Wingnuts Go Nutty on Thomas Jefferson
I just leaned that there are “Founding Fathers truthers”. Sigh. Why as the made up word “truther” signify that there is no truth behind what anyone is saying. The latest salvo from the Founding Father truthers is a new book that says that Thomas Jefferson did not father any children with Sally Hemmings.
Certain factions of “Founding Father truthers” are still unable to reconcile themselves to the generally-accepted historical and DNA evidence that white Founding Father squad captain Thomas Jefferson was perenially knocking up one of his black slaves, mostly for the twin reasons that a) as the American reincarnation of Jesus, Thomas Jefferson was not supposed to be sleeping around, and b) he was white.
Tags: Thomas Jefferson
There has never been proof that Thomas Jefferson fathered ANY of Sally Hemmings children.
This was evident when the DNA tests were done in 2003. The DNA test only showed that a male in the Jefferson lineage fathered Hemmings youngest child Eston, and that Randolf Jefferson was the most likely father.
Among the academic evidence presented in the book:
• Claims that the relationship between Hemings and Jefferson started in Paris are unlikely because she was living with his daughters at their boarding school across the city at the time.
• The “Jefferson family” DNA used in the 1998 test came from descendants of his uncle, which the scholars said means any one of two dozen Jefferson men living in Virginia at the time Eston was conceived could have been the father.
• The 1802 rumors centered on Thomas Woodson, who was said to have been one of Hemings‘ children. But tests of three Woodson descendants failed to show a link to Jefferson family DNA. Also, no documentation supports claims he was Hemings’ child.
• Oral tradition from Eston Hemings’ family initially said he was not the son of the president, but rather of an “uncle” — which the scholars think is a reference to Randolph Jefferson, the president’s brother, who would have been referred to as “uncle” by Jefferson’s daughters
Funny how wingnuts don’t know the difference between scholarship and propaganda. But then, they have no use for the former and live utterly by the latter.
I’m taking this from a comment from over at Balloon Juice, but here are those “scholars”:
What this is, is a way to get back in the media again in a way that invokes the He Say/She Say rule. Journalists won’t do anything to look at the quality of this so-called “scholarship”, so the rest of America gets another muddled bit of revisionist history. One that has, I’ll note, an honest-to-god rewriting of DNA evidence, which ought to be the biggest red flag out there.
Cassandra strikes with a hit piece of a list of, frankly, imminently qualified scholars.
You’re right, Lance Banning is dead, but he never subscribed to the paternity theory. Who was he: Twice Pulitzer-nominated Professor of History at UKentucky, Visiting Prof at UEdinburgh, and author of multiple books on Jefferson and the period that Cassandra has obviously never encountered.
James Ceaser, University of Virginia, Harvard, Marquette and others; prize-winning American historian on multiple topics from Reconstruction on backwards.
Robert Ferrell, Indiana University, most imminent living Presidential historian–not that Cassandra would care–the fact that he also writes a column for the Weekly Standard renders his over 40 highly regarded books immaterial.
Charles Kesler, Claremont McKenna College (which is not the Claremont Institute, Cassandra; he holds an honorary fellowship there); editor of the most widely used modern edition of The Federalist Papers.
Alf Mapp, Professor Emeritus, Old Dominion University; a conservative historian no doubt; but also a multiple award-winning historian and author of about a dozen books that have garnered favorable academic review.
Harvey Mansfield, Harvard University, author of 12 books, Guggenheim and NEH Fellow, former President of the New England Political Science Assoc and member of the exec Countil of the American Political Science Association.
David Mayer, Capital University, whose The Constitutional Though of Thomas Jefferson was nominated for multiple awards.
Forrest McDonald, University of Alabana, Brown, William and Mary (where I studied with him). Yes he is a conservative. However, he’s also the Neo-Beardian (look it up Cassandra but don’t go to Balloon Juice this time) author of the massively influential books on the Constitutional Convention E Pluribus Unum and Novus Ordo Seclorum. He is America’s foremost authority on Alexander Hamilton, and has been the NEH Jefferson Lecturer. He actually dislikes Jefferson, so if he doesn’t find the evidence convincing, that’s significant. Oh, but you don’t actually care about his credentials or a lifetime body of work, do you, Cassandra?
Paul Rahe, University of Tulsa, Rhodes Scholar; Yale and Cornell; NEH Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Fellow etc etc. Award-winning multiple author. He disagrees with the others on the commission but speaks highly of their scholarly integrity. Strangely, Balloon Juice left him off the list.
Thomas Traut, UNC, National Institute of Health Fellow, Ford Foundation fellow; biochemist who is highly qualified to discuss the implications and limitations of DNA evidence (but then again who isn’t more competent to have an opinon than you on this issue, Cassandra?)
Robert Turner, University of Virginia, former endowed Chair at the Naval War College and Distinguished Lecturer at West Point, former president of US Institute of Peace, and a man who vociferously defended the integrity of those who believed the Sally Hemmings’ accusations throughout the 1980s and 1990s when they were targeted by the right, even though he disagreed with them.
