Steven --
In that sense I am a Jeffersonian, although I think of it more as
being a Franklinian. In any case, I do believe science will settle
the issue of Jefferson, Sally, and the possibility of his paternity
which will, by definition, answer the question of whether there was a
sexual/romantic relationship between them. And it will not be a p = ³
0.05 answer. If asked in the classroom that would be my answer.
-- Stephan
On 4 May 2008, at 12:47, S. Corneliussen wrote:
> It seems to me that you have a Jeffersonian faith not only in the
> inevitability of future science, but in the inevitability of its
> wise application. Maybe you're right.
>
> Meanwhile, in schools and in the media, people are regularly
> assured that historians now know for certain that Sally Hemings and
> TJ were parents together. And maybe they were. (Certainly, as Prof.
> Finkelman and others emphasize, there's a notable consanguinity of
> some sort here in any case.)
>
> But I'd find less reason for pause in certain historians' confident
> certitude if I had more faith in the handling of the science that's
> been invoked already.
>
> True, the misreporting of valid DNA evidence and the outright
> misuse of statistical science originated among people representing
> science, not the history profession, though credulous historians
> unskeptically accepted the statistical stuff.
>
> It all makes me wonder whether things would improve if there's a
> next time for science in this discussion.
>
> Steven T. Corneliussen
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephan A. Schwartz"
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Jefferson's Overseer
>
>
> 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 Ñ in the 1960s and 70s Ñ 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 Ñ 15,000 Ñ 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
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.524 / Virus Database: 269.23.8/1413 - Release Date:
> 5/3/2008 11:22 AM
>
> ______________________________________
> 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
|