Richard--



I agree completely with your comment regarding Gordon-Reed's latest book, below.  She is not a liar--but its not a book I'd recommend to my students either (or to anyone on this list for that matter).  In both her assumptions and her evidence, she produces a structure built on a house of cards.  Where the first book struck me as prudential and judicious, a model of careful exposition and argument, the second struck me as weak and flawed.  Its a good read--she writes well.  But that is about the extent that I can recommend it.



Thank you for taking the time to post, and to expand my commentary so thoughtfully.



All best,

Kevin



---- Original message ----

>Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:30:30 -0500

>From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]>  

>Subject: Re: THOMAS JEFFERSON'S LIFE HISTORY  

>To: [log in to unmask]

>

>Kevin

>I don't think the transition between Annette Gordon-Reed’s first book

>“Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings” and her current “The Hemings of

>Monticello” is as seamless as you portray. The first book was a legalistic

>analysis of the paternity evidence and her theme was that evidence

>indicating paternity had been ignored by historians, particularly slave

>“oral history” and the newspaper interview of Madison Hemings. She never

>quite asserts as historical fact that paternity is proven. In her current

>effort, it is correct she does make the assumption that paternity is a

>historical fact. Relying heavily on Stanton’s “Free Some Day,” which is the

>product of traditional research into the daily lives of the Monticello

>slaves, Gordon-Reed takes it further to imagine their emotions, thoughts,

>and aspirations. In constructing the book in this manner, she failed two

>challenges. The first is that she proceeded on the assumption of the

>Jefferson paternity so she  ignores any of the known evidence contrary to

>that assumption. This is the author’s prerogative so long as the reader

>understands that only one possible scenario is being developed. But this 

>approach weakens the historical importance of the work. The second is the

>paucity of  information about Sally Hemings and the exact nature of any

>intimate relationship within the Jefferson family. She must be invented

>almost whole cloth. She turns out to have the intelligence, resourcefulness

>and logical command expected from one with a Dartmouth education and a

>Harvard law degree. As you point out, this does not make these musings

>about what Sally felt or thought a “lie.” It is however, a novelistic

>approach that leaves the reader somewhat lost between historical truth

>(what we know did happen) and fiction(what Gordon-Reed imagines might have

>happened). 

>

>Richard

>

>Richard E. Dixon

>Editor, Jefferson Notes

>Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society

>

>______________________________________

>To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at

>http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html

Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D.

Department of History

James Madison University