Walter William, George Mason University–perhaps the only one I’d give you; Williams has thoroughly whored himself out in the media but you possibly don’t know how significant much of his early economic work was.
James Yarbrough, Bowdoin College, NEH Fellow, invited lecturer at the International Center for Jefferson Studies, consults on the Jefferson Papers, and among her most important works would be American Virtues: Thomas Jefferson of the Character of a Free People, which was a finalist for multiple award the year it was published.
To Cassandra (because somebody told her, not because she did even an inch of her own research), these folks are all dismissed as wingnuts because they reached a different historical conclusion that the one she somehow (in her appointed position as high priestess of consensus) has decided is the unassailable consenus opinon on the subject.
What’s ironic is that I don’t agree with these scholars (one of whom–as I said above–I’ve studied with, and five of whom I have met or heard lecture), but the thought we’ve now reached the point where simply disagreeing in a historically responsible manner over what the evidence means (oh, I forgot, Cassandra hasn’t actually read any of the articles, so she wouldn’t know) now represents not knowing “the difference between scholarship and propaganda.”
People on both the right and left will use this work as propaganda in the same drooling Pavlovian fashion Cassandra has–it’s the new McCarthyism.
You may now stay tuned for the usual rebuttal in which Cassandra tells everyone I did not address her point, engaged in racism by disagreeing with her position, or else you simply won’t see this response at all….
Curious that Tea bagging wackjobs (the mutant descendants of the Know Nothing Party) now claim allegiance to Thomas Jefferson, who is the Father of the Democratic party. The Tea party’s delulsion and hypocrisy knows no bounds!
Even curiouser, I guess, that you apparently don’t know that Jefferson was the father of the Democratic-Republican Party, a party of the 1790s through the “Era of Good Feelings,” and that Andrew Jackson (whom most liberals today spurn) has a more credible claim to being the Father of the Democratic Party of the 1820s and 1830s, the actual lineal ancestor of the current Democratic Party.
But thanks for playing.
What I find so interesting is the utter need of some historians to not place the greatest weight of suspicion on Thomas Jefferson as the likely father of Sally Hemmings’ children since the DNA evidence implicates him AND he had greater access to her than any of his other male relatives. That should make him the prime suspect. Generally, the arguments proffered to exonerate him seem to stem from a motive that goes something like this: “We think Tommy J was a swell guy but we would have to think less of him if we conceded he was the prime suspect: i.e. the likely rapist of Sally.” You know how it goes: personal heroes must not have any particularly odious character flaws, and raping your slave is a dousy of a flaw. Now I don’t have the credentials of these historians, but I happen to know a helluva lot about what makes for good and bad arguments–you know, like what counts for the most probable explanation for an event. I also know that when people don’t opt for best argument and/or explanation, they usually have.something up their sleeve, whatever their intellectual pedigree might be.
What strikes me is that ANYONE actually gives a shit about Jefferson’s offspring 200 years after his death. GET OVER IT. He was a wealthy white land owner & slave owner. It’s basically a GIVEN that he was banging the slave women. Birth control was pretty much non-existent in the 1700s, so there’s a pretty good chance that TJ fathered a child w/ a slave woman. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. WHO CARES?
Why? For the same reason a dog licks his balls. Because he could!
And, as I’m sure Steve will agree, the real father of the modern Democratic Party is Martin Van Buren, Andrew Jackson not being the sort who went in for party building — he was too egotistical for that. But nobody wants to go to a Van Buren Dinner.
I’m with Dana here. Despite the historical pedigrees of these historians, they certainly are not experts on DNA evidence. I suppose I’ll have to read the book, but unless contemporaneous accounts somehow link her with Randolph, I don’t understand why he — rather than Thomas, who was recorded to have spent a lot time with her — is considered a more likely father.
What strikes me is the people on this blog who profess to be experts and expess such a holier-than-thou attitude and demeanor when it’s readily apparent they have not studied or don’t understand the topic they’re talking about at all. Anyone who has studied the issue of Sally Hemings would know that the question of paternity has long been disputed and the DNA testing was never conclusive. There are many reasons which support the argument that Thomas Jefferson did not father any children by Sally Hemings, but it seems to have become fashionable (for all sorts of various reasons) to want that to be the truth and to ignore the evidence to the contrary.
I especially love the line by Geezer that, after attacking folks and making fun of people, he concedes he’ll have to read the book. Really? Most people would do that before making fun of others. The book is actually not the first book on the subject, nor is it the only book to reach the conclusion that Thomas Jefferson is not the father.
In fact, contrary to Dana Garrett’s claims, Thomas Jefferson did not have “greater access” to her than others. One of the points against Jefferson as the father is that when you match up the timing of the various pregnancies, that timing matches up well with others in the Jefferson family and not Thomas Jefferson himself. As to the anonymous poster who claims “it was basically a given that he was banging the slave women,” the answer is no, in fact there is no evidence (other than the claims of political opponents in the 1800 election) that he ever did.
