'I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies.
If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around the banks will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.'
Thomas Jefferson 1802
52 comments:
Z, I find it incredible how much of our lives we have turned over to the banks and Wall Street, they control our very future
Seems like it, Chuck.
Jefferson was warning BACK THEN?
I guess if he could have been this right about something he couldn't have thought would actually happen, they could have been THAT right when they penned the constitution, huh?
They were just that smart, that visionary; maybe all those things in the constitution should be paid even MORE attention to....
Chuck, Off Topic: did you hear Obama talk about the LITMUS TEST he has for SCOTUS justices? It STUNNED me that a president elect could know that little about America ....
Here are Obama’s own words:
“[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
"In other words, in Obama’s world, justice is not in fact blind, impartially weighing evidence in the scales. No, Lady Justice is allowed to peek from behind her blindfold and tip those scales in favor of politically correct classes of people."
WHAT THE HECK? Remember when a Republican had appointed someone to the bench and the lefties went NUTS ridiculing him for a LITMUS TEST? Obama CALLS HIS a litmus test and SILENCE from anybody but those of us who better know America than he even WANTS to.
"Empathy?"? WHAT??? Is he NUTS?
Z, I have been blasted by people reading my blogs because I am a strict adherant to original intent and the vision of our founders. From George Washington's admonition AGAINST a party system of government to Thomas Jefferson's quote on the banking industry. And miles of quotes in between that illustrate the evil that the great experiment has mutated into.
Now, as to the litmus test that Barry has admitted to, I'm absolutely certain that future gun bans will be upheld by his judges. I'm equally certain, that our ability to write our opinions on here will also be curtailed in the very near future thanks to some incarnation of the fairness doctrine, or one of the many other laws which will be enacted to plug holes in the new and improved "fairness doctrine" law.
I wonder how far we'll go before we finally have conservatives rioting in the streets? Just saying.....
BO is left of liberal. Just because he has thrown a few bones to the right doesn't mean anything. Just wait until he takes office.
"I wonder how far we'll go before we finally have conservatives rioting in the streets? Just saying....."
If that time comes, and it may, it won't be just conservatives, it'll take the middle class in large numbers. When middle America rebels, that will be taken seriously.
Look at Greece, they're rioting over corruption in government. At least that's what I heard on the news.
Obama is supposed to be a lawyer, but evidently has no concept of what law is. His litmus test sounds more like a requirement for a preacher. And we know what kind of preacher he admires.
I'd like to ask him, "just what is it like to be African American Barack?" "You ought to know. BTW,you seem to have done alright".
All I can say is, the Republicans had better be ready to play hardball on judicial nominations. So far, I'm not sure they know how to play hardball regarding anything.
I'd like to congratulate all those disaffected Republicans and moderates who either didn't vote or voted for Obama. Congrats you dolts, on voting out of pure emotion. Thanks a heap for putting Chicago politics in Washington. What a shining example of "change".
Yep, that's change alright. We have a twerp for President who has no concept of the weight of the Office of the Presidency. Change indeed!
God help us.
Pris
NOW you know why there have been so many articles, books, letters and TV panel discussions (i.e. screaming matches) about Thomas Jefferson and the life- long affair he had with his father-in-law's daughter Sallie Hemings --- the illegitimate, Negro half-sister of Jefferson's wife, Martha Wayles Skelton.
The affair started in Paris when Sallie, who'd been sent over as part of Jefferson's entourage, was fifteen or sixteen. She bore Jefferson seven children. I believe only three of them survived to maturity. Their relationship lasted over thirty years.
This information is important to know if we are to have a fuller, more rounded understanding of what the culture was like surrounding this seminal figure in the founding of this nation.
However, it has definitely been used by the left as a BESMIRCHMENT of Jefferson's character and reputation to further the ends of those who would have believe that our Constitution and its authors were not so great after all, and are therefore subject to revision.
To define Jefferson as "a child rapist," as some imbeciles in the Women's and Civil Rights movements have done on the strength of this information about Sallie Hemings, defines such accusers far better than they define Jefferson.
Applying the standards of today to the conduct of past centuries is a foolish, often dirty-minded exercise in futility.
