The left's destruction of history
Comments
-
Link to your DNA evidence?StrongArmCobra said:
Was it another Breitbart article "disproving" the DNA tests now? Lol dude just stop. His white wife died and he took a young, teenage slave as his new wife because he was a horny fucker and he father 6 kids with her and 4 survived to adulthood. That's historical fact. There are first-hand sources and quotes from Sally's children who knew Jefferson was their father. It wasn't some big secret back then. Jefferson took Sally out in public with him and traveled to France with her and shit. But she was still his slave, never his wife. Not to mention he owned dozens of other slaves. What are you even arguing here?Sledog said:
Obviously you didn't read the DNA tests.StrongArmCobra said:I don't know how anybody expects to be taken seriously citing articles from sources like Breitbart and Fox News. Even worse, an article written by Ann Coulter. You know that's fake news and propaganda right?
Her first point alone about Thomas Jefferson is laughable. Jefferson was a slave owner and owned dozens of slaves over his lifetime. That's a fact. It's documented that he owned slaves and there are slave artifacts that have been found on his land. And he did father children with one of his slaves. That has been confirmed by DNA testing black descendants of Jefferson and comparing their DNA to white descendants of Jefferson. It's so accepted that Jefferson's white descendants and black descendants have gotten together for family reunions and shit. He kept the Sally slave locked up in his house in a private room where he would rape her whenever he pleased. Perhaps it seemed consensual to him but a slave is not capable of consent so it was rape.
Look, a lot of people who did good things for America were slave owners. That was the reality of the times back then. If you were a wealthy and influential person, chances are you owned slaves unless you were an abolitionist. People don't get to white wash that shit from history because they don't like it. Historical figures are nuanced human beings. Some of them did good things in their public lives while doing devious and hypocritical things in their personal lives because humans are human. -
Pretty close to virtue signaling, Sleddy.Sledog said:creepycoug said:
Fuck off Sled. You're the guy who cries about keeping things simple. This is simple, so let it be simple.Sledog said:
I see you don't answer. I am what I am. That's true, You are what you are. But you like to obfuscate exactly what that might be at times. Slavery was the way of the world until recent times. My point is, in this instance, that denigrating people to whom it was perfectly normal and as everyday as sunshine as well as their religious beliefs simply to push a a leftist agenda is bullshit. The moral standard has changed and that's a good thing. Keep rallying for the party of slavery, it's your right. Or should I say left?creepycoug said:
I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and IDRGAF because even with effort you never do seem to make your way to a thought-provoking point.Sledog said:
Just stating what I believe. Don't you?creepycoug said:
Bob ... is this Sledog guy tonguing your ass?
But if you say your religion does not take issue with slavery, and this religion means something to you, then you are what you are.
1. Religious Tenets are not relative to culture. That's the entire point about religion. What's right and what's wrong are objective truths that don't bend with time. That is, the basic things that a given religion stands for are unaffected by the current rage. The opposite of humanism.
2. Any rational interpretation of basic Christian values would proffer that using another human being as if it they were a yard tool, and doing to and with that person whatever you will, is morally wrong.
3. If that's the case, it doesn't matter what the culture dejour had to say about it. If it's wrong today, it was wrong then. That's what we call logical consistency.
Clear enough?
You don't need to lecture me on cultural and moral relativism. I'm the relativist as between us. I find it curious that in our miles of travel together, you are the one who always cited the objective moral code to defend or prosecute a point. And now, because your sensibilities are bent as you engage in this ridiculous panic over whether people will see the founding fathers as fallible human beings, you want to invoke relativism to support the institution of slavery.
I mean, if I wanted to show you in a bad light as a person, I could not have scripted this any better.
I get it. You don't take issue with slave owners 200 years ago, but you also believe in a timeless higher power that defines good and bad. It's your job to reconcile those things, not mine.
