok. TJ did it, and we love him, so let’s overlook Clinton. Then it just stuck, facts notwithstanding.

  • Anonymous

    This is just another lie (one among thousands) that progressives have been telling us for years.

    As I remember it, brother or nephew Randolph was a bit limited in intellect and was more likely to be found at the slave quarters than at the main building. The evidence has pointed to him for a while, but the MSM only want TJ to be the father when it could have been any number of Jefferson men.

  • Anonymous

    Ann Coulter was all over this back when “How to talk to a Liberal, If You Must” was published. Just read the chapter “Sally does Monticello”.

    As she said, oral history Claims Thomas as the father, but would you want to claim a former president as your father, or the President’s half-wit brother who, according to the account of one of Jefferson’s slaves “He don’t have much more sense than Isaac”. Also, the brother was well known to spend most of his time at the slave quarters. Again, Coulter covered it in her book.

  • Anonymous

    Apparently memories are short here. The entire Hemmings story was known to be false at the time it was pushed into prominence during the Monica Lewinsky scandal. The purpose of the smear of Jefferson was to “normalize” Clinton’s behavior (see – a great President like Jefferson had “human” failings, so we would be narrow-minded and puritanical to be hard on Billy Jeff Clinton).

  • Anonymous

    Sex is sex and men are usually horny, but why would this guy want to creep out to the slave quarters, when he likely could have had any number of white women who would have jumped into the sack with him because he was rich.???

    There is nothing new under the sun. Women are still women and just as lacking in morals as the men.

    I know a guy in the army who grew up not too far from a large farm in Mississippi. He would tell me story after story about the area he grew up in. He kind of reminds me of Forest Gump as I look back now. This was back in the “70”s, and we were stationed in Germany.

    Anyway, one night over a few drinks he told me about this tenant family that lived near where he grew up on a farm. I guess their family had worked it for years going back to after the Civil War.

    So he tells me that there was a well known story about this white farm manager who had probably fathered a dozen or more kids from among those black poor families simply because they were poor and many of those women and teenage girls were willing to have sex with this guy because he gave them money, cigerettes, and all the little things in life they couldn’t afford.

    The white owner of the farm knew what his manager was doing and eventually he fired the guy, when it became an embarrasing scandal known all over the community.

    So considering the way things were, and human nature being what it is. I’m quite confident that during the period when slavery existed, there were many white plantation owners, managers, merchants, and a lot of whites period, who took advantage of the situation and engaged in sex with black slave women.

    And lets not also overlook the possibility that were white women around who likley enjoyed a situation where they could be studded up by some black male slave that caught their attention.

    But don’t dump all the blame upon the men…Lets not also overlook the possibility that a good looking black woman in those days would have likley have been smart enough to realize that she could willingly use her body to improve her situation, and I’m sure many did.

    There was probably plenty of lust and immoral behavior on both sides. People using people, which still goes on today under more modern circumstances.

  • Anonymous

    The whole story about Jefferson fathering children with sally is a lie. The rumors are nothing new and were actually quite widespread around 1800 and even earlier.

    In September 1802, a journalist by the name of James T. Callender, a former political ally of Jefferson, wrote in a Richmond newspaper that Jefferson had for many years “. . . kept, as his concubine, one of his own slaves. Her name is Sally.” Callender claimed that Jefferson had fathered “several children” by her. The article was re-published in many contemporary newspapers during the remainder of Jefferson’s presidency and was frequently cited by his political opponents.

    Members of Jefferson’s family at the time (his daughter and two of her children) were of the opinion that Jefferson’s nephews Peter and Samuel Carr were the fathers of the light-skinned Monticello slaves many thought to be Jefferson’s children because of their resemblance to him.

    Back in 1998 a steam of geneticists tested Y-chromosomal DNA samples from male-line descendants of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson’s uncle), John Carr (grandfather of Jefferson’s Carr nephews) and descendants of Sally Hemings’ children. The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings. In addition to Thomas Jefferson, there were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time, and several of them are known to have visited Monticello.

    It will in all likelihood never be known with certainty which Jefferson male fathered one child, Eston by Sally Hemings.

  • Anonymous

    Sally Hemmings was half sister to Jefferson’s dead wife.

    Some of these men did take mixed race concubines…no doubt of that. It was a decent life in context for a slave girl as opposed to field hand or livestock handler or even washerwoman. House servants were the gentry of the slave class and garnering master’s favor is sort of what pretty women have done for centuries…slavery, feudal systems, military oligarchies etc …even today…how many truly beautiful women marry poor men or how many rich men have ugly wives?

