Topic: George Washington and debt

[LadyVirginia]

More food for thought from Dr. Folsum:

http://www.burtfolsom.com/?p=1107&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Burtfolsomcom+%28BurtFolsom.com%29&utm_content=My+Yahoo

As our leaders struggle to deal with the U. S. national debt, we can look to George Washington for advice on the subject. Avoid “the accumulation of debt,” Washington advised in his Farewell Address, “not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned.”

My daughter was so taken with GW that in high school she took it upon herself to memorize his farewell address and recite it to any who would listen.  She still remembers most of it.

[Libertas]

Most of the founders recognized the need to assume the states debts and the need to speak with one voice on fiscal matters, but all were concerned about carry too much.  What passes for "too much" in comparison to national wealth then and now would make the founders reel in horror at how far down the road to serfdom we've traveled!

[Sectionhand]

I heard Glenn Beck the other day when he , unfortunately , used Thomas Jefferson quotes to support his arguement over the founder's attitudes about debt and avoidance thereof . Beck didn't do his homework or simply disregarded the fact that Jefferson was habitually in debt and died in a severe state of idebtedness . He should have picked a different example because Jefferson obviously didn't walk his own talk .

[Libertas]

He wasn't the only one, many revolutionary founders were in hock up to their eyeballs supporting the cause.  IN Jefferson's case he overextended himself after his presidency by continuing Monticello projects and the creation of the University of Virginia.  But the central point is still valid, the perils of debt can even consume those who know better!

[Sectionhand]

Don't forget how much he enjoyed the high life when austerity would have served him better .

[LadyVirginia]

If I remember correctly Jefferson had an extensive book collection which he sold to the Library of Congress to pay off debts.  And then he preceeded to begin another collection.

just found this--
*According to wikipedia it was a collection of approx 6500 books and it was sold after at fire at the L of C (War of 1812).  I can only imagine that 6500 books would have taken up a lot of space at Monticello.  There must have books laying around everywhere.

[Libertas]

He did pick up some bad habits in Paris (enjoying the salons), and fathered (cough) a child with Sally Hemmings there as well (she was a 16 year old slave girl at the time) and collecting books was a favorite passtime of both Jefferson & Adams.

[Sectionhand]

I remain unconvinced about the Sally Hemmings issue . There's ample evidence that the culprit was his nephew ( his sister's son ) . As far as selling his library to settle his debts and replenish the Library of Congress that was true but he turned around and redoubled his purchases of books and soon was back in debt and getting in deeper by the day . His love of fine wines , French couisine , and constantly rebuilding and adding to Montecello left him a financial mess by the time of his death . I guess he just wasn't good with money .

[Libertas]

I thought there was some dna analysis and such that settled it.  Sally was pregnant in Paris, nobody disputing that.  I fully agree on the rest though!

[LadyVirginia]

I thought there was some dna analysis and such that settled it.  Sally was pregnant in Paris, nobody disputing that.  I fully agree on the rest though!

from what I recall--
Since Jefferson didn't have a son they had to use dna from his nephew line which concluded Hemmings children came from a Jefferson lineage. So while the line to Thomas isn't direct the fact that she was where he was whenever she was pregnant and that it was known he had a relationship with her most conclude they were his children.

[Sectionhand]

My biggest problem is the strident way this current crop of historians are going after the connection . They are falling all over each other to grab at any shreds of  "evidence" to support their contention . In other words ... it's time for negroes to have a big piece of the historical pie whether we have absolute proof or not . What DNA evidence exists is not conclusive enough to stand up in a present day paternity suit .

Another negro family recently jumped on the paternity bandwagon , claiming to be direct descendants of George Washington . The only problem with that being George was unable to conceive children with Martha who had two kids by a previous marriage . The Father of Our Country was sterile from a bout with small pox at the age of nineteen . George was shooting blanks . CSPAN had done a brief interview with these people last year which I saw . They may have sh*t-canned the footage for all I know but I doubt that we'll see it again .

[Libertas]

Exploiting the social segment in our nation whose proclivities toward intellectual laziness is a chief hallmark of thier character can result in erroneous conclusions concerning people and events, and the deeper into the past you delve the greater chance for mischief.  Expecting the general populace to apply the same intellectual rigor in analyzing information that I employ is unrealistic, but I look upon that as their fault, not mine. 

It is obvious that the dna evidence could point to any closely related Jefferson male of the period, but the probability that it was Thomas and not the Nephew or anyone seems logical given the close contact over the years and on two continents.  I would need to see evidence that the nephew was in Paris with Thomas and Sally and I don't think I've seen that anywhere.  I doubt we'll ever know for certain who fathered that Hemmings line, but even if proved 100% to be Thomas, I see no great triumph for blacks.  What is their claim?  Inheritance?  He passed away flat broke, and his property is publically owned museum now.  Claim an illustrious ancestor?  Go ahead.  Your ancestor didn't see a need to free you upon his death and so it is expected he saw you as inferior even if related.  I'm sure that'll make them feel better. 
 

As for Washington, there isn't even a hint that such a union ever took place or could.  Anybody buying that one ought to be censured as a fool.

[Glock32]

My biggest problem is the strident way this current crop of historians are going after the connection . They are falling all over each other to grab at any shreds of  "evidence" to support their contention . In other words ... it's time for negroes to have a big piece of the historical pie whether we have absolute proof or not . What DNA evidence exists is not conclusive enough to stand up in a present day paternity suit .

Another negro family recently jumped on the paternity bandwagon , claiming to be direct descendants of George Washington . The only problem with that being George was unable to conceive children with Martha who had two kids by a previous marriage . The Father of Our Country was sterile from a bout with small pox at the age of nineteen . George was shooting blanks . CSPAN had done a brief interview with these people last year which I saw . They may have sh*t-canned the footage for all I know but I doubt that we'll see it again .

They also get increasingly absurd with their claims. They've claimed various historical figures, such as Mozart and Beethoven.

[Sectionhand]

One of the "highly regarded historians" who have come over to their side recently is Joseph Ellis who feels obliged to cave to the current orthodoxy since he was caught lying about his resume' a few years ago and is practically falling all over himself to regain his position of "trust" .

[Libertas]

Ellis in American Sphinx really didn't say much about it, but he did change his mind after the dna testing.  But like I said, it means a Jefferson male can be traced in the Hemmings line, we may never know for sure, nor do I think it matters in the final analysis.  I don't know if his change of heart on the Hemmings matter was driven by his stupid assertion he served in Vietnam, but I'm not privy to what academia considers a bona fide for membership in their club.  But I do fault him for not clarifying the reason for his changed opinion...a Jefferson male of the period...you can say it is probable it could be Thomas, but a flat out statement to that effect would not be accurate.  Even I was a bit cavalier in my first post on this subject, Ellis should know better than to declare it an outright fact.

[LadyVirginia]

I see no great triumph for blacks.  What is their claim? 

I've always seen this as an effort to bring down those old white men who founded this country by pointing to Jefferson's laison with Hemmings -- as in "those old white guys weren't any better than anyone else."  It's the old elevate myself by tearing down someone else trick.

[Libertas]

I see no great triumph for blacks.  What is their claim? 

I've always seen this as an effort to bring down those old white men who founded this country by pointing to Jefferson's laison with Hemmings -- as in "those old white guys weren't any better than anyone else."  It's the old elevate myself by tearing down someone else trick.

Like tearing down MLK over his adulterous affairs with white women?!