As to Geezer’s claim that the historians don’t have DNA expertise, the point that the DNA “evidence” does not prove Thomas Jefferson is the actual father has been known since the DNA testing was first done. The DNA experts themselves concede that.
The point in the first post about Jefferson in Paris is not only most likely correct because Hemings was not staying with Jefferson in Paris, but, in fact, Jefferson was pursuing a french aristocratic woman while he was in Paris and there is a fairly famous set of love letters from that time documenting that.
The Hemings family always said it was a Jefferson uncle who was the father, not Thomas Jefferson. It wasn’t until the latter half of the 20th century that the Hemings family descendants started to make claims that Jefferson was the father himself.
I encourage all to do some research and, as Geezer suggests, read the book. If you don’t care about the topic, as anon40 apparently does not, that’s fine; but then don’t prove the old axiom: “better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and prove it”
Frankly Scarlet I don’t give a damn.
What I find so interesting is the utter need of some historians to not place the greatest weight of suspicion on Thomas Jefferson as the likely father of Sally Hemmings’ children since the DNA evidence implicates him AND he had greater access to her than any of his other male relatives.
Precisely my point, Dana: popular understanding agrees on the two assertions you make, but historians have always been divided. The DNA evidence makes it possible for Jefferson to have been the father. Only that. And it allows that other Jefferson family members could have been. So the DNA evidence does not, prima facie, “implicate” Tom.
Second, the rest of the argument about “access” is circumstantial, and the strength of those arguments has been a subject of controversy among historians for several decades. And the subject has considerable nuance that never gets reported: i.e., it is perfectly possible that one child, not others, was TJ’s, or that TJ was having sex with her but not exclusively and was not the biological father, and so on.
Your point about argumentation sounds reasonable until you realize, within the scope of historical problems, how often the least likely explanation turns out to be true.
As for motivation of these historians, it’s pretty simple: these kinds of roundtable publications make money and garner attention when they are about a controversial topic. This in turn draws public attention to their other work.
Why did forty-plus Biblical scholars/historians join the very public Jesus Seminar?
Why did a dozen historians under Stephen Ambrose come together to rebut the claims about Eisenhower and the German POWs made in “Other Losses?”
Why have there been multiple volumes dealing with the every-generation-rediscovered-faux-historical question, “Wasn’t Lincoln a horrible racist?”
Why did AJP Taylor write “The Origins of World War Two,” which challenged Hitler’s sole responsibility for the outbreak of war in Poland?
Why do Holocaust historians continue to debate furiously over the distinctions between instrumentalist and intentionalist interpretations of how the Holocaust got under way?
Why do historians continue to revisit the JFK assassination despite far more forensic evidence than we will ever have about Jefferson and Hemmings?
I happen to agree–as an historian but non-specialist in the area–that the evidence for Jefferson’s paternity seems more compelling than the evidence against it. On the other hand, people whose work I have read and admire (particularly Banning, McDonald, Ferrell, and Ceasar) are far more versed in the period, have spent a lot more time going over the evidence, and disagree with me. They could be wrong; I could be wrong.
But even if they are wrong, it does not mean they are right-wing shills, that they have a deep-seated psychological need to exonerate their hero, or that they are pursuing propaganda over scholarship.
Oh–footnote to Geezer–Andrew Jackson was the father of the modern Democratic Party in the same sense that Ronald Reagan is credited as the Father of the modern Conservative movement; he was the face and popular focal point of the organization for its first decade (people were still voting for him for president well after he was dead). Yes, Van Buren did a lot of the organizational work, but that was more within New York than nationally; without Jackson, however, there wouldn’t have been a “Democratic Party,” just like Lincoln didn’t create the “Republican Party,” but without him it would never have been so significant. My point was that DelawareLefty didn’t know which party Jefferson was associated with.
Just like my original point still stands: instead of dealing with the issue, Cassandra merely reprinted an idiotic list from Balloon Juice and then made the naked assertion that these were all wingnuts and not scholars who happened to disagree with her. I notice that nobody has been willing to defend that one.
The claim that he didn’t have access to her or incentive while he was in Paris is bogus. He could have easily arranged to spend time alone with her and the fact that he had an additional love interest in Paris means nothing. Tommy J wouldn’t be the first man to run more than one woman simultaneously and he won’t be the last. I’m in no position to condemn him for that. But what I’ve never done, and what Tommy J’s votaries are anxious to preclude, is that Sally was a young teenage girl in Paris. So there you have it. If Tommy J did her, he was a child rapist. Also, the claim that he had less access to her than his other male relatives is pure bunk from the sources I read on the topic. One question should clear that up: whose slave was she? Tommy J’s or one of his male relatives? I also read that the closest male relative lived several mile away. So those who are anxious to exonerate Tommy J would have us believe that his male relatives would trot double digit miles to rape a slave that was not their own instead of raping one of their own. But even if we were to wager on the less probable, why was Tommy J letting his male relatives have their way w/ his female slaves if he really was a man of such high moral character? Either way Tommy J, the hero of state rightists, comes out rather scummy.
“WHy do Holocaust historians continue to debate furiously over the distinctions between instrumentalist and intentionalist interpretations of how the Holocaust got under way?”
Never heard about this debate. I don’t even have any strong intuitions on what the debate could be about. Love to read something about it, though. That is, as long as it has nothing to do w/ holocaust denial. I have no time for holcaust deniers except to show them my contempt.
“I especially love the line by Geezer that, after attacking folks and making fun of people, he concedes he’ll have to read the book.”
Huh? Calling Andrew Jackson “egotistical” is “attacking folks and making fun of people”? You’re nucking futz. I said I would have to read the book to find out why Randolph was the more likely father.
“The book is actually not the first book on the subject, nor is it the only book to reach the conclusion that Thomas Jefferson is not the father.”
As you yourself note, it’s impossible to know exactly who the father is — so you yourself are misquoting the conclusion, which can only be that he is not likely to be the father. All I asked is why Randolph was more likely. Do you know the answer to that? If you can provide the data you reference about the dates of her pregnancies and Thomas’ inaccessibility at those times, that would be appreciated. Then I wouldn’t have to buy the book.
So why the vitriol? What does it matter so much to you whether he fathered any of her children or not? I read a lot of history but have little interest in this matter, and even less in burnishing or tarnishing the reputations of the Founding Fathers. I have my favorites, as I’m sure you do too. I find Jefferson more interesting for some of his varied interests, and couldn’t care less who he slept with.
If you’re that worked up about the falsehood, you should aim your vitriol at popular culture, where you will have a harder time clearing his name. Do you think this will stop late-night comedians from making jokes about this, and he’ll be restored to his rightful place in the pantheon? Good luck with that. If this book gets any attention at all in the wider culture, it will be just another excuse for another round of Sally Hemings jokes, because — despite the facts — it has been accepted as truth in that arena for a long time now.
Sickened by seeing a likely falsehood accepted as truth by the broader culture? Go to war against Fox News. They push such falsehoods for a living, and about issues that actually matter.
Steve: Very clever, trying to trick me into championing Martin Van Buren in more detail. For those who aren’t going to go look it up, let me point out :
1) New York wasn’t just any state. It was to the nation then what California is now;
2) Van Buren wasn’t just an organizational/promotional genius. He was also Jackson’s rival and, eventually realizing he couldn’t beat him, was smart enough (and ingratiating enough) to join him;
3) it’s easy to be a political organizer today; Van Buren had to make it up as he went along. He’s not just the architect of the modern Democratic Party — he’s the architect of the modern American political structure (like everything about him, for good and ill).
4) Building a party around a sui generis, charismatic figure like Jackson is harder than it sounds. The post-Reagan GOP illustrates that.
Calling Andrew Jackson the “father of the modern democratic party” is like calling Hitler the Father of Socialism.
Jackson, aside from orchestrating genocide, was a libertarian who, while he “paid of the debt” did so by destroying the currency and the consequence of his fiscal policy was a bad recession.
He was a terrible president. He would be one of these Mad Max thunderdome teabagger guys today who believe if you let people do whatever they want all the time, everything will just work out.
I’ve not studied the issue closely; the historians whom I read acknowledge that TJ was close to Hemmings and likely the father of her children, and weave his relationship with her and their issue into their analyses of his life and politics.
Since I’ve not examined the DNA arguments in detail, I’m most struck by the Wall of Noise approach by the TJ-Hemmings opponents. It resembles the strategy of climate change deniers, listing support from various dissidents, some bright, some just cranky, most with scientific background, but no immersion into the actual science at hand.
The foregoing list of historians has academic accomplishment but little leadership and much ideological baggage. You haven’t read anything by any of them. I haven’t even seen them on bookshelves [except wingnut welfare client Williams].
I’m used to people misspelling Caesar Rodney, so I plumbed for James Caesar. It appears that he was a scholar of modest note, who has retreated from disciplined history to polemics.
I’m sure discussion will continue on this topic, but if I’m going to partake of back-and-forth this weekend, it’ll be at Arthur Ashe Stadium, named for another distinguished American who had a white ancestor who was either a lover or rapist. I prefer to believe that TJ was the former.
Jefferson likely is the father of at least some of Hemming’s children, although as some have noted there is no conclusive evidence and the energy used to question Jefferson’s sexual history is dismaying. If only 10% of the national discussion devoted to Jefferson’s sex life were devoted to the wise words he wrote we would be much better off. It was words penned by Jefferson that laid the foundation for the anti-slavery and civil rights movements. Without Jefferson the notion of equality would not be so firmly embedded in the intellectual inheritance of the American people. Yes–as candidate Obama noted–we are still trying to live up to those words but the basic principle has been accepted, with ever changing definitions, since the late 1700’s.
With respect to the Democratic Party’s origins, yes technically it was created for Andrew Jackson with Martin Van Buren doing the most important party building work. However, the Democratic Party is a direct descendant of the party of Jefferson. The Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans became the sole major party after the demise of the Federalists and featured 5 presidential candidates in 1824 (Calhoun dropped out to take the VP spot) from the party. Jackson won a plurality of the popular and electoral votes but no candidate had a majority so the election was thrown into the House. The House ruled in favor of John Quincy Adams, the runner-up, with the aid of Speaker Henry Clay (who was then named Secretary of State, the primary steppingstone to the White House during that era, by Adams). Jackson’s faction became the Democratic Party while the Adams-Clay faction became the Whig Party.
“personal heroes must not have any particularly odious character flaws”
All human beings are flawed and there is a particularly high level of significant character flaws among “great” people. What fuels their greatness sometimes also fuels some negative aspects of their lives. What is odd is the amount of effort American society expends in tearing down our heroes. A major problem with this is transporting 21st century mores to earlier eras and passing judgment on historical figures. That game can be played in perpetuity. (It is interesting how religious figures are exempted from 21st century standards scrutiny.)
“Calling Andrew Jackson the “father of the modern democratic party” is like calling Hitler the Father of Socialism.”
That is incorrect. Hitler was one in a long line of leaders who led a party that deemed itself socialist. Jackson was the raison d’etre for the Democratic Party. Without Jackson, or probably more precisely without the controversial result in the 1824 election, the Democratic-Republican Party would have remained united around Adams. Eventually a second major party would have emerged but the Democratic-Republican era of single party rule would have continued for a while, probably until the 1850’s when anti-slavery sentiment would have fueled the rise of what became the GOP anyway.
Regarding the issue of Jackson’s politics, one can cherry pick to make him seem a conservative or a liberal. Of course, if we transport his early 19th century views to 2011 he would invariably come down on the conservative side of the ledger, but the same logic applies to practically everyone, including Jefferson. Even Hamilton, the Founding Father most associated with energetic government, would not have envisioned things like the New Deal, the Great Society or Obama’s health care reform. Why is this game even played? Let’s suppose a Hamilton, Lincoln, or Jefferson parachuted in to 1932 or 2011. These were very intelligent men. The notion that they could be transplanted to different eras and not be effected by the realities of their new surroundings is an insult to their intelligence. Jefferson in 2011 would quickly get up to speed with modern thinking and invariably would adapt many of his views based on modern information and the needs of modern society.
Returning to Jackson, he was a proponent of the “common man”–under the definition of “common man” of his era. Things change constantly over the decades in American politics. There are only two eternal questions: activist government versus “small” government and favoring the interests of the many versus the few. This has been the case since the 1790’s when Jefferson stood for the first part of these equations and Hamilton the second part. Jackson was for the many but in favor of smaller government.
What I find amusing about the parlor game of judging historical figures by modern standards is the same game is not played with today’s leaders while making reasonable projections of future standards. For instance, we celebrated the passage of civil unions in Delaware and elsewhere. However, it is very likely that 50 years from now today’s progressive leaders who favored such bills will be considered conservatives as the standard becomes gay marriage.
“What is odd is the amount of effort American society expends in tearing down our heroes.” Surely you jest. If anything, our society worships the founders to a fault. Just mention that some founder held a particular view on some topic and that stops the discussion about what view we should hold in our day and age. The idolizing of the founders is a cutural fetish in the USA. People run for office all the time on returning to the views of the founders. The current Supreme Court is dominated by justices who busy temselves constantly with, at least, the rhetoric of.the founders’ intentions and meanings. I think this nation is progress adverse in large part because of heavy, numbing gravitational force the founders exert on public discourse. I think we don’t hear enough of their downfallings. They need to be viewed as bright but flawed human beings and less like demigods.
Comment of the day, Dana @ 3:34!!! Comment…of…the…day!!!!!
Hear heat Dana!
In Europe I have heard people joke about how old our politicians are. And, as kavips commented in another thread, the older you get the more conservative you become. Our bright, progressive nation is run by a bunch of old F@#$s. One thing you can always count on the wrinklies to believe is that things were much better a half-century ago.
“I’ve not studied the issue closely;…
…Since I’ve not examined the DNA arguments in detail, …”
Then, shut the fuck up, Manifold.
With ‘Balloon Juice’ Cassandra, ‘Garrett Sycophant’ Matthews, and ‘Bogus’ Garrett, there are already enough asshats giving their personal opinions based on their hate of our Constitution and their immature desire to discredit the founding fathers.
I’m no fan of Prof. Newton, but his knowledge and objectivity has flayed you poseurs out like a fucking squirrel.
At least Cassandra knows when she’s had her ass handed to her.
Miss me Mike? Do you still look like Perez Hilton?
This Canadian cider is really kicking my ass.
I see Miscreant once more has no arguments to offer, just juvenile name calling. His comments are almost always useless.
