VA-HIST Archives

Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history

VA-HIST@LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
"COUNTRY.GARDENS" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 22 Feb 2003 11:04:36 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (67 lines)
THANK YOU. YOU HAVE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
MIZ GARDENS
----- Original Message -----
From: "paul finkelman" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 12:08 AM
Subject: Re: "the wolf by the ear"


I have been out of town for a while and just found this; since it involves
my
 article, later revised as a chapter in my book SLAVERY AND THE FOUNDERS, I
 suppose I should answer Ms. or Mr. Gardens.
At one level the difference is quite minor, and simply illustrates that
 professional historians should try to get the details right, even if they
are
 minor.

 At another level, it might suggest a slightly different image.  The "wolf
by the
 ear" implies an even more precarious situation than the wolf by the "ears,"
in
that holding the wolf by one "ear" might mean the wolf could more easily
turn
 and bite you, while by both ears, especially from behind, or perhaps on the
 wolf's back, implies greater control over the wolf.  The "wolf" was of
course
 slavery.

 My point in the article was  a much larger one, however, which was that the
 traditional understanding of Jefferson's image of the wolf  seems wrong.
If you
 have a wild animal by the "ear" and let it go, the animal is probably not
going
 to turn on you, but instead will run away, and that the only danger is
holding
 on the animal.  The real danger was in holding on to the animal, and not in
the
 letting go.  Indeed, it was in holding on to slavery that South harmed
itself
 and created great dangers; had the South taken steps to end slavery, it had
nothing to fear from the "wolf"; however, that would have undermined the
 lifestyle of southern masters, like Jefferson.  Thus, ironically, we might
see
 that the "self-preservation" was not a physcial one (the wolf of slavery
will
 turn on the former masters) but rather a material one; let the slaves go
and the
 material well being of Jefferson and others would be harmed.

 Paul Finkelman
 Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
 University of Tulsa College of Law
 3120 East 4th Place
 Tulsa, OK  74104-3189
 phone 918-631-3706
 Fax   918-631-2194
 e-mail:   [log in to unmask]

 "COUNTRY.GARDENS" wrote:
 Pardon my ignorance, but what difference does it make?
 DFM
 ----- Original Message -----

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2


LISTLVA.LIB.VA.US