    Man…the courtesan or concubine life…even with it’s limitations as been relatively advantageous to women since the Bible.

    Hemmings children with Randolph would have been Octoroons….possibly passed as white for some…Hemmings was 1/4 black.

    I always thought Jefferson’s real love after Martha was actually.. Maria Cosway…a spectacular young woman….folks can google her if curious

    Political correctness wants Jefferson to have slept with Sally…I could care less…who can blame him…he had a lonely life and his wife died early and Hemmings was fetching….

    There are sure worse things…let the truth fall where it should.

  • Anonymous

    A big fuss is being made about this here in the U.S. There’s a big push to show that Jefferson was a miscegenationist. But in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies – the French too – this sort of thing was taken for granted. It was the norm. No big deal, not worthy of comment.

    I personally don’t care either way. Whatever the truth, it does not diminish my esteem for Jefferson. After all, he was only a human being. Sally was very nearly white and was the half-sister of his dead wife. She must have reminded him of his wife in many ways. But let’s let it rest. Regardless of the truth, the race-mixers are determined to use this story for political ends to undermine whites, and Jefferson would never have approved of that.

  • Anonymous

    Sally was quite a gal. When she was only 13 she was entrusted with being nanny and guardian of Jefferson’s 9 year old daughter on a trip from Virginia to Paris, just the 2 girls alone.

    Of course she was the maternal aunt of Jefferson’s daughters.

    But still, only 13 and a slave. Jefferson sent Sally and his daughters to a convent school where they all recieved an excellent education.

    Who cares. If true she was a Dubarry , Pompadour or Dianne de Poiters to an American president, a better position than almost all women White or black. If not true, big deal just one of millions of liberal falsehoods over the years.

    In the 1820 census Sally Hemmings classified herself as White.

    She was described as having long black hair down her back. That was a century before ironing and straightening products.

  • (AWG) Average White Guy

    Leftists distort history (call it ‘distory’) to advance their agenda.

    By discrediting Thomas Jefferson they discredit the values he embraced and the values upon which our great nation was founded. To attack Jefferson is discredit Western culture.

  • weisser wolf

    This is nothing more than an attempt to smear Jefferson’s good name and push miscegenation amongst our youth and folk. Strange how they agree with DNA and other scientific evidence when the story goes their way; but disparage it when it doesn’t…

  • Anonymous

    Oprah Winfrey had her DNA analysis done–and the results claimed that she was over 60% Swedish!

    Genetics, like most other sciences, is under heavy influence of Marxist ideology–as it was during the Soviet era for Russian scientist. Only results that promote their agenda would be acknowledged.

    And what people don’t understand about Genetics is that it is heavily based on statistical probabilities–and everyone who knows anything about statistics is how completely unreliable they can be. The Jefferson case shows this bias clearly.

  • Anonymous

    11 — Anonymous wrote at 8:00 PM on September 1:

    “I always thought Jefferson’s real love after Martha was actually.. Maria Cosway…a spectacular young woman….folks can google her if curious.”

    Here is a link.

    http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Maria_Cosway

    ————————————————————–

    As for…… 9 — Anonymous wrote at 7:53 PM on September 1:

    Your whole post leaves me cold. Something a race mixer themselves would have us believe.

    ————————————————————–

    BTW, blacks (men and women) throughout history are well known for their sexual immorality/promiscuity. More so, than any White man/woman.

    ————————————–

    12 — Anonymous wrote at 8:51 PM on September 1:

    “But let’s let it rest. Regardless of the truth,”

    —————————————————–

    Really? That is what the White haters would like us to do. No, thank you.

  • Anonymous

    I always thought the Jefferson/Hemings story was a smear, but if you ask me, it doesn’t really matter if he was having sex with one of his slaves. The important thing is that he owned slaves in the first place.

    I’m not making a moral argument here. Jefferson was a great man in many ways, but I have to point out that it was slaveholders like him who created our current race problems with the blacks. They were the end buyers. They were ultimately responsible for bringing all those Africans over here in the first place.

    There’s a direct connection between Jefferson (and thousands of other rich landowners of his time) and the flash mobs and decaying cities we see all around us today.

  • Minerva

    I don’t see what the big deal is. Not an uncommon practice. These liberals like to make a mountain out of a molehill. How does this detract from Jefferson’s greatness?

