Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Jefferson Lies: Exposing the Myths You've Always Believed About Thomas Jefferson [Order the Book
Amazon Book Sales Wallbuilder Email ^ | March 15, 2012 | David Barton with forward by Glenn Beck

Posted on 03/15/2012 3:59:18 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2

Pre-Order your copy today! Release Date: April 10, 2012 (See special pricing below)

The Jefferson Lies Book - Thomas Jefferson stands falsely accused of several crimes, among them infidelity and disbelief. David Barton now sets the record straight.

Having borne the brunt of a smear campaign that started more than two centuries ago, the reputation and character of American president Thomas Jefferson show considerable tarnish, as lies and misunderstandings have gathered on his legacy.

Discover the truth about Thomas Jefferson!

Find answers to these common questions:

Jefferson and Sally: Did he really have children by his slave, Sally Hemings? Jefferson and Jesus: Did he really abandon the faith of his family? Jefferson and the Bible: Did he really want to rewrite the Scripture? Jefferson and the church: Did he really advocate separation? Jefferson and slaves: What is the truth about his slaveholding and his statements that all are created equal? Jefferson and education: Did Jefferson really found the first secular, irreligious university?

David Barton has scoured through the historical records, combed the original documents and letters, and examined the recent evidence, and his findings will upset the establishment. Barton shows the true man, the real Thomas Jefferson.

Now available for Pre-Order. Special price $15.99!

Hurry! This offer won't last long! Sale ends April 10, 2012.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: davidbarton; glennbeck; jeffersonbible; pages; revisionism; revisionisthistory; sallyhemings; texasboardofed; thomasjefferson
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

1 posted on 03/15/2012 3:59:22 PM PDT by Iam1ru1-2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Read the six volume “Jefferson and His Time” and there will be no doubt that there is a Alinsky-type hit out on him.


2 posted on 03/15/2012 4:02:29 PM PDT by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

Correction...it was “Thomas Jefferson and His Time” by Dumas Malone.


3 posted on 03/15/2012 4:04:27 PM PDT by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
Jefferson and the Bible: Did he really want to rewrite the Scripture?

He didn't just want to, he did. It's called the Jefferson Bible.

Jefferson believed that the ethical system of Jesus was the finest the world has ever seen. In compiling his own version of The Bible, he sought to separate those ethical teachings from the religious dogma and other supernatural elements that are intermixed in the account provided by the four Gospels.

Source.
4 posted on 03/15/2012 4:10:11 PM PDT by arderkrag (Georgia is God's Country. LOOKING FOR ROLEPLAYERS. Check Profile.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

“Did he really have children by his slave, Sally Hemings? “

Yeah, he probably did have children with his sister-in-law, Sally Hemmings. She was his wife’s half sister and was raised in their household, so though her status was slave, she was part of the household and one of several unacknowledged family members.


5 posted on 03/15/2012 5:29:01 PM PDT by This I Wonder32460
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: This I Wonder32460

The DNA evidence doesn’t support it. More likely: just a lie intended to “normalize” Clinton/Lewinski affair.


6 posted on 03/15/2012 5:56:44 PM PDT by achilles2000 ("I'll agree to save the whales as long as we can deport the liberals")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

order


7 posted on 03/15/2012 6:06:28 PM PDT by sauropod (You can elect your very own tyranny - Marc Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

From what I recall, he cut out anything having to do with the deity of Christ out of his own bible.

The Smithsonian has it. I saw a picture of it in the Smithsonian Magazine quite a few years ago.


8 posted on 03/15/2012 6:08:32 PM PDT by sauropod (You can elect your very own tyranny - Marc Levin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: This I Wonder32460

“Yeah, he probably did have children with his sister-in-law, Sally Hemmings. She was his wife’s half sister and was raised in their household, so though her status was slave, she was part of the household and one of several unacknowledged family members.”

I’ve read compelling evidence that it was a brother who would often visit, and I couldn’t care less either way, but I think they’re in a rush to judgment as far as Thomas himself is concerned. The “half-sister” relationship you mention only makes me more skeptical; that makes him really freaky if he did sire children with her.


9 posted on 03/15/2012 7:11:05 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: This I Wonder32460; achilles2000
Correct.

The "family tradition" that Jefferson was the father of Hemings's children was pretty much disproved by the DNA tests (although before the reporters got to them the family believed that "an uncle" not Thomas Jefferson was the father).