If some mischievous scholar with malignant motivations was ever able to "prove" that J.S. Bach routinely sodomized his choirboys, it wouldn't mar my respect and admiration for The St. Matthew Passion, The Mass in B-Minor, his great works for organ and harpsichord, and his dozens of cantatas and incomparable brilliance one tiny bit.
Trying to catch great men of the past with their pants down is an ignoble pursuit --- especially when it is used to promote a modern political agenda that wants to discredit their great achievements.
~ FreeThinke
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
The whole Jefferson slave affair thing was put to rest some time ago.
It was more likely Jefferson's brother Randolph.
It is now, of course, popularly accepted that President Jefferson carried on an affair with his slave, Sally Hemmings, and that children were produced as a result of this union. This is, to put it mildly, complete and utter BS.
DNA testing in the late 1990’s (ironically, the same testing used to damn Jefferson during the Clinton years) proved that, at the most, one of Sally Hemmings many children was fathered by one of many Jefferson males, most likely Thomas’ half-wit younger brother Randolph who was known for idling away his days hanging out with the Jefferson family slaves. Since that time, the Thomas Jefferson Historical Society has commissioned a panel of scholars who produced a 565-page report which concluded that Jefferson almost certainly did not have a sexual relationship with Hemmings or father any of her children.
You can find the report here
a conclusion from the mock trial held:
Allegations that Thomas Jefferson had an affair and fathered at least one child with slave Sally Hemings have been discussed for two centuries. In an article, published by American Journal of Trial Advocacy, the authors summarize a "mock" trial defense of Jefferson, and conclude that the allegations are unproved by the greater weight of the evidence.
I hadn't heard that EB, thanks.
Jefferson should be revered and the above quote is just one of many examples of his far-sightedness.
There's nothing wrong with the banks folks.
Jefferson's warning was quite the self-serving comment. As brilliant a man as he was, Jefferson's biggest failings were financial, and his own fault. It's always easier to blame your own failings on some devious outside force.
Jefferson railed endlessly about the banks because he was FOREVER in debt! He died with HUGE amounts of debt to banks AND individuals because he was terribly careless with money. He was brilliant in an "Einstein" sort of way, and we Americans owe Thomas Jefferson more than we can ever repay. But take his admonition against financial institutions with a grain of salt and understand where they came from. Read Alexander Hamilton to gleen meaningful criticisms of, and tributes to "bankers."
Morgan
Well, private banks are preferable to public banks, right? When the goverment starts controlling the banks with tax-payer money, this is something to worry about, but that is not a function of the banks acting as private banks. This is the government turning private banks into public banks. Maybe Jefferson should have warned the banks against the government.
-Tio Bowser
Outstanding tio! Well said. Banks are acting in their own best interest by loaning money to prospective borrowers based on creditworthiness. These loans will help to grow businesses and increase commerce and employment, enriching everyone in the process.
Then there's government interference, which should be minimal, and limited to the enforcement of laws against force and fraud. Unfortunately now they seem to be ignoring fraud, and ENFORCING bad loan practices. Government involvement in the banking industry is being driven by Cleptocrats! It's totally upside down.
Morgan
NostraThomas.
If any of the Framers were alive today they'd have a heart attack after seeing how much dependence we've allowed ourselves to have on the government. (Its funny that this is the same president who used government funds to convert Indians to Christianity.)
I have often felt that the greatest danger of liberal presidents is their seeding of the courts with their ideological brethern. Judges have a lasting effect on laws as they are treated as the last word. Because the legislature is populated with lawyers they hesitate to take on the judiciary as a co-equal branch. Nothing stops them from repassing legislation and forcing a showdown with these unelected judges on the federal bench. But instead, the lawyer/legislators give undue deference to the courts because that is their training.
There was some rumbling about doing something after the latest outrage in the Kelo case of 2005, that upheld the involuntary removal of an elderly homeowner by emminent domain in New London, Ct., but they lost their courage. There have been others.
These decisions are an outrage perpetrated by the unelected czarist Supreme Court that should not be tolerated. Checks and balances apparently do not apply to the Supreme Court. Now BO is in charge, so watch out America.
