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