My history prof is bashing Thomas Jefferson, and some other questions

[Don Gwinn]

Lincoln was big on colonization, too.

Doc, don't assume you know what your professor thinks from one question (if in fact that's what you did.) Argue the point as best you can on the side you think is correct, and pay attention to the other side. You'll learn a lot even from people who are obviously wrong.

 

[moa]

Bottom line, Thomas Jefferson was maybe the greatest man of his age, and he lived among giants. Jefferson's contributions were many and varied.

Yes, Lincoln did explore sending black people to Haiti.

 

[tyme]

[blockquote]The prof herself even said that "when you control the past, you control the present and the future."[/blockquote]
Did she say that exactly? I can't imagine how someone could directly control the past from the present. The "Past dictates Present dictates Future" concept is that of determinism, not of social blindness, totalitarianism, or any other such malady. As such, there is no actor. There is no "you" controlling the past, then controlling the present and future. There is only "past" controlling "present" controlling "future".

The Orwell/totalitarian saying is "Who controls the present controls the past; who controls the past controls the future." There's an opening for debate about exactly what "past", "present", and "future" are, or whether they're distinct, but not so much in their order.

 

[retiredsgt]

Mr. Jefferson

Let's keep one thing in mind. It benefits the LIBERAL establishment to smear all of our forebearers. Mr. Jefferson, Mr. Washington, Mr. Adams, Mr. Monroe, etc,etc., were all men of principles. They lived by a strong moral and RELIGIOUS code. The Liberal Left does not. Look at the last Liberal president we had. Mr. Clinton. Did you ever see a sorry "er" excuse for a moral, upstanding human being. Here was a man who not only Raped and sexually molested numerous women, he didn't have the Balls to stand up in court and tell the TRUTH. Thius is the type of individual the Liberal Left wants to govern us. In order to make them(Clinton, et al) look not too bad, they have to tear down everyone else.
How many times when you talk to a Democrat about Clinton, and their reply is always,"Well, all politicians,Presidents, have done it." That is just plain hogwash.
Well, keep in mind, while you are in class and also while reading your textbooks, etc., everyone puts their own spin on the facts.

 

[HunterGatherer]

And . . . since the DNA evidence has most scholars admitting that Jefferson probably did father Sally Hemmings' offspring, where does that leave us?

That would leave us wanting for true scholars.

The D.N.A. test performed on a suspected living relative of TJ tests for the presence of Y chromosome markers known to have been inherited by known male decendents of TJs family. Ergo, all that type of D.N.A. test can possibly prove, is that the aforementioned "suspected" decendent is in fact decended from a close male relative of TJ, or TJ himself.


Is that a bubble I hear bursting?

 

[another okie]

I have read the article in Nature on Jefferson's possible link with Hemings. It may have happened, it may not have. There is a good circumstantial case that it was him, and some good evidence it was a cousin. Really, though, owning slaves is bad enough that having an apparently consensual affair with one hardly aggravates the case that much, if it happened.

So he was a hypocrite about that one thing. He said slavery would resutl in a bad outcome for the country but couldn't bear to give up his standard of living. That really has nothing to do with his ideas about liberty and rights, which are goals to work towards. All of us are hypocrites about something, such as buying shirts made by 9 year old Bangladeshi girls in conditions of slavery.

It does surprise me the professor would claim it was a recent suggestion, when it was used as a campaign issue and ran in the papers 200 years ago.

 

[fallingblock]

Thanks, roscoe.........

"Jefferson believed, and expected that would be necessary, more or less continual, or regular, revolution. And he was pretty comfortable with the potential for destruction that allowed:
"To attain all this, however, rivers of blood must yet flow, and years of desolation pass over; yet the object is worth rivers of blood and years of desolation." (letter to Adams 1823)
************************************************************


Funny, that. I believe that he was correct in his assumption.


************************************************************
"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... We have had thirteen States independent for eleven years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half, for each State. What country before ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion?" (letter to W. Smith 1787)
************************************************************


There was, in fact, a pretty substantial rebellion only 75 years later.

It looks like Tom was right on the money here.


************************************************************
Continual revolution is seen as more of a Marxist idea nowadays, and stability with measured change through legislation more of a western/democratic notion.
************************************************************

But, roscoe, where is this "stability with measured change" really leading us?

Not to a more faithful interpretation of the Constitution.

Perhaps to a more united nation? The U.S. does seem to be more polarized at the moment than at any time in my memory.




