Thomas Jefferson removed from school history books

[Glenn]

Well, one section of it at least. One change approved by the conservative dominated Texas Board of Education was to remove Jefferson from a list of influential revolutionary writers and replace him with others favored by conservatives. Because of the size of their market, this could have impacts on school books around the country...although I suspect Virginia will resist, with Bill leading the fight.

Cynthia Dunbar, a lawyer from Richmond who is a strict constitutionalist and thinks the nation was founded on Christian beliefs, managed to cut Thomas Jefferson from a list of figures whose writings inspired revolutions in the late 18th century and 19th century, replacing him with St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and William Blackstone. (Jefferson is not well liked among conservatives on the board because he coined the term “separation between church and state.”)

“The Enlightenment was not the only philosophy on which these revolutions were based,” Ms. Dunbar said.

However Jefferson does have at least one supporter in Texas

Cary Clack: Board ignores Jefferson's revolutionary contributions
It may be that in years to come, a future State Board of Education that is as ideologically driven as the current one will vote to include Cynthia Dunbar as a heroine to be studied in school textbooks.

The current board member did what King George III and his merry red-coated men couldn't, and that's take down Thomas Jefferson.

Among the new standards for social studies approved last week by the board that will appear in next fall's textbooks is one pushed by Dunbar that removes Jefferson from a list of figures who inspired revolutions.

There's something wrong when the content of textbooks is decided by elected officials who aren't experts in the fields that they're weighing in on. This is the same board that removed children's author Bill Martin Jr., who wrote "Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?" from a third-grade reading list because he was mistaken for the Marxist scholar Bill Martin, who wrote "Ethical Marxism."

If you've read one Bill Martin you've read all the Bill Martins.

There's something wrong when what children learn comes down to whether or not the State Board of Education has a Republican or Democratic majority and has a greater representation of conservatives or liberals. Now it's a very conservative-dominated board. Later -- much later -- it may be a liberal-dominated board, but ideology shouldn't decide what goes into history books.

And where does the board get off dissing Jefferson? T-Jeff had his problems, most notably when it came to slaves. The man forever synonymous with the Declaration of Independence not only owned slaves but fathered children with one of them. When he wrote, "I tremble for my country when I reflect God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever," he was writing about slavery.

Still, Jefferson was a great and indispensable man and one of history's most remarkable figures. Dunbar took an amendment that read, "explain the impact of Enlightenment ideas from John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Voltaire, Charles de Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Jefferson on political revolutions from 1750 to the present" and had Jefferson replaced in favor of St. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin and Sir William Blackstone.

Jefferson wrote, "When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

And this man is excluded from a list of people who have inspired revolutions? The Library of Congress which, thankfully, is protected from any recommended changes by the State Board of Education, calls Jefferson a lightening rod for revolutionaries in Europe and the Americas. Jefferson not only supported the French Revolution but was consulted in the drafting of the Declaration of the Rights of Man.

Jefferson didn't get in trouble with Dunbar because he didn't inspire enough revolutionaries. Where he appears to have gone wrong was in his fierce advocacy of the separation between church and state and for having religious views not totally in line with those of Dunbar's.

Whether Thomas Jefferson was a major influence in the revolutions that came after the American Revolution is a ridiculous argument to have in Texas in the 21st century. It's more ridiculous that textbooks in Texas won't give him that honor of which he's due.

At least he's not given credit for writing, Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You Hear?

[Bill Glasheen]

Oh my....

I have a brother-in-law (BA History, MBA Darden) and sister (MA education) who live in Houston and got their educations (in part or in whole) from Mr. Jefferson's University. They so are going to get grief from me.

Just to set the record straight, this was penned by Mr. Jefferson.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Effing pinheads... Just call them al qaeda in America. They're really no different.

- Bill

[AAAhmed46]

Oh my....

I have a brother-in-law (BA History, MBA Darden) and sister (MA education) who live in Houston and got their educations (in part or in whole) from Mr. Jefferson's University. They so are going to get grief from me.

Just to set the record straight, this was penned by Mr. Jefferson.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Effing pinheads... Just call them al qaeda in America. They're really no different.

- Bill

Id they are more Taliban in America. The army of god is probably the American al-qaeda(which is exactly what Hezbollah translates to. Talk about parallels with the mid east. And i probably spelled it wrong(hezbollah))


The far left wants references to god removed from anthems/oaths, and the far right does this.

Why are the crazies the only ones seen?

[MikeK]

Just to set the record straight, this was penned by Mr. Jefferson.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Yeah, that's nice, but what has he done lately?
Bueller, Bueller? Anyone, anyone?

