Some comments in reply to Henry Wiencek:
* Concerning the public's views, I haven't seen any polls either, but I'd
bet a big chunk of money that most people believe that comedians' gags about
Sally and TJ stem from known, accepted historical fact.
* Concerning _Hemings partisan_ and _Jefferson defender_, I prefer
_pro-paternityist_ and _anti-paternityist_. I admit that the terms are
clunky, but I propose that _partisan_ and _defender_ ascribe motivations
that aren't always present, and that the connotations tend to confine the
discussion within the box that Mr. Wiencek rightly deplores. (But then, I'm
the guy who worries about the unexamined, residual connotations in a phrase
like "legitimate slave-catcher.")
* Concerning the views of southern-studies specialists, and for that matter
historians generally, my own guess is that Mr. Wiencek is right: they "are
persuaded that Thomas Jefferson fathered all of Hemings's children."
Persuaded, yes, but on what basis? I have a further guess as well: many or
most have not looked at enough of the evidence, if only because to do so
requires so much time. Would these persuaded scholars understand, for
example, Mr. Wiencek's teaser hint about Edmund Bacon and Isaac Jefferson?
Moreover, maybe the zeitgeist compels scholars' agreement. In particular I'd
like to know how many have actually read Cyndi Burton's _Jefferson
Vindicated_, which Mr. Wiencek mentions below. (If U. Richmond historian
Woody Holton is reading this, I especially hope that he will comment on
that. He reviewed the book at Amazon.com, apparently without actually
reading it -- though if that's so, not having read it didn't stop him from
connecting Cyndi with white supremacy. It's posted under "Virginia History
Lover.")
* Concerning doubts among well-known historians: Dan Jordan does say that
honorable people can differ on the paternity. Joyce Appleby, in her TJ
biography, is unwilling to assert forthrightly that the paternity is a
proven fact. Clay Jenkinson makes a point of highlighting the word
_probably_ concerning his paternity assumption. And now, according to Henry
Wiencek, Henry Wiencek is apparently about to go public with some doubt.
* Concerning Annette Gordon-Reed and such doubt, it's interesting and maybe
worrying to note something from p. 244 in her chapter "The Memories of a Few
Negroes" in my paperback copy of _Sally Hemings & Thomas Jefferson: History,
Memory, and Civic Culture_. I like her choice of that ironic, maybe even
sarcastic, chapter title. I agree with her about what that allusion says
about the mindset in which Merrill Peterson operated. But my agreement
doesn't mean I'm not startled that she wrote: "If others continued
[post-DNA] to treat the matter as still an open question, how could I
continue to moderate my voice when faced with what could only be interpreted
as even greater contempt and lack of concern for the history and interests
of black people?" Open question? Below, Mr. Wiencek writes of the
anti-paternityists that their "arguments convinced me that the question is
still open."
* Setting aside any implication that somehow Ann Coulter could ever rise to
merit mention in the same category with Cyndi Burton -- and maybe that
implication isn't actually there -- I believe Mr. Wiencek is mistaken
concerning the number of possible paternity candidates. (We'll also set
aside that Man-in-the-Moon gag, borrowed from E. M. Halliday, I believe,
when Halliday was mocking anti-paternityists not long after the DNA news
came out.) As a letter in Nature made plain in early 1999, there could have
been paternity candidates outside the acknowledged extended Jefferson
family. (I'll fetch that letter and post it if you like.) We can't know the
number of paternity candidates.
* Concerning the science in the Hemings-TJ debate: Pro-paternityists usually
build their proof on historical evidence, the DNA, and what is called
"statistical evidence." That's three components -- two of them scientific,
or at least called scientific. We haven't discussed that second of the two
scientific components, which is what -- more than anything else -- engenders
my own doubts about the paternity allegations. That credulous historians
have so readily accepted silly "statistical evidence" shakes my confidence
in their judgment about the rest of it, even including the very real and
maybe suggestive qualitative (as opposed to quantified) correlation between
TJ's presences at Monticello and Hemings's conceptions.
Thanks very much.
Steven T. Corneliussen
Poquoson, Virginia
(and also Jefferson Lab)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Henry Wiencek" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Jefferson on BookTV
I was glad to see Steven T. Corneliussen's post because I'm writing the
Hemings chapter of my book on Jefferson and his slaves right now, so these
are the issues on my mind every morning. It's hard to say where public
opinion stands on the Hemings issue because I haven't seen any polls on
this. Jefferson's defenders (a phrase I use neutrally, to distinguish them
from the folks I call "the Hemings partisans") believe they have made some
headway in getting the media to acknowledge that DNA all by itself did not
prove a Hemings/Thomas Jefferson link. My ballpark guess is that most
historians who study slavery, plantations, and the antebellum South are
persuaded that Thomas Jefferson fathered all of Hemings's children. If there
are any doubters among prominent southern-studies specialists they are
keeping their mouths shut. There are some political and legal historians who
don't believe it, such as the members of the scholars committee chaired by
Robert Turner of UVA law school. Then there are the unaffiliated defenders
such as Herb Barger, Richard Dixon, Cynthia Burton, Ken Wallenborn, and the
McMurrys, who have carried out herculean labors of research. My hat is off
to these defenders because they have made a really good case. Their
arguments convinced me that the question is still open; that's one reason I
decided to write the book.
I have nearly gone mad trying to figure out this Hemings business because,
as the defenders have shown, the documentary records (specifically the
Callender articles and Madison Hemings's memoir) are really full of holes,
to an extent which the Hemings partisans have not acknowledged. But on the
other side, the defenders suggest that any one of seven Jeffersons (I think
Ann Coulter will tell you 25) could have fathered the Hemings children, but
some of these paternity candidates might as well be the Man in the Moon,
they were so far off. Poisoning all of this discussion is the
politics--politically correct on one side, patriotically correct on the
other side. If you believe this, you're racist; if you believe that, you
hate America.
Corneliussen is correct--the DNA test by itself did not prove that Thomas
was the father, and the DNA test by itself does not clear the Carrs from
paternity of Hemings's older children. (One lingering mystery, which will
probably never be solved: Jefferson's grandson TJ Randolph said that Sally's
sister (or niece) also had children who resembled Jefferson: Who were these
children? Who was their father? For that matter, who was their mother--the
sister or the niece?) The question for me has been: can we navigate through
the errors, lies, and false memories in the documents and come to a really
firm conclusion? I think we can. My thinking is that the most important
"witnesses" are not Callender and Madison Hemings, but Edmund Bacon and
Isaac Jefferson. The specialists on the list will know what I'm talking
about, the rest of you will have to wait for the book.
For those of you who missed the BookTV showing of the panel, Jon Kukla made
a very funny remark on the subject of paternity, evidence, testimony, etc.
I paraphrase: "I have three children, and I certainly hope there were no
witnesses."
Henry Wiencek
Charlottesville
______________________________________
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: 269.23.4/1396 - Release Date: 4/24/2008
6:32 PM
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