  • Tusky

    Think of it from a young black slave woman’s perspective. Her half-white child will have many more opportunities. If a girl, that girl could have a white man’s child; such children are very close to white–only one more generation and there were “octarooms”, easily able to enter white society.

    The slave mother would be be better protected if she has born Massa’s child.

    There was no stigma attached to out of wedlock births in the slave quarters, after all.

    And one does what one has to do in order to survive…even prosper.

    Tusky

  • Anonymous

    This issue simply shows the problem with constructing a “cult of personality” around any individual for the advancement of cultural and political ideals. No individual adequately expresses an ideal. And all individuals are weak. Often liberty-conscious people promote the Founding Fathers as ideals to be followed. But it is not they, as men, who should be followed. Only their ideas are of any importance. Looking to the person of TJ forces one to take the eye off the prize: political freedom.

  • , Anonymous

    As long as we are reviewing this case, and many commentors are remarking on the benefits of sexual liaisons with wealthy, well positioned for women in general, it is a good time to put the idea of master “raping” of female slaves into perspective. Although it was likely not always this way, it is far more likely that the few masters who did have sex with slaves, (something regarded as a taboo in the social order and scandalous), it was likely with slaves who sought better treatment or actually had become fondly attached to the master. Read the Library of Congress collection of Slave Narratives and it becomes more clear that this was most probable, rather than the accusations of outraged blacks today who go on about how they were raped, as if it was violent, or against the will of the female.

    The one caveat is that as the political pressure and the Abolitionist movement grew more vocal and slaves became more restive, more masters became harsh with runaways and with their slaves in general. But not all.

  • margaret

    “. Jefferson was a great man in many ways, but I have to point out that it was slaveholders like him who created our current race problems with the blacks. They were the end buyers. They were ultimately responsible for bringing all those Africans over here in the first place.

    There’s a direct connection between Jefferson (and thousands of other rich landowners of his time) and the flash mobs and decaying cities we see all around us today.”

    That is exactly how I feel about our great founders. Most either benefitted from slave ownership or owned shares in slave ships like John Adams and Franklin who was also a slave broker.

    A major, major precipating cause of the revolution was that in 1770 an English Judge and the appellate Judges to whom the slave owner appealed abolished slavery in England.

    As a colony of Britian, we would be bound to follow English law. Wilberforce and his anti slavery movement were behind that lawsuit and were gaining power to abolish slavery in the Caribbean every day.

    Jefferson wrote about how imcompatabile Africans were in America even after 150 years. So why didn’t he send them back to Africa.

    The Mexican goverment deported all their black slaves to Belize.

    If the founders had had the interests of anyone but themselves in mind, they would have sent the slaves back to Africa. Their quadroon children would have melted into the White population in jsut 1 generation.

    Slavery caused the civil war and even worse, 100 years of dire poverty in the south. It became an colony of northern business exploited for its wealth while the people died from malnutrition.

    The black problem will never be solved and might very well destroy this nation.

    Even before the civil war Whites were often raped, beaten, robbed and murdered by blacks. I believe that Abe Lincoln as a young man had to fight off a 2 Whites against 7 black robbers when he was trading up and down the Mississippi.

    There was a fairily effective neighborhood watch for 100 years after the civil war but that was driven out of existence.

    Since 1900 in the northern cities and 1960 in the rest of the country it has been open season on Whites by blacks.

    The open season on Whites is encouraged, aided and abbetted by our goverment in all its branches and every billioniare donor to those anti White foundations.

    Remember the current global depression was caused by:

    (1) Janet Reno ordering banks to give mortgages to non White people who could not possibly pay the mortgages and property taxes.

    (2) Bush expanding this insanity.

    (3) The fact that Freddie and Fannie Mae employees are 50 percent affrimative action blacks. What can one expect of any organization that is 50 percent black?

    WW2 industry got us out of the 1930’s depression. We don’t have enough industrial base to take advantage of the current wars. The jobs would be taken by illegals who need welfare to survive anyway.

    With so many blacks and their pandering liberals running everything, I don’t see how we are going to get out of this depression.

    If the Republicans get in in 2012 they will be even worse on black on White crime to prove they are not racist and in the futile hope that 2 or 3 blacks might vote Republican in the next election.

    400 years and the problem just gets worse and worse.