Thanks for confirming the entire range of your ability to debate essentially begins, and ends with… “bogus”.
Do carry on. You never fail to amuse me.
“…has no arguments to offer…’
True, I really don’t. On a 1-10 scale of relevance, this topic scores a -3. It only seems important to intellectually impotent liberals and historians.
Everything is a confirmation for your prejudices, Miscreant, and nothing is ever a disconfirmation because you lack the intellectual integrity even to consider an alternative point of view. You just seize on opportunities to compel others to watch you upchuck your bitter bile that you carry with you constantly. Witness how you weighed in on this thread with nothing but anger when, even as you admit, this topic has no interest for you. What makes you do that? Why do you do it when others can clearly see that your a little more than an incessantly angry and miserable person? If the expressions of your misery at least had the benefit of being clever, then we could at least appreciate the style. But you can’t even manage that. Like I said, your contributions are largely useless.
No arguments, maybe, but let’s hear it for the cider! It’s a heckuva lot more American than apple pie, even in Canada!
Despite your acrimonious diatribe, it’s not about me, Dana. Go change your panties, and try to keep it on topic.
It’s not about you? All your comments are about you, Mis.
Miscreant:
What of Dana’s 3:34 comment isn’t essentially true? Does not today’s conservatarian (that’s a portmanteau for “conservative libertarian,” FYI) tend to fall back too often on the whole “Founding Fathers!” “Founding Fathers!” line? Dana is right. It is no longer 1776. Times changes. We must be a country that evolves. Those that don’t evolve, well, you get the point. Let’s face it. There is a whole segment of this country that is, as Dana says, progress-averse. Now we’ve got some moron conservative advocating that the poor shouldn’t be voting. I mean, WTF, miscreant? W.T.F.?
We do have a tendency to over-lionize these great men. I’m tired of hearing every conservatarian ask “What would the Founders do?” to every Constitutional question that comes up today. Tired of it. What would the Founders do? They’d probably shit a brick realizing that a person in NYC can talk to a person in LA in a millisecond. They’d probably shit a brick to learn that we can wage a war from 10,000 miles away and at the press of a button. They’d probably shit a brick upon seeing that hundreds of rounds of ammunition can now be discharged from an automatic weapon.
We must face it. There are obviously things these great men didn’t or couldn’t have considered when they drafted that awesome document. We can not keep living under a rock and ignoring these issues, which is what present day conservatives would really like to do under the absurdity that is strict constructionism.
I don’t quite understand your nastiness in the above post. I haven’t come at you in years. And even then I think I always did it with my tongue firmly in cheek.
You lob absurd generalizations because I “hate” the Constitution, but offer no proof to back up that claim. I very much love that document, but I also realize it was written at a very different time. It is and always will be a living document. It should be. For progress’ sake.
Are you on your period, Mike?
Everything I do is tongue in cheek. Most of what I write here shouldn’t be taken seriously. Anyone who does, needs their head examined. I’ve said it a hundred times, this is merely entertainment for me.
On a personal level, I’m pretty laid back, and would probably get along with everyone here. (Except for Dana, who actually banned me from his limp-dick website). I don’t know what to think of Cassandra, Pandora is my dream squeeze, Nemski and Liberalgeek are some of my favorites, Jason is a douchebag, but very bright in a perverted kind of way. I have a tremendous amount of respect for MJ. Geezer is one cool dude (but fucking cranky), and I really miss UI. If I left anyone out, tough shit. It’s the cider.
Another beautiful day in the British Columbia wilderness. They hate liberals out here. But, I’m headed towards Seattle, so I guess I’m fucked for a while.
Cheers.
Geezer, THIS post is about me.
And it’s a damn good one. Enjoy yourself. And Seattle might surprise you. There are adults there, including conservative ones, though you’d never know that from popular culture.
Why is that vicious attackers nearly always say they are just kidding when confronted with their pathological malice? Don’t they realize that this old song & dance is so familiar it is instantly recognized as excuse-making bullshit?
“pathological malice”
Well, that was rather melodramatic. I didn’t say I was kidding, just implied that anyone who would take me serious enough to get their knickers in a knot (as you apparently do), is a fucking idiot.
Now, who’s dancing?
Above it was “go change your panties” and now “knickers in a knot.” It’s difficult to know which flaw to highlight here: your dull and dumb redundancy, your lazy reliance on commonplace cliches, or your evident preoccupation with people’s underthings. No one is dancing w/ you. You are what I do out of pure boredom. A plaything and distraction.
I guess talking about knickers and panties brings us full circle, back to TJ’s sex life.
And Steve does his usual handwaving, missing (of course) the key point of the links of these wingnuts to the Wingnut Welfare Circuit — which is definitely not in the business of scholarship. But then, Steve would like you to be as credulous about wingnut sources of material as he is.