BTW, Thomas Jefferson was far from a Democrat as they claim him today. He was a strict constructionist and small government, republican. Alexander Hamilton fit the profile much better as he was a loose constructionist who favored a strong federal government that was interventionist. Just an aside.
Brooke! "NostraThomas"
WHOAA..that's BRILLIANT!
What outrage of the Kelo case?
The court refused to intervene in a state matter. You usually jump for joy in those instances.
The court allowed the state to define "blighted neighborhood" which was a necessary condition of the taking. The court refused to issue a Federal definition.
Doesn't seem radical to me especially since eminent domain is a constitutional power of the Feds.
A little advice folks:
1. There is a bubble forming in T bills. Stay out or get absolutely hammered. Your choice.
2. We are entering a period with more potential for deflation than inflation. Gold is for suckers.
3. Remember that there are quality dividend paying stocks selling at historically low P/E's.
Don't be sucker. Right now is the time for nerves of steel.
Law & Order wrote:
"BTW, Thomas Jefferson was far from a Democrat as they claim him today. He was a strict constructionist and small government, republican. Alexander Hamilton fit the profile much better as he was a loose constructionist who favored a strong federal government that was interventionist. Just an aside."
Yes, this is all true, BUT it's also important to remember that Jefferson had a long and persistent love affair with the French Revolution. Nothing good came of that proto-communist bunch. Hamilton was also far from perfect, but BRILLIANT at designing what came to be Wall Street.
Morgan
Duckster wrote:
"The court allowed the state to define "blighted neighborhood" which was a necessary condition of the taking. The court refused to issue a Federal definition.
Doesn't seem radical to me especially since eminent domain is a constitutional power of the Feds."
Eminent domain was intended to take the property of the owners to build bridges, roads, and schools. The Fact that cities and towns have decided that "increasing the tax base" is also a legitimate reason to use eminent domain is a HORRIBLE abuse of an already miserble practice.
Morgan
Morgan, Jefferson was a Libertarian's wet dream.
You don't hear much about him outside the Ron Paul crowd.
Morgan, we have little access to tell us the exact scope intended to apply to eminent domain.
Now, I realize that the far right runs a hell of a seance and gets the spirit of the founders back here to explain it all to them.
Meanwhile, what the Constitution mandates is just compensation and that was not an issue in the Kelo case.
The court refused to be activist and overrule the state. You CANNOT have your cake and eat it.
Ducky, "increasing the tax base" of a municipality is clearly an abuse of of eminent domain. Who needs to channel the Founders for that bit of common sense?
While it is true that it's hard to find fault w/ T.J., he was a man WITHOUT dollars and "sense" in his own affairs. This helps to give context to his opinions of banks.
Morgan
Ducky.. What president from that long ago DO you hear from today? WHAT?
Of course, because some Americans are tired of celebrating our greats, many American kids don't get to celebrate Lincoln's Birthday, Washington's Birthday, etc...we have to have PRESIDENT'S DAY now just to dumb and water down history even further, right?
And, there's always the mad dash to disqualify our greats from greatness...Washington had slaves, Lincoln didn't free the slaves on purpose, Jefferson had sex with slaves, etc etc., Washington never did the cherry tree thing, etc etc.....WHY?
I'm for the great stories, apocryphal or not, because they are metaphors for great character..
something Americans are forgetting, too.
Where to begin. The Kelo case was all about the power of the state jumping on a neighborhood with both feet in order to benefit a few investors. To say a neighborhood isn't living up to its potential, or is blighted, is the epitome of government using its power to define the "common good" as something that benefits a rich few and the government in tax collection.
We guys don't accept that government can run roughshod over an individual to benefit the government in tax collection. Would you have been so laissez faire had they kicked out some low income citizens to build a Wal-Mart. Lot better income taxes there, you know.
As for Jefferson, I must have gotten confused with that Jefferson day dinner that all the Dems hit like first base.
Morgan, good call on the French Revolution and Jefferson. It is interesting that it was Adams that avoided war with France even though he was maligned by his critics as an Anglophile. It cost him his reelection, but saved the country.
Jefferson had a lot of moments of poor judgement. The Louisiana Purchase was a poor judgement, an expansion of government, and unconstitutional, from a small government guy that turned out OK for the country.
