CONVERSATIONS ON JEFFERSON AND JEFFERSONIAN POLITICS
Annie! This is a nice group, but I thought it was supposed to be about Thomas Jefferson. Why is there this long speech by Charleston Heston and his comments about Ice T? Are they relevant to a discussion on Thomas Jefferson? December 24, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
Fred Heston's comments are generally well taken, as far as they go. The Ice T "song" is scurrilous and reprehensible. But Heston cites the extreme example of the side of the cultural war with which he disagrees. When he and the extreme right protest against ideas with which they disagree as being against God or country, they are entitled to their views, but not to the suppression of the views they oppose. And I fear that indeed that is what the extreme right would do if they could. It seems that throughout history, people of all political and/or religious beliefs want the government to advance their cause and suppress that which they oppose. What Heston did at the Time Warner meeting was proper. It was not government action. Yet I imagine that, if asked, most of those with whom Heston makes common cause would support the posting of the Ten COmmandments in schools, courtrooms and other public buildings, i.e., by the government. Because they agree with it, believe it is a good thing, and that all would benefit by forced exposure to it, they want the government to compel the exposure of those ideas to all, whether they agree or not, whether they are offended, or not. After all, why tolerate error? But Americans have the right to be wrong, without the government deciding for them. December 23, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
Linda Jefferson has been maligned. His personal integrity has been called into question, thus chipping away at the worth of his political and religious philosophies. In my opinion the "case" against him regarding the Sally Hemings controversy is just as strong as a ridiculous charge of murder brought against any man or woman who was related to Lee Harvey Oswald and in November of 1963 also lived in the U.S. When have opportunity and not exact DNA, but related DNA been a cause for a guilty verdict? I have heard of guilt by association, but fatherhood by association is a new one! Perhaps in the future all male relatives carrying the same Y chromosome as that of a man involved in a paternity suit should be regarded as the "fathers" of the issue in question! That is what has been done to Jefferson! December 3, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
Jeanette S. Brickner A rumor which prevailed for many years but which is now being called into question is that Sally Hemmings was fathered by Jefferson's wife's father, making her Thomas Jefferson's wife's sister. Although I do not assert that this is conclusive by any means, would that not make Thomas Jefferson 'an Uncle'? November 19, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
Jeanette S. Brickner Personally, I would not call a former President of the United States by his first name alone, save for perhaps 'Ike' Eisenhower, simply out of respect. It's been my observation in recent years that, when the first name of a President or former President is used in a document, it is generally considered derogatory. I think that, out of a simple matter of respect to a man who did a number of great things for his country, it is improper and disrespectful to refer to President Thomas Jefferson as 'Tom' or even 'Thomas'. With that said, it is probably for convienience that Sally Hemmings has been refered to so often as 'Sally'. To refer to her as 'Hemmings', although more proper, can be very confusing because of the various Hemmingses involved in the case. While the same would hold true for 'Jefferson', President Jefferson is the most prominent amongst them and is the obvious subject. Perhaps we ought all to be somewhat more clear in the future, referring to the parties as 'Sally Hemmings' and 'Thomas Jefferson'. Of course, freudian slips have been known to occurr. While I cannot speak for anyone but myself, I certainly have no intention of being derrogatory should I use the name 'Sally'. November 19, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
I beleave that Mr.Jefferson did keep Mrs.Hemmings as his slave mistress as i am very southren and know that many southren gental men did keep slave mistresses. Why is it so hard to beleave it is not as if he where the frist public offical to keep a slave mistress did not one of the frist suprem court justice, Marshal have a slave mistress . I have read many book on Mr.Jefferson and there is no doubt in my mind that he was a great man but he was still a man. Besides that I have read that he prmissed his wife on he4r death bed that he would never marrie agian and he did keep his promis. Also I read that Mrs.Hemmings was his wifes half sister ,he loved his wife there was no reason why he shouldnt have loved her sister .Isnt true that when he frist wrote the decloration of independce that he put something in there about ending slavery? Not that it matters but if the problem was that she was black even thought she was 75%white . by TjSh44 November 11, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
I totally disagree with the above posting regarding Jefferson and his views on religious liberty. I am at a loss to understand how anyone can think Jefferson was not committed to "separation of church and state". Do we just disregard the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, his support of the Bill of Rights which included the First Amendment, his numerous letters and statements regarding the liberty of conscience? Do we disregard the fact that the University of Virginia(founded by him) did not have a professor of Divinity? Do we forget he did not proclaim fast and prayer days as President? Looking at only the Library of Congress information is myopic, and ignorant. George Gori September 26, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
Bill Eger According to the chief of manuscripts at the Library of Congress, who researched Jefferson's papers for an exhibit on religion and the Founding Fathers (back on June 4, 1998), the phrase "wall of separation" between church and state was born of politics, not philosophy, to please partisan supporters and answer critics. Documnents on display showed that two days after writing the 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, Jefferson began attending weekly worship inside the House of Representatives. Jefferson also allowed worship in federal buildings. "The phrase about the wall doesn't mean much in light of his behavior, does it?" Comment from James H. Hutson, the Library of Congress' chief of manuscripts. September 26, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
Name: Patriot Comment: The statement by Eric Burns in the July 14, 2001 article on FoxNews.com, "Ellis' books do not simply present facts, they interpret them...." should alert us to the power exerted by historians through their teachings, books, and public appearances. Their interpretations may not always be determined strictly by historical documentation, but may also be guided by personal or political agendas. Regardless of how insignificant a statement may seem to most readers, it could be very significant to future researchers, and lead to misinformation becoming established. A number of commentators have gone on record as saying "Professor Ellis' scholarship is not an issue," including the Thomas Jefferson Foundation, the trustees of Jefferson's home. His scholarship has been questioned concerning his presentation of the DNA tests, and there are many other flaws in Joseph J. Ellis' scholarly publications, including the following examples. Ellis took the opportunity to revise his American Sphinx in November 1998 following the announcement of the DNA study results. Ellis said in the original edition, he felt "the likelihood of a Jefferson-Hemings liaison was remote, offering several plausible readings of the indirect evidence (i.e., Jefferson's voice in his letters to women; the reasons his enemies doubted the charges) to support my conjecture. No matter how plausible my interpretation, it turns out to have been dead wrong." He goes on explaining "the results of a DNA comparison between Jefferson's Y chromosome and the Y chromosome of several Hemings descendants demonstrated a match between Jefferson and Eston Hemings." Actually the test participants were descendants of Jefferson's uncle, Field Jefferson, and they were compared to just one descendant of Eston Hemings and numerous descendants of Thomas Woodson. There was a match between Eston Hemings and the descendants of Field Jefferson, but there was no match with Thomas Woodson's descendants, thus suggesting a high probability that one of more than a dozen Jefferson males could have fathered Eston Hemings, but that Thomas Woodson was not the son of a Jefferson. The Carr line tests yielded negative results, thereby, proving they did not father Eston Hemings or Thomas Woodson. Ellis felt this evidence discredited the history of Jefferson's white descendants, but that it partially supported the history of the Hemings descendants. The only match was for Eston Hemings. Therefore, the Carrs and the rest of world have not been ruled out as possible paternity candidates for the rest of Sally Hemings' children. Ellis wrote that "...the Eston match is the crucial new evidence and really all that matters ..." and decided since Jefferson was 64 years old when Eston was conceived, it was unlikely this was a one-night stand. He ended his new appendix with, "The likelihood of a long-standing sexual relationship between Jefferson and Hemings can never be proven absolutely, but it is now proven beyond a reasonable doubt." I am not an attorney, but I have been a juror and instructed about "reasonable doubt." His statement and his explanations are inconceivable. The conjecture documented in the original edition of American Sphinx is certainly more reasonable. Not one of the more than a dozen senior scholars on the Scholars Commission who studied the evidence in the Jefferson-Hemings matter agreed with Ellis' revised viewpoint. In the same revised edition of American Sphinx, Ellis clearly states that Madison Hemings gave an interview to the Pike County Republican newspaper "claiming that his mother had identified Thomas Jefferson as his father and, in fact, the father of all her children." Ellis confirmed this same information in a 1998 New York Times interview when he stated that he changed his mind about Jefferson being involved with his slave because of the DNA tests results and "Madison saying late in life that his mother told him." This is absolutely false. The interview never revealed Madison Hemings' source for his information. In fact, the Hemings interview contains so many false statements and unsupported claims and so much information that could not come from Madison's own knowledge, it cannot be considered credible. In his revised book, Ellis has credited Dumas Malone with providing the most tangible piece of new evidence to support the charges by demonstrating that Jefferson was at Monticello nine months prior to the birth of each of Sally's children. This is hardly new evidence, and Dumas Malone was not the first to provide it. Winthrop Jordan introduced this theory back in 1968, a number of years prior to Malone's chronologies which were published in the 1970s. In fact, Malone's chronology for 1807, the year Eston was conceived, does not list the dates when Jefferson was at Monticello. Malone only noted the dates Jefferson left and returned to Washington. He did not note when Jefferson arrived and departed Monticello or the dates of his trip to Poplar Forest during this period. In an undated piece Ellis wrote for Encyclopaedia Britannica, he accurately credited Winthrop Jordan with discovering the theory based on Jefferson's presence at Monticello every time Sally Hemings conceived. But after comparing Jefferson to former presidents Harding, Kennedy, and Clinton, Ellis erred in his statements concerning rumors about miscegenation at Monticello that circulated several years prior to Callender's 1802 allegations, which were supposedly based on the resemblance of Sally Hemings' children to Jefferson. In fact, in 1802 Sally had only two children, a four-year old boy and a one-year old girl. Rumors existed in 1796 when French visitors wrote about the yellow slave children of mulatresses and hired white workmen or country men who were living together openly. These were Hemingses, but they could not have been Sally Hemings' confirmed children. Sally's one-year old baby girl who died in 1797 would not have been seen by visitors in 1796. If by chance the Woodson family's oral history is accurate and Thomas Woodson was born to Sally Hemings in 1790, it is possible he was on the mountain, but it is not likely he would have resembled Jefferson because the DNA has definitely eliminated him as a Jefferson descendant. It is quite possible rumors existed about the yellow slave children from the time the Hemings family arrived at Monticello in the early 1770s, but these could hardly have been Sally's children. The William and Mary Quarterly January 2000 issue which published articles by the historical revisionists about Jefferson included a piece by Ellis. He wrote derogatory statements about Jefferson supporters who had rebutted the DNA findings by offering Jefferson's younger brother and one of his sons as alternative paternity candidates, and Ellis alleged that this was a desperate appeal. According to Ellis, "No one had mentioned Randolph Jefferson as a possible alternative before the DNA study. He is being brought forward now because he fits the genetic profile. This belated claim strikes me as a kind of last stand for the most dedicated Jefferson loyalists." First of all, the fact that the Jefferson males who were in the vicinity of Sally Hemings when she conceived Eston did fit the "genetic profile" and the fact that they had opportunity is very significant. New historical documents are always being discovered, and historians should be open to evaluating new evidence whenever it is introduced if it could have some bearing on true history. As for Ellis' statement about no one ever mentioning Randolph prior to the DNA study, he is dead wrong. Pearl Graham, a Hemings family sympathizer, wrote to Julian Boyd at Princeton in 1958 that Randolph Jefferson was a possible paternity candidate, and she also wrote that she had been told by a Hemings descendant that Randolph Jefferson had "colored children." This letter is in a collection at the University of Virginia along with Monticello correspondence, and it is entitled, "Genealogical data pertaining to the Hemings family of Monticello." Also a playwright, Karyn Traut, came to the conclusion that Randolph Jefferson was the father of Sally Hemings's children and produced a play in 1988 in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, based on her research. It's easy to see that Ellis has accepted other writers' works as gospel, when in fact, some of their works have been poorly researched and/or have misrepresented evidence in order to arrive at their predetermined results. Ellis has definitely given too much credence to Madison Hemings' interview published in the Pike County Republican in 1873. Dumas Malone realized the flaws in Madison Hemings's published interview, but today's historians use it because it supports their revisionist agenda. Because of Joseph J. Ellis' lies about his personal history, the issue of poor historical scholarship has been brought into the forefront, but by no means are Ellis' military exploits the only instance where he has distorted the past. Many other historians are guilty of inventing history too. There is a growing problem within the historian profession to write "feel-good" history or "psycho-history" or just plain falsehoods based on distorted evidence in order to support a desired result. Historical scholarship is being corrupted by negligent and/or unprincipled persons. A smart man recently wrote, "By contemporary standards, historians are encouraged to 'elaborate' and to use their imagination to fill in the blanks in the evidence. It is that sort of thing that Ellis was doing in his Vietnam stories." Fortunately for us, there are historians who are accountable and practice objective standards in evaluating history. Perhaps we could learn from the writings of one such man and a Jefferson historian, the late Dumas Malone. He interpreted the evidence and wrote the following passages about Jefferson's thoughts on recording history. "His major concern, as he himself expressed it, was to keep the record straight and he continued to believe that there could be no 'true history' without supporting documents." [Malone, Jefferson and His Time, Vol. 6, p. 219] "While he never ceased to take political doctrine into account when evaluating historical writings, Jefferson maintained a deep respect for facts. He clearly perceived the danger that fable could pass for history, and in the last decade of his life he observed to John Adams that 'genuine history' was rare." [Malone, V-6, p. 213] Jefferson, himself expressed it in a letter to William Wirt on 14 Aug 1814 concerning the condition of the records of the House of Burgesses and not keeping documentation of transactions: "... Hence history becomes fable instead of fact." "The great outlines may be true, but the incidents and coloring are according to the faith or fancy of the writer." August 25. 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
In the book, "American Scripture," Pauline Maier, Knopf 1997, p.209, you can find the details on the composition of the inscriptions. Richard Dixon [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) Eyler Coates (comments) After the draft of the Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification, Jefferson wrote from France objecting to the lack of a Bill of Rights. "I disapproved from the first moment... the want of a bill of rights [in the new Constitution] to guard liberty against the legislative as well as the executive branches of the government." --Thomas Jefferson to Francis Hopkinson, 1789. ME 7:300 He later wrote to James Madison in response to a proposed draft for a declaration of rights to be an ammendment to the Constitution which Madison had sent to him, "I like [the declaration of rights] as far as it goes, but I should have been for going further. For instance, the following alterations and additions would have pleased me: Article 4. The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or *otherwise* to publish anything but false facts affecting injuriously the life, liberty, property or reputation of others, or affecting the peace of the confederacy with foreign nations..." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1789. ME 7:450, Papers 15:367 That preliminary draft of the Bill of Rights also contained a provision for the right to bear arms. Jefferson did not mention that provision in the above letter, presumably because he had nothing to add to it. But he certainly did not oppose it. He had previously included in his draft for a consitution for the State of Virginia the following provision: "No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353 Therefore, there is no question that the charge that Jefferson opposed "the right of free speech coupled with the right to bear arms," is absolutely untrue. August 4, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) George (comments) I would agree with Mr Mc Sparran that religious fanaticism still exists in the United States. Jefferson was brutally savaged by the religious right of his time, the Congregationalists, and Episcopalian ministers particularly. Ironically Baptists, Quakers, Moravians, and other small Protestant sects were among his largest supporters due to his views of religious liberty, and freedom of worship. Sadly many of these same sects are now of the most intolerant and conservative bent, and would probably consider Mr. Jefferson's views as "heresy". Religious despotism and irrationalism seems to be on the rise in our world. In Afganistan, Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern nations it is the norm. In the US it is not as powerful, but equally dangerous. [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
Letter to the Editor is in The Washington Times, August 3, 2001 Founder's legacy mischaracterized In the July 15 Commentary Forum column, "Gift of a Founder," Gary Aldrich and Katherine Seaman make the misleading assertion that Patrick Henry "would break from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson when he insisted that our new Constitution include the right of free speech coupled with the right to bear arms." Henry was not a member of the 1787 Constitutional Convention, but, along with George Mason, opposed ratification of the proposed Constitution in the Virginia convention because he distrusted the federalist system orchestrated by James Madison. The Constitutional Convention took place when Jefferson was in France, although the Constitution had Jefferson's support, based on reports from Madison. Washington was the president of the convention but had no part in the later campaign for adoption of the Constitution by the states. Most of the states ratified the Constitution on the explicit condition that a bill of individual rights be added. Henry, as a member of the Virginia ratification convention, also opposed the later adoption of the Bill of Rights, on the basis that the amendments did not go far enough to protect the people from the central power created by the Constitution. While Jefferson and Washington both supported the Bill of Rights, neither was a member of the Virginia convention that debated and ratified these amendments. There are numerous statements and actions from both, prior to and in their long public careers, in support of freedom of speech and the individual right to bear arms. Patrick Henry is a fitting symbol for the opposition of centralized government power. There is no basis to imply, however, that he championed the right of free speech coupled with the right to bear arms while Washington and Jefferson opposed these individual freedoms. RICHARD E. DIXON Clifton, Va. [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) Cliff McSparran (comments) One must live amongst Southern Baptists and Church of Christers to appreciate the religious attitudes of Jefferson's day. Those people are governed by the very views that Puritans were that is, "I'm right, and you are wrong, and I will do whatever it takes to change you." They have no respect for others' beliefs. If you doubt me, ask one what he/she thinks of Jews or Roman Catholics. You will have your answer as to why our First Amendment rights as interpreted were, and are, important. [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.] August 2, 2001
