Oh irony! With RFRA, the door swings wider to legalized polygamy

Life is full of delicious ironies, especially if you know where to look for them.

Consider the debate over SB 129, Georgia’s proposed “Religious Freedom Restoration Act.” At this point, the entire argument is over one sentence recently added to the bill by the House Judiciary Committee. That sentence reads: “Courts have consistently held that government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating discrimination.”

As long as that sentence remains in the bill, SB 129 will not give individuals or businesses a religious-based license to discriminate against gay people. If that sentence is removed, SB 129 does give individuals or businesses a religious-based right to discriminate against gay people. That’s what the whole fight is all about.

And once again, let’s be clear: This is not a relatively minor dispute about whether bakeries can legally refuse to provide a wedding cake to gay couples. Such isolated cases represent only a very tiny opening sliver of a very large wedge that backers of SB 129 are attempting to drive into law. SB 129 is really about whether employers will be able to offer benefits to married straight couples while denying those same benefits to married gay couples on the grounds that they have a religious objection to gay marriage. It’s about whether gay employees can be fired simply for being gay or suspected of being gay, again because employers have a religious objection to “the gay lifestyle.”

Now, I promised you a delicious irony, and here it is:

sister-wives-lawsuit-1

The cast of “Sister Wives,” a reality show about a polygamist family.

One of the arguments most commonly offered by conservatives against gay marriage is that it will inevitably open the door to legalized polygamy. That seems to be a deep-set, heartfelt fear among many on the right. And the inconvenient truth is that if they succeed in passage of SB 129 and other state RFRAs, they will open the door to polygamy much wider than gay marriage ever could.

Why? It comes down to which of two competing legal standards, “rational basis” or “compelling government interest,” are applied to the question.

Under the First Amendment, government can’t pass laws that are intended to restrict religious liberty. Such laws are not at stake in this discussion. However, state and local laws that accidentally impinge on religious liberty — zoning laws, health and safety laws, etc., criminal statutes, laws against polygamy — have been allowed as long as those laws at least have a rational basis.

Under SB 129, however, a mere “rational basis” would no longer be sufficient. Laws that impinge accidentally on religious liberty would be allowed ONLY when those laws advance a “compelling governmental interest.”**  In legal terms, the difference between “rational basis” and “compelling governmental interest” is profound.

How does that affect the polygamy case? When proponents of polygamy attempt to defend the practice in courts or other forums, they almost always do so in terms of their religious freedom. To them, it’s a First Amendment issue. But so far, state laws against polygamy have been upheld as constitutional because courts have found them to at least meet the “rational basis” test.

However, if a mere “rational basis” is no longer enough thanks to RFRA, you would need a “compelling governmental interest” to continue to outlaw polygamy. And that’s where the danger arises.

Peter Nash Swisher, a national expert in family law and a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, has looked at the issue and is very dubious about whether such a compelling interest can be found. With recent Supreme Court decisions combined with state and federal RFRAs, ” … proponents of polygamous marriage now have, in my opinion, a very strong case for validating polygamous marriages on cultural, religious, and constitutional grounds.”

As Swisher notes, the Old Testament is full of instances of polygamy, and the Muslim faith allows a man to have as many as four wives. Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, “observed that polygamy does not contradict Scripture, and so cannot be prohibited by Christianity.”*** The Catholic Church did not outlaw polygamy until 1563, and the Mormon Church did not do so until 1890.  In fact, Mormon leaders abolished polygamy only after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed the federal government to strip the church of all of its property, including its temples and cemeteries, and to basically abolish the church as a legally recognized entity.****

Such a ruling would be almost inconceivable under modern First Amendment jurisprudence.

The very conservative, evangelical-based Family Research Council has tried to anticipate this legal challenge under RFRA and has laid out its arguments here. But frankly, they’re not very convincing. For example, the FRC claims that government would have a compelling interest in banning polygamy because “anthropologists have identified problems in modern polygamous households, such as the fact that ‘young girls are often tricked or coerced into marrying older wealthy men and that women and children of modern polygamy are often poorly educated, impoverished, and chronically dependent on welfare’.”

