Of course, Mark, I always believe in continuing scholarship. But this issue about Jefferson and Sally has reached a point in its narrative where there is nothing new to add, that is no new data'; there is only exegetic dicing and slicing. Lots of emotion, but not much real insight. The future will almost certainly be brighter; we must be patient for science to evolve to a point where it can serve our need, as it surely will. As Immanuel Kant observed: "Truth is the child of time." -- Stephan On 4 May 2008, at 12:37, Mark Wilson wrote: > But wouldn't you also agree that in the interim minority reports by > highly-credentialed people on a key issue should be made a matter > of record > along with majority reports so that reviewers could see all the > data found > by the experts and their various opinions and conclusions? "People > being > people," academia I presume must not be totally free of various > degrees > "corruption" itself. For example, for an extreme case, see: > http://www.mcrkba.org/Bellesiles.html > Mark > > On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 11:47 AM, Stephan A. Schwartz < > [log in to unmask]> wrote: > >> 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 >> > > ______________________________________ > 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