Just as one of the posters mentioned that Wythe was innocent of this charge Thomas Jefferson also is innocent of that Jefferson/Hemings charge. I worked with Dr Foster, DNA Study, and NOTHING proves TJ guilty, it is just a large agenda to be politiocally correct and the revise history.

Dr Foster tested a KNOWN carrier of Jefferson DNA as always believed by Eston Hemings (a Jefferson uncle or nephew), and YES, there would automatically be a match, and there was, but it was not THOMAS. Dr Fostyer did not inmform Nature of this as I had suggested. Dr Foster started the ball rolling, continued by Nature who nothing of other Jeffersons and finally Monticello had a biased and one sided study that further implicated Thomas.

Folks……….YOU ARE BEING CONNED from several quarters. See http://www.tjheritage.org and http://www.jeffersondna.com for full details.

Herb Barger
Jefferson Family Historian
Founder, Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society

By Herbert Barger on Mar 7, 2009 at 3:54 pm

Mr. Chadwick: With all respect, as a thinking, educated person and student of history, I must disagree with your conclusion that the persistent rumors that Lydia was Mr. Wythe’s concubine and Michael his son “have no basis in fact.” In your statement, you set forth that former/slaveholders often left bequests to their slaves. This simply is not so. Bequests were rare, and when done, fell far short of a stately home in the heart of exclusive Williamsburg and a promise of a first-rate education that Mr.Wythe left to these individuals. Moreover, it is a fact that Wythe made then President of the United States Thomas Jefferson executor of his will so that his wishes could be exectued. If this is not breathtaking confirmation of the veracity of these “rumors” I simply don’t know what is. Also, to point to omissions in “correspondence from people who knew Whythe” as dispositive of the issue is laughable given 1.) Mr. Wythe’s gilded standing in the community, 2.)the prevalence of these intimate relationships, and 3.) perhaps most importantly, the time-honored tradition of keeping such relationships private. After all, white men could have been sued for slander and slaves could have beaten or killed for speaking of such things. (Even today, there is a reluctance to do so.) Lastly, with regard to Michael’s freedom, have you not considered that Virginia law would have required that Michael be expressly freed, despite being born to a free mother, since his mother resided and he was born in a slave-holding state? To not address these “rumors” in your text was a glaring omission. In so doing, you have denied the reading public a more robust understanding and discussion of colonial life and, in particular, a better understanding of why Mr. Sweeny felt that he had to resort to murder to claim the entire estate.

By Paul Troyer on Apr 10, 2009 at 1:52 am