One of her six children did have a male Jefferson in his ancestry, but the time does not line up with Thomas Jefferson. The consensus is that the father was probably his brother Randolph (and hence the "uncle" of Jefferson's daughters), but there are at least three other male Jefferson candidates other than Thomas who were present around the time of conception.

So, yeah, it was a campaign to make Bill Clinton look not so awful by trashing Jefferson.

10 posted on 03/15/2012 7:12:50 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: sauropod

So the story goes, now read the book to find out why he cut those scriptures out.


11 posted on 03/15/2012 7:17:31 PM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: achilles2000

I agree; see # 9.

Attempts to “normalize” Clinton’s affair only succeed until you remind his supporters that Monica was subpeonaed in a sexual harassment lawsuit that the Clintons settled for $890K and that resulted in the suspension of his law license for 5 years. When you remind people that Monica was involuntarily dragged into a case where Clinton pulled his penis out for Paula (who was NOT one of his numerous mistresses/ girlfriends), they tend to shut up and never mention him again in your presence. Women who still defend him deserve to be harassed in the same manner as Paula Jones was; then they can decide whether or not BJ Clinton was such a good guy (though the women I know who love him would probably appreciate the attention from any man).


12 posted on 03/15/2012 7:18:05 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2
NO SALE, Barton-bots.
 

 


"...who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time;
 
...
 
 that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them. "
 
"I HAVE SWORN UPON THE ALTAR OF GOD ETERNAL HOSTILITY TO EVERY FORM OF TYRANNY OVER THE MIND OF MAN"
--The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom
--Thomas Jefferson, 1786
 

13 posted on 03/15/2012 7:27:08 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
[ I wonder who the "who" is, and what precedes the end of this sentence, and why you excised it.] "...who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world,"
14 posted on 03/15/2012 8:00:48 PM PDT by cookcounty (Newt 2012: ---> Because he got it DONE.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill

What is a “Barton-bot”?


15 posted on 03/15/2012 8:02:11 PM PDT by Yashcheritsiy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: cookcounty

>>I wonder

http://religiousfreedom.lib.virginia.edu/sacred/vaact.html

>>> who the “who” is

Those “who” exercised coercion over the faith of others?


16 posted on 03/15/2012 8:11:04 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Yashcheritsiy

>>What is a “Barton-bot”?

Well, they might be like-minded folks akin to the revisionist Useful Idiots who tried to unexist Thomas Jefferson from certain sections of the Texas state school curriculum.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=Barton+Texas+Curriculum+”Thomas+Jefferson";


17 posted on 03/15/2012 8:32:34 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot; sauropod

>>So the story goes, now read the book to find out why he cut those scriptures out.

Nah.  Jefferson's own words explain it quite succinctly:

 

[Jefferson accomplished a more limited goal in 1804 with "The Philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth", the predecessor to The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth.[3] He described it in a letter to John Adams dated 13 October 1813:

In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.[2]]
 
 
 
 
 
 

18 posted on 03/15/2012 8:43:36 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Iam1ru1-2

For better than 10 years, I’ve lived just 3 miles from from Monticello here in Charlottesville Virginia, and the more I know about the man, the less impressed I am. I think the Declaration was the high point, and it was all down hill from there, and I care not at all about his involvement with Hemmings.

He was Governor of Virginia during the Revolution and was actually impeached by the State Assembly in early 1781 because of the mess he had made in the state, and because of the unseemly way he had abandoned the state capital to the British. Following his flight to Monticello, he foolishly came within minutes of being captured there by the Redcoats. He was only saved from conviction when the tide turned in favor of the Colonists when Cornwallis was trapped and eventually defeated at Yorktown that fall.

Following the Revolution, Jefferson was sent to Paris by Congress to serve as “Minister Plenipotentiary” between 1784 and 1789. He was in France at the start of their Revolution and became so drawn to those events that he surreptitiously authored a charter of rights to be presented to King Louis XVI, and hosted a meeting of French revolutionary leaders to discuss plans for the new government. As History records, the French Revolution spun out of control after Jefferson left, but his enthusiasm hardly cooled over the years. Many consider the mass hysteria in France at the time to be a prime cause of the radicalism that we still suffer from to this day.

