Learning on Twitter

Can two people read part of the same 200-year-old document and honestly come to different conclusions? What follows is a description of why I thought of this question today.

Twitter Person: “[Jefferson’s] frank musings on the subject of race in Notes on the State of Virginia — the pseudo-science in his comments borrowed largely from books he had read — ” Gordon-Reed & Onuf

My study of Notes demonstrates that J’s discussion of race is deftly calculated, not frank.

Me: For example…?

Twitter Person: You really need to read my intro and notes to Query 14. But one example: He posits “a difference of structure” in the lungs of blacks, citing Crawford’s study, which has NOTHING to do with human variation. Its function is to lend a gloss of scientific authority to his assertions.

I thanked him and read Query XIV in Thomas Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia. I referenced the 1801 version published in Philadelphia by J. T. Rawle. The first versions were published at least 14 years prior. All this to say that it was an 18th century book.

My reaction to his initial Tweet was that he was implying a conscious effort on the part of Jefferson to hide his real views on race or to mislead the reader. In his second Tweet he accuses Jefferson of intentionally misstating evidence to mislead.

After reading Query XIV it appears to me that Jefferson is trying to be balanced. If he is guilty of anything it is hubris. He thinks he is smart enough to make a connection to “science” to support his view. He is also naïve, not just by today’s standards either. To think that his personal interaction with blacks was adequate to support his contentions was a basic intellectual mistake, probably made out of arrogance. It is still difficult to see how motive can be ascribed. His attitudes towards American Indians were an indication that most of his prejudice was based on his only experience with blacks were as slaves. Notes was also written before he corresponded with Benjamin Banneker or read his almanac.

As is clear from the mess that is the previous paragraph, in this instance, it is fair that two people read Query XIV and not have the same impression. Especially if one of them has only read it once.