Talk:Sally Hemings

Press reports and rumors

This is inappropriate here, as it does not provide any substance. The reports were of interest to those who were trying to attack Jefferson; they do not relate directly to the facts of the case and if used at all, should be put in the Jefferson article rather than here. Having extensive quotes to show how racist people were is really beside the point.Parkwells (talk) 03:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah. I see what you mean. This section has problems: [1]] I noticed that in a different section last week. Seems the text just dismisses everything Callender said as unfounded (lack of NPOV), even though not all historians say that. Looks like a bit of editing. Maybe a very small amount could go in the Jefferson article, but I'd limit it to a sentence. Your ideas on fixing it? Ebanony (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed most of the commentary on the Callender and other reports, which really were attacking Jefferson politically. This is supposed to be about Sally Hemings and her family.Parkwells (talk) 16:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Alice Adams ?

İn the sentence "While somewhat critical of Sally, Alice Adams also described her as being "an industrious and orderly creature in her behaviour" is 'Alice' supposed to be Abigail? --İnfoCan (talk) 19:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Corrected - thanks for noting it.Parkwells (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Shorten Woodson section

The DNA study disproved the Woodson claims; also, most of the cites are from a descendant's book, rather than from another historian. This section should be made much shorter and more direct - the DNA evidence is stronger than attempts to argue from records. Other sources than Woodson should be used for discussion.

Agree - there is little to support the claim that he was Sally Hemings' child. The DNA disproves he was Jefferson's child, although there was European ancestry.Parkwells (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Hyland

If you will read In Defense of Thomas Jefferson (2009) by William G. Hyland, Jr., you will get a clearer picture of this issue. Hyland is a lawyer and approached this topic in that fashion. He dealt with facts and, after reading his book, it is unthinkable that a person could conclude that Thomas Jefferson fathered any children with Sally.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Librarylady77 (talk • contribs)

It's generally acknowledged that Hyland wrote what amounts to a good legal brief for the "No Sex" side. But he is no historian, and his work, while convincing on the surface, is generally full of historical errors and unsound methodology. Would you decide a court case based on the presentation of only one side? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Read Annette Gordon-Reed's "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy", (1999, with a preface to reflect the DNA study) and you may understand why she was awarded a MacArthur Fellowship in 2010 for "changing the course of Jeffersonian scholarship". She is also a lawyer and analyzed the failure of historians to use available evidence, relying on Jefferson family testimony (since found absolutely inaccurate) and not assessing the body of evidence. The historic consensus is that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' four children who reached adulthood.Parkwells (talk) 00:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Hyland's book was criticized by the Publishers Weekly for his failure to "see the historical context of the evidence or to provide a balanced assessment of the known facts. In this respect, he's ill-equipped to take on great contemporary experts of the matter, especially award-winning historian Annette Gordon-Reed, whose work he terms a concocted myth. Surely not the last word on the matter, regrettably it's not dependable word either.", on Amazon.com page for the book.Parkwells (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Ludicrous Unproven Claims Damage Article

I'm scratching my head, trying to figure out why any serious historian would include unproven claims from the very first paragraph: that Sally Hemings was Thomas Jefferson's "concubine," and that he fathered her six children. The writer expresses as fact what has not only not been proven, but which is unlikely. Extensive DNA tests have been inconclusive. They have shown only that one of Heming's children was fathered by a Jefferson---not necessarily Thomas. Given Jefferson's middle age during this period, and the fact that several younger nephews were in and out of his house at the time, and that contemporaries assumed these young relatives were the fathers of Heming's children--well,the Thomas/Sally connection evaporates when you really look at it. For example, much has been made of the fact that he was kind to Hemings' children. Isn't it quite natural that he would be kind to his late wife's nephews and nieces? (Jefferson's wife and Hemings were half-sisters.)