Those social problems are significant, but they are hardly unique to polygamy. I’d hate to be the lawyer trying to argue that young girls aren’t “tricked or coerced into marrying older wealthy men” under monogamy , for example. In addition, constitutional law requires that the solution to such problems be the “least restrictive possible,” and an outright ban on polygamy would not meet that test.
—————————————

** That’s why the statement in SB 129 that “government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating discrimination” is so important. It states explicitly that preventing discrimination meets the definition of a compelling government interest, and thus would not be overridden by RFRA.

*** Luther wrote: “I confess that I cannot forbid a person to marry several wives, for it does not contradict the Scripture. If a man wishes to marry more than one wife he should be asked whether he is satisfied in his conscience that he may do so in accordance with the word of God. In such a case the civil authority has nothing to do in the matter.”

**** One of the named plaintiffs in that Supreme Court case was George Romney, relative of the 2012 Republican presidential candidate.

 

Reader Comments 0

641 comments
MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

Additional Information for DEBBIE-DO-RIGHT


From Jon Meacham's book, entitled, "Thomas Jefferson:  The Art of Power," published by Random House, 2012:


Chapter  22 - 81 references given for this chapter alone - pages 216 - 226:


"There, in the midst of the swirl and storms, was a beautiful young woman at his command - a woman who may have reminded him of her half sister, his wife.  The emotional content of the Jefferson-Hemings relationship is a mystery.  He may have loved her, and she him.  It could have been, as some have argued, coercive, institutionalized rape.  She might have just been doing what she had to do to survive an evil system, accepting sexual duty as an element of her enslavement and using what leverage she had to improve the lot of her children.  Or each of these things may have been true at different times. . . .What little evidence we have strongly suggests that Sally Hemings was an intelligent, brave woman who did as much as she could with what little the world had given her.  She began this phase of her life as she apparently intended to carry on: with strength and in instinct for survival.


For in this opening hour, geography and culture - those things that had conspired to enslave her - were on her side.  In France, enslaved persons could apply for their liberty and be granted it - and there was nothing their masters could do about it.


Jefferson knew this well.  As the American minister he had once advised a fellow slave owner on the system.  And Sally Hemings was no lonely slave girl in Europe.  Her big brother James was there with her, at the Hotel de Langeac, and could have helped her win her freedom.


According to their son Madison Hemings's later account, Sally, who had become 'Mr Jefferson's concubine,' was pregnant when Jefferson was preparing to return to the United Sates. 'He desired to bring my mother back to Virginia with him but she demurred,' Madison Hemings said.


To demur was to refuse, and Jefferson was unaccustomed to encountering resistance to his absolute will at all, much less from a slave.  His whole life was about controlling as many of the world's variables as he could.  Yet here was a girl basically the same age as his own eldest daughter refusing to take her docile part in the long-running drama of the sexual domination of enslaved women by their white masters.


'She was just beginning to understand the French language well, and in France she was free, while if she returned to Virginaia she would be re-enslaved,' said Madison Hemings. 'So she refused to return with him.'


It was an extraordinary moment.  Fresh from arranging terms with the bankers of Europe over a debt that was threatening the foundation of the French nation, Thomas Jefferson found himself in negotiations with a pregnant enslaved teenager who, in a reversal of fortunate hardly likely to be repeated, had the means at hand to free herself.


She, not he, was in control.  It must have seemed surreal, unthinkable, even absurd.  For the first time in his life, perhaps, Jefferson was truly in a position of weakness at a moment that mattered to him.  So he began making concession to convince Sally Hemings to come home to Virginia. 'To induce her to do so he promised her extraordinary privileges, and made a solemn pledge that her children should be freed at the age of 21 years,' Madison Hemings said.