Law & Order wrote:
"Jefferson had a lot of moments of poor judgement. The Louisiana Purchase was a poor judgement, an expansion of government, and unconstitutional, from a small government guy that turned out OK for the country."
You thought that the Louisiana Purchase was a bad idea? Hell I thought was a masterstroke! We acquired all that territory from a cash-strapped Napolean without even going to war. We would have found it necessary to take that ground anyway, why not take it from a Europower without a war?
BTW, thanks for the kind words, that's unusual coming from a teacher where I'm concerned. I even pissed off my military instructors! :-)
Morgan
Morgan,
My point was that from his standpoint as a small government guy he certainly overstepped his bounds. Spending money is the job of congress not the executive. It worked well, but Jefferson questioned his actions to the point of floating the idea of a constitutional amendment to justify his actions. He essentially entered into a treaty with a foreign power that required the OK of the Senate.
As for my comments, I love that you are educated. That makes it fun to debate. As I tell my students we can disagree without being disagreeable. I conduct classroom discussions that I call Kumbayas, not because we don't disagree, but because we argue vehemently but depart with respect. I think that's what the founding fathers wanted.
L&O and Morgan?
THIS is why I blog.
GREAT exchange..keep it up!!
Law & Order wrote:
"Spending money is the job of congress not the executive. It worked well, but Jefferson questioned his actions to the point of floating the idea of a constitutional amendment to justify his actions. He essentially entered into a treaty with a foreign power that required the OK of the Senate."
I hadn't thought of it from THAT angle. Now I understand. Thanks!
I'd always looked at it from the strategic point of view. Jeffereson snatched a HUGE chunk of our contiguous land mass for pennies on the dollar in a "distresed" sale. Brilliant!
I was unaware of the Constitutional implications.
Morgan
Morgan,
Thanks for engaging and debating in a scholarly manner. Your point about the strategic success of the Louisiana Purchase is indisputable. I think the major value was of course the control of the Mississippi River and New Orleans. It allowed the US to control that trade highway. That led the way west. Major acquisition for sure. Forevermore Jefferson will get a pass. All's well that ends well.
I do however, stand by my point that Jefferson wasn't a Dem in the current sense of the party. A small, weak, non-interventionist central government, doesn't fit the bill.
The wisdom of your founding fathers still escapes too many of us today.
Z,
Why wouldn't Obama have a "litmus test" for his judicial nominations?
When Democrats annually get together to drink aborted baby blood and reaffirm their oaths to the Jacksonian principles of seeking the destruction of the US Constitution with the highest American citizen body count possible, the topic of judicial nominations will always be on top of the agenda.
Law and Order Sophist, the exact nature of takings is not spelled out in the Constitution, it is specific only about just compensation.
Why do you want to overrule a state with an activist opinion on this one? Court said it wasn't their jurisdiction to judge ever instance of state taking.
It is unfortunate they didn't consult with you, I know, but how about a little Occam's Razor here.
Ducky, "increasing the tax base" of a municipality is clearly an abuse of of eminent domain. Who needs to channel the Founders for that bit of common sense?
----------------
Clearly? If it was so damn clear how did it get up to the Supreme Court and the taking upheld?
Seems to be considerable difference of opinion. Nothing clear about it except to those playing with their pails and shovels in the Libertarian sand box.
Ducky,
Thanks for your acknowledgement of the cleverness of my arguments. As for the inaccuracy that is a matter of opinion, no? You think so, I don't. Being called a sophist certainly beats being told I'm full of it. As for invoking the Razor, as with all teachers, we do tend to bloviate. Being referred to as a Libertarian is where I draw the line. The best description of Libertarianism was written by Jonah Goldberg: If it wasn't for children and foreign policy, Libertarianism would be the perfect political philosophy (paraphrased). Merry Christmas.
here's simple duhkkky:
Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote in dissent, “Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with a factory” — because in each such case the city would get more tax revenue, and the city council would regard that as a public benefit.
It is a fallacy to believe that homeowners and business owners will be paid justly under the Kelo Decision. If that was true, then the developer should be able to bid for the property on the free and open market without the strong arm of the government getting involved. Kelo lets developers and large corporations by-pass the free market and collude with local governments to cherry pick properties they want without the hassle of dealing with the free market.
