Very early in Dr. Mark Holowchak's remarks, he refers to Dr. Eugene Foster as, "...the geneticist behind the study." That is a fallacy. Dr. Foster was not a geneticist and did not claim to be a geneticist. Also, at the outset of his remarks Dr. Holowchak mentions, "the James Callender incident early in Jefferson's presidency..." Callender was a newspaper reporter. He wrote an article which was published in a Richmond newspaper on September 1, 1802, which in part read, "It is well know that the man [Jefferson].....keeps and for many years has kept, as his concubine, one of his slaves. Her name is Sally. The name of her eldest son is Tom." Callender wrote additional articles on the subject in the ten weeks following the beginning of September.1802. In the ensuing 200 years no one except Dr. Holowchak has written or spoken about "...the James Callender incident..." There are many definitions for most words, but the Cambridge Dictionary definition for incident is 'an event that is either unpleasant or unusual.' In the areas of diplomacy and politics the event is most often unpleasant. Thus Dr. Holowchak cast a cloud over Callender's newspaper articles before even revealing to viewers that James Callender had written newspaper articles. He could have simply said, "James Callender's reports." The goal of a historian should be objectivity. Jefferson and his family probably thought of Callender's articles as unpleasant. Sally Hemings probably shared their perspective. Some of Hemings's relatives may have had a markedly different reaction. Today many people see Callender as a bitter and vindictive man and others see him as a brave and cunning renegade. Dr. Holowchak should have removed himself from disparagement. I did not watch the video beyond that first couple of sentences of Dr. Holowchak's remarks.
The Jefferson-Hemings controversy was a scandal before it was a controversy; the scandal started on September 1, 1802 with an article written in a Richmond newspaper. The article was written by James Callender, who wrote, " It is well known that the man [Jefferson]...keeps...as his concubine, one of his slaves. Her name is Sally. The name of her eldest son is Tom...The boy is ten or twelve years old." Dr. Mark Holowchak did not mention Callender or Tom is his video. Callender's assertions began the scandal. Books such as Fawn Brodie's biography of Jefferson quoted Callender. Brodie's book sold 350,000 copies in 1974. Barbara Chase Riboud's novel followed Brodie's research. The novel sold over one million copies in 1979. The novel revealed the entire September 1802 article, about 500 words in all. The point here is that the scandal did not start with Madison Hemings's testimony, and the recovery of this history never depended on Annette Gordon-Reed, as she did not recover any evidence. Dr. Holowchak directs too much attention to both Madison and Gordon-Reed and by doing so misses the greater part of the controversy. The controversy was dormant between 1876 and 1951. Jefferson's Farm Book was first printed in 1953. In 1954 Dr. W. Edward Farrison published an article in Phylon, that recovered critical evidence, including Callender's assertions. Before Farrison's recovery, Callender's assertions had been dormant for 151 years. Farrison helped Pearl M. Graham extend her research. Graham wrote an article titled "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings," that was published in the Journal of Negro History in 1961. It was the first article to be published in an academic journal that asserted that the Jefferson-Hemings liaison was a reality. Graham was not aware of Madison's testimony. Her assertion was based on an accumulation of evidence; at the center was 1) Callender's assertions, 2) Jefferson Farm Book records revealing names and dates 3) the assertions of Frances Trollope. Trollope had spoken to Frances Wright who went to Monticello with Lafayette in 1824 and heard Jefferson acknowledge that some of his mulatto children had left Monticello unhindered. The essence of Graham's imperfect, but truly groundbreaking, article is now very widely accepted. Brodie added much more evidence to Graham's accumulation, including Madison's testimony. Widespread access to Madison's testimony was effectuated by way of Brodie's biography. This comment must be relatively brief. Writers and historians of all colors and stripes have latched onto this history for its benefit or for its corruption. The descendants of Sally Hemings have never lost their history. Brodie's book emboldened their stance. First history, then DNA. Newsman James Callender wrote an article for a Richmond newspaper, Sept. 1, 1802. He wrote T.J. had a concubine named Sally. Sally had a son named Tom - 12 years old. Callender said that she had more children, but Callender never named them. Historians like Annette Gordon-Reed (Pulitzer Prize) say that the baby died soon after being born. Think about it. The baby was born in 1790 right after they returned from France. If the baby died, then why was Callender writing about him in 1802? Somebody has a bogus story. Also, in 1802 a man named Thomas Gibbons wrote a letter to an