Thank you Deane for your observation. You are correct. Rev. Pearson
noted this and left the person's name blank as I believe I have written
in earlier posts. I have been trying unsuccessfully to find Rev.
Pearson's raw notes and possibly find the missing name, but the main
thing is that the person exiting Sally's quarters WAS NOT Thomas
Jefferson.
I do know where Jefferson's overseer, Edmund Bacon, is buried in Trigg
Co., Ky. I have spoken with the caretaker of his grave site for many
years.
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of DFM
Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 9:03 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [VA-HIST] Jefferson's Overseer
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
|
