Thanks very much, Mr. Corneliussen, for raising this fair-minded  
question.

The answer is that I have not read Ms. Burton's book, although that  
has been more a function of time (this is not actually my area of  
current research, and my reading time is limited!) than of absolute  
unwillingness to do so, as I do find the Jefferson-Hemings question  
relevant enough to my professional life in a couple of ways I need  
not detail here to wish to keep abreast sooner or later of any  
genuinely new information in the matter.  Your recommendation, along  
with Henry Wiencek's, leads me to believe that I ought to look at the  
Burton work on those grounds when I can find the time to do so.

"Jefferson Vindicated" may well be a useful entry in this hydra-like  
debate, then.  My point, however, was that by giving her work such a  
title--rather than, say, "The Jefferson-Hemings History: A  
Reconsideration," or something similarly neutral--Burton tips her  
hand, automatically arousing skepticism in the mind of anyone who  
does not see the matter as one of vindication vs. conviction and  
leading them to doubt her objectivity in the inevitable supposition  
that she would not have undertaken any research that could have led  
her to title her book (equally tendentiously) "Jefferson Convicted."

Your further point--expressed with admirable delicacy, I should add!-- 
that by criticizing Burton without reading her book, I indulge the  
same a priori accusation of bad faith with which I charge Mr. Barger,  
is fair but not quite on the mark, I think.  The difference is that I  
do have evidence--her own book title--to question Burton's open- 
mindedness to historical evidence, even before I have laid hands on  
her work.  Mr. Barger, by contrast, adduces no evidence for his  
shrill and sweeping charges implying that individuals on this list  
(including myself) and the numerous scholars he berates on Amazon.com  
suffer from biases of "political correctness," "historical  
revisionism," or professional gullibility--except that we disagree  
with him.

I look forward to your response to my query on the statistical  
matter, from which I expect to learn something--after which I will  
with pleasure turn to the countless other subjects so long eclipsed  
on this list!

--Jurretta


On May 6, 2008, at 7:01 AM, S. Corneliussen wrote:

> Question for Jurretta Hecksher
>
> I owe, and am working to send, Jurretta Heckscher an answer about  
> my arguments concerning what has been called the statistical pillar  
> in the three-pillared paternity proof: historical evidence, DNA,  
> and statistics. Meanwhile, something in Ms. Heckscher's thoughtful  
> admonishment of Mr. Barger for his manners and zealous excesses has  
> inspired a question from me to her.
>
> Ms. Hecksher, you wrote to Mr. Barger:
>
>> You refer to other
>> possible candidates for the paternity of SH's children  as  
>> "suspects" (e.g., in messages of April 29 and May 3).  A   
>> genealogist whose work you doubtless value discloses a similar   
>> outlook when she titles her book on the relationship "Jefferson   
>> Vindicated`" (it is difficult to believe that a book bearing such  
>> a  title represents anything other than a sustained attempt to  
>> reach a  foreordained conclusion, which is not how persuasive  
>> historical  analysis is made).
>
> But you also wrote that you are "viscerally disinclined to take  
> seriously the arguments of someone who deems [you] a  priori guilty  
> (sic) of bad faith."
>
> My question is: Have you actually read Cyndi Burton's _Jefferson  
> Vindicated_?
>
> Maybe you have indeed read it. If so, I apologize sheepishly for  
> challenging you on this point, and I'll return meekly to preparing  
> the answer that I owe you about statistics -- except to say three  
> more things:
>
> * Though I disagree with a lot of what Mr. Barger says and with  
> much in his manner of saying it, I'll bet he does indeed value  
> Cyndi's book, and so do I. Reading _Jefferson Vindicated_ made me a  
> whole lot less confident about many of the paternity believers'  
> arguments. In my view Cyndi's explorations of primary sources have  
> led to valuable contributions to new knowledge about Hemings-TJ. I  
> make my living working with physicists, and though I can usually  
> follow what they say, I have no hope of attaining their level of  
> knowledge. I feel the same way when I talk to Cyndi about Hemings- 
> TJ, as I have done regularly for several years now. I also believe  
> that I know the physicists well enough that I could tell if they  
> were getting intellectually careless. They never do, which is why I  
> admire them. Same with Cyndi. Nobody who cares about this  
> controversy should fail to read her book.
>
> * I don't believe, as I noted once before in this forum, that  
> University of Richmond history professor Woody Holton read  
> _Jefferson Vindicated_ before posting a book review about it at  
> Amazon.com -- a book review in which he nevertheless went so far as  
> to tar Cyndi with an implied charge of white supremacism. (I  
> admonished him as you've now admonished Mr. Barger.)
>
> * This whole episode, centered most recently on Mr. Barger's  
> manners and zealous excesses, reminds me that Henry Wiencek might  
> be right to accentuate the polarization by framing things as  
> "Jefferson defenders" vs. "Hemings partisans" instead of as  
> something like paternity disbelievers vs. paternity believers  
> (though that's polarized too, I admit). Yes, Cyndi's book's title  
> goes against the principles you refer to, Ms. Hecksher, when you  
> talk about what "is not how persuasive historical analysis is  
> made." But in this controversy, I'm not sure I fault her for it as  
> you might do. Maybe she was only responding to a reality. Is this  
> discussion really historical analysis, or do _both_ sides actually  
> make it the polarized fight that Mr. Wiencek's chosen terms imply?
>
> Thanks very much.
>
> I remain,
>
> A paternity agnostic,
>
> Steven T. Corneliussen
>
> ______________________________________
> 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