Like plenty of lawyers before him, William G. Hyland Jr. has persuaded himself that his client is innocent, that his accusers are liars, hypocrites or otherwise incompetent and that truth ultimately can be seen as white or black, rather than gray.
Described as a Tampa Bay area lawyer with "more than 26 years of litigation experience," Hyland might serve his living clients well.
In the world of historians, Hyland is not a licensed professional, but an admitted amateur. He has conducted impressive research, but in the realm of historical writing his amateurism shows. As a lawyer who has chosen to present history along the lines of a courtroom proceeding, Hyland does not serve his client, former President Thomas Jefferson, well.
Hyland, like Jefferson a Virginian according to upbringing, thinks it scandalous that other historians, amateurs and professionals alike, have not only accused but convicted Jefferson of fathering children with his slave Sally Hemings, 30 years his junior.
Rumors of Jefferson's sexual relations with Hemings have existed for more than 200 years. The rumors turned into potential evidence during the 1990s, as the result of DNA analysis. Not even Hyland contests the conclusion that Jefferson or a close male relative fathered Hemings' children. From that starting point, Hyland purports to eliminate Thomas Jefferson and hang the act on younger brother Randolph Jefferson.
The trouble is -- even if Hyland cannot recognize that trouble -- the evidence pointing to Randolph Jefferson is circumstantial at best. A learned judge once told me (during a contemporary investigation) that circumstantial evidence is as good as direct evidence if enough of it exists. Well, as one of Hyland's "jurors," I have read his circumstantial evidence carefully. My personal verdict: Not enough of it exists, and what does exist is mostly so speculative that it fails to rise to the level of meaningful. Furthermore, the evidence presented by Hyland to exonerate Thomas Jefferson is also mostly circumstantial and speculative.
Does Hyland's seeming failure to "convict" Randolph Jefferson mean Thomas Jefferson is indeed the father of Hemings' children? No. The father might be Thomas, might be Randolph, might be one of two Jefferson nephews, Peter and Samuel Carr.
Near the beginning of his case, Hyland says, "Thomas Jefferson is either the most prolific, hypocritical liar in American history or the victim of the most profane, 200-year-old defamation of character allegation in legal annals. There is no gauzy middle ground in this historical tableau." Maybe so. But much of the evidence is gauzy. As a quasi-juror, based on the evidence presented, I vote "case not closed."
