Richard-- I agree completely with your comment regarding Gordon-Reed's latest book, below. She is not a liar--but its not a book I'd recommend to my students either (or to anyone on this list for that matter). In both her assumptions and her evidence, she produces a structure built on a house of cards. Where the first book struck me as prudential and judicious, a model of careful exposition and argument, the second struck me as weak and flawed. Its a good read--she writes well. But that is about the extent that I can recommend it. Thank you for taking the time to post, and to expand my commentary so thoughtfully. All best, Kevin ---- Original message ---- >Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 15:30:30 -0500 >From: "[log in to unmask]" <[log in to unmask]> >Subject: Re: THOMAS JEFFERSON'S LIFE HISTORY >To: [log in to unmask] > >Kevin >I don't think the transition between Annette Gordon-Reed’s first book >“Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings” and her current “The Hemings of >Monticello” is as seamless as you portray. The first book was a legalistic >analysis of the paternity evidence and her theme was that evidence >indicating paternity had been ignored by historians, particularly slave >“oral history” and the newspaper interview of Madison Hemings. She never >quite asserts as historical fact that paternity is proven. In her current >effort, it is correct she does make the assumption that paternity is a >historical fact. Relying heavily on Stanton’s “Free Some Day,” which is the >product of traditional research into the daily lives of the Monticello >slaves, Gordon-Reed takes it further to imagine their emotions, thoughts, >and aspirations. In constructing the book in this manner, she failed two >challenges. The first is that she proceeded on the assumption of the >Jefferson paternity so she ignores any of the known evidence contrary to >that assumption. This is the author’s prerogative so long as the reader >understands that only one possible scenario is being developed. But this >approach weakens the historical importance of the work. The second is the >paucity of information about Sally Hemings and the exact nature of any >intimate relationship within the Jefferson family. She must be invented >almost whole cloth. She turns out to have the intelligence, resourcefulness >and logical command expected from one with a Dartmouth education and a >Harvard law degree. As you point out, this does not make these musings >about what Sally felt or thought a “lie.” It is however, a novelistic >approach that leaves the reader somewhat lost between historical truth >(what we know did happen) and fiction(what Gordon-Reed imagines might have >happened). > >Richard > >Richard E. Dixon >Editor, Jefferson Notes >Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society > >______________________________________ >To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at >http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html Kevin R. Hardwick, Ph.D. Department of History James Madison University