Jefferson met Hemmings in Vietnam?

Great Debates
1

“So now it turns out that Thomas Jefferson was having sex with Sally Hemings while serving in the 101st Airborne during the Vietnam War” - Ann Coulter
Professor John Ellis, the one who penned the world “famous” report that Thomas Jefferson fathered Sally Hemmings child, has been forced to admit to various lies about his past, namely he’s never been close to vietnam, much less served there as a paratrooper… Heck read the yahoo link.

The report’s authors later admitted to Nature that the Ellis penned story was mostly false. TJ could
have fathered the kid, but the other seven Jefferson males on the plantation were better choices. Ellis bent the story to his likings, and the world (and the Jefferson Instute) still think TJ’s the father.
Links: (can’t link to the retraction on Nature, sorry.)

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ucac/20010620/cm/jefferson_met_hemings_in_vietnam_1.html

an earlier thread on the matter…

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=673

2

“The writing of history is clearly an act of manipulation. It has to be, for the past is too vast, too full of an unimaginable number of details to be dealt with except by simplification… Even the most dispassionate historian, trying to select fairly, with intelligence and discretion, manipulates in spite of himself, by nuances, by repudiation, by omission, by unconscious affection or hostility.” – Fawn McKay Brodie, author of Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History

I’ll accept manipulation, I’ll even accept Ms Brodie’s controvertial opinions on the matter, but outright bullshit is unacceptable.

3

Pity people are so very happy to heap distortion upon distortion.

Well, I am not sure what the connection with Vietnam is. Ellis’ fanciful account of his life does not have much to do with the research or conclusions.

This is frankly ad hominem argumentation. As we all know ad hominem is rarely a valid form of argumentation. In this context I suppose we could make a case for not trusting Ellis’ word because he lied about his personal past. However I do not see this as a valid case until we have evidence that he has distorted evidence in his professional publications. Insofar as he’s to my understanding well-respected historian who has many decades of peer-reviewed publications under his belt and for the record until the genetic testing came around a vocal opponent of the Jefferson fathering children by Sally which is to say not someone who had much to gain rep-wise by this, I see no a-priori reason to use this embarrasing personal information in regards to his academic work. Such statements as “What they meant to say was “Jefferson could have fathered the slave’s last child.” Just like Ellis could have served in Vietnam.” are nothing much more than illogical ad hominem.

Moving along, what about the meat of this? Aside from a rather spurious ad hominem argument, the linked article by Ms. Coulter shows a rather impoverished understanding of the nature of genetics or the Nature articles. Retraction? No, clarification, yes.

In regards to the overall case as I understand it, we have two main sources. The first to reopen the issue was the closely argued and documented 1997 book by Prof Gordon-Reed Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings : an American controversy based on Jefferson’s own diaries as well as other diaries etc. to document as closely as possible. Gordon-Reed’s conclusion based on that evidence was that no other candidates for Sally’s children’s father than Jefferson made sense based on the body of the evidence.

To this we add the Nature articles(*) which do clearly do one thing, they rule out the prime alternate candidates advanced in Jefferson’s time (the Carr brothers) and confirm some Jefferson paternal line paternity in at least one Hemings descendant.

(*: They are
a) the initial article

Eugene A. Foster et al “Jefferson fathered slave’s last child” Nature 396, 27-28 (5 November 1998)

And the following debate/exchanges

Two critiques and a follow up.

  1. Gary Davis “The Thomas Jefferson paternity case”
    Nature 397, 32 (7 January 1999)

(as I recall I found this one to be a rather ahistorical and tendetious intervention)

  1. David M. Abbey “The Thomas Jefferson paternity case” Nature 397, 32 (7 January 1999)

(as memory serves I think this was the better of the two critiques)

  1. E. A. Foster et al “Reply to “The Thomas Jefferson paternity case”” Nature 397, 32 (7 January 1999)

Wherein I might note Foster et al do not “retract” in any way their analysis but rather simply confess that they did not adequately develop alternatives, which they considered unlikely, because of space constraints. Claiming that this is a retraction is a gross distortion reflecting either a complete misreading, a lack of understanding of the overall argument or an ulterior agenda.