The bios of these propagandists are here, and Steve pretty much regurgitated that. He doesn’t refute any of the noted ties to the wingnut welfare business, you’ll note. And you’ll note that few (if any) of the official bios at the link even highlight their connections to any of the so-called “think tanks” they churn out copy for. But we already know that the entire business of wingnut welfare has always been the business of producing propaganda of little data quality, but to hang as many of the typical signifiers of “quality” around their bought and paid for alternate histories to fool people who won’t look closely.
The Thomas Jefferson Heritage Society was formed largely in response to the Thomas Jefferson Foundation’s serious consideration of the DNA evidence and the Hemmings’ line narrative. The TJHS is linked to the National Association of Scholars — another conservative group dedicated to eradicating the teaching of the non-heroic aspects of American history and in eradicating the teaching of the experiences of minorities in American history. They’ll tell you that this counts as the eradication of political correctness, but make no mistake that their aim is to make sure that American history never acknowledges the experiences of other than white males or considers the less than proud moments of American history. The NAS is funded by the usual wingnut funders — including the Olins, the Bradleys and the Sciafes who are definitively not in the business of “scholarship”. The local comedy stylings of the CR Institute have links to this kind of funding and no one (certainly not at this blog) is going to pretend that John Stapleford is doing “scholarship” over there. And so it is with the TJHS. Once it looked like the official Jefferson foundation was going to accept black people into the Jefferson family, conservatives do what they always do — buy themselves an “alternate” narrative to muddy the waters. And there is never any shortage of conservatives willing to pimp out their credentials for a ride on the wingnut star-making machine — whether for money, for the attention, or just to do their duty for the cause.
Take a look at the TOC (pdf) of this so-called scholarship. And all that looks easily available on line is that pdf (I’ll also admit to not looking to hard, either – I’m on vacation here). Compare to the TJF research committee report. See any differences? Not only has the TJF put all of their report online for all to see (including minority views), our conservatives are *selling* their propaganda to those most susceptible to it. (And it doesn’t look like the TJF has even bothered to respond to the TJHS. And the TJHS book isn’t new – it’s just been tarted up in a new edition.) The TJHS has a minor industry in cranking out books trying to make sure that Jefferson is as distanced as possible from his Negro problem. For the TJHS document there are quite a few tells here — and why any article purporting to analyzing DNA needs to invoke Bill Clinton’s impeachment is beyond me. This also includes the “statement” of a very minor playwright who apparently has something “scholarly” to say.
(More on the so-called DNA analysis of Trout – Eugene Foster’s DNA analysis (sorry this is paywalled) was published in the journal Nature. Trout’s “critique” was not published in any refereed journal, meaning that he didn’t do any science to address Foster’s science.)
But we still have is a group of people who have abandoned any real claim to scholarship on this issue in order to do the bidding of wingnut foundations that will pay them (or at least favor them). This has always been the model of the multiple “think tanks” and foundations established by conservatives, and why they often need to publish their alternate histories and analyses themselves or in conservative publications. Because they aren’t typically doing the level of work that gets them into the scholarly journals on the axes they’ve been recruited and/or paid to grind.
This ought to look very familiar to those following how conservatives have been trying to debase the scientific argument for climate change or evolution. Their so-called scientists produce no science, just a dissent or obfuscation of data. Which is certainly enough for the media who aren’t much interested in data quality and is more than enough for wingnut followers who simply know what they are told to say to cheer on their team. (Sound familiar, Steve?) This effort is in the same vein – and this time it works at cranking out BS trying to discredit oral histories (and yes I know they aren’t definitive) and asking if Sally Hemmings was monogamous {boggle}, and largely trying to make arguments that boil down to trying to show that sleeping with his slave wasn’t in Jefferson’s character.
And pointing folks to CVs (that don’t even cite their wingnut welfare ties – seriously, if you google some of these folks their wingnut ties are the first thing that comes up) isn’t a particularly good test of the TJHS work – but I guess Steve, like all good conservatives — thinks that we should pay attention to *claims* of authority, and not whether it is earned in the instance.
While I’m at it, it is instructive to take a hard look at what these shills are up to – this defense of the character of Jefferson (who doesn’t need it) skips right over the fact that Jefferson’s character perfectly accommodated the owning of human beings, but finds themselves appalled by the fact that this owner of people may have misused his property in ways not so unusual. This doesn’t say much about the character of the people making this argument – the institution of slavery dehumanized everyone who was involved in it. Whether you were master or slave, buyer or seller or capitalist who profited from forced labor – your humanity was diminished by the participation in keeping slavery alive. Pretending otherwise is the kind of revisionist (and incomplete) history these folks would want to be available to you and your kids. Thomas Jefferson’s achievement is towering and that achievement is not diminished by his own participation in America’s Original Sin. But here we have a bit of conservative industry spending a decent bit of money on pushing back on the idea that Jefferson may have had sex with one of his slaves. They are appalled about the sex, but not about the slavery. Which seems consistent with the usual wingnut preoccupations, yes?
