CONVERSATIONS ON JEFFERSON AND JEFFERSONIAN POLITICS
Use of H-SHEAR Postings
Eyler Coates
The postings made available on these pages related to the Jefferson-Hemings issue are used here subject to the restrictions imposed by H-SHEAR. The following is the notice provided by H-SHEAR. All contributions to H-SHEAR fall under Art. II, Sec. 2.04 of the H-Net Bylaws concerning copyright and intellectual property:
July 9, 2001
"Although authors of messages to H-Net lists retain the copyright in those messages, sending a message to an H-Net list for posting will constitute permission to H-Net and its subscribers for electronic distribution and downloading for nonprofit educational purposes with proper attribution to the author, the originating list, and the date of original posting. Original messages to H-Net lists are not in the public domain, and may not be used for other than educational, nonprofit purposes without the permission of the copyright holder and notification to H-Net." In general, the author retains copyright rights to publication of any submission to the list, and grants to H-SHEAR and H-Net permission to store, disseminate with full attribution, and make available to subscribers such submissions without further permission. Postings (such as H-Net reviews) that are commissioned by H-Net are copyrighted by H-Net and may be reprinted for nonprofit, educational purposes with proper attribution to the author, location, and H-Net. A full copy of the H-Net Constitution and Bylaws and other important information may be found on the World Wide Web at: http://www.h-net.msu.edu/about/.
Eyler Coates
Visitors to this website should be aware that these postings from H-SHEAR are included here subject to the above restrictions. This means that this website has posted these messages for use on this non-profit educational forum pursuant to the permission granted to H-Net subscribers for electronic distribution. In addition, visitors to this website should be aware that these postings are NOT in the public domain, and visitors who are not subscribers to H-SHEAR may NOT use any of this material without obtaining permission from the copyright holders. Complete email addresses for copyright holders of individual postings are available at the H-SHEAR website.
These postings are presented here because the discussions of which they were a part were halted at the H-SHEAR website as explained by the editor, Peter Knupfer, below. It was his opinion that the debate threatened to go on indefinitely and had reached a point where little more was to be gained. Others felt that this is an extremely important discussion, with implications for the entire field of historiography as well as for the Jefferson-Hemings question, and that it should be continued. We at this website therefore decided to post the entire discussion here and open it to any persons who felt they could make a contribution. Since there was no interest in doing this by those who administer the H-SHEAR website, it had to be done here or not at all. Indeed, it was our feeling that the discussions were curtailed and the debate stifled just as it was getting down to some of the finer points of the issues in question. Thus, the debate is re-opened here in the interests of free and open inquiry.
Below are the postings with which the discussion closed.
Leo Hirrel:
Can someone refresh my memory? How did this discussion of Jefferson and Hemings get started on H-SHEAR?Somehow I suspect that it may continue indefinitely without changing anyone's views.
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, June 8, 2001.
Peter Knupfer:
Dear subscribers:Leo Hirrel's posting of a moment ago wonders whether this thread has run its course. Those of you who are familiar with the list know that I rarely if ever call a halt to a thread. The reasons are simple and borne out by the trajectory of this one in particular. It is extremely rare for a public discussion to "change anyone's views" at least among those who stake out positions in it. I have no idea what all but a tiny few of you think about this issue -- maybe you are indifferent, or have settled opinions, or are uncertain -- so I can't say whether the continuance of the thread will fail to change opinions. The great value of the discussion is instead to instruct and stimulate others whose views are not clear, or who have some insight they might otherwise not offer.
Leo and others can refresh their memories with the list logs -- a permanent, published record of our postings that is always in my mind when editing the list. The thread began in late April, with Bob Burg's message about the latest Commission inquiry into the controversy. The discussion not only probed the evidence and arguments of the competing reports and books on the issue. It also moved into a very interesting discussion of the uses and interpretation of evidence, the situation at Monticello, and the issue of using a Scholar's Commission to inquire into the work of another scholar. I have seen none of these matters raised elsewhere in the press coverage of the controversy.
The thread also served one important purpose of H-Net lists, which is to bring academic and non-academic audiences into contact. The resulting friction might be disturbing to some, but the clash of opinion here is much cooler than I've seen on our other lists. I knew relatively little about the Hemings-Jefferson controversy; this thread has pointed me to new online sources about it and contains a debate about evidence that I can discuss with my students (and not just in the context of the Jefferson-Hemings matter, but also in a variety of other contexts where historical and legalistic syndromes of interpretation produce different results -- such as presidential assassinations).
Although I will continue to accept submissions in this thread, let me suggest that authors consider telling us how we might explain this controversy to students -- its significance, the stakes, and its relevance to other similar controversies. And needless to say, authors should resist the urge to land debating points in the middle of otherwise informative messages. After all, the jury here is still out.
regards
Peter
Originally posted on H-SHEAR, June 8, 2001.
Edward J. Gallagher:
I found this thread very, very interesting. The views offered and the sources cited will help me structure a unit on Hemings-Jefferson in a course called "History on Trial" (borrowing the title of the book by Nash, Crabtree, and Dunn), which will look at the controversies over the Vietnam Veterans Memorial and the Smithsonian exhibit of the Enola Gay, among others.Originally posted on H-SHEAR, June 11, 2001.
Eyler Coates:
And with that, the discussion was ended. Note that the editor said he had "no idea what all but a tiny few of you think about this issue." Whether there were many fine points that could have been considered but were not because of a premature closing of the discussion, the reader of these pages may judge.
The postings on these pages have not been edited, except for minor adjustments necessary for the new format and correction of obvious errors in spelling, etc. Some postings that treated different topics in a single posting have been broken up and placed along with other similar messages as appropriate. No posting related to the Jefferson-Hemings question has been knowingly omitted or altered in any way. To distinguish the H-SHEAR postings from the comments that are added at this website, the comments added here are separated by a line, indented, and in a smaller type face.