************************************************************
"Certainly the revolutions espoused in the 60s made conservatives pretty uncomfortable, but Jefferson might have understood what they were after."
************************************************************


What they were after, perhaps, but I doubt Tom would have been swayed by the Marxists and sophists of the Sixties. Although if the stories about Sally are true, perhaps the 'free love' movement might have turned his head.


************************************************************
"Although, with all the EOTWAWKI fantasies we see around here, maybe continual revolution is exactly what people want."
************************************************************

Or, GASP!......NEED to remain free and focused on that freedom?

 

[bountyhunter]

Yep. Rewriting history is a task the lefitst extremists have been devoting themselves to for quite some time.

I'd agree with that statement if you substitute the words "Bush administration" for "leftist extremist". I haven't seen so much backpedaling by any person since I went to the circus and watched a clown try to ride a unicycle.

 

[Destructo6]

A lot of heroes from those times had one foot in the past and one in the future. Isaac Newton, father of calculus and much more, was also heavily into alchemy. While the focus of the emerging Newtonian worldview, he also liked to refer to himself as the last of the natural philosophers.

Their quirks and failings make them human, their accomplishments make them heroes.

 

[Drjones]

It looks to me like your proffesor is asking you to discuss a moral question from a historical perspective. If you notice that is EXACTLY the same thing that we are doing here. It doesnt look to me like he is making a value judgment at all. Discussing things is good. Lock-step following of an ideal is bad no matter who your talking about. TO say that everything Jefferson did is justified by his role as a patriot is just as wrong as to say that everything he did was invalidated by his personal life. It sounds to me like he wanted to get you thinking about it. It looks to me like he accomplished his goal. Thats what GOOD teachers (an increasingly rare commodoty these days) are supposed to do.

Get us thinking about what?

Jefferson did a lot of good in his life, right?

Then what purpose could it possibly serve to bring up negative aspects of his life if not to denigrate his memory?

 

[dischord]

Then what purpose could it possibly serve to bring up negative aspects of his life if not to denigrate his memory?

To understand the whole man rather than the popular icon ... to teach students that the great men of history were not demigods. While you apparently already had grasped that lesson (given your response to your professor), perhaps some of your classmates hadn’t/haven't.

Perhaps a good follow-up response would be for you to spark a discussion about not going too far the other way -- about how a good student of history needs to take care to walk the line between lionizing and demonizing.

 

[Drjones]

Did she say that exactly? I can't imagine how someone could directly control the past from the present. The "Past dictates Present dictates Future" concept is that of determinism, not of social blindness, totalitarianism, or any other such malady. As such, there is no actor. There is no "you" controlling the past, then controlling the present and future. There is only "past" controlling "present" controlling "future".

The Orwell/totalitarian saying is "Who controls the present controls the past; who controls the past controls the future." There's an opening for debate about exactly what "past", "present", and "future" are, or whether they're distinct, but not so much in their order.

No, that is not a word-for-word quote, but that is the exact sentiment that she was expressing.

I think you understand what it means.

For example, if, instead of teaching children that our Fore Fathers were wonderful men who did great things (albeit some not so great, but that should not be the main focus), they were taught that they were a bunch of slave-owning hypocrites who even had promiscuous relations with their slaves, one can destroy America's heroes in the minds of Americans.

No one wants to emulate bad people, nor is anyone proud of them.

By teaching that America was founded by racists on racist principles, it becomes easier to convince people that America is still racist and evil, thus fostering anti-American sentiment.

This is precisely what the communist-based left has been successfully doing for decades, since the 1930's actually, and I strongly suspect that this is simply more of the same.

I have bookmarked and printed out this article: http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/comment/beran200312290000.asp

Which may come in handy. That, and a section from "What's So Great About America" by D'Souza and "The Death of the West" by Buchanan.

 

[iapetus]

Drjones


Get us thinking about what?

Jefferson did a lot of good in his life, right?

Then what purpose could it possibly serve to bring up negative aspects of his life if not to denigrate his memory?

So people know the truth?

So people can understand and come to terms with the failings of a great man?

So that when people who hate him and his ideals jump up and shout "He was a slave-owning hypocrit!!!!! How can you support anything he was associated with, you fascist!!!!!", you aren't stuck for an answer and can argue that his flaws don't negate the importance of his major works?

So that you can more easily argue that you want the ideals (freedom, gun-ownership, etc) that the founding fathers championed for most people (i.e. non-slaves) should be extened to everyone, rather than being abolished for everyone?