  • Anonymous

    RE post #09. I have heard one well-read person in private conversation, as an aside to another focus, mention that the

    hard historical evidence about Black/White inter-racial procreant sex was necessarily very circumstantial but that as far as it went, the better guesstimate was that most inter-racial sex from Colonial times through 1861, say, was between

    “lumpen” Whites and Blacks and that as one ascended the White social strata, there was overall less and less inter-racial sex.

    This would suggest in times when the vast majority of humans had upclose awareness of domesticated animals, animal breeding and of the inheritance of traits, the aversion to social-sexual intercourse was greatest at the levels of White society characterized by the larger capacity for thought and insight. Sexual passions and opportunities being what they were, surely there were instances of White “gentlemen” being “stud” to Black house servants, etc, but overall these were fairly rare– if later exaggerated into celluloid myth. As a child, I remember in a location along the Dixie Frontier that cousin marriages were not taboo but in this rural region in which all folks had intimate knowledge of livestock and livestock breeding, great

    admonition and stigma was placed upon counsin marriage where there was hint of “taint”. When America was dominaed by agricultural existence, it is likely sexual restraint was heavily conditioned by practical prcepts of the importance of heredity. Would that it were so today.

  • Anonymous

    @ # 9 = Your claims are patently absurd. Unfortunately, you have bought into the ridiculous myth that as humanity is today, it has always been but somehow was miraculously misrepresented and covered up by multitudes of people. Sadly, this is merely your own compensation mechanism. Ergo, “I realize people behave abominably now but I comfort myself that they always have…even if I have no evidence for this belief.” Fact is, as recently as the Korean War men got married because most (no, not all, but most) of them would never consider having sex outside of matrimonial bonds. That’s just the way it was then. Likewise with molestation, etc. Did it happen? Yes, it did. Was it anything like today? Absolutely not. Same with rape, etc. It just did not occur as it does today for a wide variety of reasons. Morality, access to pornography, greater interpersonal interactions due to lack of internet / television / even common long distance telephone communication. All of the isolating factors of today breed a callousness which simply did not exist in earlier times. Again, that is not to say such things never happened. Obviously they did, as in the case of Jefferson’s retarded brother skulking around the slave quarters. But for the same applying to the vast, nearly universal, majority of people in those days your theories are a pipe dream and nothing more. There is no evidence for it in contemporary literature, media, or anywhere else except the post-1965 demoralization of America that sought and still clearly seeks to rewrite history to suit its now debased character. I’m sorry you choose to be a practitioner of this fallacy.

  • Anonymous

    When I was in my teens I read a lot of those historical romance books. Many of them featured a hero or heroine who was the love child of some Lord. The love child always came out ahead.

    Lots of the Spanish soaps made in S America are about the struggles and problems of legitimate vs illegitmate children through their adult lives. In S. American soaps the bad ones are always the dark skinned illegitimate children and the good ones the White legitimate children.

    Ever seen Xicha? She is a quadroon 13 year old who catches the handsome blond blue eyed son of the plantation owner, has several children and is the lady of the manor.

    It is a popular story because it is all so true.

    I could care less who the Father of Sally’s children was. I do agree that the story suddenly surfaced as a cover for Clinton and Lewinsky.

  • Anonymous

    “Members of Jefferson’s family at the time (his daughter and two of her children) were of the opinion that Jefferson’s nephews Peter and Samuel Carr were the fathers of the light-skinned Monticello slaves many thought to be Jefferson’s children because of their resemblance to him.”

    I assume nobody ever asked Sally? I read some of Callendar and other anti Jefferson writers who described the slave children at Monticello.

    Tall, thin, broad shoulders, red hair and that distinctive long face with a long thin nose.

    Sally was 1/4 black. Her children by a White man would have been 1/8th black, enough to pass for White.

  • Lauren

    Comments on articles like this inevitably take on an icky tone.

    But I have to comment on what seems to be a common underlying assumption in many posts. Most seem to regard ‘relations’ with white men as being somehow horrific/degrading/unpleasant for slave women: that somehow white men were physically repulsive and brutal. It is assumed that only ulterior motives or coercion could have motivated those women to ‘relate’ with the white men.

    Excuse me: but I would imagine it would have been fun, if not thrilling. I find my own personal Big Blond Dude to be a perpetual thrill. Why would the slave women have had a different experience?

    First, the men had ‘good hair’, and desirable skin color. They smelled better and dressed better than the black men. Then, there would have been the titillating curiosity about white anatomy. And, above all, there would have been a Star Worship group dynamic among the slave women. There was no media access, back then. The Plantation Owners, and even the Overseers, and the visiting cousins… would have been, to these isolated women, like Rock Stars were to girls in the Eighties.

    And I would add that my ‘Octaroon'(Creole) friends, from my days at Tulane, who have experienced men from both sides of the Color Divide, say that white men are far more gentle, loving, and attentive. “They treat you like an equal, and they care about your feelings. Who wouldn’t want more of THAT?”

    There could have been a great deal of lust and aggressiveness on the part of the slave women, and I think it silly to assume that ‘relations’ with white men would have been a trauma or a chore.

  • Anonymous

    So Thomas Jefferson, the man who couldn’t stand Blacks, and wrote as much in private letters, as well as his Diaries, fathered child after child with a Black Slave?

    Sure he did. I also read somewhere that Sally Hemmings was a Mullato, and more White than anything else. But, I digress.

    Jefferson wrote that Whites and Blacks would not be able to co-exist in the same Society stating that nature, and habit among other reasons, kept them from assimilating with Whites.

    Oddly enough, old honest Abe said the same thing. So why are we pretending that they can and will measure up to Whites?

  • ghw

    [There seems to be] an underlying assumption in many posts. Most seem to regard ‘relations’ with white men as somehow horrific/degrading/unpleasant for slave women: that somehow white men were physically repulsive and brutal.

    There was no media access back then. The Plantation Owners, even the Overseers, and the visiting cousins… would have been, to these isolated women, like Rock Stars were to girls in the Eighties. There could have been a great deal of lust and aggressiveness on the part of the slave women, and I think it silly to assume that ‘relations’ with white men would have been a trauma or a chore.

    — Lauren

    ………………………………………

    Aha! Out of so many insipid posts, Lauren (bless her) is one who “gets” it!

    Indeed, when such an event occurred at all (however rare), the benefits to the black slave would have been all to HER advantage, not his. Such a “conquest” would have been hers, not his. To him, it was a social embarassment to be kept hidden. To her, it was an achievement to flaunt. That was the one and only way a plantation slave could rise above washerwomen or fieldhand, and she would have done everything in her power to snag him (more likely the randy young son of the owner than the owner himself).

    The fastidious white men, well dressed, well educated, perfumed, bathed, would not have been lusting after an unwashed darkie from the fields. Nor perspiring household help in drab homespun. Does the modern CEO or billionaire chase after someone from the typing pool? Hardly. More likely a movie star worthy of his status. (Forget about Strauss-Kahn.)

  • Anonymous

    ” most inter-racial sex from Colonial times through 1861, say, was between

    “lumpen” Whites and Blacks and that as one ascended the White social strata, there was overall less and less inter-racial sex.”

    Where would the lumpen Whites meet the black women?

    Men are men are men are men are men. Men go for what is around. So do women.

    Actor Marlon Brando fathered 13 children. Most are by the hispanic maids who worked in his house. They were one and all typical hispanic maids, built like a bowling ball, 100 pounds overweight, well over 30 and with typcial indian features.

    The servant girl and master scenario is as old as history.

    The slaves were mostly on plantations in rural areas. The White men would have been the owner, the manager and their friends and relatives.

    Who cares anyway?

  • margaret

    Poster 24

    ” most inter-racial sex from Colonial times through 1861, say, was between “lumpen” Whites and Blacks and that as one ascended the White social strata, there was overall less and less inter-racial sex.”

    Ever heard of John Calhoun? He was a genius and a great intellectual political theorist and writer. He was S. Carolina senator and vice president.

    The best thing I have ever read of his writings was the argument against the annexation of mexico by the US after the mexican war.

    After General Scott conquered mexico city officials and the wealthy elite offered him the position of King. He turned it down so they offered to annex mexico with the US. Of course they might have been bribed by US interests.

    Many Americans wanted to annex mexico. It was a very big deal at the time. Unlike America west of the mississippi mexico was already a settled country with roads, harbors, agriculture, industry and the trappings of civilization. The American west was not.

    Calhoun led the anti annexation fight. It’s a wonderful series of articles. He wrote that mexico was just too different to assimulate. It was not just catholic vs protestant but the entire culture that was too different. His arguments were very compelling.

    Of course he did not mention that slavery was illegal in mexico and that it was highly unlikely that the southerners would be able to persuade the mexicans to make slavery legal. The yankee descendants of the slave ship owners were active in abolition at the time so slavery in mexico would never have happened.

    His arguments prevailed. Calhoun was a true aristocrat in every way from one of the richest families in America. He was a superior human being. I cite his articles on mexican annexation to show what a great thinker he was. I understand he just leafed through a few law books and passed the bar at a young age.

