The various comments on the obligation to provide complete and accurate quotations raise the more interesting issue of consequence. The rules seem to be understood, but when they are violated, what happens?.

In her letter of October 24, 1858 Ellen Coolidge wrote to her husband:
“His (Thomas Jefferson’s) apartment had no private entrance not perfectly accessible and visible to all the household. No female domestic ever entered his chambers except at hours when he was known not to be there and none could have entered without being exposed to the public gaze.”

In her "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy," Annette Gordon-Reed  included as an appendix the letter of Ellen Coolidge, but altered it in this manner: “No female domestic ever entered his chambers except at hours when he was known not to be in the public gaze”

Gordon-Reed later brushed off the alteration, although it reversed the meaning of the sentence. The University Press of Virginia first published her book in 1997 and continues to publish it without correction or an errata insert.  Inexplicably, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation printed the original Coolidge hand-written letter in its Research Committee Report in 2000, but used the Gordon-Reed letter as the “printed version.” Today, Monticello continues to reference the Gordon-Reed version on its website with no explanation that it is in error.

No college student could commit such a distortion and escape censure. As always, the lower the violator is on the totem pole, the easier it is to pile on. Can anyone cite an instance of condemnation from academics when fellow academics are caught?

Richard E. Dixon
Editor, Jefferson Notes
Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society
703-691-0770
fax 703-691-0978



> [Original Message]
> From: Jon Kukla <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 10/24/2006 4:51:41 PM
> Subject: Re: Transcribing Civil War Diaries
>
> I'll not repeat the good advice from others about editing . . . but in
> light of the comment that the diarist "made rare derogatory remarks about
> companions and superiors and she has been advised against including full
> text of those remarks," I do want to emphasize the critical importance of
> including everything and not Bowdlerizing the text.
>  Nothing will destroy more quickly the reader's or researcher's confidence
> in the integrity of the transcription than a suspicion of censorship -
> and with good reason, because nothing (except perhaps incompetent
> transcribing) destroys the integrity of the transcription itself more
> quickly than a latter-day censor altering the evidence.
>   In short, what is the point of transcribing dear old
> great-grand-mom/dad's thoughts dishonestly? She/he deserves more respect
> than that, and adult family members (not to mention scholars) want to
> come as close as they can to the real flesh and blood person and her/his
> genuine opinions.
>
>
>
> Dr. Jon Kukla, Executive Vice-President
> Red Hill - The Patrick Henry National Memorial
> 1250 Red Hill Road
> Brookneal, Virginia 24528
> www.redhill.org
> Phone 434-376-2044 or 800-514-7463
>
> Fax 434-376-2647
>
> - M. Lynn Davis, Office Manager
> - Karen Gorham, Associate Curator
> - Edith Poindexter, Curator
>
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
> at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html