Sally Hemings agreed. "in consequence of his promise, on which she implicitly relied, she returned with him to Virginia,' said Madison Hemings. "Soon after their arrival, she gave birth to a child, of whom Thomas Jefferson was the father.  It lived but a short time.  She gave birth to four others, and Jefferson was the father of all of them.  Their names were Beverly, Harriet, Madison (myself), and Eston - three sons and one daughter.'


Their father kept the promise he had made to Sally in Paris. ' We all became free agreeably to the treaty entered into by our parents before we were born.'  Madison Hemings said. It was one of the most important pacts of Jefferson's life.. . . ."

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf


Your questions would be better addressed to Pulitzer Prize Winning author Jon Meacham, the author of all the words in my post, above.  


In addition, below is given the reason I believe that Thomas Jefferson did not free Sally Hemings legally through his written Will, as he did the children they had together, although I believe, in truth and in essence, Thomas Jefferson made sure Sally Hemings, his mistress and concubine of over 40 years, was freed upon his death through his daughter, whom he had with his wife, Martha Jefferson. 


From below, words from my first post to Debbie-Do-Right:


Now this is where your independent and creative thought should kick in to ask the hard questions and think the hard truth, without documentation.  Jefferson did not free any of his slaves except the children he probably had with Sally Hemings, no doubt upon their agreement when she came back with him from France (with her brother, too, btw).  If Jefferson, a Founding Father had freed only one female slave who was rumored to have been his concubine and mistress, then that would have given validation to history and to the present of his day that that was their relationship.  Nevertheless, Martha Jefferson Randolph, his most beloved daughter did release Sally Hemings shortly after Jefferson's death in 1826 to spend the remainder of her life with her freed sons.  It is my reasoned supposition that Jefferson had instructed his most beloved daughter to do exactly what she did regarding the fate of Sally Hemings before he died.  That way, with his high intellect, he knew that Sally would be freed in truth, if not in fact, and there would not be left over "factual" information in the historical records that he, himself, freed his mistress upon his death, as agreed."

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf 


"Could be," but you do not know that to be true.  I'll report back when I complete Lucy Stanton's book. 


Thank you for the suggestion for further reading but right now I am interested specifically in Thomas Jefferson's relationship with Sally Hemings and I am also reading other books of the moment.  As you know, each person, and each relationship, is and will be unique.


MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf 


Have you considered the fact that Thomas Jefferson, himself, may have been aware of what Sally Hemings' and her brother's lives would probably have been like in France had she and her brother remained in France, a free woman and man, and that Jefferson did not think that that was the better choice for her or her brother?  


Nothing in life, as I have stated so many times, has simple one-dimensional answers.  Most answers are very complex in nature and her joining Jefferson in America may have been her better option in both of their minds.  As his slave, her duties were to be his chamber attendant for the remainder of his life. Shortly after he died, Sally Hemings was released from Monticello by her half-aunt, Martha Jefferson Randolph, to live with her freed sons for the remainder of her life.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf 


Presently, I am reading the book entitled: "Those Who Labor for My Happiness: Slavery at Thomas Jefferson's Monticello," written by Lucia Stanton and published by University of Virginia Press, 2012.  I bought this book when I attended the exhibit at the Atlanta History Center, entitled, "The Slaves of Thomas Jefferson."  Jefferson's statue was center stage.  The family groupings of his slaves' lives and photos were included, including the Hemings' familly photos and memorabilia. 

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings 

Slimy, this false promise to his teen-aged pregnant slave Sally Hemmings, since as it turned out Jefferson  never did free her and only freed their children years after they turned 21.  What would she do in revolutionary France on her own? How live?  How survive? Her "big brother James" was also a slave of course.  How could he have helped her win her manumission? She would be free...but only in France that was then in political upheaval and turmoil with all of its agricultural estates taken over by revolutionary peasants.



OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings @OriginalProf 

But you obviously agree with these words of Jon Meacham.

Projection, based upon how you already see Jefferson's character. Also rationalization of Jefferson's behavior.


It might do you some good to read some slave narratives of the period.  Ones actually written by the slave, not dictated to abolitionists. Frederick Douglass, perhaps, Olaudah Equiano for an English one, or Mary Prince for a Caribbean one.