Contemporaries did not "assume" his Carr nephews were the fathers - his grandson and granddaughter in the late 19th c. named them as the fathers, despite the fact that each was married with his own family, probably to try to account for the Hemings' children's resemblance to Jefferson. This is the family oral history which later historians relied on without checking such facts as they could, and the claim was disproved conclusively by the DNA study.Parkwells (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure we all wish we were descendants of a Founding Father, but wishing will not make it so. Do the article a favor and clean up this dim-witted mess. Younggoldchip (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There were six Hemings children by John Wayles; Sally was the youngest one. Jefferson only freed his own four children, plus a few male Hemings relatives who had served him for many years - not by any means all of the many Betty Hemings-Wayles descendants, of whom there were in total about 75 at Monticello, if you read the article on her. Read the sources - Jeffersonian scholarship has changed to incorporate the widely held agreement, due to the body of historical evidence and the DNA study, that Jefferson was the father of Hemings' children and had a 38-year relationship with her. The National Genealogical Society, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation (which runs Monticello), historians such as Joseph Ellis and Andrew Burstein, as well as younger historians, all have changed their opinions and work to reflect that Jefferson's paternity is now widely accepted. Annette Gordon-Reed, who showed the inaccuracies and shortcomings of earlier histories in her 1997 "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy" (the 1999 revised edition incorporates the DNA material) was awarded a MacArthur fellowship in 2010 for "changing the course of Jeffersonian scholarship." Her second book on the Hemingses (2008) won the Pulitzer Prize and 15 other major historical/literary awards. For the last decade and more this has been the accepted scholarship, which Wikipedia is supposed to reflect.Parkwells (talk) 00:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Parkwells (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Science is science. You can't simply choose what you prefer to believe. No grasping at straws, no Genius Award, no currently fashionable opinion (which will probably shift in another ten years) can dispute the plain fact that the DNA evidence is not conclusive. It identifies Jefferson blood, not necessarily Thomas's. For that reason, your reference to Jefferson freeing "his own four children" is unscientific and inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. And you did not address my point that Jefferson's kindnesses to Hemings' children may have been due to the close friendship, as well as relationship, between Jefferson's wife and her sister Sally Hemings. These children had grown up in her house. There is no evidence that his wife was similarly close to her other half-brothers and half-sisters (from the Wayles/Hemings connection.) That would explain why Jefferson didn't free their sons and daughters as well--that, and the obvious fact that his family wealth was founded on slavery, and he did not really enjoy freeing slaves. Younggoldchip (talk) 21:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

By that standard of proof, we cannot claim that Elisabeth I is a child of Henry VIII, or that Alexandre Dumas wrote The Three Musketeers, or, probably, that any of the members of the Monticello Association is descended from Jefferson at all. Absolute proof is the domain of mathematics, not the humanities. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

But there is no dispute about Elizabeth I's parentage. If you really wanted a riproaring DNA hunt, pursue the descendants of Anne Boleyn's sister Mary--who's alleged to have had a son with Henry VIII. And there's no dispute about who wrote The Three Musketeers. If there were, handwriting experts would be examining manuscripts--and, at a higher level, "touch" DNA testing would come into play.

At its best and freshest, DNA is the ultimate reality. In Heming's case, it's just a possibility insecurely backed up by dubious assumptions. (Why would someone confidently state, for example, that Jefferson had a 38-year affair with Hemings? Did they have access to her dance card?)The mistake that historians have made over and over is to believe that opportunity equals the deed. It does not.

I have hope that DNA testing will continue to improve, and that in the near future we'll know for sure. But that day is not today. Younggoldchip (talk) 11:36, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware of the fact that Annette Gordon-Reed published Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, the book that led to the change of the prevailing opinion a year before the DNA evidence came to light. That was just the icing on the cake. We neither have nor require DNA evidence for most historical facts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. DNA is not the icing on the cake. In a case of identifying parentage, it is the meat of the matter, and you do require it. Everything else is speculation. The Jefferson case is particularly difficult because, like most aristocratic households of the time, Thomas Jefferson and his houseguests, relatives, slaves and other constant visitors basically formed a not-so-small village--many of whom shared a blood relationship. Younggoldchip (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