    He would have been nominated for President had it not been for something about his private life. He had numerous very young slave lovers all his life. It didn’t cause problems in his senate and vice presidency elections.

    By the time he was ready to run for president his private life was just too scandalous. 25 years before he attached himself to a 12 year old slave girl. No one objected. The relationship was widely known. He took no more pains to hide it than a muslim would take to hide a legal second wife.

    The scandal occurred when he dumped his little love when she was 25 and took up with her 12 year old daughter. Their daughter most people assumed, since the child was born about a year after he took up with the Mother.

    They were named Louisa and Maria. I forget which was Mother, which was daughter.

    It was the scandal of probably being his daughter’s lover that caused his party to select another candidate for President.

    Calhoun was not lumpen. He was a genius and a true aristocrat in every way, not just a rich man.

    Calhoun was just one man. Not every slave owner got involved with his slaves. But we must remember who had the most access to the slaves, their owners.

    Devotion to the confederacy and the pre civil war south does not help our cause at all. Trying to justify slavery does not help our cause. The importation of blacks was the worst thing that ever happened to this country.

    I appreciate how southerners feel about the lost cause, but if we are ever going to stop our destruction we need to move on.

    I’m all for the confederacy. My opinion is that the abolitionists manipulated the south into the civil war.

    The abolitionists and their European banker friends were interested in stealing the sugar, tobacco, cotton, iron, coal and lumber wealth. Remember Natchez Miss had more millionaries than any city in the world including India, China and Turkey after cotton became King. The north wanted that wealth as did th European bankers.

    Forget about justifying every thing that went on in the old south. Our fight is now.

    Another little known civil war fact. As the union troops moved in the slave women flocked to the soldiers. The officers did their best to stop it, often citing the thousands of babies that would be left behind. There were numerous proclaimations about this.

    Unfortunately the slaves could not read “Stay in your homes and work for wages. You will not be fed and sheltered at the army posts.”

  • Anonymous

    Ref. Statement #25. In so many ways our purposes attendant to AR would be served by a slogan that seems remote but is not: FIGHT LUST! Vigorous hedonistic sexuality appears–appears–to have won a permanent historical ascendency. This arises from an emotionally-laden, media-fed massive deletion about the common dangers and common failures of human sexual activity. The demonstrable correlations to human sexual conduct contain on average–on average– HUGE costs. These involve career injuries and handicaps, physical handicaps and diseases (exacerbation of metabolic and cardiac conditions. & the fact that lust of the loins feeds, even causes, lust of the gullet ), family relationship impairments, physical altercations, blackmail, divorce and attendant social and financial costs, social ostracism and on and on. The paradox is that those having prior insight about these deleted/”hidden”/ correlations and who practice a restrained, cautious, use-some-brake-pedal sexuality have, from an actuarial standpoint, “safe sex”. Moreover, Victorian sexual mores are far far more conducive to a eugenic sexuality than the slobbering lust pandemic on campuses (practicing “tolerance”, no doubt ) The cognitive override (will power) in that era suppressed glandular reflexes in order to facilitate social-emotional screening. One got to know the range of future in-laws before anything was even partly unbuttoned in the buggy. It was no discovery that the gene pool was being introduced in phase one, along with some degree of social selection/rejection. Social intercourse as a prelude to institutionalized sexual intercourse helped provide a kind of metaphorical barbed wire fencing– a degree of counterpart to a West Texas rancher’s quality control. Subordinating all this to today’s whole-hog pleasure slavery is the greatest of cultural perversions.

  • Anonymous

    30 — ghw wrote at 1:08 AM on September 3:

    Does the modern CEO or billionaire chase after someone from the typing pool? Hardly. More likely a movie star worthy of his status. (Forget about Strauss-Kahn.)

    ———-

    Guess you haven’t heard? The black woman was lying. If Strauss-Kahn wanted a black woman he would have just gotten a black prostitute.

  • Anonymous

    16 — Anonymous wrote at 9:25 AM on September 2:

    Oprah Winfrey had her DNA analysis done—and the results claimed that she was over 60% Swedish!

    ——————————-

    Then why is she so PRO-black? I really don’t believe what many of these people claim is their DNA.

  • Clytemnestra

    I have always doubted that Thomas Jefferson fathered any children by Sally Hemings. Why? There is much in his writings to indicate that he not only found blacks sexually repulsive, but he found them too alien a race to be easily assimilated by the Caucasian gene pool.