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings @OriginalProf 

But she was a slave whose "duties" were prescribed to be his personal servant.  We cannot know what she thought and felt! Never mind what Jefferson "might" have thought was the best option for  her and her brother. It was in his interest that his chamber servant and sex-partner continue as before.

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings @OriginalProf 

Lucia Stanton is an historian connected with the Monticello Foundation, and so her book could well be an apology for Jefferson.  The title of that book certainly sounds like it!


I strongly suggest that you read the short, succinct slave narrative that was the first one written by a woman: Mary Prince's The History of Mary Prince,published in 1831 and covering about the same time period. I thought of it as you related similar details of  Hemmings's life with Jefferson. She too became a sex-slave at an early age to her older master in Bermuda. His wife did not want her to go with them to England, where she would be counted as a free person. (As with Sally in France.)


"Mrs. Wood grew very angry--she became quite outrageous [outraged]-- and asked me who had put freedom into my head. 'To be free is very sweet,' I said, but she took good care to keep me a slave."

JoelEdge
JoelEdge

"And that’s where the danger arises."

Sounds like a "slippery slope" argument there, Bookman.

Don't be hating

Love is love

etc

etc (And all the usual leftist blather about slippery slopes and the culture going to he** in a hand basket)

kevin@macon
kevin@macon

While I liked this article

"Oh irony! With RFRA, the door swings wider to legalized polygamy"

There is one important error, RFRA will not give additional rights to employers to fire someone for being gay,. In Georgia employers already have that right. If in fact Georgia had a non-discrimination law RFRA would not be such a big issue. In fact last year I offered a challenge to Sam Teasley to add LGBT to Georgia non-discrimination law and I would support his RFRA.  The conversation stopped there.

Corey
Corey

MaryElizabethSings 1 hour ago  

You are aware that teaching slaves to read and write was against the law?

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@Corey 

And there were some terrible punishments for slaves who became literate: cutting off hands, cutting out tongues... The great fear was that the slaves would read and learn of other slave revolts, or events such as the French Revolution with its "Rights of Man."

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@Corey


I am also aware that not all slave owners practiced that law and no doubt that law varied from state to state.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf @Corey


According to recorded writings of Jefferson's granddaughter, when Jefferson returned to Monticello after having been away in Europe for 4 years, his slaves ran down the long hill from the plantation's  home to the road bringing up his carriage.  They were so overjoyed to see him that they lifted him from his carriage up the remainder of the hill to the home, itself, Monticello.  That is recorded by his granddaughter in writing and her words, presented by Dr. Padover, are housed in the Library of Congress.


Thomas Jefferson did not practice the "terrible punishments" which you described that some slave owners practiced. Too many inaccurate assumptions are made, blilndly, when one starts generalizing about the practices of some cruel slave owners to specific slave owners, without facts to back up that generalized thinking to Jefferson's practices, himself.

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings @OriginalProf @Corey 

Most likely, the slaves were  joyous and relieved that Jefferson wasn't staying in Europe so they would not be sold, as was very common when the master left his plantation for good. 


We cannot know the thoughts and motivations of slaves then. You assume that they all loved Massa. Unlikely.

Again, you need to learn about the realities of chattel slavery at the time.


Enough. I'm tired of the insults because I suggested you might need to learn something more about your chosen subject. No-one is too old to learn more.  Good night.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf @MaryElizabethSings @Corey


"Most likely, the slaves were  joyous and relieved that Jefferson wasn't staying in Europe so they would not be sold, as was very common when the master left his plantation for good. "

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


You do not know that to be factual.  You preface your remarks with "most likely."  Jefferson's granddaughter was a first person on the testimony.  Moreover, one of his black sons tesitffied in a newspaper report that Jefferson was a fair and kindly master and he treated all equally except that he showed his white children the attention that he did not show his slave children.


MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

" We cannot know the thoughts and motivations of slaves then. You assume that they all loved Massa. Unlikely."

