Nancy,
I must apologize if I "misread" you earlier remarks on "scum".....a
rereading of that sentence makes it clear that you are referring to some
who have differing thoughts and wordings in their remarks. Sorry!
Herb
-----Original Message-----
From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sunshine49
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 10:36 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Jefferson's Overseer
I certainly hope you are not implying that I think of TJ as "scum",
as I do not and never said I did. I said he was great OR scum,
depending on what view the particular person was pressing. I was only
pointing out [or trying to] the polar opposites the issue seems to
bring out in people. And it seems to be more a reflection of the
person doing the observing, than what any real story is about Mr.
Jefferson. But no, I do not think he is "scum." I think he was
basically a great man with human flaws, who was fortunate to be born
in a time when his talents were needed. If he had been born in, say,
1932 he might have been a brilliant local eccentric, self-publishing
little tracts with his intellectual musings and buying 100 acres in
Arizona to experiment with crops and tinker around the homestead. And
that, barring concrete evidence, we should stop projecting our own
issues onto him.
Nancy
-------
I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
--Daniel Boone
On May 5, 2008, at 8:56 PM, Herbert Barger wrote:
> Nancy,
>
> You have a great handle on the issue and you state it well. The
> Jefferson-Hemings issue started as a James Callender Campaign Lie that
> was proved just that by DNA.....NO match between TJ and Tom Woodson.
> Fawn Brodie came along with her weird analysis and told the Eston
> relatives that why should they cling to the long held belief that
> their
> ancestor was "a Jefferson uncle", meaning Randolph Jefferson WHEN they
> could claim THOMAS himself and since then this is what we have. They
> even threw Fawn Brodie out of her LDS Church for degrading and
> painting
> their founder in a bad light.........just as a similar approach of TJ.
> But in the Jefferson case we have people WILLING to receive the
> UPGRADE
> in brothers to enhance their image, in my opinion.
>
> Your portrayal of Mr. Jefferson as "SCUM" pretty well enlightens your
> readers as to your thoughts and beliefs.
>
> Herb Barger
> Jefferson Family Historian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Discussion of research and writing about Virginia history
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Sunshine49
> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2008 10:02 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [VA-HIST] Jefferson's Overseer
>
> there were also white/ black marriages, or relationships, look at
> some of the runaway ads in the Virginia Gazette, a mixed couple
> thought to be passing as husband and wife, or a man and woman of each
> race ran off together. These weren't rapes. In Nov.1797 William
> Cardwell, who was white, married "Betty Brown, colored, of lawful
> age, Kitty Brown her mother" in Henrico County. So there would be
> some white genes in their descendants that were not the result of
> plantation rape. They got married, presumably they cared for each
> other, to defy convention of the times like they did. Is it some sort
> of "outrage identity" to think all white- black sex was the result of
> rape by masters on their slaves? It was a very complex subject; rent
> or buy "African Americans Lives" 1 & 2 and you'll see how complex it
> was.
>
> I'm wondering if this Mobius Strip of a topic will ever end, future
> historians reading these posts will wonder at all the time and brain
> cells put into arguing what are basically points of view. Mr.
> Jefferson was great, Mr. Jefferson was scum. He seems to be used here
> as a means of validating one's view of Colonial life. And since there
> is so little that is CONCRETE about this particular issue, it is easy
> to do, and the debate can continue forever. Personally, I feel that
> DNA shows that one of Ms. Hemmings' children was sired by "A"
> Jefferson male. The family says it was T. Jefferson's uncle. But we
> can discount DNA and family stories because some smear -mongering
> newspaperman and one census entry say otherwise. Mr. Jefferson owned
> slaves, therefore he had to have raped at least one of them.
> Repeatedly. That's nothing but surmise. It would not hold up in
> history or in court. I suspect for a lot of the Jefferson defenders,
> the surmise aspect of it is what rankles the most. People are passing
> very harsh judgement on a man and trashing him, with almost nothing
> in the way of proof.
>
> My 2 cents.
>
> Nancy
>
> -------
> I was never lost, but I was bewildered once for three days.
>
> --Daniel Boone
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the
> instructions
> at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
>
> ______________________________________
> To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the
> instructions at
> http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions
at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html
|
