Steven --

In that sense I am a Jeffersonian, although I think of it more as  
being a Franklinian. In any case, I do believe science will settle  
the issue of Jefferson, Sally, and the possibility of his paternity  
which will, by definition, answer the question of whether there was a  
sexual/romantic relationship between them. And it will not be a p = ≥  
0.05 answer. If asked in the classroom that would be my answer.

-- Stephan


On 4 May 2008, at 12:47, S. Corneliussen wrote:

> It seems to me that you have a Jeffersonian faith not only in the  
> inevitability of future science, but in the inevitability of its  
> wise application. Maybe you're right.
>
> Meanwhile, in schools and in the media, people are regularly  
> assured that historians now know for certain that Sally Hemings and  
> TJ were parents together. And maybe they were. (Certainly, as Prof.  
> Finkelman and others emphasize, there's a notable consanguinity of  
> some sort here in any case.)
>
> But I'd find less reason for pause in certain historians' confident  
> certitude if I had more faith in the handling of the science that's  
> been invoked already.
>
> True, the misreporting of valid DNA evidence and the outright  
> misuse of statistical science originated among people representing  
> science, not the history profession, though credulous historians  
> unskeptically accepted the statistical stuff.
>
> It all makes me wonder whether things would improve if there's a  
> next time for science in this discussion.
>
> Steven T. Corneliussen
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Stephan A. Schwartz"  
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 11:47 AM
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Jefferson's Overseer
>
>
> Historical data, absent the discovery of some as yet unknown but
> definitive documentation, will not get us to an answer. On that we
> should, surely, all agree at this point. Only science will settle
> this and, based on my reading of that literature, I believe it will,
> within the next 10-15 years. Personally, I think it is a question we
> should put aside until some new factor is introduced into the  
> equation.
>
> -- Stephan
>
> On 4 May 2008, at 09:03, DFM wrote:
>
>> In a little book called Jefferson at Monticello. The private life   
>> of Thomas Jefferson,  the author addresses the question of TJ and  
>> a slave-girl lover and he says that he often saw someone else,  
>> never Jefferson, leaving that slave's abode in the early morning.
>> The author of this little book was Jefferson's overseer for many   
>> years and he saw a lot of what went on around the place. He does   
>> not say precisely who it was that he saw darting out of her room   
>> but he says that it was not Thomas Jefferson.
>> It seems to me that just like there are those who refuse to  
>> believe  that TJ fooled around with the slaves, there are those  
>> who refuse  to consider that he did not.
>> Deane Mills
>> Yorktown, VA
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Mark Wilson" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 1:37 AM
>> Subject: Re: DNA In Jefferson-Hemings controversy
>>
>>
>> Is it not possible that TJ had a secret sexual relationship with   
>> another (or
>> others over the years?) rather than with apparently the relatively
>> convenient SH?
>>
>> On the other hand, TJ was already among an extremely small   
>> percentage of
>> humanity at one end of the Bell curve in certain human   
>> characteristics. He
>> was not your run-of-the-mill ordinary guy. Could he not have also   
>> have been
>> among those fewer numbers of men tending to be mostly sexually   
>> inactive in
>> later life - whether for medical or other reasons?  For example,   
>> although
>> "people will be people" most Popes, especially recent ones,  
>> appear  to have
>> been people who were celibate - even though over the centuries  
>> not  all have
>> been found to be so - and even though maybe more than we know  
>> were  not so.
>>
>> We may project certain characteristics upon the masses of  
>> humanity  with some
>> degree of accuracy, but when trying to say the same things about   
>> one man or
>> one woman we run a much greater risk of inaccuracy.  Some are   
>> willing to
>> make such leaps - other are not.  I believe the wiser choice is  
>> to  not make
>> such leaps.
>>
>> Of course some folks die before the answers ("truths") are  
>> known.   Some of
>> us may go that route before any new DNA methods or evidence   
>> "proves" which
>> beliefs about TJ were correct.  (I hate it when humans pass from   
>> the scene
>> before knowing the answer "for sure" because it means that I may  
>> eventually
>> be among them in things I'd really like to know - but "C'est la   
>> vie," eh?)
>>
>> Mark
>>
>> On Sat, May 3, 2008 at 7:49 PM, Stephan A. Schwartz <
>> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>> Herbert --
>>>
>>> Thank you for this lengthy exegesis on this subject. Much of it  
>>> I  knew,
>>> but some I did not. Let me reduce my thinking to a parsimonious   
>>> essence. The
>>> present day DNA data is highly suggestive but not despositive.   
>>> However, the
>>> science of genetics is advancing now with a speed that is   
>>> reminiscent of
>>> laser development — in the 1960s and 70s — when they had to   
>>> publish the time
>>> and date the paper was submitted because there was a chance it  
>>> had  been
>>> super-ceded by the time it was through the peer-review and   
>>> publication
>>> cycle. There is much more we are going to learn from DNA  
>>> inquiry.  Of that, I
>>> think, we can be sure. There will be new and better tests  
>>> yielding clearer,
>>> deeper insights.  Who did what in the beginning of this  
>>> approach,  a decade
>>> from now will become a not terribly important part of the   
>>> narrative, except
>>> as it reveals various prejudices of the day. We must be patient   
>>> until new
>>> data emerges. This is like discussing a baseball game in the   
>>> seventh inning.
>>>
>>> One thing I do know. People do not live in a Tolstoian village like
>>> Monticello without all of the people in the household having a  
>>> relationship,
>>> and Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson had to have had one. Her   
>>> status as
>>> his chambermaid assured that.
>>>
>>> So I guess it gets down to whether you think he would be capable   
>>> of such a
>>> relationship? People today have sexual relationships  all the  
>>> time  with
>>> individuals with whom they are far less involved than Jefferson   
>>> was with
>>> Sally. And the same was true in the Elizabethan Age. Between  
>>> 1558  and 1603,
>>> in the Country of Essex, which had approximately 40,000 adults,   
>>> almost 38
>>> per cent — 15,000 — were cited for sexual misbehavior. And it  
>>> will  be true
>>> 50 years from now. People are people, and I think Jefferson no  
>>> different. Do
>>> you think he was a celibate? Was it coercive? By definition. But   
>>> while I can
>>> see Jefferson as a man with secret sexual relationship, I cannot   
>>> see him as
>>> a serial rapist, so some accommodation was reached.
>>>
>>> Does this make him evil. I don't think so. Thomas Jefferson, no   
>>> less that
>>> the other Founders, with the exception of Franklin, was a man of   
>>> his time,
>>> status, and culture. What has always amazed me about these   
>>> individuals, is
>>> that they risked everything and, in the end, rose above who they   
>>> were to
>>> craft what they bequeathed us. Their modernity and relevance,  
>>> lies  in the
>>> question they eternally pose: Would I, could I, do the same?
>>>
>>> -- Stephan
>>
>> - - - s n i p - - -
>>
>> ______________________________________
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the   
>> instructions at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>>
>> ______________________________________
>> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the   
>> instructions at
>> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> ______________________________________
> 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: 269.23.8/1413 - Release Date:  
> 5/3/2008 11:22 AM
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the  
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html


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