Now, I haven’t read these since first publication and lack proper connectivity to access my Nature account. However I believe a fair resume of the issue is that (a) genetic testing in itself ruled out the contemporaneous and historian’s favorite explanations for Hemings children, which were commented on at the time in re strong family ressemblances to Jefferson – including as Gordon-Reed a private contemporaneous reference in a diary, of a friend, confirming the liason. (b) that genetic evidence confirms at least one child or line has Jefferson paternal line descent w/o question – one can not prove the others were or were not because of the issue of non-paternity events © the documentary evidence as collected and argued in Gordon-Reed’s book – which to my understanding has withstood close scholarly scrutiny-- also runs in the same direction.

In this issue we can never reach a conclusion like one might in a contemporary case. However, based on the body of the evidence, a historical conclusion remains, Jefferson fathered Hemings children.

So perhaps we can leave aside scurious ad hominem attacks by journalists or columnists with a poor understanding of the issues?

4

Okay, the first thing I’ll do next time is leave out all humor in a GD post. Right. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I’m not arguing the old, and really pointless argument about if TJ actually did Sally. At this point, who cares? If I understand the research, there isn’t a conclusion that can be drawn.

My point is this: Can we trust Mr Ellis to get any part of the story right? In retrospect, no, it wasn’t smart.

5

The guy has been shown to be a liar. Maybe to somebody like Coll (stop it with the innumerable and insufferable citations in conversational debates) this is not a bad thing as long as he toes Coll’s PC race thing. However, a historian who makes things up should be a novelist. There is a thing called integrity, Coll. Look it up in a dictionary.
This has been an ad hominem attack.

6

It should be noted, of course, that to the extent that there is any “PC” connection the scientific investigations on the existence (or lack) of “races,” the objection that mipsman has raised against the science is identical to objection raised by those groups who are avowedly PC.
This has been an ironic observation.

7

Didn’t he gain a huge reputation from this report?:slight_smile:

8

In his personal life. That does not ipso facto make his research bad. It might or it might not.

Ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments for this very reason. Show me where the man has distorted his research and I’ll draw conclusions.

Otherwise this is rather like arguing someone is a bad lawyer, e.g., because he’s been divorced. There is no necessary relationship.

Now in re Ellis and the issue of Jefferson, it’s actually IRRELEVENT. Yes kids, IRRELEVANT. Humor or not Stzero, the argument is in its essence ad hominem and not supportable on any logical basis.

Firstly, Ellis conducted no research in this regard, he simply wrote an explanatory historical text to go along with the genetics article of which he had no part in. Yes, no part since he’s – wait for this kids-- a historian not a geneticist. Both the genetic and historical research in this case pointing to a strong historical conclusion there was a relationship btw Jefferson and Hemings rely on other researchers.

Ellis sole relationsship with this is (a) he is a well known specialist in the field and (b)has in the past written on Jefferson – ironically his published works until the genetics article were in the anti camp. He changed sides based on data despite a published record to the contrary. To me that speaks of intellectual integrity, which may or may not compensate for telling tale tales about his personal life to students but then the latter is pretty much irrelevent.

As such his current problems have no bearing on the case one way or another. Anyone with a degree of rationality can easily discern this. That the OP went with an “news article” of such clearly scurrious character is sad. I see no reason to even raise the issue in re the Jefferson-Hemmings issue at all.

Oh yes, Sterra, as noted he already had a huge rep in teh areas which count professionaly. I don’t see given the context I have outlined above any reason for suspecting his motives one way or another for writing the article, which remains irrelevent to the case. It may be more people like mipsman heard of him, but that isn’t going to do his career one whit of good. One could well say the contrary.

Ah citations, the bete noir of the unsubstantiated argument. So you prefer unsubstantiated positions and baseless assertions? Each to his own I would suppose.