[IJ]

Texas is an ugly lesion on the nation for its highly ideological selection of school board officials. These talibangelicals are rewriting science and history to fit their unwavering, fact-unenfluenced faith--and they're indoctrinating a generation of kids. Let's hope the Texan majority wakes up, and even the evangelicals realize that when ideology is being taught at public schools instead of fact, everyone is at risk.

[AAAhmed46]

Even people of faith should want a secular system, that way one faith cannot supersede the rights of another. Separation of church and state exists specifically to keep ideology from screwing everyone over.

[f.Channell]

That's nothing.

Imagine here in Boston evacuation day being overshadowed by an Irish drinking holiday. Wasn't an Irishman to be found hardly in 1776 in Boston.

Maybe both George and TJ are rolling in their graves.

The author of that article also wrote that TJ was the father of those mulatto children. I don't think that has been definatively proven or will be. I have heard it also could have been Jeffersons brother.
Normal course of action for a slaveowner was to sell off his own offspring to not flaunt it in front of his family at this time. I'm hitting a seminar on African Americans during the colonial period tomorrow, so I may learn more.

F.

[Bill Glasheen]

The author of that article also wrote that TJ was the father of those mulatto children. I don't think that has been definatively proven or will be. I have heard it also could have been Jeffersons brother.

Thank you, Fred. And you are indeed correct.

DNA testing showed that a Y chromosome of the Jefferson family made its way to ONE of the descendants of Sally Hemings. So what does this prove? That Thomas Jefferson OR one of his brothers was the father of ONE of Sally's kids. Historians have since poured over the historical record, and found that Randolph - not Thomas - was on the property at the time when Sally would have conceived a child.

It's also worth mentioning that Sally Hemings was the daughter of Jefferson's father-in-law. So let's just assume that Sally did indeed hook up with TJ. Does it seem unreasonable that TJ would couple with the half sister of the wife he lost?

Why was there a push to get this information out, and to misrepresent it as it was in the press? Politics. At the time, Clinton was involved in yet another episode of bimbo eruptions. While I could give a sheet how many stupid blonds he banged, one allegation at the time was pretty serious. Given that he allegedly exposed himself to an unwilling female (Paula Jones), that would put him in the category of sex offender. That is... if it was you or I who did that. Slick Willie could get his clueless wife to pass it off as a "vast right wing conspiracy."

Well... wouldn't you know that this news was broken - in its inaccurately communicated form - juxtaposed against Willie and the Bimbo Eruptions.

Sorry, but I'm not faulting TJ here. First... it's none of my business whom TJ was shacking up with after his wife passed away. Second... what better a reminder are you going to find of the precious human you married and lost than her half sister? And third... I don't see any evidence that any coupling here was less than consensual. Given the moral framework of the time (viewing African Americans as property), TJ would have had no traditional way to validate a relationship with what by all accounts was an extraordinarily beautiful creature of God.

If and only if TJ was in an intimate relationship with Sally, I'd call that a wonderful love story. It wasn't by-the-book for the era, but it probably was a relationship of the heart. But that's me.

It certainly was NOT in the league of exposing yourself to one of your state employees or getting your photographer pregnant while your faithful wife and mother of your children was suffering from breast cancer.

- Bill

[Glenn]

Does it seem unreasonable that TJ would couple with the half sister of the wife he lost?

In some cultures, including some in Africa, aspects of this are imbedded as a expected norm in the culture. Usually it is where a brother marries his deceased brother's wife, called a levirate marriage, but the above scenario is certainly not far off from that concept.

Probably more relevant to this case though is this passage from the Wikipedia page on Sally Hemings

In 1789 Sally Hemings returned to the United States with Jefferson. His wife had died seven years before and he was still only 46 years old. As evidenced by Jefferson's father-in-law, it was common in Virginia society for widowers to take enslaved women as concubines. That Jefferson also would do so was not unusual for the time,[11]

The reference for that is Joshua D. Rothman, Notorious in the Neighborhood: Sex and Families across the Color Line in Virginia, 1787-1861, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2003, pp. 18-19
This still indicates a cultural norm, within the context of the slavery (and gender roles) at the time. And if Sally was the half-sister of Jefferson's wife as some historians believe, then it certainly would make sense for him to choose her as his concubine.

And I am not trying to condone any of this, merely to put it into context for the period.

[Bill Glasheen]

And I am not trying to condone any of this, merely trying to put it into context for the period.

To be fair... I'm not looking to have a Southern Baptist condone my consumption of alcohol - even though I don't drink. Know what I mean? An introductory course in anthropology is in order.