When he returned to the US and became Washington’s Secretary of State, the revolutionary government of France sent diplomat Edmond-Charles Genêt, better known to history as “Citizen Genêt,” to America. Genêt’s mission was to drum up support for the French cause, but Washington was deeply concerned by his subversive activities, and during cabinet meetings would stress that the American position was to be kept secret and guarded from Genet. On a regular basis, Jefferson would pay lip service to Washington’s instructions, and then hours later over a late lunch, share with Genet everything that Washington had asked be kept secret.

As President, Jefferson did what he could to hobble and diminish the third branch of government by pursuing the impeachment of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase for purely political reasons. Impeached by the House, it was only the even handed actions of his lame duck Vice-President, Aaron Bur that prevented Chase’s conviction in the Senate.

As payback, the bitter Jefferson declared jihad on Burr and later had him arrested and tried for treason. The trial was heard in Richmond and was the trial of the century. The circuit judge that oversaw the trial was Chief Justice John Marshall who detested Jefferson even though they were cousins. Despite underhanded moves by Jefferson, a jury acquitted Burr, but he never regained his reputation, although the charges were trumped up. Burr was no traitor.

As I mentioned, I credit Jefferson for the brilliance of the Declaration (the product of a committee really), with the bold decision to go forward with the Louisiana purchase (unconstitutional though it was), with the occasional flashes of political genius, and with having lived an interesting life.

Unlike Washington, who had come to recognize the evils of slavery and who freed his slaves in his will, Jefferson freed not a one, and in fact they were all auctioned off to attempt to pay his debts upon his death. He always lived beyond his means and was always so deeply in debt that the State of Virginia established a special lottery of which all the proceeds were sent to the third President to help him pay his creditors. Unfortunately, influential as he was, his tepid popularity made the lottery less than successful.

I believe that Jefferson is properly remembered as one of the fathers of the Democrat party because he has so much in common with the modern party. Had he not lived such a long life and spent so many years crafting his image for history, he would not enjoy the gilded reputation he has today.


19 posted on 03/15/2012 8:58:31 PM PDT by quicksilver123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: quicksilver123

Good post. Jefferson was a brilliant man but leaves a very mixed legacy.


20 posted on 03/15/2012 9:22:31 PM PDT by iowamark (The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: quicksilver123

>>I think the Declaration was the high point,

The Declaration is an essential instrument of implementation for an idea...

“TO SECURE THESE RIGHTS, governments are instituted among men”

...that is rooted elsewhere.

To secure them from what? That question is answered by understanding Jefferson’s Virginia Act for Establishing Religious Freedom.

The inalienable rights of the Individual must be secured from the tendency of human nature to manifest the tyranny of the collective majority — most often observable, throughout history, in the theocratic merger of state, religion, and commerce wherein “COMMERCE BETWEEN MASTER AND SLAVE IS DESPOTISM”.

But we won’t hear that from revisionist weasels like Juan Barton.


21 posted on 03/15/2012 9:38:58 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill

If being a Christian means living in a country where a lot of people call themselves Christian, then Jefferson was one. But if it means believing in the Trinity, Virgin Birth, the Incarnation, the Bible as the inerrant Word of God, in the Resurrection and the Final Judgement, then Jefferson was not a Christian. And neither was Washington, nor Madison, nor John Adams, and certainly not Ben Franklin. Let’s be clear on this!


22 posted on 03/16/2012 12:30:09 AM PDT by Skylab
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill

Jefferson’s Digest.


23 posted on 03/16/2012 12:35:03 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Newt/Sarah 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Jefferson’s wife Martha died in 1782 when Sally Hemmings was 9 years old.


24 posted on 03/16/2012 4:17:14 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ALPAPilot

I understand; that doesn’t explain hopping in the sack with her half-sister. If my wife passes away, I think I’d be looking outside the pool of in-laws for a mate.

It certainly is a possibility that Jefferson did have relations with her; it is still such a stretch that stating it as fact is revisionist history. As pointed out earlier, it was to justify BJ Clinton’s BJs.


25 posted on 03/16/2012 4:23:52 AM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2
I think I’d be looking outside the pool of in-laws for a mate.

I was just making the point that there relationship (if they had one, and not that I really care either way) was not likely adulterous as some perhaps imply. Most who buy into it believe it began a number of years later while Jefferson was in Paris (Hemmings was his daughter's nanny).

