Anne,
Herb Barger's assumption is valid and plausible if one focuses on the DNA evidence and on the nature of DNA -- and we should accept that. It appears (to my untrained mind at least) to be sound science. There is also a sizeable amount of evidence -- such as you cite -- that Thomas Jefferson himself was the likely father of Sally's children. I think we should accept that too. It can hardly be shown (from what I've seen) that one could ever prove that those contemporary accounts were deliberate falsehoods -- which is not to say they were correct. What we build from these bits of evidence are interpretation that should always be open to dispute. We should be free to embrace one and reject the other without claiming "Truth" for the one and the denouncing the other as a "Lie."
David Kiracofe
David Kiracofe
History
Tidewater Community College
Chesapeake Campus
1428 Cedar Road
Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
757-822-5136
>>> Anne Pemberton <[log in to unmask]> 10/29/08 3:55 PM >>>
David,
Seems to me that the assumption of a slave called Sandy as the father of
Sally's children, would render other accounts of Sally's relationship with
Jefferson as non-truth. Since there are a number of such references, from
Madison, from Eston's family, from old Monticello slaves, the diary of a
neighbor, and let's not forget James Callender, it would seem wrong-headed
to go off in the direction of a Sandy as father without some confirmation
that at least SOMEONE at the time and in the place remarked on such a
relationship. To me it seems much more speculative than Mensies assertion
that the Chinese discovered American in 1421. While is is scientifically
POSSIBLE, historically, it is highly improbable.
And why, praytell, would Jefferson have gone so far out of his way to free
Sally's children if they were fathered by another slave? Just doesn't add
up.
Anne
Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Kiracofe" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, October 29, 2008 1:53 PM
Subject: Re: New Presidential Descendant Claimant
I'm not going to dispute the science, but Ms. Pemberton is correct -- even
if we decline to follow her in labelling Mr. Barger as a "liar." But Mr.
Barger _has_ leaped from the "possibility" of a slave bearing another
(earlier?) Jefferson DNA to an assertion that we can pinpoint this
individual as Sandy ( "This slave's name was "SANDY", a name that denotes
reddish hair..."). That is a mere assumption. At the same time, Mr.
Barger's assumption _is_ plausible -- so we should consider it . But it
only adds to the list of possible fathers among whom Thomas Jefferson must
remain firmly in place.
David Kiracofe
>
>Herbert is correct in his remarks about the possibility. And Sandy is
>certainly a red-head nickname. And his final point about the DNA
>testing is the one that all should take away from this discussion.
>Without additional testing, all the analysis of existing and known
>documents will not settle the issue.
>
>Science rules, OK.
>
>Lyle Browning, RPA
>
>
David Kiracofe
History
Tidewater Community College
Chesapeake Campus
1428 Cedar Road
Chesapeake, Virginia 23322
757-822-5136
______________________________________
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
|