People have determined paternity for several thousand years without knowing about DNA. A good, modern DNA test is sufficient to establish paternity, but it is not required. Have you read Gordon-Reed to know what she bases her arguments on? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

What you are basically saying is that people have determined paternity by guess and by golly for several thousand years---and in many, many cases, without significant accuracy. A modern DNA test is required to establish Thomas Jefferson's paternity, unless he and Sally Hemings spent her childbearing years alone on a desert island. They definitely did not. To give only one example, a Monticello manager reported seeing the same man (not Thomas) leaving Hemings' bedroom on many occasions.

Yes, that's how they determined paternity. And the overseer who claimed to have seen someone leaving Hemings' bedroom didn't even work there when her last child was conceived (as noted in Gordon-Reed's book.) Your should read it; you might learn something.Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As one of the Wayles-Jefferson descendants and member of the Monticello Association said, none of them really has proof of parentage either. Just claims to be Jefferson's children. Why not ask what other opportunities Martha Jefferson had for another partner, with Jefferson traveling? As Stephan Schulz notes (and as the National Geneaological Society and others have noted), historians and biographers have indeed asserted paternity on just this kind of evidence. By the way, the Monticello Association (so-called lineal descendants of Jefferson-Wayles) have refused to allow Jefferson's remains to be disturbed to take DNA from him - so don't expect that confirmation. Younggoldchip, your comments and arguments are not about the article, but about your disagreement with the recent changes in Jeffersonian scholarship, which we are supposed to reflect here. There is clearly no way you can be satisfied, as the article needs to reflect the state of the field.Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

You might find it interesting to read the following article by a Wayles-Jefferson claimed descendant and member of the Monticello Ass'n: http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/2001/1/2001_1_50.shtml Lucian K. Truscott IV, "Children of Monticello"], American Heritage Magazine, February/March 2001, Vol. 52, Issue 1, accessed 24 March 2011. Quote: "...the story of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson has always been about blood and race and land.
Once consigned to a footnote in the history books or at best a few paragraphs in Jefferson biographies, the story of Hemings and him is by now well known, the subject of talk shows, documentaries, even a mini-series. Yet as familiar as the story of the two may seem, we are only now beginning to agree on a new version of our history." Further, "There is no disagreement that Jefferson’s wife, Martha, and Sally Hemings were half-sisters; both had the same father, John Wayles. So all the members of the Monticello Association are descended from Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings’s half-sister, Martha. That means that the members of the Monticello Association are cousins of every descendant of Sally Hemings, because we share a maternal great-great-great (etc., etc.) grandfather, Mr. Wayles." Truscott is an accepted member of the Monticello Association who invited Hemings' descendants to their annual meeting in 1999. He made the point in this article that all he had to do to have his children enrolled in the MA was to sign a brief application. No one asked for DNA or documentation. So don't assume that every lineage society is scrupulous about documentation. The association got more worried about documentation after the Hemings' descendants showed up.Parkwells (talk) 20:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Gordon-Reed's book is based on inferences and assumptions. And anyone who supposes it is the last word on the subject is naive indeed. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Younggoldchip (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Much of historians' work is inference and assumptions, as it is necessarily based on the evidence that remains, and sometimes there is not much of that after family censorship, wars, etc. - certainly previous ones were. Have you even read it? Parkwells (talk) 20:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Gordon-Reed's arguments, and don't find them compelling. Your statement that historians often reach conclusions through inference and conjecture is all too true. But when the best historians run across a question whose answer, inspite of the most scrupulous research, they don't know--they say they don't know. They don't scrape together, like a jackdaw, every possible speculation, wisp of gossip, (but only the gossip which is useful to their case),fable and myth, pump them up as though by a bicycle pump, and proudly present this dubious assemblage to their colleagues. The best historians don't present something as proof which is not proof.

Any argument which presents a "family oral tradition" as evidence is in deep trouble indeed. It's almost as illogical as those who dismiss the plain fact that Hemings had a not-Thomas partner for years.

You need to ask yourself if the critical reception to Gordon-Reed's book has been as intellectually tough as it should be. What I see is the softball response of reviewers and historians who're suffering from a weird critical mass of collective guilt: they seem afraid to ask the hard questions. It's as though they fear being thought of as old, possibly racist meanies who are robbing the Hemings of a distinguished heritage. A real historian, always, is unafraid to ask the tough questions.

You are exactly right that I'm not satisfied with the proofs as they stand, because they're not satisfactory. But I have genuine faith that improvements in DNA testing will clear this up in the near future. And I thank you for including this statement:"Members of the Monticello Association are cousins of every descendent of Sally Hemings, because we share a maternal great-great-great(etc.) grandfather..." Yes. That is an emotionally generous statement, which celebrates true connections, and I applaud it. Younggoldchip (talk) 12:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

• What Gordon-Reed did was not just accept an oral tradition, but check Madison Hemings' memoir against independently verifiable facts: Jefferson's activities and presence at Monticello, Hemings' conceptions, the names of the children reflecting Jefferson's family and friends, his freeing the children. Madison Hemings' account has been supported by more independent facts than the "family oral history" of the Jefferson grandson and granddaughter, who had named the married Carr nephews as father(s) of Hemings' children, which was disproven by the DNA results. In addition, their mother's oral tradition, which said Jefferson was gone for more than a year from Monticello before the birth of one of Hemings' children, was conclusively disproven by the well-documented timeline of Jefferson's activities by Dumas Malone, who was not trying to prove Jefferson's paternity, but collected the data for other purposes.

• Funny that you should say "Any argument which presents a "family oral tradition" as evidence is in deep trouble indeed". That's exactly what historians did who denied the evidence for Jefferson's paternity, as they relied on what Jefferson descendants said - hardly disinterested parties. It was the oral tradition of the Jefferson daughter and grandchildren that was the basis of the mainstream historians' denial of Jefferson's paternity for about 180 years, and they've been proven utterly wrong in their story. The historians denied the oral tradition that was supported by facts that are independent of the tradition, such as Jefferson's freeing Hemings' children. There were many more Hemings' nephews and nieces at Monticello than Sally's, but he freed only all of her family. People only started proposing other Jefferson males (such as his brother Randolph) after the DNA study showed a match to the Jefferson male line.

• Funny you should accept the overseer's word that he'd seen another man go into Hemings' room when he wasn't even working at Monticello at the time. But you don't appear to be concerned about his account that Jefferson directed him to give money to Harriet Hemings for her journey north when she left the plantation at age 21, nor for his repeating that people said Harriet was Jefferson's daughter. So you are picking and choosing what you pay attention to. Parkwells (talk) 14:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, you are picking and choosing what you pay attention to. You seem not to have read, attentively, my previous comments. Therefore, I'll repeat the gist of them.

• A "family oral tradition" is untrustworthy, from whichever direction it comes.

• Jefferson's possible presence in the same huge mansion as Sally Hemings, whether in Paris or at Monticello, at the time her children were conceived, proves exactly nothing at all. The mistake Gordon-Reed made, and which you are making, is to assume that the opportunity to copulate is proof that copulation took place. There is no such proof. By contrast, we have Jefferson's public statement that he found the idea of miscegenation repugnant. We know that Jefferson was a very intelligent man. It seems unlikely to me that he would even have brought the subject up if he were guilty of what he considered serious misconduct.

• Jefferson's kindness to Hemings' children does not prove paternity. Sally Hemings was his wife's beloved half-sister. There is no record that his wife was similarly close to her other half-siblings. Therefore, it's natural that Jefferson would have taken a particular interest in Sally's children--as his wife would have done, had she lived.

