Herbert,

I am going to take on the whole of your "apology" by making a few pertinant 
points.

You assert that no use of Madison's statement can be believed because of the 
fact that one event which can't be "proven" thereby making the whole of his 
testimony unfit because it is the word of a "proven liar". You say the same 
about the newspaper reporter Callendar who was paid by Jefferson to publish 
lies about the incumbernt president to help secure Jefferson's election. 
When Callandar point his pen at Jefferson, we are supposed to ignore all 
that he says because he is a "proven liar".

Yet, we are asked to take all Jefferson statement at face value because he 
was an honorable man. Yet, in some matters, Jefferson is also a "proven 
liar", such as telling his daughters that Walker had tried to cheat him, 
which was a lie to cover up the fact that Walker had learned of Jefferson 
attempt to cuckhold him and broke off social relations.

So, if we follow Herbert's lead in dismissing everything said by a "proven 
liar", we must dismiss everything Jefferson said as a possible lie. We also 
know that when he answered Callandar's charges, he lied in saying that he 
had "ONCE" offered his love to a handsome woman when he was "YOUNG AND 
SINGLE", but the facts from the Walker records indicate that he harassed the 
"handsome woman" for ten years and after he was married, and one or more 
times, in the presence of his wife.

Now, Herbert says we must seek the TRUTH in history, but he disallows 
anything that could be called "revisionist". How can we seek the truth and 
yet not apply that truth in revisions of how we understand history?

Anne

Anne Pemberton
[log in to unmask]
http://www.erols.com/apembert
http://www.educationalsynthesis.org 

______________________________________
To subscribe, change options, or unsubscribe please see the instructions at
http://listlva.lib.va.us/archives/va-hist.html