I have been out of town for a while and just found this; since it involves my
article, later revised as a chapter in my book SLAVERY AND THE FOUNDERS, I
suppose I should answer Ms. or Mr. Gardens.
At one level the difference is quite minor, and simply illustrates that
professional historians should try to get the details right, even if they are
minor.
At another level, it might suggest a slightly different image. The "wolf by the
ear" implies an even more precarious situation than the wolf by the "ears," in
that holding the wolf by one "ear" might mean the wolf could more easily turn
and bite you, while by both ears, especially from behind, or perhaps on the
wolf's back, implies greater control over the wolf. The "wolf" was of course
slavery.
My point in the article was a much larger one, however, which was that the
traditional understanding of Jefferson's image of the wolf seems wrong. If you
have a wild animal by the "ear" and let it go, the animal is probably not going
to turn on you, but instead will run away, and that the only danger is holding
on the animal. The real danger was in holding on to the animal, and not in the
letting go. Indeed, it was in holding on to slavery that South harmed itself
and created great dangers; had the South taken steps to end slavery, it had
nothing to fear from the "wolf"; however, that would have undermined the
lifestyle of southern masters, like Jefferson. Thus, ironically, we might see
that the "self-preservation" was not a physcial one (the wolf of slavery will
turn on the former masters) but rather a material one; let the slaves go and the
material well being of Jefferson and others would be harmed.
--
Paul Finkelman
Chapman Distinguished Professor of Law
University of Tulsa College of Law
3120 East 4th Place
Tulsa, OK 74104-3189
phone 918-631-3706
Fax 918-631-2194
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
"COUNTRY.GARDENS" wrote:
> Pardon my ignorance, but what difference does it make?
> DFM
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Trenton Hizer" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 10:13 AM
> Subject: Re: "the wolf by the ear"
>
> > Paul Finkleman's "Thomas Jefferson and Antislavery: The Myth Goes On" in
> the
> > Virginia Magazine of History and Biography mentions how researchers at the
> > Jefferson papers told him about this. VMHB, vol. 102, #2, (April 1994) p.
> > 205 fn 39.
> >
> > Trenton Hizer
> > Library of Virginia
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Constantine Gutzman [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2003 9:46 AM
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: "the wolf by the ear"
> >
> >
> > Fellow VA-HIST Subscribers,
> >
> > I recall that some years ago there was excitement among Jefferson
> > scholars over the discovery that Jefferson had written of having "the wolf
> > by the ear," rather than "the wolf by the ears." Does anyone recall where
> > this discovery appeared in print? If so, please let me know.
> > Many anticipatory thanks,
> > Constantine Gutzman
> >
> > Prof. K.R. Constantine Gutzman
> > Department of History
> > Western Connecticut State University
> >
> > 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
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe, please see the instructions
at http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