• You seem confused about the Monticello manager's sighting of a not-Thomas man coming out of Hemings' bedroom. In a previous comment, you said the manager was not present at Monticello, and therefore could not have spotted a possible "father", when Hemings' last child was born. Now you seem to have dispensed with the manager altogether throughout Hemings' entire childbearing period. Check your sources. He was there. As for the manager repeating gossip of the time-- that "people said" Jefferson was Harriet's father--anyone who's reached a thoughtful adulthood knows that "people will say" anything at all. A rumor is a rumor. Moses did not carry it down from the mountaintop engraved on tablets of stone.

You assume, wrongly, that I don't want Jefferson to have been the father of Sally Hemings' children. Actually, what I want is solid proof, one way or the other.

This whole debate has its sadly comical side. Basically, we're trying to prove or disprove a 19th century creation myth. If I were one of Hemings' descendents, I wouldn't really care which white overlord forced himself on my young and vulnerable ancestor, because their racist society had deprived her of the right to defend herself. I'd just despise the raping bastard, and get on with my life. Younggoldchip (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have some problems with understanding your standard of proof. On the one hand, you dismiss large amounts of historical and scientific evidence pointing to Jefferson the father of Hemings. On the other hand, you seem to have no problem at all at characterizing the relationship that produced her children as "forced" and "rape". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Edmund Bacon, the overseer quoted above, who gave Harriet money for her journey and claimed to have seen another man at Hemings' room, worked at Monticello from 1806-1822, per the Monticello website. This was not during most of Hemings's childbearing years, 1795-1808.Parkwells (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't dismiss evidence, I dismiss twaddle parading as evidence.

Perhaps Sally Hemings was not "forced" and "raped" as we would think of the term today--somebody physically savaging her. But surely a relationship which one partner does not have the right to refuse is, at least, dubious. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This is absurd - it is your argument against the historians' and genealogists' conclusions, not against me. You can disagree all you want, but the field of Jeffersonian scholarship has changed, and that is what we are reflecting. I've seen no reference to Sally having been Martha's "beloved" half-sister. She was only nine when Martha died. No one has characterized the relationship with Jefferson as one we would recognize today, only that it existed, just as his father-in-law Wayles had a liaison with Betty Hemings. Burstein's 2005 book on Jefferson, Death and Desire at Monticello, struggled to understand how he might have been thinking. The Hemings descendants certainly got on with their lives; it was Jefferson-Wayles descendants who commissioned the DNA study, hoping to put the story to rest.Parkwells (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You're claiming quite a bit more monolithic authority than you have. It is not your place to frame the debate. "The field of Jefferson scholarship" has changed--for some people, and for now. Until some real evidence--and it will have to be DNA evidence--puts the matter to rest, this question will remain undecided. When a historian who is researching a particular subject becomes emotionally invested in one outcome rather than another, research and science go out the window. He's no longer an historian; he's an obsessive. Younggoldchip (talk) 19:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

It's not my authority, but representing scholarship. As PBS noted in a Frontline program, "More than 20 years after CBS executives were pressured by Jefferson historians to drop plans for a mini-series on Jefferson and Hemings, the network airs, "Sally Hemings: An American Scandal." Though many quarrelled with the portrayal of Hemings as unrealistically modern and heroic, no major historian challenged the series' premise that Hemings and Jefferson had a 38-year relationship that produced children.""The History of a Secret", 1995-2011, accessed 5 May 2011Parkwells (talk) 19:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

You need to realize how ephemeral TV programming is, and how little respected. I can't imagine a major historian bothering to respond to a mini-series' premise--whether on CBS or PBS. Younggoldchip (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Are you reading this? You say you can't imagine it, but as note above, about 1980, major historians Virginius Dabney and Dumas Malone in fact reacted to rumors that CBS was considering a mini-series on Jefferson-Hemings, and persuaded its president William Paley to drop the project.Parkwells (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm reading this. 1980 is a very long time ago, in terms of television programming and standards of appropriateness in general. These days, an historian who considered a mini-series to be a total pile of crap, thematically speaking, would probably confine himself to a snide comment--if even that. Younggoldchip (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverted edits

