Of course, Mark, I always believe in continuing scholarship. But this
issue about Jefferson and Sally has reached a point in its narrative
where there is nothing new to add, that is no new data'; there is
only exegetic dicing and slicing. Lots of emotion, but not much real
insight. The future will almost certainly be brighter; we must be
patient for science to evolve to a point where it can serve our need,
as it surely will. As Immanuel Kant observed: "Truth is the child of
time."
-- Stephan
On 4 May 2008, at 12:37, Mark Wilson wrote:
> But wouldn't you also agree that in the interim minority reports by
> highly-credentialed people on a key issue should be made a matter
> of record
> along with majority reports so that reviewers could see all the
> data found
> by the experts and their various opinions and conclusions? "People
> being
> people," academia I presume must not be totally free of various
> degrees
> "corruption" itself. For example, for an extreme case, see:
> http://www.mcrkba.org/Bellesiles.html
> Mark
>
> On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Stephan A. Schwartz <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Historical data, absent the discovery of some as yet unknown but
>> definitive documentation, will not get us to an answer. On that we
>> should,
>> surely, all agree at this point. Only science will settle this
>> and, based on
>> my reading of that literature, I believe it will, within the next
>> 10-15
>> years. Personally, I think it is a question we should put aside
>> until some
>> new factor is introduced into the equation.
>>
>> -- Stephan
>>
>>
>> On 4 May 2008, at 09:03, DFM wrote:
>>
>> In a little book called Jefferson at Monticello. The private life of
>>> Thomas Jefferson, the author addresses the question of TJ and a
>>> slave-girl
>>> lover and he says that he often saw someone else, never
>>> Jefferson, leaving
>>> that slave's abode in the early morning.
>>> The author of this little book was Jefferson's overseer for many
>>> years
>>> and he saw a lot of what went on around the place. He does not
>>> say precisely
>>> who it was that he saw darting out of her room but he says that
>>> it was not
>>> Thomas Jefferson.
>>> It seems to me that just like there are those who refuse to
>>> believe that
>>> TJ fooled around with the slaves, there are those who refuse to
>>> consider
>>> that he did not.
>>> Deane Mills
>>> Yorktown, VA
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Mark Wilson" <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 1:37 AM
>>> Subject: Re: DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy
>>>
>>>
>>> Is it not possible that TJ had a secret sexual relationship with
>>> another
>>> (or
>>> others over the years?) rather than with apparently the relatively
>>> convenient SH?
>>>
>>> On the other hand, TJ was already among an extremely small
>>> percentage of
>>> humanity at one end of the Bell curve in certain human
>>> characteristics.
>>> He
>>> was not your run-of-the-mill ordinary guy. Could he not have also
>>> have
>>> been
>>> among those fewer numbers of men tending to be mostly sexually
>>> inactive
>>> in
>>> later life - whether for medical or other reasons? For example,
>>> although
>>> "people will be people" most Popes, especially recent ones,
>>> appear to
>>> have
>>> been people who were celibate - even though over the centuries
>>> not all
>>> have
>>> been found to be so - and even though maybe more than we know
>>> were not
>>> so.
>>>
>>> We may project certain characteristics upon the masses of
>>> humanity with
>>> some
>>> degree of accuracy, but when trying to say the same things about
>>> one man
>>> or
>>> one woman we run a much greater risk of inaccuracy. Some are
>>> willing to
>>> make such leaps - other are not. I believe the wiser choice is
>>> to not
>>> make
>>> such leaps.
>>>
>>> Of course some folks die before the answers ("truths") are
>>> known. Some
>>> of
>>> us may go that route before any new DNA methods or evidence "proves"
>>> which
>>> beliefs about TJ were correct. (I hate it when humans pass from the
>>> scene
>>> before knowing the answer "for sure" because it means that I may
>>> eventually
>>> be among them in things I'd really like to know - but "C'est la
>>> vie,"
>>> eh?)
>>>
>>> Mark
>>>
>>> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Stephan A. Schwartz <
>>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>>
>>> Herbert --
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for this lengthy exegesis on this subject. Much of it I
>>>> knew,
>>>> but some I did not. Let me reduce my thinking to a parsimonious
>>>> essence. The
>>>> present day DNA data is highly suggestive but not despositive.
>>>> However, the
>>>> science of genetics is advancing now with a speed that is
>>>> reminiscent
>>>> of
>>>> laser development — in the 1960s and 70s — when they had to publish
>>>> the time
>>>> and date the paper was submitted because there was a chance it had
>>>> been
>>>> super-ceded by the time it was through the peer-review and
>>>> publication
>>>> cycle. There is much more we are going to learn from DNA
>>>> inquiry. Of
>>>> that, I
>>>> think, we can be sure. There will be new and better tests yielding
>>>> clearer,
>>>> deeper insights. Who did what in the beginning of this approach, a
>>>> decade
>>>> from now will become a not terribly important part of the
>>>> narrative,
>>>> except
>>>> as it reveals various prejudices of the day. We must be patient
>>>> until
>>>> new
>>>> data emerges. This is like discussing a baseball game in the
>>>> seventh
>>>> inning.
>>>>
>>>> One thing I do know. People do not live in a Tolstoian village like
>>>> Monticello without all of the people in the household having a
>>>> relationship,
>>>> and Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson had to have had one. Her
>>>> status
>>>> as
>>>> his chambermaid assured that.
>>>>
>>>> So I guess it gets down to whether you think he would be capable of
>>>> such a
>>>> relationship? People today have sexual relationships all the time
>>>> with
>>>> individuals with whom they are far less involved than Jefferson was
>>>> with
>>>> Sally. And the same was true in the Elizabethan Age. Between
>>>> 1558 and
>>>> 1603,
>>>> in the Country of Essex, which had approximately 40,000 adults,
>>>> almost
>>>> 38
>>>> per cent — 15,000 — were cited for sexual misbehavior. And it
>>>> will be
>>>> true
>>>> 50 years from now. People are people, and I think Jefferson no
>>>> different. Do
>>>> you think he was a celibate? Was it coercive? By definition. But
>>>> while
>>>> I can
>>>> see Jefferson as a man with secret sexual relationship, I cannot
>>>> see
>>>> him as
>>>> a serial rapist, so some accommodation was reached.
>>>>
>>>> Does this make him evil. I don't think so. Thomas Jefferson, no
>>>> less
>>>> that
>>>> the other Founders, with the exception of Franklin, was a man of
>>>> his
>>>> time,
>>>> status, and culture. What has always amazed me about these
>>>> individuals, is
>>>> that they risked everything and, in the end, rose above who they
>>>> were
>>>> to
>>>> craft what they bequeathed us. Their modernity and relevance,
>>>> lies in
>>>> the
>>>> question they eternally pose: Would I, could I, do the same?
>>>>
>>>> -- Stephan
>>>>
>>>
>>> - - - s n i p - - -
>>>
>>> ______________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________________
>> 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
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