    Ironically, this came out when the question of whether intermarriage between Europeans and Amerinds should be encouraged. While TJ was not gung-ho about it, he considered it feasible, based on his comparisons of Amerind racial features to that of Europeans. He did a comprehensive analysis on the texture of the hair of Amerind women even pointing out that they had as much body hair as European women, but their culture encouraged Amerinds to tweeze all body hair. Ergo, he did not feel the racial differences were so great as to fundamentally transform the European DNA into something that would be unrecognizable in a couple of generations.

    But he was adamantly opposed to European Caucasian engaging in miscegenation with blacks. He thought the skin color, the hair texture, the bone structure was too different. He favored repatriating blacks back to Africa ASAP after technology found a way to replace black labor.

    TJ did not equivocate on this. He didn’t say it was all right to father children with black women who looked like they had a substantial amount of European blood. He was dead set against Caucasians engaging in miscegenation with blacks, period. I cannot see where he would be okay with continuing with the damage after the damage had already been done, so to speak.

    So, I cannot see TJ sleeping with Sally Hemings to begin with, much less fathering children with her. He may have been a man who had his needs, but he was wealthy and attractive enough to take advantage of his status another way. I imagine there were lower or middle class White women he probably kept on the side.

  • ghw

    (Forget about Strauss-Kahn.)

    —————

    “Guess you haven’t heard? The black woman was lying. If Strauss-Kahn wanted a black woman he would have just gotten a black prostitute.”

    ===================

    Yes, I have heard. But I don’t believe EITHER side.

    He is just as bad as she. Just much richer.

    It was not “proven” that she was lying (about the rape)… only that some of her OTHER statements were inconsistent, contradictory, or false, thus making her testimony of dubious value.

    He had a team of SEVERAL high-priced law firms working on this case, digging into every aspect of her life. With that army of legal talent, they could have “proven” Jesus Christ to have been a liar full of inconsistent statements!

    I am taking neither side.

    ……………………

    “Oprah Winfrey had her DNA analysis done—and the results claimed that she was over 60% Swedish!”

    Are you sure? Swedish??? Oh, please!

    Who says?

    Let’s have some documentation for such an absurd claim.

  • Anonymous

    As for DNA and sex relevant to the Office of President of the US

    and festering rumors—Herndon claimed, credibly, that Lincoln had told him that he, Lincoln, attributed his brilliance (and he was )

    to the fact that his mother was born of an out-of-wedlock relationship involving a male who was wealthy, well educated, and of distinguished lineage. Edgard Lee Masters and Sam Dickson are among those who have shed light on the degree of myth surrounding President Lincoln. Why ignore the possibility of a DNA hunt in this Honest Abe matter if, as a society, we are willing to indulge prematurely some celluloid accusations against President Jefferson? Racial asymmetry?

  • Matthew

    The fact is that there are White men who dae, have sex with and in some cases, marry Black and other non-White women. no sensible person would deny this.

    As some other posters have stated, men are men. When they are horny enough, they will gravitate to any woman who looks fairly decent enough to have sex with, including women outside of their etnnic group. It should not surprise anyone that some of our founding fathers or their relatives engaged in sexual intercourse with Black, native American or any other race of women. The male animal (especially young male)is predatory by nature. Raging hormones frequently overpower any level of discipline and racial consciousness.

    Nothing new here.

  • Anonymous

    35 — Anonymous wrote at 10:29 AM on September 4:

    16 — Anonymous wrote at 9:25 AM on September 2:

    Oprah Winfrey had her DNA analysis done—and the results claimed that she was over 60% Swedish!

    ———————————————-

    Then why is she so PRO-black? I really don’t believe what many of these people claim is their DNA.

    Huh? She is Black.

  • Anonymous

    38 — Matthew at 8:01 PM on September 4:

    If that is the case then why does anyone care if White women date, marry blacks and have mulatto kids? Why have a White race at all? They don’t deserve to even live if they are ready to throw it all away for “raging hormones”!

    If you have no character, no honor, no pride in ones heritage, no sense of racial survival, no vision of the future for ones own race and offspring, then just pack it in and jump in the lake with a block of cement attached. That is about all one is worth if they use your excuse.

  • MAJ

    I don’t buy most of this Jefferson-Sally stuff. First, who knows what is true, what is half-true, and what is totally false.