U.S. Senator, saying that T.J. and Sally gave birth to Tom, Hariot, and Beverly. If the first child died why was Gibbons writing about him in 1802? The newspapers never named the other two kids, so Gibbons had his own source for information. The Callender account and the Gibbons account corroborate one another. The 1870 U S census for Jackson Co. OH indicates that Thomas Woodson was born in 1790 in Virginia. He owned a 382-acre farm in Ohio; he and his wife Jemima raised 11 children including Sarah Jane, who was the first black American to teach at a historically black college or university (1859). The Woodson family has never lost its history. Fawn Brodie’s Jefferson biography sold 350,000 copies in 1974; Barbara Chase -Riboud’s novel Sally Hemings sold over one million copies in 1979. The movie Jefferson in Paris was screened coast to coast in 1995. Jefferson historians such as Joseph Ellis, who disagreed with Brodie’s conclusion, started calling for DNA tests in 1997. Historians have never accepted the evidence in Brodie’s book, even now. They are not guided by the historic record. Byron Woodson was one of the DNA donors. He is a first-hand witness. Dr Foster, the testing organizer, promised the DNA donors that historians would be kept away from the DNA process. Historians had never handled the history honestly, so the donors wanted them kept away. Foster also promised to contact and inform the donors before the results were made public. The testing and laboratory work may have been perfect, but the reporting was hijacked by historian Joseph Ellis and others. Dr. Foster was distraught when he learned that he had lost control. After Woodson learned that things had gone astray, Foster answered Woodson's pointed questions honestly and never failed to answer the telephone. Donors found out that things were in motion from the Washington Post. Foster did not know Ellis. (Byron Woodson, A President in the Family, 2001, 221-29) When Ellis and news outlets, like U. S. News and World Report were preparing a media dump, Foster thought the DNA results were still secret. Ellis appeared as the star of a massive multi-media media dump, reporting the reputed DNA results Nov. 1st and 2nd 1998. Ellis appeared on PBS News Hour Nov. 2, 1998, announcing "...the scientific evidence that we have now generated." Again, DNA donors had been promised that historians would be kept away from the process, knowing of their untrustworthy track record. Foster sent a letter objecting to the handling of the matter to Nature (magazine) and the Washington Post reported that Foster had issued a written objection. (Leef Smith, WAPO, 1/6/1999) Foster told Woodson, "I don't know," when his project was breached, thus Foster did not know if the Nature article, that he had co-authored, reported the actual results or not. Ellis was later embroiled in a scandal which forced him out of his teaching job for a year and caused him to admit that he is a habitual liar. (Cox, Journal of Higher Education, 7/13/2001) The Thomas Jefferson Foundation embraced a hijacked DNA report announced by an admitted habitual liar. Is that best practices? The producers of the movie, Sally Hemings, knew about the DNA tests, but decided to reject that process and embrace Brodie’s book and the Woodson family’s oral history and research. They bought the rights to Brodie’s book. (T. Andrews, Sally Hemings, The Struggle to Tell the Controversial True Story, 2001, 16,55). The movie had to make sense. Well over 20 million Americans have seen the movie (now on You Tube). Like Dr. Holowchak, the movie producers disagreed with Gordon-Red and the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, but they disagreed in a different way. The historic record is very robust. There is much more to this but in this format, this must end here.
Just to let you good folks know: This was posted on FaceBook and, because of that, my TJ was put on suspension!!!! Can you %$#@! believe that???? Will I next be thrown into jail for flying the American flag in front of my house?????
Succession for Liberty's sake is a good thing. Although you need to figure out if it's being done intentionally by an outside actor. maybe to fracture a nation?
I just read your article on Jefferson v Hamilton: A Northern versus Southern feud? in the Abbeville Press and decided to check out your channel. I have come to realize that there is a concerted effort to rewrite American history so I have started a book collection and will be adding something from your work. We have to defeat the Trotskyites who want to destroy America and bury Western Civilization. Historians such as yourself give us at least a foothold. So many scholars across many fields have had your experience. I encourage you to find like minded gardeners, together uproot the weeds and find a place with fertile soil. Final thought, Harvard is a poor excuse for an institution of knowledge and learning....more like a communist boot camp.
@@markholowchak6972Pretty much. Oh by the way the book that you mentioned in the beginning that you're working on. When will it be available, and once it's available, how will it be accessible?