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


No, I do not assume that.  How stereotypical your mind seems to work, Prof.  Actually, it is an embarrassment to me to read these words.  I think in great complexity.  Do you?  Or do you think in accepted stereotypes of the day?


And, I am not insulting you because you suggested I might need to learn some more about chattel slavery.  I have stated the truth as I see it as to how your mind seems to perceive.  If that is an insult, then one could never speak one's mind about the thought processes of another.


My remarks, btw, were addressed to Debbie-Do-Right.  It is fine for you to comment but do not become alarmed if I, in turn, give you my honest thoughts regarding your assessments.

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings @Corey 

No, this law was uniform, in the North as well as the South. It was passed to prevent the spreading of news of slave revolts, abolitionist propaganda, news of the European French Revolution, and the British Abolitionist and Emancipation movements. It was also passed to prevent slaves from being able to read the Bible, whose New Testament had many subversive passages.

Corey
Corey

Mr. Jefferson did free some of Sally's relatives to include her brother and her children. Rumors were circulating at the time about the relationship he was having with Sally; freeing her would have lent credence to the rumors. Maybe he didn't free her because she was his sex slave who was 13 yrs old and thirty years his junior at the time the relationship began. She was also the half sister of Jefferson's wife and was fathered by Jefferson's father-n-law by a slave. Abigail Adams remarked, "She is merely a child." when she saw Sally with Jefferson while in Paris. 

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@Corey


Your facts confirm many of mine below, but your interpretation of those facts is much too cynical for the mind and character of Jefferson.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

For Debbie:


I cannot imagine that a man as literate and who valued both literacy and egalitarianism as much as Thomas Jefferson would have denied Sally Hemmings the opportunity to become literate.  From what I can recall of my readings of several books about Jefferson, he did allow his daughter, Martha, and Sally Hemmings to explore Paris together.  That is why I stated that.  I do not have time now to go back to my various books now to research where specifically I read that, but I am almost certain I did read that.  The authors I have read have been Ph.D.s of history, of Jefferson, and Pultizer Prize winners of his life's story.  In other words, the books were heavily researched.  Jon Meacham, Pultizer Prize Winner was one biographer of Jefferson, Dr. Saul Padover was another, whose references go back to the Library of Congress, letters and writings of Thomas Jefferson, 1898.


Read this link from the historians at Monticello:


http://www.monticello.org/site/plantation-and-slavery/thomas-jefferson-and-sally-hemings-brief-account.


You will notice that this paragraph is stated there:


  • "Thomas Jefferson did not free Sally Hemings. She was permitted to leave Monticello by his daughter Martha Jefferson Randolph not long after Jefferson's death in 1826, and went to live with her sons Madison and Eston in Charlottesville."




The paragraph tells you that Jefferson's only living child of his marriage, his daughter Martha Jefferson Randolph, to whom he was extremely close all of his life, let Sally Hemmings leave Monticello shortly after Jefferson's death, to live with two of her sons, supposedly by Jefferson, who had either already been freed by Jefferson shortly before he died, or in his will shortly thereafter his death.


Now this is where your independent and creative thought should kick in to ask the hard questions and think the hard truth, without documentation.  Jefferson did not free any of his slaves except the children he probably had with Sally Hemmings, no doubt upon their agreement when she came back with him from France (with her brother, too, btw).  If Jefferson, a Founding Father had freed only one female slave who was rumored to have been his concubine and mistress, then that would have given validation to history and to the present of his day that that was their relationship.  Nevertheless, Martha Jefferson Randolph, his most beloved daughter did release Sallyl Hemmings shortly after Jefferson's death in 1826 to spend the remainder of her life with her freed sons.  It is my reasoned supposition that Jefferson had instructed his most beloved daughter to do exactly what she did regarding the fate of Sally Hemmings before he died.  That way, with his high intellect, he knew that Sally would be free in truth if not in fact, and there would be not left over "factual" information in the historical records that he himself freed his mistress upon his death, as agreed.



OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings 

 Again, I suggest that you read some background books on the realities of chattel slavery during the late 18th century-early 19th century in America. Of course the "historians" associated with the official Monticello site are not going to be objective and reliable, for they have an axe to grind. Search for your own sense of the man in light of his times.

The authors I noted earlier are not just "Ph.D.s of History" (aren't they all?). David Brion Davis is a Chaired Professor Emeritus at Yale and respected author of many books on slavery, and Marcus Wood is Professor at the U. of Sussex in England. I should have noted also James Walvin, Professor Emeritus at the U. of York, England, whose many books are perhaps best for an introduction to chattel slavery.


Your post suggests circular and speculative reasoning: "I cannot imagine that....", "No doubt upon their agreement...", "It is my reasoned supposition...." But it runs counter to much of what we know about the practices of chattel slavery during Jefferson's time. You need to read and learn about those actual practices, degrading and horrifying as they were, to be able to estimate the reality here.  DebbieDoRight seems closer to what was likely the truth.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf @MaryElizabethSings



Nevertheless, with all of your logic, I think that my reasoned assumption is correct and that your remarks in generalities are wrong.  And, please let's not get into a silly debate over whose PhlD's read have more validity.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf 


Nevertheless, with all of your logic, I think that my reasoned assumption is correct and that your remarks in generalities are wrong.  And, please let's not get into a silly debate over whose author's PhD's read have more credibility.


Furthermore, you are not my college prof.  I am well past college years.  I do not need to read anything more than the many books I have to know the specifics of Thomas Jefferson's lifestyle at Monticello.  How condescending and how wrong you are at the same time.  But you cannot see that.  Of course, I realize that not all college profs are that way, regardless of how many books I may read on the practices of college profs.  It is not the quantity of books read, but the quality of the understanding of the reader which matters.  The world is full of millions of facts that we may never know.  It is the interpretation of those facts that is important.  I suggest you read Saul Padover book, called" Jefferson."  He was a historian at University of Chicago in California and in NYC and had other credentials himself.  Framkly, you are giving college profs a bad name with your locked in academic "musts."  "I cannot imagine that" is prefectly fine language for my purposes, "No doubt upon their agreement" makes more than enough sense, and, "it is my reasoned supposition" was right on the money.  


In my opinion, you are more into academic protocol than you are into discovering truth.  That is what you have been trained to do, but your training, believe it or not, has its limiitations.  I have not read your particular suggested books but I have read about chattel slavery.  Jefferson was no ordinary man and I suspect neither was Sally Hemings.  How more obvious to any thinking person can that fact be?  Again, professor, you think, in my opinion, in too many generalities to suit my intellectual tastes and.you seem to be oblivious to that fact with your condescending ego that values too much a Ph.D. beside a writer's name.  Your chosen name for your monker tells much.

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings @OriginalProf 

You don't seem to know squat about the realities of chattel slavery in America, and to air-brush it right out of American history. That is a shame, for it's part of the story too. It reminds me of my tour of Charleston in which the guide refused to admit that the city was a prominent stop in the slave trade, with its slave auction right on the main dock; and the plantation guides referred to the slaves as "domestic servants."


I also note your contempt for academic scholars who have spent their lives researching and writing about the subject of chattel slavery, abolition, and the 18th-19th century. Too bad.  We can always add to our store of knowledge, no matter what our age.

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings @OriginalProf 

P.S. The reason for my chosen moniker is quite mundane. Before the change in blog format, I had blogged as "Prof" for about 3 years. I tried to keep that name but AJC wouldn't allow it, so I chose "OriginalProf" to indicate that I had been "Prof" earlier.  Rather like "Catlady" has become "Wascatlady."