However in re the race thing, your name calling hardly compensates for your inability to grasp either the data or the argument. The PC label is usually applied by your likes in an ad hominem manner but insofar as it does have meaning it applies to arguments which for political reasons run against the data. I do believe your politic carping about the issue rather fits that bill.

Yes, there is something called integrity, it should be accompanied in all arguments by a rigorous logic. Integrity, true integrity rather than posturing, really should preclude one false statements, logically and factually incorrect arguments which distort the essentials of a situation and to cast aspersion where there is no call for the same. Your inability to grasp this is duly noted.

The man told tall tales about his personal life. Not an uncommon thing really. The ACTUAL question is whether this ever effected his professional life, above all his treatment of data.

On one hand, as I mentioned, as a long published historian in peer-reviewed journals we can expect that his work has stood the test of professional scrutiny, above as he has written on high profile and well-researched subjects such as Jefferson and his political life (as I recall). As such we can expect that gross distortions would likely to have been caught long ago.

On the other hand, he has been a “name” for some years now to my understanding and big names sometimes can get away with less scrutiny based on their rep.

Good, you might be well severed to learn about logical argumentation and analysis.

9

Coll, have you EVER heard the expression “Brevity is the soul of wit”? Tom, your ripostes are half a step up from “Oh yeah, well you are a bigger one”.

10

And yours aren’t even that.

11

mipsman: *…to somebody like Coll (stop it with the innumerable and insufferable citations in conversational debates)…

Coll, have you EVER heard the expression “Brevity is the soul of wit”?*

In other words, Collounsbury, your arguments are too comprehensive and too well supported with facts. Personally, I kinda thought that that’s how arguments in Great Debates were supposed to be, but apparently mipsman doesn’t like it. :rolleyes:

12

No, Coll’s citations are deliberately picked from the huge spectrum of published thought to back up his very obvious political and social prejudices. YOU might count citations but I like to weigh them.

Wow, good one, Water.

Hey, shouldn’t you two be over in the children’s section of SDMB?

13

mipsman: I dislike pissing contests, which I fear is what this discussion has already degenerated into. But I feel you’re being a little unfair here.

First of all, I may be dense, but Collounsbury’s political and social prejudices aren’t all that clear to me and never have been. Yes, I know what side he’s arguing from some of the time. But I don’t think he is very obvious. By and large I haven’t seen him make tons of social comments in otherwise fact-oriented posts. If you’re implying ( and maybe I’m incorrect in guessing that you are ) that he is “PC”, well, I’d have to disagree.

Second, don’t most people use citations that back them up when they’re arguing a point?

Third, while he may well be cherry-picking from a huge spectrum of published thought, the implication that that huge spectrum contains substantial disagreement with his opinions is unsubstantiated. ( Man that’s an ugly sentence :smiley: ). I weigh the quality of material presented as well. I have never seen Collounsbury produce bullshit as support. I have seen some of his opponents do so. I haven’t seen most of his opponents produce substantial counter-cites from this supposed huge spectrum of published thought.

On this particular issue his argument seems perfectly logical to me. This maligned historian didn’t produce or interpret ( in a scientific sense, he may have from a historical perspective ) any of the genetic work that went into getting this result. And he’s not the only historian that has accepted the findings. So casting doubt on his integrity really doesn’t say anything about this issue. Finding other factual bases for attacking the
Jefferson/Hemmings connection is fine - There may well be some out there ( and I’ll mention as an aside that I couldn’t care less what the results are - either way it is just an interesting historical curiosity ). But I don’t see how this guy’s lies on a completely different matter count for anything.

Now I don’t agree with Collounsbury on everything. I’ve had cause to criticize his quick temper in the past and have done so. I’ve disagreed on a minor historical point or two. And I get the impression that he may be a little more conservative than me when it comes to economic thought. Though, like I said, I’m not entirely certain. But I’m not seeing where anybody has presented a convincing counter-argument on this particular topic. Nor do I see where he is arguing this point with any discernible pre-conceived socio-political agenda.

shrug But maybe I’m off-base.

