I'm wondering whether the lefties at ESPN will care about the historical libel perpetrated against Ty Cobb by a series of journalists--beginning with a lying drunk, Al Stump, and continued by a series of lazy and complicit journalist-historians who don't bother to check facts that are available for anyone who cares to consult them. Those unvarnished facts are summarized in the linked Imprimus article by an actual non-lazy historian--Charles Leerhsen.
Sunday, April 03, 2016
What kind of criticism would prompt a major publisher to withdraw from circulation a New York Times best seller by a recognized scholar? One would think the objections would have to be weighty and the critics unquestioned experts in the particular field. In the case of The Jefferson Lies one would be mistaken to make those assumptions.
In 2012 David Barton’s popular analysis of Thomas Jefferson was pulled by its publisher, Thomas Nelson, based on what appears to have been an academic putsch designed to protect the now-popular view of the third president as a secular deist and hypocritical, slave-holding philanderer. This uprising was led by a motley intellectual crew who, for the most part, had little or no expertise in the subject matter at issue.
The re-release of The Jefferson Lies by WND Books begins with an extended preface in which the author discusses the largely picayune objections raised against his original work -- primarily by a psychology professor from
Warren Throckmorton. These somewhat
arcane refutations should have been placed at the end of the work -- allowing Barton’s
clear and convincing evidence to speak first for itself. That evidence primarily concerns “lies” about Grove
City College Jefferson’s
relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings, “lies” about Jefferson’s
supposed hypocrisy vis-à-vis slavery, “lies” about the ex-president’s position concerning
the separation of church and state, and “lies” related to Jefferson’s
Barton’s most startling revelation concerns the brazenly dishonest claim that
DNA evidence had proved
Jefferson fathered one of Sally Hemings’ children. This blockbuster story in Nature magazine (November 5, 1998) was splashed with gusto all
over the national media. The retraction
of this “proof” came eight weeks later -- with all the impact of an obscure page
16 correction. Equally significant was
the political end to which the initial DNA
lie was employed, coming as it did in the midst of the Clinton-Lewinsky
impeachment imbroglio. To cap it all
off, that headline story in Nature was
written by a Clinton supporter, historian
Joseph Ellis, who, as it turns out, was as much a liar as the President he
supported. Barton provides an amusing
list of Ellis fabrications that extend from the sublime (serving on General
Westmoreland’s staff during the Vietnam War) to the ridiculous (scoring the
winning touchdown in the last football game his senior year in high school).
In point of fact, as Barton makes clear, the
evidence actually excludes Jefferson as the father of Hemings’
son, Thomas, the child typically said to be Jefferson’s.
Moreover, the other Hemings child that
could possibly have been Jefferson’s, Eston, was most
likely sired by Jefferson’s younger brother, Randolph,
and not by the sixty-five-year-old former President. Indeed, Eston was a Randolph
family name and the child’s conception coincided with a possibly extended visit
by Jefferson’s brother to Monticello. Moreover, Randolph,
unlike Thomas, often fraternized with slaves, a fact noted in the memoir of Isaac
Jefferson, a Monticello slave who
observed that Randolph “used to
come out among black people, play the fiddle and dance half the night.”
Ask anyone nowadays if
evidence has proven Jefferson was the father of one or
more of Sally Hemings’ children, and chances are the answer, if any, will be
“yes.” Thus, as with Oliver Stone’s rewrite
of JFK’s assassination, the mainstream media, corrupt academicians, and a
sensation-seeking pop-culture have again conspired to manipulate history for
their own ends.
The Jefferson Lies also marshals an abundance of evidence from letters, laws, and public declarations to show that
Jefferson was certainly not a
deist as that term is now understood. Nor
did he possess any view of the “separation between Church and State” that
mirrors the modern transmogrification of those words by the courts. Indeed, Jefferson himself regularly attended
church services that were held in the Capitol building and approved various
laws that involved missionary work among Indian tribes. What Jefferson clearly
opposed were established churches supported directly by state governments like Virginia
and Massachusetts. Indeed, it was the infringement of their religious
liberty by the state of Connecticut
that the Danbury Baptists most feared -- the group to whom Jefferson
penned the letter containing the now-infamous “separation” phrase.
In short, the Jefferson that emerges from the evidence presented by Barton is of a man who provided financial support for the publication of bibles, embraced a non-denominational piety, had numerous friends (and numerous enemies) among the clergy, clearly expressed the idea that God acts in history (often using the term ‘providence’ that was commonly employed even by evangelical Christians), and honestly desired to free his slaves but was unable to do so because of the numerous Virginia laws that made emancipation, for Jefferson, a financial impossibility. That
expressed uncertainty about the de facto,
rather than the de jure, equality of
the races is hardly surprising given his historical circumstances. But this historical “given” is regularly
ignored by folks who delight in disparaging America’s
past in order to enlarge their already exaggerated self-esteem.
The most disappointing chapter in Barton’s work concerns the “lie” that
Jefferson was an atheist and anti-Christian. What is off-putting here is not Barton’s
general argument but his regular insertion of judgments about various Christian
groups’ orthodoxy -- judgments that obviously correspond with the author’s
preference for traditional Trinitarian Christianity. These unnecessary observations about
“unfortunate” religious movements lend a parochial odor to an otherwise
So who should read The Jefferson Lies? Anyone who thinks that Thomas Jefferson and William Jefferson Clinton have a lot in common, anyone who thinks Thomas Jefferson supported the modern notion of “separation of church and state,” anyone who thinks Jefferson was a hypocritical racist, and anyone who thinks academia and the publishing world aren’t partisan cesspools.