In addition, her children were 7/8 european and lived as free white folks. Although she was freed by Jefferson's daughter, after her service to Jefferson's daughter ended, she moved in with her own sons.

26 posted on 03/16/2012 5:13:08 AM PDT by ALPAPilot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Skylab
[Let’s be clear on this!]
 
The intent of those men was that, in America, government would secure the right of folks to be use their own minds -- which Almighty God hath Created FREE -- to determine the nature of the relationship between themselves and their Creator. 
 
It's as clear as the writing on the walls...
 
 
 
 
 
...and evidently a little harder for religionist revisionist jackwagons like Barton & Co. to unexist when carved in stone.
 
 

27 posted on 03/16/2012 5:22:55 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Skylab
>>Jefferson was not a Christian

The true nature of Jefferson's relationship to his Creator was only known to the two parties involved; and I expect that like America itself, that relationship was a work in progress throughout Jefferson's lifetime.

Jefferson's faith is not for me or you to judge except in how the self-evident Truths therein might affect our own Individual relationship to that Creator. 

I just thank God that Jefferson and his peers established a system of American Government where my daughter can explore that question for herself without the threat of being stoned to death for doing so -- or being murdered in a soccer stadium for wearing squeaky shoes.


But the fact that David Barton and the Walltards (with a forward by a Mormon no less) are trying to prop up their own stately religious authority and coercive effect by riding Jeffersonian coattails -- well, that's just laughable, and erroneously dangerous.

28 posted on 03/16/2012 5:49:54 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill

Well since wikipedia is never wrong I guess I lose, but just in case maybe you should read some of the original documents, since David Barton actually has them. Why did Jefferson hold Church Services every Sunday at the Capitol?


29 posted on 03/16/2012 12:08:51 PM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense. We must reduce our volume to the simple evangelists, select, even from them, the very words only of Jesus, paring off the amphibologisms into which they have been led, by forgetting often, or not understanding, what had fallen from him, by giving their own misconceptions as his dicta, and expressing unintelligibly for others what they had not understood themselves. There will be found remaining the most sublime and benevolent code of morals which has ever been offered to man. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. The result is an octavo of forty-six pages, of pure and unsophisticated doctrines.[2]]”

Are those not Jefferson’s own words?

Yes, they are.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=%22+I+have+performed+this+operation+for+my+own+use%2C+by+cutting+verse+by+verse+out+of+the+printed+book%2C+and+arranging+the+matter+which+is+evidently+his%2C+and+which+is+as+easily+distinguishable+as+diamonds+in+a+dunghill.+The+result+is+an+octavo+of+forty-six+pages%2C+of+pure+and+unsophisticated+doctrines%22


30 posted on 03/17/2012 9:51:37 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

[Why did Jefferson hold Church Services every Sunday at the Capitol?]

He didn’t “hold” them - other folks who asked for his permission did.

Was his attendance at those services before or after he rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and wrote the Jefferson Bible?


31 posted on 03/17/2012 10:06:26 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
Are those not Jefferson’s own words?

Ever see a Red Letter Bible?

32 posted on 03/18/2012 11:48:03 AM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot
LOL.  You're not seriously equating the Jefferson Bible with a red lettered edition of KJV?
 
The purpose of red lettering is FAR different from what Jefferson himself articulated as the reason he created the Jefferson Bible:
 
"we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. We must dismiss the Platonists and Plotinists, the Stagyrites and Gamalielites, the Eclectics, the Gnostics and Scholastics, their essences and emanations, their logos and demiurges, aeons and daemons, male and female, with a long train of … or, shall I say at once, of nonsense."
--Thomas Jefferson.
 
You really are a disingenuous nitwit if you think reasonable folks will buy what you're selling.   But you'll probably make a load of $$ from same gullible "Left Behind" readers who're likely still waiting for the rapture to deliver them from the exploding ARM on their McMansions.

33 posted on 03/18/2012 12:02:34 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
But we won’t hear that from revisionist weasels like Juan Barton.

You sir are an idiot. Jefferson rightly did not like kings, nor did he like churches that enslave their members with guilt.

He was right in accepting Jesus as the purest thinker in history, but wrong to reject the very book that described and predicted his arrival and departure. Enlightened idiots that like to remember that Jefferson had a Koran, would do well to look at what he wrote about that book.