  • Tamerlane
14

While I know this is probably irrelevant, wasn’t Vietnam at one time a French colony? And I do believe that Hemmings accompanied Jefferson to Paris…

Maybe someone was reading something, and got confused?

15

mipsman, and what about your world-view bias? At least Collunsbury developed great arguments as to why he thinks as he does. Just because it tends to be a little long for your satisfaction, and he uses a lot of cites, it does not lessen the impact of his forensic skills, which I admit far exceeds my own. His contributions to any debate on this message board help shape the debates more than any form of sloganeering that is exhibited by some people here.

Now back to the argument: what is this supposed to mean? That the decendants of Jefferson should never have invited the decendants of Hemmings to their home, and treat them as long lost relatives, because of alleged fraud by one historian on an unrelated matter, the historian who tried to prove the direct opposite of the conclusions he has reached? There was more proof than his story of the relationship between Jefferson and Hemmings, such as the DNA test. Say what you want about Ellis, but he did not perform the genetic tests.

What I don’t understand is why people would love so much someone who agrees with him 100% of the time and hates so much someone who disagrees with him on one small point, without even meeting and talking to the other person? As for me, I will be most suspicious of someone who agrees with me 100% of the time.

16

And also, consider the source of the article in question, Ann Coulter, who tried to tie this to the Clinton impeachment proceedings. She has no biases, no sirree. And her skill in writing and debate is not nearly the level of George Will.

17

I was trying to avoid wasting too much time on you, as your method of debate involves nothing other cheap insults and dismissing any facts that run contrary to your opinions. If you seemed the sort of person who formed opinions based on facts, rather than the other way around, you might have some basis for claiming that I lowered the general tone of the debate around here.

18

Do a scholar’s lies about his personal life taint his work? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. If Stephen Ambrose committed adultery, that wouldn’t affect my opinion of his books on World War 2. On the other hand, if I learned that Stanley Karnow was a former Communist, it WOULD affect how I viewed his books on Viet Nam.

In the case at hand, that of Thomas Jefferson’s relations with Sally Hemmings, I’d say that Professor Ellis’ lies about service in Viet Nam are irrelevant. There seems to be no connection. Though Professor Ellis is a braggart and a liar, I see no reason to doubt his seriousness and sincerity in the Jefferson affair (whether he’s right or wrong is a different question).

On the other hand, Professor Ellis has lectured and written extensively on the Viet Nam war, and has used his supposed experiences in Viet Nam to buttress his anti-war arguments. So… the man deserves ZERO respect, ZERO credibility, and nothing but derision and hisses, should he EVER attempt to speak or write on the subject of Viet Nam again.

19

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**

Hey! Leave me out of this.

Interesting, you spelled it wrong just the same way I do. :slight_smile:
Well, if you take out the stuff about lying about his private life (what, we find out Gibbon told some wench he was driving a coach-and-four when he really had a one flea bitten mare and a hansom cab, and we have to throw out “The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire”?) the only thing in the article seems to be that some other Jefferson COULD have fathered Sally’s children.

But…given that they were romantically linked even at the time, it still seems more likely that he was the Jefferson in question, doesn’t it? And she doesn’t actually attack any part of his research. Merely states that people embraced the idea that he was the father for political reasons. And given that nothing has disproven it, isn’t it pretty obvious she’s rejecting it for political reasons?

Anyway, I don’t really get the political reasons. What difference does it make PCwise if he’s the father or not? Are we debating whether owners slept with there slaves? Many did. Does it make a difference if the great man Jefferson did? Well, if I wanted to dead white male bash (I don’t particularly, I admire Jefferson tremendouly, if not everything about him) I could just stick with “He owned slaves”.

It’s either true or not, why would you want it to be true and why would you NOT want it to be true? What possibe political point is there?

mips, I’m with Tamerlane. What ARE Collunsbury"s obvious political and social prejudgices?