CONVERSATIONS ON JEFFERSON AND JEFFERSONIAN POLITICS
(NAME) Art Stennett (SUBJECT) DC schools (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I heard that President Jefferson-moon lighted as director of the DC Schools while in office. Is this true?Also that he required two book to be in the class room- the Bible and one other one(I don't know the name of the second book. Can you give some insight to these issues Thank you, Art Stennett ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 25, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) Cyndi (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did Sally Hemings tell Madison that Thomas Jefferson was his father? One Pulitzer Prize winning historian who has been in the news lately would have us believe Madison did in fact state that his mother told him Jefferson was his father, or at least that is what he has declared in one publication and to the media. He cites this as one of his reasons for reversing his opinion on the Jefferson-Hemings matter. There is absolutely nothing in Madison Hemings's narrative which identifies the origins of his claim so we can only speculate. It is also quite possible Sally Hemings couldn't identify the father or fathers of her children. What would a mother say to her children under these circumstances? Eyler has made some very good points about interpretations related to Eston Hemings and his resemblance to a bronze statue of Jefferson. One theory might be simply that the residents of Chillicothe while visiting Washington noticed the resemblance and from Eston's ambiguous reply, hence came the rumors. The Callender allegations would have legitimized the rumors. Even though Eston may not have known who his father was or he may have known he was a Jefferson, he must have known that he resembled the Jeffersons, so his answer was possibly deliberately ambiguous. If Eston had believed the president was his father, there wouldn't have been any reason for him not to say so. There was a strong "anti-Negro sentiment" in his Ohio settlement from the mid 1800's and even as late as the 1880's. By hinting at a relationship to a prominent person may have been a way of attaining respectability and acceptance by the white residents. He may have viewed this as being necessary for his family's survival. Why did Eston decide to change his surname to Jefferson when he passed as white? It could have been because he knew his father was a Jefferson, and/or he may have felt it was the logical choice because of his convincing resemblance to the Jeffersons. Why else would he choose a name that would not afford him anonymity? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 25, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) Eyler Coates (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Did Sally Hemings tell her son Madison that Thomas Jefferson was his father? One story that brings the theory that she did so into question is the story told of some residents of Chillicothe, Ohio, who travelled to Washington, D.C., and saw a statue of Thomas Jefferson that they thought resembled Eston Hemings. One of the travellers asked Eston about this after returning to Ohio, and Eston reportedly made this ambiguous comment: "Well, my mother whose name I bear belonged to Mr. Jefferson... [pause]... and she never was married." Eston did not comment further, and the questioner reportedly "saw this as confirming the rumor." On the face of it, Eston's statement expressed a genuine uncertainty and lack of knowledge. The questioner apparently wanted to hear that Thomas Jefferson was Eston's father, and if he were, it is difficult to find a reason why Eston would not have owned up to the fact, if indeed he believed it to be true. How simple it would have been for him to have replied, "The truth is, that is what my mother, whose name I bear, told me." Perhaps opposition partisans might be inclined to put some other spin on Eston's response and hesitancy, but the obvious, "prima facie" interpretation is, he may have been entertaining the possibility that Thomas Jefferson was his father, but HE HONESTLY DID NOT KNOW! He could only offer his questioner some suggestions that might tend to support the apparent theory of the questioner. This is a common human experience. When some friendly person comes to us with an idea or suggestion, most people tend not to contradict them outright, but rather to "go along" and feed them with information that might tend to agree with their suggestion. Eston did not contradict his questioner, but said things that suggested an effort to find facts that might support what the questioner was getting at, even though he was not able to give a definitive answer. There is one significant piece of information that was part of this story. After being given the ambiguous answer, the questioner "saw this as confirming the rumor." If Eston had reason himself to believe that he was Thomas Jefferson's son, there was no substantial reason for denying it. If there already was a rumor that he was Jefferson's son, it seems doubtful that he would fear any harm from admitting it. Therefore, there seems to be every reason for assuming that if Eston actually believed he was Jefferson's son, he almost surely would have stated so when questioned. The other interesting fact about the questioner's assumption is that it tells us that there was indeed a rumor existing that was not initiated by Eston and that suggested Eston was Jefferson's son. The rumor, in other words, had a life of its own before the question, and that life was being supported by gossip from persons other than Eston himself. The extent of the rumor is not clear, however. Was it a rumor that existed before the travellers went to Washington, or was it a "rumor" amoungst a small group after they saw the statue? We know, of course, that there had been such rumors regarding Sally's children for many years before. There are some even more interesting conclusions that can be drawn from this story. At the time that Eston was questioned about his father, Sally Hemings was dead. But she had lived with Eston and Madison up until the time of her death. So, if Eston didn't really know who his father was and expressed obvious uncertainty, how did Madison know? Would Sally have told Madison and not Eston? During the nine years after Jefferson's death, when Sally lived with Madison and Eston, is it possible that Madison could have known at that time who his father was, and Eston would not? If Sally had told Madison it was Thomas