I've seen some of the descendants of Sally Hemings interviewed on television. One branch looks very European, and the other decidedly African. All are quite proud of their heritage. Many of THEM wanted their ancestry validated. To understand this, you have to appreciate how many who developed and defended the reputation of Thomas Jefferson were horrified of the thought of TJ having kids with a "slave." Meanwhile, these descendants - whomever their ancestor was - are living, productive members of society.

This reminds me of 1976 when I visited Monticello with my parents and my oldest sister. Each tour guide develops their own personal delivery as they go from room to room in the place. So here we are in one of the bedroom chambers, and the tour guide happily rattles off the number of the known, living descendants of TJ. Now... being the idiot-savant biomedical engineering student I was, I innocently asked "Are you talking about just the legitimate descendants?"

Oh my... I wish I had taken a picture of this woman's face. My sister chuckled. My parents blanched. "There is no evidence that Thomas Jefferson blah blah blah...." Oops... methinks I just stepped on a cow pie.

God bless them all. And good for TJ - whatever he did after his wife passed away. I have yet to hear any complaints from any of the parties involved.

Frankly if it was Randolph after all, I think I would be a bit disappointed.

- Bill

[Glenn]

To be fair... I'm not looking to have a Southern Baptist condone my consumption of alcohol - even though I don't drink.

Know what I mean?

No, I am not familiar with that expression...movie quote?

An introductory course in anthropology is in order.

A PhD and you haven't had enough courses Bill?!
Anthropology is interesting though, I minored in it for my undergraduate degree. Considered majoring in it but knew there was no money to be made there.

However "condone" may not have been my best choice of terms there, maybe "justify" is better. The problem with trying to objectively describe cultural practices from other times or places is that someone always takes offense, and such topics in the context of slavery can definitely be a hot button.

[Bill Glasheen]

My point about the Southern Baptists... One branch does not allow drinking or smoking. Meanwhile drinking is legal and - under the right circumstances - actually HEALTHY.

Social mores and customs vary. Just because WE may think something is horrible from our own cultural perspective doesn't make it horrible. God knows that WE will be judged one day centuries later by some provincial fool who thinks culture begins and ends with him or her. (Example - Will we be judged unfavorably by a nimwit in the future if we have more than 2 children or allow a Down's Syndrome child to come to term?)

As for the anthropology reference, I was suggesting that OTHERS take an intro course. In it they will teach you one of the Cardinal sins of the field - never judge or characterize another culture from the perspective of your own. Report the facts and let them speak for themselves. Judge not lest ye be judged because THEY have it right and YOU do weird schit and talk funny.

- Bill

[Glenn]

Social mores and customs vary. Just because WE may think something is horrible from our own cultural perspective doesn't make it horrible. God knows that WE will be judged one day centuries later by some provincial fool who thinks culture begins and ends with him or her. (Example - Will we be judged unfavorably by a nimwit in the future if we have more than 2 children or allow a Down's Syndrome child to come to term?)

As for the anthropology reference, I was suggesting that OTHERS take an intro course. In it they will teach you one of the Cardinal sins of the field - never judge or characterize another culture from the perspective of your own. Report the facts and let them speak for themselves. Judge not lest ye be judged because THEY have it right and YOU do weird schit and talk funny.

Exactly, which is why I was making the disclaimer in the first place...although to be fair I wasn't intending for my input to be judged in the context of scholarly anthropological writing! But regardless, don't assume that by stating I am not condoning (or justifying, since you may no have seen my editing of my last post) that I am thus indicating that I disapprove or am being judgemental in any way. That would be incorrect. I am less attached to this topic then you are, but in general I don't disagree with your assessment of the supposed relationship, although I do think it unfortunate that it would have had to remain hidden because of the realities of the time.

[Bill Glasheen]

I don't disagree with your assessment of the supposed relationship, although I do think it unfortunate that it would have had to remain hidden because of the realities of the time.

... IF the relationship happened. And we may never have proof that it did.

It would only have been hidden by contemporary Jefferson worshipers of Judeochristian persuasion. God forbid that Saint TJ was intimate with a "Negro."

Brown sugar
How come you taste so good
Just like a black girl should

It really wasn't that big a deal at the time. In TJ's case - if it happened - it was perfectly reasonable. If it was today, they might have gotten married.

I say "You go, TJ!"

- Bill

[Bill Glasheen]

Wonderful article here from Science Clarified, Volume 2

Has DNA testing proved that ThomasJefferson fathered at least one child with one of his slaves, Sally Hemings?

Here are some Jefferson-Heming descendants. (Note - we don't know which Jefferson)







- Bill