    I always felt it was a scam – especially when liberals and black-apologists spout it as gospel. Let’s say Jefferson did this with a white woman – few would care and others would be embarrassed for such a great man – who also had no love for blacks by the way.

    They key is how people (liberals, brainwashed whites) take what he did in this instance – adultery, miscegenation, ugly behavior – and turn it into some positive – all because she was black. Instead of condemnation or scorn or simply avoiding the topic – all of the sudden its OK because she was black. The message is “See, Jefferson, the great Founding Father, loved blacks and even had children with blacks because blacks are great and therefore you too should love and reproduce with blacks.”

    Right.

    Besides, let’s say TJ did this – big deal. Who made him, all of the sudden, the new moral spokesman for all white behavior in 2011?

    I don’t care if he spent every night in some slave barn, that’s his problem. It doesn’t change my belief in segregation.

  • Anonymous

    Sally Hemmings was NOT John Wayle’s daughter and this myth has been meticulously dis-proven by Dr James and Rebecca McMurry in their books. Furthermore,There is no proof that Sally was only 1/4 black,that Sally wasn’t promiscuous like her mother Betty,or that oral slave testimony 50+ years after the fact wasn’t embellishment and lies, just as it was common for slaves to take the names of their masters for prestige. Giving unquestioned acceptance of this farce of a story to yellow journalists and papers discredits any rational, logical intelligence. Place your trust in Abigail Adams’ statement and Captain Ramsay(ship that TJ and daughter sailed to England in)She and he stated Sally was not even capable of taking care of Jefferson’s daughter,and should be sent back to America.

  • Anonymous

    43 — Anonymous wrote at 8:37 AM on September 6:

    Sally Hemmings was NOT John Wayle’s daughter and this myth has been meticulously dis-proven by Dr James and Rebecca McMurry in their books. Furthermore,There is no proof that Sally was only 1/4 black,that Sally wasn’t promiscuous like her mother Betty,or that oral slave testimony 50+ years after the fact wasn’t embellishment and lies, just as it was common for slaves to take the names of their masters for prestige. Giving unquestioned acceptance of this farce of a story to yellow journalists and papers discredits any rational, logical intelligence. Place your trust in Abigail Adams’ statement and Captain Ramsay(ship that TJ and daughter sailed to England in)She and he stated Sally was not even capable of taking care of Jefferson’s daughter,and should be sent back to America.

    ________________________________________________________

    THANK YOU!!!

    About time someone said it the way it was and is! It is amazing to me that so many Whites still believe in the lies passed down for generations and that includes much of our pc induced “history”…

    As you said, “that oral slave testimony 50+ years after the fact wasn’t embellishment and lies, just as it was common for slaves to take the names of their masters for prestige. Giving unquestioned acceptance of this farce of a story to yellow journalists”.

  • Anonymous

    Post #39. I remain “close to Missouri” as to how easily white

    men at this time had sex with very Black women. That there was a lot of it is clear enough. That it involved very much other than a largely asocial element of whites is a gratuitous assumption. That it was seldom or never initiated by the women toward the Whites, is also a dubious assumption. People do not merely see–they perceive; they are often more master of their instincts than servant to them. In an agricultural America, sexuality was generally far far more eugenic than we can realize, now enveloped in layers of a celluloid “delu-world”. The notion of profound Black intellectual inferiiority to Whites was grounded in a lot of direct perception of “real world” IQ-like measure involving tools, chores, and other visible tasks. It is unclear what other motive would lead valuable chattel (horror that the system was ) to be cheapened by a contrived stigma. The notion of whites in power being oppressive “stud rapists” of lots of Black women smells more Hollywood than real. Odor also

    throws some chat into the gears of “stud rapists” etc. Prof. John R. Baker’s classic RACE deals with the very real matter of odor. Lots of Whites find interracial sex odiferously repellant–and it was far , far moreso in an age lacking our chem-rich soaps and daily bathing (even if then they ate clean and drank mostly water )_

  • Anonymous

    “Does the modern CEO or billionaire chase after someone from the typing pool? Hardly. More likely a movie star worthy of his status. (Forget about Strauss-Kahn.)”

    I take it you’ve never seen Aaaaah-nold’s maid?

  • Anonymous

    “I take it you’ve never seen Aaaaah-nold’s maid?”

    ____________

    Ha! Well, I have to admit you have a point there.

    Maybe she was just convenient.

    But did he chase after her? I doubt it!

    Probably she worked very hard on her conquest, once again proving that such a liason is much more to her benefit than to his.