That may be Elmo but it is a fact that none of the actions in Kelo involved the price of the property.
What did happen is that there were a number of state laws passed that restricted taking for "blight" and the matter is handled by the states, which conservatives generally support, rather than by an activist judgment by SCOTUS which you generally decry (unless it goes your way).
Your theory is interesting but completely irrelevant to the case law. It does add more impact to the theory that "activist judge" simply means one that issues a ruling that the far, far right doesn't agree with.
I don't think Sandra Day O'connor would qualify as a far far righty duhkkky. She was a moderate.
the state could also overstep.
There is no FINAL WORD either way in matter of Thomas Jefferson and Sallie Hemings. Each side is too emotionally and politically invested ever to accept the truth if the truth doesn't happen suit the feelings and purposes of any given side.
In other words those concerned with the issue will believe what they WANT to believe, and rationalize away any and all opposing views.
MY point in bringing it up was to say that either way IT DOESN'T MATTER. We are not wholly defined either by our sins or our foibles, but rather by the AGGREGATE quality and value of our spiritual, intellectual, creative and productive lives.
MERRY CHRISTMAS!
Sorry! i forgot to sign that last post.
~ FreeThinke
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
unless DNA lies then there really is no controversy.
EB, since when did the facts and Truth ever stop a lib from creating controversy? Of course it all depends on what the definition of is, is.
By the way, Merry Christmas all!
Here are but a few of many references to the Jefferson/Hemings business (At Google they go on for miles):
http://www.monticello.org/plantation/hemingscontro/hemings-jefferson_contro.html
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/hemingssally/a/sally_hemings.htm
http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.1015/article_detail.asp
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/
All of these, including the article published by the Clermont Institute, who most certainly would want to support the the belief in Jefferson's innocence and purity in this matter, regard the evidence as "inconclusive" at best --- a mystery unlikely ever to be solved.
Jefferson --- like all the other Founding fathers and great men of history --- was not merely an icon --- a portrait by Gilbert Stuart --- a marble statue in a domed, memorial surrounded by a circular colonnade softened by cherry blossoms --- or the author of elegantly phrased documents that profoundly affected the future of untold millions. He was a man of flesh and blood like all the rest of us and doubtless subject to all the ills and foibles that flesh is heir to.
As I said at least twice, whether or not Jefferson enjoyed the favors of Sally Hemings and bore him children or not isn't important to me. Given the customs practiced and generally deemed acceptable in those times the idea of such an affair seems perfectly plausible. That many of us so wish to deny its possibility may say more about us than it does about Jefferson.
I frankly think it's puerile to insist it be settled one way or the other --- as though the exitenxce of such an affair could --- and should --- define a man of Jefferson's vision and protean abilities.
Annette Gordon-Reed recently published The Hemingses of Monticello. I saw her interviewed on C-Span, and believe me this is no cheap polemicist with a political axe to grind. The volume published by Norton comprises 798 pages of closely researched, heavily documented material. If I remember Ms. Gordon-Reed's testimony correctly, it was the work of ten years. THOM has received high praise in scholarly and literary circles. Whether that speaks well or ill for it remains to be seen. ;-)
Here are a few of the references to Ms. Gordon-Reed's book. Surely they are worth at least a passing glance:
www.amazon.com/Hemingses-Monticello-American-Family/dp/0393064778 - 320k -
www.nybooks.com/articles/21855 - 36k
www.iht.com/articles/2008/10/04/arts/IDSIDE4.php - 61k
ww.nytimes.com/2008/10/05/books/review/Foner-t.html
www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780393064773-0 - 56k
www.bookbrowse.com/bb_briefs/detail/index.cfm?ezine_preview_number= 2987 - 82k -
search.barnesandnoble.com/The-Hemingses-of-Monticello/Annette-Gordon- Reed/e/9780393064773 - 57k -
www.reviewsofbooks.com/hemingses_of_monticello/ - 12k
In addition we'd all do well to take a good long look at Edward Ball's book Slaves in the Family, which came out a few years ago. It sheds much light on this formerly taboo, hush-hush subject. Ball, the descendant of prominent land-owners and slave-holders from the earliest days of South Carolina, took a hard, unsentimental look at the deeds of his distinguished ancestors and examined their long-range consequences without fear or favor. In my opinion and that of many other Slaves in the family is an important document that deserves the attention of all who are seriously interested in separating truth from mythology.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
~ FreeThinke
even Joe Ellis who "made" the accusation in Nature magazine was misleading and unethical
the DNA report is conclusive, any one of Jefferson's relatives could have fathered ONE of Hemmings children and there is absolutely no conclusive data that Thomas Jefferson had any such affair with her
I realize there is a lot of stuff on the internet
one place I read that GWB, Gorbachev, Queen Elizabeth among others were the anti Christ
you can discern the wheat from the chaff which is why I direct the reader to the actual report
"[A]ny one of Jefferson's relatives could have fathered ONE of Hemings's children and there is absolutely no conclusive data that Thomas Jefferson had an affair with her."