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf 


You have made a false assumption about what I know or do not know about chattel slavery.  I do not have contempt for academic schloars. I very much value their work.  But, all are not the same in quality.  Saul Padover was a scholar of whom I have much respect.  Most of the readings I have done is by scholars.  I do not think that your reasoning is on target about Jefferson- based on your words - but that assessment is related to you alone, not in general to all college profs.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf 


Yes, and that is precisely why I chose his book to read.  I wanted a perspective from that era which was not tainted by the backlash of black scholars after the Civil Rights Movement when together they formed an anti-Jefferson "group mindset" and found research to "prove" their negative insights.  But the fact that you write off Padover's erudite mind simply because he wrote in the 1940s is what I was referring to that you seem to be locked into academic protocol.  I, on the other hand, question that protocol in order to reach a more unorthodox truth, but truth which makes more logical sense to me, based on many, many factors, over and beyond academic protocol - just as an older book.


What you have written off is a scholar who wrote on Jefferson in 1940.  How  intellectually impure to do that  to a mind as fine as Padover's.


See this link about his credentials which you have dismissed condescendingly and sweepingly:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saul_K._Padover

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings @OriginalProf 

"... the backlash of black scholars after the Civil Rights Movement when together they formed an anti-Jefferson "group mindset" and found research to "prove" their negative insights...."

As Kamchak would say, "And there you have your sign."

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf 


I should have added the word, "some," to be "the backlash of SOME black scholars. . .," which you, yourself, had acknowledged to me to have been accurate in fact, and that you were surprised that I knew of that fact.


You are playing another "gotcha" academic petty game based on my lack of qualification by leaving out the qualifier, "some."  Shame on you.  Your pettiness, here, has overridden your erudition, unfortunately.  But, that too is part of who you seem to be.

OriginalProf
OriginalProf

@MaryElizabethSings @OriginalProf 

No, I was not criticizing you for leaving out the qualifier "some,"  but for de facto ruling out historical evidence because it did not square with your own presuppositions. You wrote: "I wanted a perspective from that era which was not tainted by the backlash of black scholars after the Civil Rights Movement"  [italics mine].

Most revealing. You dismissed what the scholars had to say about Thomas Jefferson simply because you assumed they were inaccurate, being black scholars writing after the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s. So you would not even consider what they had to say but assumed them wrong. More, this remark shows a hostile resistance to the very message of equality of the Civil Rights movement, not just in school accommodations but in human perspectives too. I would not have expected this, given all  your past proclamations of opposition to Jim Crow laws.


 But, that too is part of who you seem to be.

MaryElizabethSings
MaryElizabethSings

@OriginalProf @MaryElizabethSings


Your words about my various perceptions, which you have posted above, are all inaccurate.  That's all I care to say.  If I thought the way you interpret my thoughts to be, I suppose that my thinking would be "a hostile resistance to the very message of equal of the Civil Rights movement," but you are wrong in your assessments of how my mind works.  Don't assume you are right.  You think too much in generalities for my ways of perceiving.  This has been a disappointment for me to have discovered about how you perceive, Prof.


I bear you no ill will, and I truly wish you well.

DownInAlbany
DownInAlbany

IF Hillary has nothing to hide, why did she wipe her hard drive clean, in the midst of multiple FOIA requests?

ByteMe
ByteMe

@DownInAlbany Private individuals are not bound by FOIA requests, but you knew that.  try to get some new talking points.

LeninTime
LeninTime

The Trans-Pacific Partnership is ten times more radical and significant than any religious discrimination bills. Yet there is next to no attention being paid to it.

The people let themselves be played like fiddles.

Tuna Meowt
Tuna Meowt

Much more discussion about the Reid-Romney matter lower down; in particular, the LDS angle is talked about.


Scroll down and have a look, whydontcha?


Kamchak
Kamchak

@straitroad 

 Reckon why he did[sic] poke out his lips when Illinois passed their version of the law?

Perhaps it's because Jay lives and works in Georgia and not Illinois.

gotalife
gotalife

The lw's we are better than them might make you feel better about yourself but loses elections.


Which part of Americans love a fighter did you not get?


The President did not win twice with a we are better than them weak bs strategy,.


He stood up daily and fought back on media..

kevin@macon
kevin@macon

I'm still of the opinion that SB 129 would also allow same sex marriage on the same argument expressed in this article. This is uncharted legal ground.