34 posted on 03/18/2012 12:20:06 PM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

LOL.

So now you’re retracting your assertion of congruity between the Jefferson Bible and the red-lettered KJV. Ok. It’s already on the record - and now amended with your spittle saturated denial.

>>but wrong to reject the very book

That’s correct. Jefferson rejected the KJV.

So since you’re on a Truth spree - what else did Jefferson reject that would differentiate his faith from the Christianity that Juan Barton & Co. are trying to sell the McSheeple?


35 posted on 03/18/2012 12:37:35 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
what else did Jefferson reject

Idiots for sure. You want to be an atheist then be one, there is nothing to be gained by prosetylizing for atheism since everyone is going the same place, in your view. Actually you may have a lot of fun convincing Muslims to give up their 72 virgins.

Leave me out of it because I am not buying your spiel.

36 posted on 03/19/2012 12:26:15 PM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: AnAmericanMother
The "family tradition" that Jefferson was the father of Hemings's children was pretty much disproved by the DNA tests (although before the reporters got to them the family believed that "an uncle" not Thomas Jefferson was the father).

One of her six children did have a male Jefferson in his ancestry, but the time does not line up with Thomas Jefferson. The consensus is that the father was probably his brother Randolph (and hence the "uncle" of Jefferson's daughters), but there are at least three other male Jefferson candidates other than Thomas who were present around the time of conception.

That was the only child whose descendants they tested, so it's not established that the children had different fathers. The test indicated that Eston Hemings's descendants had a common ancestry with descendants of the Jefferson family.

The Carr brothers, who I believe where Jefferson's nephews, were excluded by the test, so suspicion fell on Jefferson's brother Randolph, who hadn't even been mentioned earlier, but Randolph wasn't at Monticello during the time periods when the children were conceived.

There were other Jeffersons living in that part of Virginia, but so far Jefferson is still the most likely suspect. Nothing I've seen indicated that he's been excluded as the father.

If you want something to be indignant about, how about the posthumous smearing of the Carrs to preserve Jefferson's reputation?

37 posted on 03/19/2012 2:30:09 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

I’m no more of an Atheist than Thomas Jefferson was.

Have you always been so disingenuous and unable to operate within the confines of the truth?


38 posted on 03/19/2012 5:12:49 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: x
Actually, that's mostly old news.

Most recent item out: The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy

And I'm not particularly indignant, other than at the cynics in the Clinton administration seizing on and publicizing what was formerly a footnote in history to defend the indefensible.

39 posted on 03/19/2012 5:54:58 PM PDT by AnAmericanMother (Ministrix of ye Chasse, TTGS Ladies' Auxiliary (recess appointment))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
I’m no more of an Atheist than Thomas Jefferson was.

Good. Make your point if you have one.

40 posted on 03/19/2012 11:54:51 PM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: quicksilver123

Nice summary.


41 posted on 03/20/2012 12:19:43 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
... gullible "Left Behind" readers who're likely still waiting for the rapture to deliver them from the exploding ARM on their McMansions.

Funny, but accurate.

Here's a great page from the Library of Congress on religious tyranny in the early years of the republic:
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic
V. Religion and the State Governments

42 posted on 03/20/2012 3:24:18 AM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

THE CHURCH-STATE DEBATE: VIRGINIA

In 1779 the Virginia Assembly deprived Church of England ministers of tax support. Patrick Henry sponsored a bill for a general religious assessment in 1784. He appeared to be on the verge of securing its passage when his opponents neutralized his political influence by electing him governor. As a result, legislative consideration of Henry's bill was postponed until the fall of 1785, giving its adversaries an opportunity to mobilize public opposition to it.

Arguments used in Virginia were similar to those that had been employed in Massachusetts a few years earlier. Proponents of a general religious tax, principally Anglicans, urged that it should be supported on "Principles of Public Utility" because Christianity offered the "best means of promoting Virtue, Peace, and Prosperity." Opponents were led by Baptists, supported by Presbyterians (some of whom vacillated on the issue), and theological liberals. As in Massachusetts, they argued that government support of religion corrupted it. Virginians also made a strong libertarian case that government involvement in religion violated a people's civil and natural rights.

