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 = ³ 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 Ñ in the 1960s and 70s Ñ 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 Ñ 15,000 Ñ 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