Jefferson, would either she or Madison have not told Eston at a time when they were all living together? If we accept this story of Eston being questioned about his similarity to the statue of Jefferson being true, it also serves as powerful evidence that Eston himself did not know for sure who his father was, and that up until the death of Sally Hemings, she had not told her children that Jefferson was their father. Moreover, it is apparent that there was nothing in the upbringing of Eston and Madison or their mutual experiences at Monticello when Jefferson was alive that would have indicated to Eston that Jefferson was definitely his father, nor that this belief was shared between Eston, Madison and Sally when Sally was still alive. So where did Madison get his information of which he was so certain that he conveyed in the Wetmore interview? NOT from Sally! He could only have gotten it from sources outside Monticello, such as Callender's accusations or other rumors that were floating around. And since we have already seen that there possibly were rumors in existence that Eston was Jefferson's son -- rumors that were not being fed by Eston himself -- we may surmise that Madison probably got these suggestions that Jefferson was his father not from Sally, not even from his own experiences at Monticello, but from extraneous sources, such as rumor and gossip. Madison cites NOTHING in his experience that would lead him to make that claim. Looking back upon his childhood, he said that Jefferson treated his grandchildren better than he treated Sally's children, indicating he did not treat the latter as though they actually were his own children. Some partisans might manage to put a different spin on all this information, but it all sounds to me like very strong evidence that Sally never during her lifetime claimed that Thomas Jefferson was the father of her children -- not even to her own children. Did Eston tell his own children that Thomas Jefferson was his father? But isn't the story well-founded that the descendants of Eston all believed Eston was fathered by "an uncle"? It seems unlikely that the descendants would have passed on this story if it began originally that the father was Thomas Jefferson. Who would take responsibility for making such a drastic change in handed-down family history? Even if they feared that to make this claim publicly would subject them to some kind of ridicule or even ostracism, is it not much more likely that they would have held within the family what they thought was the true story and have not revealed it to the outside world? Isn't this exactly what happened with some of the Woodson descendants? Didn't some of them think they were descended from Thomas Jefferson, but kept it as though it were a family secret to avoid the reactions of other people? Isn't this a more reasonable reaction than to deliberately change the story? Eston's youngest son Beverly died in 1908, and someone, a friend of Beverly, wrote a brief letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune that Beverly was the grandson of Thomas Jefferson. This was done in response to an obituary that appeared upon the death of Beverly. There apparently was no follow-up to this story, and it is not known how this person got his information, whether from Beverly himself, or from rumors in circulation at the time. It is possible the person surmised this from the story about Eston and his resemblance to Jefferson that was published in 1902 only six years earlier. In any case, information from such a source seems to be highly unreliable. The article written in 1902, some fifty years after the event, about Eston and the statue of Jefferson, is nevertheless considered at least hearsay evidence. Although some coversations, along with their nuances, are not easily remembered even a short time after they occur, it is certainly possible that this could happen. As a person ages, it is short term memory that goes first, and frequently long term memories are still vividly recalled. I know that I, at age 71, can recall vividly things that occurred 50-60 years ago. Eventually, Eston changed his family name from Hemings to Jefferson. We could only speculate on why Eston made this change. Was it because he thought he was descended from Thomas Jefferson? The story passed down has been that Eston and his descendants claimed "an uncle" as the father of Eston because they wanted to hide their descent from Thomas Jefferson, but that motive may be just more modern speculation. Changing the surname to Jefferson seems like the worst way to hide from such an eventuality. Why not to Jones or Smith? Perhaps Eston just wanted to identify with the broader Jefferson family because he had reason to believe he was actually a part of that family. It is difficult to believe he would have changed the name, but then avoided being identified as a descendant of Thomas Jefferson if, in fact, he believed he was. Why can't we take the matter on the face of it, based on the evidence that has come down to us, and assume that Eston thought he was descended from a Jefferson relative, not Thomas, and changed his name to Jefferson because that was his father's name? That sounds like a simple, straightforward explanation -- the kind of thing any ordinary person might do. Instead of bearing the name of his mother, as Eston reportedly said in Chillocothe, he would henceforth bear the name of his father. No fear, no subterfuge, no duplicity about it. [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) Linda (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have fully enjoyed and profited from the discussions presented here and the information made available by so many on the life and writings of our political (and for some spiritual) "father", Thomas Jefferson. Certainly the preservation of his reputation is important to those who admire and respect him. I think that though the simplicity, the grandness, the pursuit of a better way, the appeal to reason, found in his writings will always be treasured by lovers of liberty his personal life will always be held suspect by others who will rely on the Sally Hemings controversy to promote a personal agenda. I am just a little person living at a time far removed from Jefferson, for me personally it matters not what people say about him for I have available to me (thanks to the hard work of many) enough information to make my own judgements. What matters to me is, intent. It is not Thomas Jefferson on trial, it is the intent and motives of his detractors that, if found suspect, puts THEM on trial. Thanks so much for the opportunity to participate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 25, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) Christian (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Where in the Constitution anywhere is there a law on separation of church & state?" ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (NAME) Eyler Coates (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Of course, the simple and obvious answer is, the First Amendment provision -- "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Just as obvious, the words "separation of church & state" are NOT a part of that amendment. That is the INTERPRETATION given to the First Amendment by Thomas Jefferson and most observers. Jefferson wrote: "Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281 The only question one might have is, Why does the prohibition that Congress should make no law creating an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise of religion, amount to a "wall of separation"? The answer is, the way church and state become integrated is through law. A law may establish a state church and decree that taxes be used to support it. A law may require people to attend church, or to obey a church rule, or even to believe a church doctrine. Those are laws forcing people to act. Similarly, a law may prevent certain kinds of churchs from having services, or ministering to their members, or it may prevent persons of certain religious beliefs from doing religious exercises. In the past, laws have existed that did all those things. This is the way church and state unite together in support of one another -- through laws designed by Congress to facilitate that cooporation. Therefore, if Congress is forbidden to make such laws, then there is erected a "wall of separation between church and state." They cannot work together to promote one another. It's as simple as that. ALL churches are free to pursue their religious ends (within the limits of non-religious law, e.g., no human sacrifices please), but they will not be aided by the state nor prevented by the state. Does the "wall of separation" mean religion may not influence legislation? Of course not! EVERYTHING influences legislation. But it may not influence legislation in order to get itself established through government power, or to forbid other religions by state edict. This can get pretty sticky when you get down to particulars, but that, essentially, is what the "separation of church and state" is all about. When the Founders wanted every citizen to be free to pursue his own religious beliefs (or non-beliefs) free from coercion, they did it by forbidding Congress to make laws in this area. Thus, church and state coexist, but are entirely separate. And it works! No religious wars in the U.S. The only struggles are from some religions trying to work their mission through the state and to use state power to further their own interests. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 24, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) George (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I must concur with Patriot. A man of such duplicitous character as Joseph Ellis cannot be taken seriously. Think about modern historians. Most cannot even begin to understand the level of revolutionary idealism, and progressivism of men like Thomas Jefferson. Most historians today are wrapped up in the cynical ideals of modern America: sex, money and wealth accumulation, dysfunctionalism, etc. Our country today is in big trouble. The obsession with these modern diseases of society will be our undoing if it's progress is not halted. Jefferson always looked forward to future for change and progress. He knew that doing and reforming all is not always possible( ie: slavery) and that the next generation would be more progressive and eradicate the evils his generation was unable to. This is the essence of a progressive mind. Mr Ellis cannot understand such idealism. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 23, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) Todd (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I have to disagree with the above statement. I do NOT believe that music alone causes a child to kill. It makes me sick when people want to blame societies ills on everything except the real problem. To me society itself is the problem. Both parents are forced to work just so they can have anything, so the children are forced to raise themselves or to be raised by strangers. Families don't spend the time together they once did. No one wants to take responsibility for their actions anymore. I am not big on religion but it also seems to me that morals are slipping and everyone is out for themselves. Yes, our heros of yesterday are gone but nowadays kids are just not looking in the right place. I have to admit as a child Dan Marino was my idol but also there was a few teachers I looked up to. A child just needs pointed in the right direction. I hope I do that for my daughter.. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 23, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) Patriot (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- George and Eyler have managed to capture the essence of this situation quite well, and Eyler has pointed out how Joseph Ellis has already abused our trust with his flawed scholarly work. Thomas Jefferson was a man of values and morals which did not change with time, and he was a progressive thinker. Ellis has deceptively transferred his own weaknesses onto a personality he admired, Jefferson. Ellis has been deceiving the public and himself for so long, he may not recognize the differences between himself and Jefferson. How sad it is that some of the most recent published Jefferson "historians" have been dealing with their own inner struggles which have prevented them from knowing the real Thomas Jefferson and have robbed America's youth of a true hero, one with imperfections but no less a great person. Annette Gordon-Reed's book reveals deep-rooted racial animosities. The serious mistranscriptions discovered in her book and other misrepresentations in her work are very disturbing. Another Jefferson scholar has been quoted as saying, "We don't need proof. We are historians. We write history the way we want to." The poor scholarship found in the history profession today is alarming, and apparently is guided by political agendas, executed by revisionists, and accepted by an apathetic public. We need accountability from these historians and teachers of our children. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 23, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) Kawboy (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- I don't much like the idea either, but government must control some aspects of both the right to free speech, and the right to keep & bear arms. As little as possible, we hope, but to a degree, we expect them to do so and we elect them to do that very thing! They will indeed do so long as we want, only so long as we keep pressure on them to do so. Republican or Democrat. Remember this, the more people abuse these rights, the more the Government WILL crack down! Do you know who Jim Bowie was? I mean, the maker of the Bowie Knife who died at the Alamo. Well, he was a great fighter and used to wrestle the biggest alligators he could find when in LA, but he knew that it was mighty dangerous, once you got a hold of them, to ever let them go. If you weren't careful, you could get hurt or killed. Make the wrong move, though, go to the right or left too far, and the result is the same. Seems these days, the 1st and 2nd amendments are competing. I think it's nonsense. Both must be regulated -- to a degree, but the argument is to what degree. I don't believe every person has the right to own an Abrahm's tank, for example! Eyler has an excellent article on gun ownership. I'd like to suggest the same for a freedom of speech article, and would strongly argue that lyrics to modern heavy metal and rap, contribute tremendously to violence in our society. Look, when I was a tyke, I loved Daniel Boone & John Wayne (still do). I wanted to be just like them. They generally did good on their movies but, always were in fights, and usually won. Always conflict, but they always were defending what was right. I didn't see that, though, I saw only that they always fought and always won! Always a good reason, nevertheless, the fights sold the movies. The men, wanted to be like that and so did I. Now, kids don't emulate John Wayne, they try to imitate rock stars so they can get the girls and money and whatever else. They pretend to be holding an electric guitar acting like imbeciles in hopes to get attention from the females and generally, they do. Alright, what teen wants to be like John Boy Walton? I have yet to see one who does, but when we see teens dancing to heavy meatal, taking drugs, listening to lyrics that once, would have been prohibited, do we expect them to act any different than I did when I was young? Do we really think that Marilyn Manson, had no effect on the Columbine massacre and only the access to guns did? Think about it, what influenced you, and why. If the Government can regulate arms, they must also regulate speech, to some degree. I am against as much as I can be, any laws against gun ownership. But I want to ask you, what provokes a person into firing that gun? Music? Drugs? Alcohol? I've been there, well, not drugs, but I've been around it. Bottom line: Is Heston a hypocrite? He promotes guns but wishes to suppress freedom of expression? Take another look. He wants some common sense & courtesy. Decency from one man, to another, from one race, to another. Shoot, if you were to use some of the language in today's music, you'd be allowed no comment on this website. That's good. If you don't think so, protest. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 22,2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) Todd (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free speech should never be taken for granted as it is our God given right. It may hurt at times, as many song lyrics make me cringe but there is a simple solution for that, don't buy it!!!!I hate to think of a society where goverment controls what is seen and heard buy the public, it makes me think of Nazi Germany and many great works that Hitler had burnt.. The right to bear arms is another right that we should never let go of but at what price?? I hate to see all the shootings at our schools and in the country as a whole but I don't want a situation where a body could just take us over and we have no recoorse because we don't have the right to bear arms.. All our rights come with some cost, it's just up to us to keep them and use them responsibly... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 19, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
(NAME) George (comments) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- In light of the revelation that Joseph Ellis lied about his past, his role as a biographer, and historian must be "re-interpreted". Dr Ellis is guilty of the very things he accuses Thomas Jefferson of: Duplicity, dishonesty, and disingenuousness. He calls Jefferson "paradoxical". Dr Ellis has revealed he is all of these things. He lied about his service record,his role in the Vietnam War, and his role in the Civil Rights Movement. He inflated his record into one of heroism, and moral supremecy, yet it was all hollow.All of his statements on Jefferson should be highly suspect. He has accused Jefferson of "buying" the election of 1800 against John Adams,with no proof. He has claimed there is conclusive proof that "Jefferson fathered Eston Hemings", even though there were about 7 to 8 other Jefferson males that could have just as easily been the father. He also continues to make the strange claim(as many historians do) that Jefferson was "paradoxical" due his supposed contradicti! ons, and changes on topics as he grew older. Jefferson was a progressive thinker who believed change was not only good, but natural and imperative as time moved forward. If an opinion of his made early in his life did not work at a later date, he readily discarded it. If circumstances of the moment(such as the Louisiana Purchase) dictated a deviation in opinion, or principle Jefferson did modify his views. The one thing Professor Ellis neglects to mention is that Jefferson never compromised his core belief that "nothing is unchangable but the inherent and inalienable rights of man." You will not find a writing of his justifying or defending slavery. You will not find a writing condemning self-government. Mr Ellis, so wrapped up in his own agenda, and duplicity fails to recognize the real Thomas Jefferson. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- July 16, 2001 [To find where the above comment is posted, Click here.]
Post your comments to entries on this page:
