Posted on 04/14/2016 9:36:26 PM PDT by NKP_Vet
So once again you duck answering whether your slaveowner equals Nazi comparison applies to George Washington.
You make an ugly statement and then won’t own it.
Thanks for that. I was starting to feel like I had entered the Twillight Zone.
This is of course your “opinion” & you are entitled to it, but there is no scientific evidence that proves Thomas impregnated Sally Hemings. None. The DNA evidence only proves it was a Jefferson male. Critical thinking skills no longer seem to be taught in American schools.
I didn’t learn about Jefferson’s black children in school.
But given the fact that for each of her pregnancies, Thomas was the Only Jeffersin in proximity of his personal concubine, my God given logic tells me that he is obviously the father.
Personally I think the Nazis were worse because they willingly murdered Jews.
Enslaving people, stealing their children and profiting from their labor is a degrading sin though.
It’s the same thing the Communist do.
There is circumstantial evidence that Thomas was the father of Sally Heming’s children, we can all agree with that. And I respect circumstantial evidence.....it has its place. That said: there were over 20 Jefferson males living in Virginia at the time and 8 Jefferson males within 20 miles of Monticello.
Jefferson’s brother Randolph was well known to frequent the slave quarters & partake of the flesh....the president had no such reputation. But there is one fact that supersedes all the circumstantial evidence: the DNA evidence is not conclusive. Period. You might “think” that Thomas impregnated Sally, but there is no proof of that.
“Personally I think the Nazis were worse because they willingly murdered Jews.”
So you no longer believe that slaveowners=Nazis?
“Enslaving people, stealing their children and profiting from their labor is a degrading sin though. It’s the same thing the Communist do.”
An odd claim seeing as Marx and Engels were enthusiastic fans of Abe Lincoln and the Union. And the radicals of 1848 supplied a lot of troops including several generals to the Union Army.
They preferred the Union to the Confederacy because it was capitalist, which made it riper for socialism, the alleged "next step" in social evolution. The Confederacy was still feudal and would have to become capitalist before it become socialist. Although it was the Confederacy, and not the Union, that experimented with state socialism towards the end of the war.
And the radicals of 1848 supplied a lot of troops including several generals to the Union Army.
And the subversive radical-chic philosophers of eighteenth century Europe supported the American Revolution because Americans represented the Rousseauean "noble savage." Benjamin Franklin capitalized on this in Paris when he dressed in frontier garb. Plus he was a member of the Hell Fire Club!!! Oh, and one of the founders of socialism, Henri de Saint-Simon, was actually among the French who came to America and fought for it! America must be an Illuminati plot!!!
“They preferred the Union to the Confederacy because it was capitalist, which made it riper for socialism, the alleged “next step” in social evolution. “
Nice try, but you’re simply making up what you imagine that Marx and Engels must have said about the Union by mimicking marxist claptrap that you’ve heard.
If you’re going to invent stuff make sure that your audience doesn’t know the material in question. I have an edition of their collected writings on the American Civil War.
Sally didn’t live in the slave quarters and Jefferson’s brother remarried and was not known to visit Monticello very often during the majority of Sally’s childbearing years.
Aside from that, another thing that convinced me was how well known it was during those times. Even his allies wrote in personal letters and papers about Jefferson’s high yellow children.
Even his grandson alluded to the fact in personal letters.
Having known a few men in my life, and knowing that all flesh is weak, and that Jefferson was a widow in the midst of his prime as a sexual being, it does not shock or surprise me that he did what many slave owners in his position did.
I am still able to respect his work as a Founding Father.
As a mother, and as a woman, one thing this issue opened my eyes to was the high human cost of slavery, and that’s come about in the past month or so as I delved into the Thomas Jefferson/Sally Hemming issue.
Two of her children were so white that they were allowed to leave Monticello and pass into the white community at large and slip out of the shackles of slavery.
But in doing so they completely lost their family forever. A mother lost two of her children. It could have happened through slavery as they could have been sold by Jefferson, but it didn’t happen that way.
Can you imagine never being able to see your children again?
A year ago I was probably one of those people who thought, “yes slavery was wrong but plantation life probably wasn’t as bad as its presented.”
But I’ve changed my mind. Slavery was wicked.
I found it ironic that Jefferson died in deep debt and his daughter lost Monticello but one of her black nephews died with an earned estate of over $2 million dollars.
I like that.
His brother is irrelevant. His Carr nephews are the ones who routinely attended the slave dances and parties at Monticello. Jefferson’s grandson Thomas Randolph claimed that the father of Sally’s children was either Peter or Samuel Carr.
James Callender is the source of the “widely known” story about Jefferson and Sally Hemings. He was a political poison pen artist whom Jefferson had hired but who later turned against Jefferson.
Hemings was the daughter of Jefferson’s father-in-law, his wife’s half sister. They bore a resemblance, as did their children, making it easy for Callender to spread his gossip. It has to be about the most successful of 18th century gossip because it’s still going strong.
But the DNA evidence proves there was no Carr connection.
Besides Carr, the journalist who wrote about it in 1804, others had written of it much earlier in private letters and papers, even some who were Jefferson allies.
Jefferson had red hair, his wife did not. The high yellow children looked like Jefferson, not his dead wife.
That resemblance to Jefferson is striking, even in some descendants to this day.
However, because they were born out of wedlock, I’m not of the opinion that Hemming descendants have a rightful place in the Monticello graveyard.
Kvanbrubt2: “would it have been better or possible to create a republic based on not accepting those pre conditions seperately”
I don’t see how.
Yes, there is a quote from Washington that could bode well, saying he’d be willing to give up slavery to unite the Union.
But I know of no others, and slavery ‘ s strongest defenders would have none of it.
Besides, at the time, most Northern states were only slowly abolishing slavery — at a pace that would take decades to complete.
So there was no sense of urgency saying abolition must be accomplished immediately under threat of disunion.
It was an issue the Founders were only too happy to kick down the road for future generations.
Kvanbrubt2: “and what would we have had without the south in the new republic. could we have actually survived 1812+ without the south to defend?”
It’s not safe to assume there would only have been two countries, North & South.
Remember, a number of states almost did not ratify the Constitution as it was.
So we can easily imagine several new countries spinning out of a failed Convention.
And then world history since would have been very different indeed.
Have you guys ever read either of the extensively footnoted articles on Jefferson’s black children by Fawn Brodie in American Heritage?
Her research is circumstantial evidence. In any real sense, we will never know if Thomas fathered those children or not. The DNA evidence is interesting, It shows multiple ways that Jefferson DNA could have found its way into Heming’s children, though you are correct about the Carrs....DNA has ruled them out.
It’s a question lost to time....I’m not convinced Thomas is the father & you are, and there’s no way to prove it one way or the other IMO.
I think Browdie’s research at least proves that the information was quite well known, even before the muckracking journalist exposed it.
That’s one think that really got me, even his allies and grandson acknowledged it.
I think of today, men like Strum Thurmond and even Boris Becker. Men are men universally and I think in his culture it was perhaps even more acceptable.
The one that throws me for a loop is the first child that seemed to have the better claim, but DNA disproved that.
Thanks for the discussion.
Thanks to you also....
Remember, a number of states almost did not ratify the Constitution as it was.
So we can easily imagine several new countries spinning out of a failed Convention.
And then world history since would have been very different indeed.>>>> oh and true nice observation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.