@@markholowchak6972 i'm glad to hear that about TJ. it seems consistent with what i know, and what you've stated about him. Although i've heard that Hamilton and Washington might have been involved so i had to ask.
TJ had too roseate of a depiction of the average Joe. All persons had a moral sense and were on the whole pretty decent blokes, as it were. He underestimated the possibility of human wickedness....
Love this series, and your works on Jefferson. I do however disagree with you when you call the American War for Independence a "Revolution", I would argue that it was anything but, rather I think it should be considered a War to defend/maintain the Secession of the American Colonies from the British Empire.
You might be able to say Jefferson vs. Hamilton was one of the first American political divides. Thanks again for responding to my emails earlier this week 👍
I believe what we are currently seeing with the destruction of statues is apart of a cycle that moves through our history. I don't know if you have heard of William Strauss and Neil Howe's theory about there being for turnings in history that make up a crisis. High, Awakening, Unraveling, and Crisis. A lot of what's happening is supposedly because we are in a crisis era. I learned it recently it's very fascinating.
I have a similar view: the pendular theory of history. When mired in one extreme, there is necessarily a reaction that leads to the other extreme. Extremes of course are always chaotic and dangerous. We are in a Wokeist phase and Trumpian conservatism is the extreme reaction: both unhealthy.
The one thing that strikes me about this story is Sally Hemings was three quarters white which if she did breed with Thomas Jefferson(a White man) Those kids would look pretty white at that point in which case their maternal lineage could have been hidden.
"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation etc..." is this quote from Jefferson Real? i've heard of different opinions over the years.
www.monticello.org/research-education/thomas-jefferson-encyclopedia/private-banks-spurious-quotation/ Answer is here. It is certainly in the spirit of TJ, Mbagu.
This was a piece I almost passed up. But, thankfully, I watched. I was thoroughly pleased that I did. Dr. Holowchak, and his guest, Rett Longmore, gave me a good representation, of something I never thought I needed to know, but I guess I did. Very entertaining 40 minutes, that taught me a lot. I would like to see more collaborations between the good Dr. and Mr. Longmore, in the future. They seem to gel, very well together. Thanks for the enlightenment!
MISTAKE: Charles Willson Peale's painting in the video is actually a second painting of TJ by Rembrandt Peale. CW Peale's painting, fantastic, is not in the video! There will be a companion piece shortly on Abbeville Institute's webpage. All pictures there are dated.
That Jefferson was at Monticello for the conception times of Hemings children is based off the assumption that she carried her children to full term. If she didn't then the dates of Jefferson being at Monticello don't match up for some of the children (Madison and Eston) depending on how far along she was when she gave birth.
Professor Dotts, was very knowledgeable on Jefferson, which was impressive, having not specializing on Jefferson. And he was very easy to listen to. He , coupled with Dr. Holowchak's, vast knowledge of Jeffersonian history, made for a very interesting dialog! Both of these gentlemen, I would venture, would have eager students, if given the chance, to absorb their knowledge.
Thank you for these videos. I don't know what took me so long to discover this channel. I have a lot of catching up to to do. In the meantime. "Most significant, his political thinking was ultimately grounded in his moral thinking-namely, human well-being or flourishing." Holowchak, M. Andrew. Thomas Jefferson: Uncovering His Unique Philosophy and Vision (p. 297). Prometheus. Kindle Edition. Can we equate Epicurean "happiness" as human flourishing? If so, would that be sufficient to explain Jefferson's choice for public political life, ill advised in Epicurean doctrine? What exactly was Jefferson's summum bonum; it seems to be Utilitarian? I get the sense that Jefferson viewed actions through a moral lens and judged them by their beneficence as a means to human flourishing. This seems compatible with an Epicurean summum bonum.
@@markholowchak6972 😅 no. when i was younger i thought it would be funny if a certain short fantasy character had an email address and i never changed it.
Thank you. Good suggestion. It is hard today to read anything on TJ, bc easy, too easy, to spot glaring mistakes, though there are too mistakes, I am sure, in my writings.
@@markholowchak6972 i wondered, aside the DNA stuff, if more liberties were taken. e.g. were TJ's view and opinions represented accurately? KB has a way of spinning things.
At times, taxation was needed. Yet with demassified government, that is thin federal government, taxation would be minimal. Overtaxing would create big government and burden the citizens. Thank you.
