Anne--

The evidence for or against Jefferson's alleged liason with Hemings is a muddle.  I have not seen anything one way or the other that is sufficiently compelling to sway me from a staunch agnosticism.

Annette Gordon-Reed, a law professor, has suggested in her various books that she thinks she could convict Jefferson in a court of law.  But as you point out, what happens in a court of law is an approximation of truth, and hardly truth itself.  I don't see any reason why a competent defense attorney might not be able to suggest that the evidence adduced so far hardly amounts to "beyond a reasonable doubt."  Even by courtroom standards, this one is not a slam-dunk.  And courtroom standards of proof don't strike me as appropriate here in any regards.

A healthy skepticism seems in order here.  There are a good many things I'd like to know about history, which I will never know, because the evidence simply will not sustain an informed judgment one way or another.  This one strikes me as one of those things.

All best,
Kevin
Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.
Department of History
James Madison University

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