The Jeffersons: Tom J. saves William J. Clinton I have not yet read an analysis of the 1998 election last week that adequately explains the result. So I will write one. Just weeks before the election, the polls were indicating a Republican gain of from 5 to 20 seats in the House and maybe 3 to 5 in the Senate. It didn't happen. Why not? Some claim that the polls were wrong. I think not. It was a shift in public opinion shortly before the election that altered the results. Why? My theory: Thomas Jefferson won the 1998 election for the Democrat party! Yes THAT Thomas Jefferson: the 3rd President of the US. Over 150 years after he died, Thomas "Clinton" Jefferson saved the election for William Jefferson Clinton. Here is how. The Republican Party had played down the "reduced taxes and less government" aspect of their party philosophy and decided to ride the "punish that immoral Clinton" opportunity that the Ken Starr report opened for them. Their theme was that the actions of a President in fooling around with a subordinate intern was immoral, un-Presidential and unprecedented. And the message was working. Until a DNA test on some relatives of Thomas J and of the descendants of Sally Hemings indicated the same unusual Y chromosome mutations in both, suggesting a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of at least one of Sally Hemings children. This possibility had long been maintained by the family of Sally Hemings, and is strongly suggested in a recent film. But most historians had dismissed the idea. The DNA result was published just before the election, and many voters who were going along with the Republicans suddenly faced a reality check. They remembered FDR and JFK and Ike and Martin Luther King and various other famous US leaders who were most likely screwing around. And the recent letters of Eleanore Roosevelt suggesting a lesbian relationship. And they realized that the party of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan and limited government and personal responsibility has become a bunch of prissy, bossy, intrusive puritans. And they were not going to vote for that. ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) To: alt.politics.economics, alt.politics,soc.culture.african.american and rozlips@hotmail.com,wmech@worldnet.att.net,streek53@mindspring.com Harold.Brashears@usm.edu,joseph@scally.com Tom: "She was 3/4 white," (referring to Sally Hemings) rozlips@hotmail.com >Dude, haven't you ever heard of the "One Drop Rule?" It didn't matter what >percentage of white blood one had, if a person had ANY black blood he was >black and therefore a slave. The word consent implies equal status. There >is no equality when someone can have you killed for merely getting "uppity" >with him. Think about Tom, if you've got a woman in a choke hold and ask her >to have sex she is unlikely to say no, but would that still not be rape. I >think any district attorney in America would tell you so. Hi, I will splice parts from several posts from several NG's and try to make a discussion from them. First to rozlips: If you believe in this "One Drop Rule", then do you agree that blacks have been US Presidents about in the same proportion as they are represented in the US population? See: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/5bkprzs.txt And of course "black THEREFORE a slave"?? You know that is false, but see the story of Eston Hemings Jefferson and his sons below. But of most interest is "The word consent implies equal status", and your claim that only people of "equal status" can consent to sex (or ANYTHING?). To be fair this is not just YOUR claim, but a common theme in the feminist movement, reaching its climax (so to speak) in the charge that ALL sex between men and women is rape, since women have less "status" and "power" than men. (Of course homo-sex is just fine, and just forget that women in the US own more of the wealth than men, and live longer ;-) But I want to contrast that view with this from "Bill Mechlenburg" : > Most intelligent people no there is little similarity between >Jefferson's sexual affair with Sally Hemings. >Jefferson was a widower and did not perjure himself, suborn perjury, >obstruct justice, abuse his power or lie to the American people over this >affair. The implication being that Clinton's conduct was "worse" than Jefferson's because he was married at the time and lied. And this from "streek53" joseph@scally.com: Jefferson's situation different from Clinton's: <> "streek53" >Granted, but then again he didn't enter office a confessed (more or less, >usually less) adulterer. And he wasn't so blatantly and stupidly arrogant as >to bring down his own house. Now didn't Tom J have Sally in France with him? On government business and government money? And shouldn't we consider it an indication of honesty that Clinton was so open about his past affairs BEFORE he was elected? I mean we KNEW what we were getting, and voted for him anyway. Can we now complain? Look at the speech he SHOULD have given on Aug 17 at: http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/4834/speech.txt >Uh, I wonder sometimes just how many former presidents are going to be >publicly dragged through the mud for the expedience of the current goof. Now THAT is a good question. Harold.Brashears@usm.edu (Harold): >What the DNA test showed was that there was a high probability that >Thomas Jefferson or one of his male relatives was involved. >It did not prove Thomas Jefferson was involved, since they had no DNA >of Jefferson. >The media did, I think, play it the way you suggest, in order to help >Clinton. >Regards, Harold (Capitalist Pig) Yes, this test was not conclusive. But before the DNA result, I would have put the theory that TJ was screwing Sally Hemings at 50-50. Now I would be happy to bet on it at 10 to 1 odds . While at Monticello many years ago I noted that locks of Tom Jefferson's hair were kept by his friends. They may provide the decisive evidence. BACK TO THE MAIN POINT!! rozlips: >The use of the word consensual or even relationship when discussing the >sexual relations between a master and slave is blasphemous. First and >foremost, blacks were not considered citizens in this country (Dred Scott v. >Sanford, 1856) therefore they could not legally engage in making a contract, >not even marriage, therefore how could one CONSENT to anything? This was >RAPE, pure and simple. I have long been an admirer of Jefferson's and still >am, though I've known since the 1970's that he RAPED Sally Hemmings and then >made no provisions for the offspring of that act--didn't even teach them to >read. Yes the Clinton/Jefferson situations are not exactly comparable. But which was the more improper? This is not clear to me. I reject the claim that since she was his slave he was NECESSARILY a rapist. But he MIGHT have been. She did have the opportunity to leave him while in France and she chose to stay. Sounds to me like she was attracted to him (and is position and power). Rather like Monica was attracted to Bill Clinton. As Henry Kissinger put it, power the ultimate aphrodisiac. Would men seek power otherwise? Tom Jefferson was definitely 'behind the curve' on the slavery issue: he did not free his slaves and did not want them to read. But his will did free Eston. And what does being a citizen get you these days? You can vote, but most citizens don't bother. But what else? Most benefits including welfare cannot be denied just because the applicant is not a citizen. MADISON & JEFFERSON Briefly the story of Eston Hemings (Jefferson), youngest son of Sally Hemings. He was born in 1808 at Monticello, was freed by Thomas Jefferson's will, and was living in Charlottesville, Va in 1830, where he is listed as "White" in the census. By the 1840 census, he was living in Ohio and had become "Colored" in the census. He moved to Madison Wisconsin in 1852 where he took the name Jefferson, and became White again. He died in 1856 and is buried along with his sons in the Forest Hill Cemetery. His two sons John W. and Beverly both fought with the Wisconsin Infantry in the Civil War and owned the American House Hotel on the Madison Capitol square. Beverly also owned the Capital House, a downtown hotel plus Jefferson's Transfer Line, then the city's largest business. Both John W and Beverly are buried along with Eston in Madison. I ride my bike through that cemetery frequently and noticed some tombstones marked JEFFERSON. Next time I will take a closer look. Beverly Jefferson (1838-1908) had one son, Carl Smith Jefferson (1876-1941) whose son William Magill Jefferson (1907-56) had a son John Weeks Jefferson (born 1946). It was John Weeks Jefferson of Norristown PA who was demonstrated to have the Y chromosome thought to be from Thomas Jefferson. Sally Hemings had 4 sons: the DNA testing showed that the oldest son, Tom Woodson did not have the unusual Y chromosome. The father of the other two has not been determined. ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) Someone: >In large part because people with a lot more respect for the > presidency had enough dignity not to ask such questions, and put the > leader of our country in such a compromising position. Mary E Knadler wrote: > I'm sorry that is incorrect. I belive if I remember correctly > he WAS accused of this in 1802 when he was running for the > Presidency. It was widely published in the newspapers of > the day. So that is how the story has remained in historical > records, other than just in the rememberances of the decendants > of Sally Hemmings. Hi, You are right, and there is more to the story. The Sept 1, 1802 issue of the new Federalist newspaper Richmond Recorder printed a story by journalist James Thomas Callender claiming a relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. This started a controversy which went on for months, but eventually faded from the news. The following July, Callender was found dead in the James River, and was assumed to have been the victim of an accident or perhaps suicide. Now I am no "conspiracy theorist", so don't even THINK "Vince Foster". > But if this DNA has any accuracy the child that is supposedly > Jefferson's was not yet born in 1802. It had been believed by some > historians that the eldest child was the one in question. The Y chromosome match was with the male descendents of Sally's youngest son Eston. Perhaps the charges were not true at the time that they were made, but became true later. -- ,,,,,,, _______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________ (_) jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth.