Return to index: [Subject] [Thread] [Date] [Author]

RE: History Buffs (Waayyy off topic)

[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Title: RE: History Buffs (Waayyy off topic)
Bill:
 
This is my LAST post on this thread.  It is way off-topic, and it's promulgation is UNFAIR to the other readers.  If you feel compelled to get in the last word, please do so PRIVATELY.
 
I clicked on your link shortly after you posted it this morning and read the Insight Magazine article.  If your argument is based entirely on that article, then you need to do a lot more reading!  Not only was Sally Hemings Jefferson's slave and concubine, she was also his kin.  There is little dispute that her mother and the mother of Jefferson's wife (Martha Wayles Skelton) were step-sisters.  Sally and Martha had the same grandfather, John Wayles.  You should also be aware that Jefferson had several other well-documented affairs.  Sally may have been the last, but she was not the first. 
 
Jefferson lived with George Wythe and his wife for 5 years in Williamsburg.  Wythe was educated in England, and was widely recognized as being the top legal expert and the model of professional integrity in Colonial America.  He taught Jefferson everything that he knew, and Jefferson regarded him as a second father.  Years later when Wythe died, he left his estate to his only son, who happened to be both illegitimate and black. 
 
Benjamin Franklin also had only one son, also illegitimate.  Franklin had a number of affairs throughout his long life, and made no attempt to hide them.  Like Jefferson, he was repeatedly attracted to the pretty wives of his friends and associates. 
 
I could go on, but choose not to.  The point is that while our founding fathers were truly amazing individuals, they certainly were not saints.  Their moral compasses reflected the societal standards of their time.  Fortunately, over the past 225 years, those standards have risen.  At least, that is my hope! 
 
Stan
 
 
 
 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Bill Polhemus [mailto:bill(--nospam--at)polhemus.cc]
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2001 1:06 PM
To: seaint(--nospam--at)seaint.org
Subject: RE: History Buffs (Waayyy off topic)

Stan:
 
This has nothing to do with history, but with the way that we so easily swallow the bilge-water of advocacy groups who put up a piece of "science" which is then trumpeted by the media.
 
Jefferson's alleged fathering of those children is but one example of this. As I said before: I am not saying this didn't happen because I CAN'T say so. There is no WAY to prove it did NOT. I can tell you what I believe.
 
But in so doing, I'm labeled "ignorant," despite the fact that I give concrete reasons for why I believe the way I do.
 
To recap: A study put out by an advocacy group, which was not peer reviewed, appears to convict Thomas Jefferson of this deed, and everyone believes it. A peer-reviewed study, based on solid science, appears directly afterward, showing that there is no evidence that this was the case, and it is ignored.
 
Q.E.D. What more do I need to say?

I'm sorry that you don't like the facts, but the reality is what it is.  I also find it somewhat ironic that you, of all people, are defending the honor of the founder of the Democratic Party! 

 Stan, all you're doing is pointing right back to the original study that I contend was flawed, was not reviewed in accordance with accepted standards of scholarship, and is, in summary, yet another example of "junk science."

Now, I've given YOU a link to an alternate view, which EXPOSES the study and details a SEPARATE study, which WAS submitted for general review by other experts, which was put out there to find the TRUTH, and you ignored it. Why is that?

FWIW, it appears abundantly clear that the Monticello organization was out to drum up new "supporters." Directly after they published this stupid study--which served to garner publicity of the type they could NEVER have garnered otherwise--they got a bunch of Leftist celebrities on their "board." They seem to have served themselves well.

But they served the cause of truth poorly. Are you going to read the alternate view, and comment, or is it enough to believe what Tom Brokaw tells you?