And none that he didn't. Propinquity, human nature, the accepted norms of the time, and the timing of all her known pregnancies indicate the affair was a strong possibility.
The specific paternity of Sally Heming's children can neither be proven nor disproved.
Thomas Jefferson cannot be ruled out. Therefore the matter remains open.
The numerous references I cited are not just "stuff on the internet," all are from well-established
organizations that represent different parts of the political spectrum.
I don't think anyone can casually dismiss Annette Gordon Reed's 798-page tome as mere conjecture or wishful thinking. I've seen her interviewed in some depth, and found her a dignified, well-spoken, highly credible, pleasantly engaging individual.
I have spent my entire conscious life learning how to tell the wheat from the chaff. No one has a corner on that market, I'm sure, because we are all partially blinded by our background, unconscious prejudices and a persistent desire to be seen as right.
I rest my case in the matter of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson.
~ FreeThinke
"[A]ny one of Jefferson's relatives could have fathered ONE of Hemings's children and there is absolutely no conclusive data that Thomas Jefferson had an affair with her."
And none that he didn't. Propinquity, human nature, the accepted norms of the time, and the timing of all her known pregnancies indicate the affair was a strong possibility.
The specific paternity of Sally Heming's children can neither be proven nor disproved.
Thomas Jefferson cannot be ruled out. Therefore the matter remains open.
The numerous references I cited are not just "stuff on the internet," all are from well-established
organizations that represent different parts of the political spectrum.
I don't think anyone can casually dismiss Annette Gordon Reed's 798-page tome as mere conjecture or wishful thinking. I've seen her interviewed in some depth, and found her a dignified, well-spoken, highly credible, pleasantly engaging individual.
I have spent my entire conscious life learning how to tell the wheat from the chaff. No one has a corner on that market, I'm sure, because we are all partially blinded by our background, unconscious prejudices and a persistent desire to be seen as right.
I rest my case in the matter of Sally Hemings and Thomas Jefferson.
~ FreeThinke
it was a lie perpetrated by a pissed off journalist who wanted to be a postmaster
The specific paternity of Sally Heming's children can neither be proven nor disproved.
it's beyond a reasonable doubt
I'm not accusing you of not being able to tell the wheat from the chaff but it's was lie when Jefferson was alive and it's still a lie
FT,
if you read the evidence it's perfectly clear that Jefferson was the victim of a criminal (Callendar) who wished to do him harm by spreading this rumor.
Callender himself was a racist. He believed that accusing Jefferson of miscegenation would fatally ruin his career.29 As one authority commented, “Jefferson’s offense was held to be mixture of the races, and Callender and his fellow scandalmongers strummed the theme until it was
dead tired.”30
Eston was the child claimed by some to be a Jefferson, yet Eston’s oral tradition suggested his family was related to one of Jefferson’s uncles, but they “never heard of Sally Hemings.”79 Jefferson’s younger
brother, Randolph, was known as “Uncle Randolph.”80 This oral tradition is highly suggestive as to Eston’s likely father: Randolph Jefferson (whose
male line descendants were never tested for DNA). Eston is a Randolph family name, not common among the Jeffersons.
If Sally was Jefferson’s
sexual partner, there is no record evidence that she was approached by anyone on this subject.
