[mrustow]

In this issue I strive to stick to the issue of probablities versus cultural assumptions arising out of myth, politics, race or hero worship. Jefferson is one of my heroes based upon his intellect, vision, and decency. If there was ever a man with an inherent concept of noblesse oblige it was Jefferson. It is imcumbent upon me to divorce myself form my admiration of Jefferson. But as you say, Jefferson was also a man and subject to the same passions and digressions from some idealized path as other men of great and lesser character.

As I see history, and I admit that I've been influenced by Popper, the field has less to do in practice with probabilities or cultural assumptions than it does with individual cases. My knowledge of this case leads me to no conclusion, as to who the father or fathers of Hemings' children was. The only conclusions I can come to are (for reasons given in previous posts): 1. The Jefferson in Paris story is a lie; and 2. The story of Jeffferson and Hemings having had a 40-year-long monogamous relationship is a lie.

Since those who support a new interpretion of Jefferson's life have no evidence upon which to support their claims, AND have been caught tampering with evidence which tends to contradict their claims, I see no reason to give credence to their claims.

I do object to the phrase " The Hemming's Party" which tends to clearly telegraph the position long before the analysis. A kind of verbal variant of the Texas Sharpshooter effect. Much like those who assert that Jefferson is absolutely and incontrovertibly the father of Hemming's child, those who absolutely deny the probability, (or in some case even the possibility) that Jefferson is the father of Hemming's child use much the same process. Each draws his target around the requisite number of bullets to score the appropriate and specious bulls eye.

Technically, you're right, and if I were writing a scholarly paper on the case, I would have to use some roundabout, terminally-clunky phrase, such as "those who dispute Jefferson's traditional biographers," but the clunky phrasing would still be nothing but a euphemism for "the Hemings Party," which is itself a euphemism for "that bunch of goddamned crooks who should be hung upside down nekkid, covered in honey, and left out in the midday, Texas sun."

Texas sharpshooter or no, I can accept the theoretical possibility of Jefferson's paternity, but whereas the paternity case in truth remains open, where it will likely remain for all time, the case regarding the wickedness of the low-down, dirty, egg-sucking dogs who engineered this hoax has for me been made beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[tcuoohjohn]

Pardon me for being a bit pointed here but your lack of courage in dealing with the data is disappointing at best. The no conclusion route is easy and facile. While no final definitive conclusion is possible given the data, the data do give a clear indication of probabilities and possibilities. To give equal weight to the probable and possible is something of clever magic act and is disingenuous.

As to other issues..

I would characterise the Jefferson in Paris story as " unsupported by evidence" thus it is highly improbable. A theory/speculation unsupported by evidence is not a lie unless you can provide conclusive data to deny the assertion. The inability to provide that data to deny the assertion is absolutely no support of the assertion itself.

The 40 year monogamous relationship is highly improbable and is generally adhered to by those with a very active imaginations and a fatally romantic twist of mind. Whatever charms Sally Hemmings may have had she remainded "property" in her lifetime.It is extraordinarily difficult to imagine a 40 year monogamous love match between Jefferson and a person who was his property. It is even more difficult to imagine it in the context of the intellectual gulf between the two. While a penis has no consciousness, the mind does. Nonetheless it, like the " Randolph is the father" theory is possible but remote.