James Madison, the leading opponent of government-supported religion, combined both arguments in his celebrated Memorial and Remonstrance. In the fall of 1785, Madison marshaled sufficient legislative support to administer a decisive defeat to the effort to levy religious taxes. In place of Henry's bill, Madison and his allies passed in January 1786 Thomas Jefferson's famous Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which brought the debate in Virginia to a close by severing, once and for all, the links between government and religion.

PERSECUTION IN VIRGINIA

In Virginia, religious persecution, directed at Baptists and, to a lesser degree, at Presbyterians, continued after the Declaration of Independence. The perpetrators were members of the Church of England, sometimes acting as vigilantes but often operating in tandem with local authorities. Physical violence was usually reserved for Baptists, against whom there was social as well as theological animosity. A notorious instance of abuse in 1771 of a well-known Baptist preacher, "Swearin Jack" Waller, was described by the victim: "The Parson of the Parish [accompanied by the local sheriff] would keep running the end of his horsewhip in [Waller's] mouth, laying his whip across the hymn book, etc. When done singing [Waller] proceeded to prayer. In it he was violently jerked off the stage; they caught him by the back part of his neck, beat his head against the ground, sometimes up and sometimes down, they carried him through the gate . . . where a gentleman [the sheriff] gave him . . . twenty lashes with his horsewhip."

The persecution of Baptists made a strong, negative impression on many patriot leaders, whose loyalty to principles of civil liberty exceeded their loyalty to the Church of England in which they were raised. James Madison was not the only patriot to despair, as he did in 1774, that the "diabolical Hell conceived principle of persecution rages" in his native colony. Accordingly, civil libertarians like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson joined Baptists and Presbyterians to defeat the campaign for state financial involvement in religion in Virginia.

43 posted on 03/20/2012 3:39:38 AM PDT by meadsjn (Sarah 2012, or sooner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

NO SALE.


44 posted on 03/20/2012 6:27:06 PM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“The right to search for truth implies also a duty; one must not conceal any part of what one has recognized to be true.”
—Albert Einstein

The dishonest way that you cherry-picking Bartonbots misrepresent Jefferson is symptomatic of a predatory religious coercion, feeding from ignorance, that is deliberately manufactured upon those within the scope of your purview.

You are fallible and uninspired men who have assumed dominion over the faith of others.

>>You want to be an atheist then be one,

Uhuh. Evidently in the Bartonbot NewSpeak dictionary, 2012 Edition, anybody whose faith is rooted in a personal relationship with their Creator, instead of what some hooting parrot told them to regurgitate, must be an “atheist”.

FAIL.


45 posted on 03/21/2012 4:28:29 AM PDT by LomanBill (Animals! The DemocRats blew up the windmill with an Acorn!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: LomanBill
picking Bartonbots misrepresent Jefferson is symptomatic of a predatory religious coercion

There must be a paid group that looks for Barton's writings then invade every conversation to call him a liar, when in fact you are the liar.

Take your Alinsky style attacks and peddle them at DU, they will work much better there, because they agree with you.

You might reveal your true agenda, that would start a genuine debate.

46 posted on 03/22/2012 10:58:53 AM PDT by itsahoot (Tag lines are a waste of bandwidth, as are my comments.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: gorush

That’s amusing consider Jefferson was probably one of the more liberal and intellectual leaders of his day.. Why the left would try to destroy him is dubious.


47 posted on 03/22/2012 11:08:25 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: arderkrag

The Jefferson Bible is comprised solely of the direct quotes of Jesus. He edited, but did not rewrite anything.


48 posted on 03/22/2012 12:21:35 PM PDT by j_tull ("I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Some people seem to think it is OK to lie so long as the lies tend to serve a purpose they agree with.

Others think such lies are a total discredit to any cause in which they enlisted.

I am not paid to point out that Barton, inasmuch as he is any sort of historian at all, is a revisionist historian.

Consider it a public service.


49 posted on 03/22/2012 12:34:00 PM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to DC to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: HamiltonJay

Jefferson WAS a liberal in his day. Liberal then meant a break with the monarchical ruling class to self government by and for the people as well as an interest in furthering humanity through science. Conservatives today are trying to conserve that sentiment. Today’s liberals co-opted the term liberal (when it still had an honorable meaning)...so that now the meaning of “liberal” and “conservative” in the American political sense have switched definitions from Jefferson’s time.


50 posted on 03/22/2012 2:17:44 PM PDT by gorush (History repeats itself because human nature is static)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-77 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson