|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 13, 2012 17:04:18 GMT -5
Lou - an impressive "to read" list; I recommend Jim Donovan's new Alamo book, which I'm reading now.
I like James Ellis' "Founding Brothers" as it does a great job of fleshing out the founders and shows how each was unique in his way and how different they were from one another in some ways. It's also a great read. It's actually kind of remarkable that the did get it together and put their differences aside and compromised for the better good of the country; something that seems impossible these days. For example, I'd always placed Jefferson on the same pedestal that most people have, but after reading McCullough's Adams book, and from what I came across in my own research, my opinion of him lowered considerably (No nothing to do with Sally Hemmings). The mistake is probably in putting anyone on such a high pedestal because it makes their inevitable, human "fall" that much farther. Jefferson had plenty of greatness and was a remarkable man in many ways; we were lucky to have him on our side, but he sure had his flaws too, like all the rest of them.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 13, 2012 18:34:31 GMT -5
Ya' gotta love John Adams. An irascible curmudgeon if ever there was one. I think JA was a little annoyed by Washington's aristocratic bearing. After reading Joseph J. Ellis' Washington bio, "His Excellency," I didn't find Washington to be particularly likable. Of course, likability wasn't big on his agenda. Jim Adams was indeed a character and possibly more likable than Washington. I don't think Washington was stupid, but the best choice for the first president. I believe Adams and others may have been intimidated by Washington's 6'2 height and undereported temper as well. I read one Washington story that during the flight of his troops at Kip's Bay, Washington rode among his scared soldiers, drew his pistol and blade and started threatening them with death if they fled. He then threw his hat on the ground and commenced hittting his officers with a riding crop for allowing their soldiers to retreat. Later Washington, still in a rage supposedly rode within 100 yards of the British line and had to be led away by his aides before someone took a shot at the general. Washington learned to control his hot temper, (possibly though a lot of teeth grinding) but when it occasionally boiled over, look out and take cover. PS. I never believed that whole Jefferson/ Hemmings Affair story. Too much agenda-driven, manipulated history and misinterpreted science in my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 13, 2012 21:13:36 GMT -5
DAN evidence has already proven the Hemmings story, which was common practice in the South for a long time; Jefferson wasn't unusual in that regard.
One reason we see Washington the way we do is that Martha burned all of their personal correspondence, so we only have his official communications and a few private letters to friends, as well as memories of him that others left. On the other hand, tons of letters between John and Abigail survive, along with his long correspondence with Jefferson, so we see a lot more of his personal side.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 13, 2012 23:13:14 GMT -5
DAN evidence has already proven the Hemmings story, which was common practice in the South for a long time; Jefferson wasn't unusual in that regard. Proven is an awfully strong word for the DNA evidence. This particular test only determined that Thomas Jefferson or any one of a dozen males of the Jefferson line could have fathered one or more of Sally Hemnings' offspring. I give Jefferson the benefit of the doubt since he denied the contemporary accusation, his friends and even enemies didn't believe it and Jefferson scholars still debate it today. There's no evidence that Jefferson had an affair with Sally, but I guess rape is possible. He was an uncommon man, but I don't think he would have stooped to this common failure and current crime. You're probably correct about Martha, but I think Rev. Weems deserves a lot of the credit for mythologizing Washington.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 15, 2012 3:22:42 GMT -5
Of course the Monticello Sally story is a very old one that will never be squashed. A lot of people like salacious tales of forbiddon love or relationships, especially if it involves a politician. I guess others simply want to be related to someone famous to give more meaning to their lives and they don't care where the tale originates. I think the scholarly jury is still out on the Thomas Jefferson/ Sally Hemmings romance, but popular opinion, the internet and the media controls most stories these days, which supresses the debate.
Grammar correction
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 16, 2012 11:39:35 GMT -5
Jefferson was such a complex man with so many interests and life experiences, his life can't be reduced to one questionable event. I find the other periods of his life, especially his presidency, far more indicative to the man he was. When it comes to Jefferson, I much prefer the scholarly debate on him, rather than the media that enjoys tarnishing the faces on Mount Rushmore. These men and women, were bundles of contraditions. In other words, they were human. And they had to conflict and relate to other humans. Just like today.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 16, 2012 12:41:57 GMT -5
That's the trouble with putting them on Mt. Rushmore; they become "marble saints" and their humanity gets lost. They were, indeed, very complex men who lived in a very different time. The fault of hindsight history is in applying today's standards to people who lived hundreds of years ago. Washington was a great man, but he wasn't a great general, although he formulated a winning strategy in simply seeking to not lose the war, which worked in the end, with help from France. Jefferson's revolutionary ideas, which many of the founders shared, including Adams and eventually Franklin, were brilliant, especially at the time. But then there were these human failings and weaknesses that most people have. We might judge them in that regard as their contemporaries might have (Jefferson was attacked in the press for having a slave mistress; whether true or not, it was considered a slight to his character). Washington also had an awful temper. They were people, and often great ones.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 17, 2012 21:43:16 GMT -5
Jefferson was such a complex man with so many interests and life experiences, his life can't be reduced to one questionable event. I find the other periods of his life, especially his presidency, far more indicative to the man he was. When it comes to Jefferson, I much prefer the scholarly debate on him, rather than the media that enjoys tarnishing the faces on Mount Rushmore. These men and women, were bundles of contraditions. In other words, they were human. And they had to conflict and relate to other humans. Just like today. Jefferson was indeed a complex, interesting and moral man, but sadly he has been drastically and probably forever reduced in the estimation of many Americans. Through his life, actions, sufferings and especially his writings, Jefferson was probably the most understandable of the Founding Fathers. Jefferson didn't need to be humanized by an alleged affair based almost solely on political/ abolitionist slanders, changing Hemmings family tales and inconclusive DNA. I don't believe there is one contemporary witness for this Hollywood affair or an indication that Jefferson treated Sally as anything more than a slave and maid for his two daughters. I don't think anyone has ever known enough about Ms. Hemmings to jump to the conclusions that Jefferson found her attractive, intelligent or morally acceptable as a replacement for his poor dead wife. We don't even know if Sally found her worldly master attractive or acceptable in her lowly station and culture as a slave. Really, I could write all of her known factual biographical information on my hand. Jefferson seems to have been the shy, quiet, intellectual politician, writer and inventor of his early biographies, not the loquacious, womanizer and liar of post-1960s books and recent movies. He deserves a lot more appreciation and respect for everything he did for this country and the democratic world, but keeps getting less.
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 18, 2012 12:16:37 GMT -5
I think our fragile and flawed character as humans has often sought to justify current behaviors by pointing to the action of someone in the past who may have faced similar situations. So you keep hearing, what would Jefferson, Lincoln, Patton, etc, do? It's even popular to wonder "what would Jesus do?" I find it tiresome. We live in the now. Now is unique. It never happened quite like this before. Study what these historical figures did, but recognize that now the decisions are up to us. We will be judged by that criteria only.
|
|
|
Post by Allen Wiener on May 18, 2012 13:04:30 GMT -5
Impossible to even wild guess what leaders of the long ago would do if they were living today. Their world was so different that they might as well visit a distant planet as arrive here in our time. Not even apples and oranges. The only fair way to judge is by the standards of their own time and what their contemporaries thought of them. Even then, it's hard to get at the truth as most great men had at least as many detractors as admirers; that makes for a lot of lines to read between.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 19, 2012 3:13:37 GMT -5
There seems to have always been the need to take down threatening men at key moments with an illicit affair story, whether it's true or not. Jefferson was considered beyond reproach among many of his contemporaries and was even re-elected president after James Callender's slanders. That speaks volumes as to his perceived character. Great or secret service men will keep faultering and I'm sure investigations will continue unabated. Custer supposedly had his Cheyenne princess Monaseetah like other men, although I'm not sure that tale is factual either.
Corrected Callender's first name
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 20, 2012 13:40:01 GMT -5
Great political and military leaders like David, Caeser and Napoleon all had their illicit affairs. Most historians seem to dismiss them as inconsequential or a factor of more primative times. But the Puritan ethic that both blessed and stymied this land of ours seems to revell in great people being cut low by carnal matters. I try not to read too much into the bedroom antics of those who came before. They're about as relevant as Snooky and the Desperate Houswives of today.
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 20, 2012 17:41:24 GMT -5
Great political and military leaders like David, Caeser and Napoleon all had their illicit affairs. Most historians seem to dismiss them as inconsequential or a factor of more primative times. But the Puritan ethic that both blessed and stymied this land of ours seems to revell in great people being cut low by carnal matters. I try not to read too much into the bedroom antics of those who came before. They're about as relevant as Snooky and the Desperate Houswives of today. The big difference between those great leaders and Jefferson is that they were obviously political and moral opposites. They didn't draw a line in the sand and speak out against slavery and oppression. They didn't write what Jefferson wrote or believe what he believed about the rights of man and democracy. While they may have been guilty of their ancient transgressions against their wives and families, I just believe Jefferson is innocent of the monotonous charges against him. Clearly, he was so much more than a lascivious tabloid headline, but that is being lost to future generations. My deceased father was teaching English literature at a Black college in the 70s when the alleged Jefferson/ Hemmings affair resurfaced again with the irresponsible historical fiction of Fawn Brodie. I sometimes wonder if newspaper-inspired campus hoopla over this never-ending tale and other political issues caused him to seek a more peaceful job in magazine editing. I've waited decades to be convinced by some contemporary data on this alleged affair, but it doesn't seem to be forthcoming. Here's a video on the Jefferson/ Hemmings controversy. www.youtube.com/watch?v=63vcE3CmSNk
|
|
|
Post by loucapitano on May 23, 2012 17:00:51 GMT -5
skr...great video. I'm convinced of two things: 1st. Tom Jefferson was highly unlikely the father of any of Sally Hemmings children, although it would not surprise me that his brother may have been the source, if any, of Jefferson family DNA in any of Hemming's descendents. I don't think any of this nonsense will seriously affect his special place in history. 2nd. The scurrilous rantings and attacks on personal and political opponents were as bad and probably worse than the current crop of political leaders regardless of party or philosophy. The difference only seems to be the wider variety of problematic behaviors and the explosive technology that speeds the slanders at lightening speed.
It reminds me of a malapropism attributed to Dwight Eisenhower: "Things are more like they are today, than they've ever been before." I know what he meant, and he was right!
|
|
|
Post by sloanrodgers on May 24, 2012 3:07:28 GMT -5
skr...great video. I'm convinced of two things: 1st. Tom Jefferson was highly unlikely the father of any of Sally Hemmings children, although it would not surprise me that his brother may have been the source, if any, of Jefferson family DNA in any of Hemming's descendents. I don't think any of this nonsense will seriously affect his special place in history. 2nd. The scurrilous rantings and attacks on personal and political opponents were as bad and probably worse than the current crop of political leaders regardless of party or philosophy. The difference only seems to be the wider variety of problematic behaviors and the explosive technology that speeds the slanders at lightening speed. It reminds me of a malapropism attributed to Dwight Eisenhower: "Things are more like they are today, than they've ever been before." I know what he meant, and he was right! Thanks amigo. I'm glad you have taken a closer look and seen that there is almost no witness testimony or documentation for even a friendship between them. Jefferson hardly mentioned Sally in 40 years of writing and when he did often only called Sally his "daughter's maid." He treated her as a house slave and she sadly died as one. She apparently never received the special treatment that the books, newspapers, magazines and movies claim. Her true history as a slave has been blackened (defamed) by the media and special interest groups for their own purposes. We may never know the real Sally and will probably be left with only cheap romance tales. Corrected spelling
|
|