I've just reverted this bunch of edits. In my opinion, they had too many problems to fix individually. Some were simply technically bad, some were plain wrong, and some showed a lack of understanding of the history. As an example, by Virginia law of the time, people of 7/8th white descent were legally white - that did not mean they they could not be slaves. I seriously doubt that Sally Hemings was ever identified as "white", but most of here children were indeed, passed into white society, and had white families. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You don't get it, you just don't get it. I'm undoing your reverts because your "cause" is unjustified and merely a byproduct of a bunch of historians who don't use logic in their research. Joshua the Independent 23:42, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about what "a bunch of historians" write, not your own personal opinion. Please see WP:OR and WP:V. Since I have some passing experience with logic, let me tell you that a sound argument based on wrong assumptions does not guarantee a sound result. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:14, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

What controversy?

This article is so violently biased in favor of the Jefferson-fathered-Hemings's-children myth that no sense whatsoever is given that there IS another side to the controversy.

"Yet, even during Jefferson's life it was known at Monticello and in Charlottesville that he had fathered Hemings' children."

Wow. Really? It was known, or it was the topic of hearsay and scuttlebutt circulated by the sorts of people that would enjoy spreading a little gossip about a great man?

NPOV left the building a LONG time ago on this one. HedgeFundBob (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Nationality, Abby Adams

I noticed two recent changes that I find somewhat questionable. First, is "African American" a nationality? It might be an ethnicity (although even that is somewhat questionable, given that we are talking about a time more than 200 years ago, and arguably before a unified African American ethnicity evolved). I'm tempted to change it back to "American".

Secondly, this edit by Parkwells removes the description of Hemings by Abigail Adams. Given that overall material on Sally Hemings is quite scarce, I don't see why this is not important. Abigail Adams was an unusually accomplished person, a major influence on her husband, and a frequent correspondent with Jefferson. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Stephen -Agree with you on nationality as United States. Not sure when the other change was made. Will restore the AA quote. Yes, AA was accomplished in her own right.Parkwells (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Also deleted Christianity as religion from Infobox, as it was unsourced.Parkwells (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Lengthy term

Someone changed "mixed race" to "of multiracial descent." I believe that "mixed race" is acceptable; it seems overworked to use seven syllables instead of two. Sally Hemings' parents were biracial and white; it wasn't as if her mixed-race ancestry were so many generations past that no one knew who they were.Parkwells (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Half-sisters as Lady's Maids

Somewhere along the way, I learned that it was cultural practice for the daughter of a wealthy individual to have his daughters, by his favorite slave(s), become the lady's maid to his full (white) daughters. I beieve that it was said of John Wayles wife that she came to the marriage to John with a lady's maid that was her half-sister. No one ever mentions this in relation to Sally Hemmings, but as she came with Martha as her lady's maid when she married Thomas Jefferson, could she not have been a half-sister of Martha, too? If it is true that this was a common practice, and Sally was actually Martha Jefferson's half-sister, it would be very understandable that Thomas Jefferson would find her, Sally, not just very beautiful, but intelligent, and possibly very much like his deceased wife in mannerisms and culture, as well as in her breeding. It also makes much more sense that he would have dressed Sally like his wife in Paris, and that Sally would have taken classes to learn French. It might even help us to understand why Sally never left Jefferson, was still "owned" by him at Thomas Jefferson's death, and was not set free like her children. Sally would have been "property" like all women were, even "white" women under the law prior to equal rights. This story of 18th century life also lets us see into the family, social, and economic dynamic of the period where some "slaves" were treated like family and inherited like family, and stayed in the South before and after the Civil War. I have to wonder what records of Thomas Jefferson might have been removed or destroyed at his death to hide this part of his life and times, and that of other's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.14.206.79 (talk) 19:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It is widely accepted that Sally Hemings was the half-sister of Martha (nee Wayles), by John Wayles and his slave Betty Hemings. We describe this in the first paragraph. Possible similarity between Sally and Martha is fairly widely considered one possible reason why Jefferson fell in love with her. However, we do not have very good descriptions of Sally Hemings, and no picture. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)