And now you can stay tuned for the usual rebuttal in which Steve decides to hide the fact that he’s been caught flat-footed in defending more conservative bullshit by trying to argue something completely different, invoking dodgy blogs as sources to whatever TF he is talking about and, the ever popular disclaimer that he is not a conservative. If he was as smart as he pretends to, he’d settle for no response at all, but hey.
As for me, I’m getting back to my vacation.
Cassandra’s pseudo-scholarship (guilt by comparative tables of contents) deserves only two replies, and then silence.
One, to quote from the scholars of Thomas Jefferson Foundation (whom she supports), in the very document she avers is the only possible example of honest scholarship:
Although paternity cannot be established with absolute certainty, our evaluation of the best evidence available suggests the strong likelihood that Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings had a relationship over time that led to the birth of one, and perhaps all, of the known children of Sally Hemings. We recognize that honorable people can disagree on this subject, as indeed they have for over two hundred years. Further, we know that the historical record has gaps that perhaps can never be filled and mysteries that can never be fully resolved. Finally, we stand ready to review any fresh evidence at any time and to reassess our understanding of the matter in light of more complete information.
You see, for Cassandra, honorable people may not disagree, and anyone who does (read her closely for her veiled projections) is simply a conservative and therefore a racist.
Second, Cassandra seems incapable of reading even plain English.
She says, Steve, like all good conservatives — thinks that we should pay attention to *claims* of authority, and not whether it is earned in the instance.
Except, Cassandra, I made it explicitly clear that I disagree with the findings in this book.
My primary concern is to correct your knee-jerk character assassination of legitimate scholars just because their views happen to disagree with the narrative to which you pledge your allegiance.
And if you’d ever actually read the documents to which you link (like the TJF Foundation document that so impresses you, which is only ten pages long, not counting the appendices, but passes your muster because it says things you already agree with), you’d learn something about the nature of debate among academics.
Not that you really care.
Freedom of inquiry? Not in Cassandra’s world.
And what was it that Miscreant said about Cassandra? He said, “At least Cassandra knows when she’s had her ass handed to her.” And why did he say that? Because she said nothing in response to Steve’s initial reply to her. But why did she not respond? Because she was on vacation. But this highly probable reason for her silence never occurred to Miscreant. He simply couldn’t fathom that there might be an external reason accounting for her silence. He just didn’t possess the capacity to think beyond his narrow ken of options. It’s actually funny given his estimation of himself.
For the record, Dana, I never believed for a second that Cassandra was not replying from anything other than absence. That’s simply not her style.
It doesn’t change the fact, however, that to Cassandra there is never a legitimate opposing opinion to her views. Everyone who disagrees must be a “wingnut.” Or, better yet, a closet racist (to make sure that American history never acknowledges the experiences of other than white males).
Having their work printed or showcased (for really good pay) at the Weekly Standard or Fox immediately discounts everything they ever say or have ever said without the need to read it.
On the other hand, similar appearances on MSNBC, at Slate, or the Atlantic Monthly for exactly the same reason (big bucks and exposure) are valued indications of a thoughtful scholar, no matter what is being said.
“…Everyone who disagrees must be a “wingnut.”
Or, like Steven Newton, a wingnut pretending to be a libertarian.
I like to focus more on Jefferson’s hypocrisy in championing freedom and liberty so he didnt have to pay taxes, while “owning” human beings.
Let’s look at a brief history of the Declaration. Yes, it was penned by Jefferson, at the arm twisting of real-champion-of-freedom, John Adams.
Yes, i am going to take this time to defend Adams. (while he was a pretty bad president, he was probably the most important founding father. It was Adams and Franklin who really pushed for independence only using Jefferson (and Henry Lee, who proposed the resolution) to make the whole thing politically attractive. (no one liked Adams because he was smarter than them)
Jefferson, and really ALL the southerners (forbearers of the traitor movement… i mean, confederacy) fought like hell to keep their possessions. None of them would sign on to the Declaration until they were allowed to continue oppressing their fellow man. It was really the first in a long line of progressive concessions to conservative insanity in order to move the nation forward.
So did TJ knock up his slave? Probably. Nearly all slave owners did….. all you have to do is notice that not every black person in america looks like Dekembe Mutumbo and you have proof that since the dawn of time, EVERYONE HAS BEEN SLEEPING WITH EVERYONE. The broader point is, he was a hypocrite among a bunch of other hypocrites.
(I would also point out, that Jefferson, while ranting about the tree of liberty being watered with he blood of whatever, never shed a drop for his country…. he liked talking about people dying for his causes, but never could be bothered to fight himself.
Jebus, Garrett… please stop dancing. I’m SORRY. There, now maybe you can stop obsessing on me, and go scare some small children.
So, Cassandra responded (Bravo), but only after carefully checking the direction of the wind, and seeing who is in her corner – looks like you and the usual sycophants). Her response was, as usual, inadequate, convoluted, and insulting. But, for you, more than enough to declare another false victory.
Nothing new here.
Definition of wing nut: plain regular nut who drinks a red bull.