As for the supposed liaison on Paris the place where Jefferson stayed was more like an embassy and wasn't conducive to an affair without anyone knowing about it.
the DNA shows that Jefferso could not have been Woodson's father.
There is no record evidence or testimony that any of Jefferson’s friends in Paris, nor anyone on his staff, ever mentioned a liaison with Sally. One might expect such gossip to be found in the diary of either the Parisians or expatriate Americans, who knew Jefferson.
The 1998 DNA results eliminated
Thomas Jefferson as Woodson’s father; (2) Woodson is not attributed to Sally in any of Jefferson records; (3) nor is “Tom’s” existence even
recorded in the 1790s; (4) his Woodson name was adopted later, so if he was a slave at Monticello born in 1790-92, under what name was he listed?92; (5) there is no “Tom” in any list of slaves; and (6) no child, other
than those well known, were associated with Sally in such lists.93 Nevertheless, the Woodson family has adamantly claimed Jefferson as “Tom’s” father.94 According to their oral history, Thomas Woodson
was the son Sally conceived in Paris (contrary to Madison’s account that the infant died soon after Sally returned home).95 The Woodsons claimed that Thomas was “banished” from Monticello after Callender’s accusations
became public in 1802.96
So the following is what supposedly has convicted Jefferson:
in 1998, when a DNA test revealed that descendants of Hemings’ youngest child, Eston, shared the same rare Y-chromosome markers as descendants of Jefferson’s paternal uncle, Field Jefferson. That genetic evidence—that the Hemings family descends from a male Jefferson—was compelling enough for many people to name Thomas Jefferson as the likely patriarch. For others, the DNA study only deepens the mystery. in 1998, when a DNA test revealed that descendants of Hemings’ youngest child, Eston, shared the same rare Y-chromosome markers as descendants of Jefferson’s paternal uncle, Field Jefferson. That genetic evidence—that the Hemings family descends from a male Jefferson—was compelling enough for many people to name Thomas Jefferson as the likely patriarch.
In 2001 an independent commission, the Scholars Commission announced the release of its 500-page report on the Hemings affair with opinions ranging from "serious skepticism" to a conviction that the allegations about Jefferson were "almost certainly false."
As one wrtier put it:
Are we to believe he continued in the relationship until at least age 64, when Eston Hemings was conceived, five years after he had been publicly accused of a relationship with Sally and while he was contemplating his second presidential term. He carried it on, all this while constantly surrounded by visitors and by a large white family, none of whom—and least of all the daughters who would have known Sally best—ever had the least suspicion that he was involved with any of his slaves or ever saw the slightest indication that he was closer to Sally than to any other servant.
All right, EB. I did say in my first post about the Hemings affair that this story, whether true or false, has been USED by the Left as a BESMIRCHMENT of Thomas Jefferson, because the Leftist agenda wants to discredit our Founders, discredit our founding documents in order to justify "revisionism. They also want to discredit "Whiteness," and cast doubt on the value of Western Civilization in general.
I've known about Callender for years. He was the first to use this persistent rumor for destructive political purposes back in 1802.
Nevertheless, one can't help but where he got the idea? Naturally, no legitimate member of the jefferson family would want to credit such a rumor, nor would the organization that supports and maintains Monticello today, or any organization whose purpose is to honor Jefferson's memory, and yet it persists and persists.
My contention all along has been that it should not matter one way or the other.
As I said in my first post, these efforts to catch great men of the past with their pants down is an IGNOBLE pursuit.
I did book mark the report you cited, and will look at it more carefully, but I have to say I was impressed with Annette Gordon-Reed's aura of sincerity and scholarly integrity.
I am one of those awful people who tends to believe "Where's there's smoke, there's fire."
But, despite my persistence, I'm hardly adamant on the subject. In truth I haven't read enough to be sure what to believe.
Also, I am frankly sorry that anyone permitted Jefferson;s remains to be violated for DNA testing in the first place. I would much prefer it never to have happened. I think it's unseemly to dig that deeply into anyone's past just to satisfy agenda-driven curiosity.
All the best to you and yours in the New Year and beyond, EB.
~ FT
Post a Comment