1.     I am not a communist and have never been one. The purpose of the essay that I prepared was to record to the best of my knowledge and ability the history and social conditions of the Negro in Washington. I do not see how the essay as a whole or in the specific section that shocked Congressman Keefe can be considered communistic or nazi-fascistic propaganda.

2.     What Congressman Keefe calls the "obvious spirit . . . which indicated to me at least an attempt . . . to portray the oppression of the Negro by the white race and thereby stimulate a feeling of class hatred," has not been obvious to the many reviewers and readers of both races who have failed to mention the "class hatred. As Congressman Keefe repeats in his speech, the Negro has had to contend with "adverse circumstances." I could hardly have written a historical account without recording some of these "adverse circumstances." But throughout the essay the fine services of humanitarian white people were insisted upon, and in the conclusion the point was explicitly made that

3.     The reference to George Washington Parke Custis was very incidental. It was not made with intent to defame. As Congressman Keefe is from a northern state, he is probably not familiar with the large amount of literature that deals with miscegenation in America, or with the stories handed down by oral tradition, both among white people and Negroes. Statements that represent the opinions concerning miscegenation of well known southern white writers are affixed to this memorandum. [Note: this list was not found among these papers. That list may indeed exist.]

I wrote the sentence because I was convinced of its accuracy. The relationship has long been a matter of common belief among Negroes of Washington and among certain white people. I had heard of it for years. My historical source, however, was the article by E. Delorus Preston [Journal of Negro History, Vol. XX (4), October 1935]

I was confident of Mr. Preston's carefulness as a research student; and the evidence as presented was convincing. To enter into the demonstration of a moot point of genealogy would be too long for our present purposes, but I am as confident today as I was when I wrote the sentence that the facts are as stated.

I certainly intended no slander. A white father's caring for his Negro children was, according to my research on the subject, not unknown but somewhat unusual in those days. In my opinion it merits commendation and was certainly written of in a spirit opposite to "viciousness."

I certainly did not intend the sentence to "destroy the character and reputation of . . . the family and household of George and Martha Washington and Robert E. Lee."

I am affixing a statement setting forth what I considered proof of the relationship.

4.    All of the efforts of the staff of my office and of other workers on the Federal Writers' Project have not been able to discover the "tremendous evidence to the contrary in the Congressional Library." Mr. Preston is not a "young Negro student trained in Howard University." He graduated from Howard University over twenty years ago. He has since studied toward his doctorate in history at Ohio State University, has contributed to learned journals, and is now the dean of a Negro college in Florida.

5.     The fifth charge is the only one that I consider true. I failed to reply to Congressman Keefe's letter (1) probably of procrastination due to a heavy schedule (2) because I could add nothing tot he information already sent to him on the case, information secured from this office. Concerning the telephone calls, I am unable to understand why I could not be reached, or why no record was made of Congressman Keefe's telephoning. 

I have written a letter to the Congressman apologizing for my discourtesy in neglecting to reply to him.