Has nothing to do with me taking issue or not. I don't think slavery is right. Never have never will, It was abolished and that took time and thousands of deaths. Since we are talking moral equivalency over time why the fuck are you a democrat?creepycoug said:
Fuck off Sled. You're the guy who cries about keeping things simple. This is simple, so let it be simple.Sledog said:
I see you don't answer. I am what I am. That's true, You are what you are. But you like to obfuscate exactly what that might be at times. Slavery was the way of the world until recent times. My point is, in this instance, that denigrating people to whom it was perfectly normal and as everyday as sunshine as well as their religious beliefs simply to push a a leftist agenda is bullshit. The moral standard has changed and that's a good thing. Keep rallying for the party of slavery, it's your right. Or should I say left?creepycoug said:
I have no idea what the fuck you're talking about, and IDRGAF because even with effort you never do seem to make your way to a thought-provoking point.Sledog said:
Just stating what I believe. Don't you?creepycoug said:
Bob ... is this Sledog guy tonguing your ass?Sledog said:
I'm just glad those founding religious right nuts made a great country to live in! If we can just keep the cloaked commie/socialist agenda away we might get to keep it!SFGbob said:Coug is your standard leftwing religious bigot who has a wholly irrational fear of the religious right and what he feels they might do to him. When asked to cite some examples he cited his inability to get an abortion in Georgia.
Meanwhile the religious left wants to take over nearly every aspect of our economy, and re-order our society and is busy forcing their values down everyone's throats every fucking day. But the Religious Right might do something thing!!!!
But if you say your religion does not take issue with slavery, and this religion means something to you, then you are what you are.
1. Religious Tenets are not relative to culture. That's the entire point about religion. What's right and what's wrong are objective truths that don't bend with time. That is, the basic things that a given religion stands for are unaffected by the current rage. The opposite of humanism.
2. Any rational interpretation of basic Christian values would proffer that using another human being as if it they were a yard tool, and doing to and with that person whatever you will, is morally wrong.
3. If that's the case, it doesn't matter what the culture dejour had to say about it. If it's wrong today, it was wrong then. That's what we call logical consistency.
Clear enough?
You don't need to lecture me on cultural and moral relativism. I'm the relativist as between us. I find it curious that in our miles of travel together, you are the one who always cited the objective moral code to defend or prosecute a point. And now, because your sensibilities are bent as you engage in this ridiculous panic over whether people will see the founding fathers as fallible human beings, you want to invoke relativism to support the institution of slavery.
I mean, if I wanted to show you in a bad light as a person, I could not have scripted this any better.
I get it. You don't take issue with slave owners 200 years ago, but you also believe in a timeless higher power that defines good and bad. It's your job to reconcile those things, not mine.
Ever consider brevity? -
I don't need it. You need evidence when your trying to disprove something accepted as historical fact. There are primary sources from that time that confirm Jefferson took Sally as his wife, not legally of course, and fathered children with her. It's all documented in detail. All children of white men had to be documented, including who their parents were and Jefferson was a major public figure so the documents were preserved and re-recorded over time. Sally's children had the last name Jefferson. It wasn't that long ago. You can look up all the info yourself:
https://monticello.org/sallyhemings/
You don't even need DNA evidence to confirm because it's in the documentation and primary sources from the people around Jefferson at the time. The DNA evidence was just further confirmation. But again, what it your fucking point? What's the difference between owning dozens of slaves and raping one of them? It's all bad. Slave rape was common during that time and wasn't taboo. Of course major historical figures who owned slaves also partook in raping one or some of them.
The right wing loves to white wash history. Ann Coulter is one of the biggest right wing misinformation clowns out there. She's quite an evil cunt. You need to find different news sources or simply read more about history yourself from at least academic text books, not bullshit fake news sources like Ann Coulter.
It's people jobs to record and research this shit and get the facts straight and their livelihood depends on it. There is no mass conspiracy among historians to all lie about the same shit. That's nonsense. Some stupid right wing blowhard cunt with zero credibility wrote a bullshit fake news and fake history article and used fake evidence. That's all this is. -
Article I posted referenced DNA evidence you claimed you had extensive DNA links to prove your point. Pony up. Your story is full of shit. DNA puts purple in prison pretty convincing stuff.StrongArmCobra said:I don't need it. You need evidence when your trying to disprove something accepted as historical fact. There are primary sources from that time that confirm Jefferson took Sally as his wife, not legally of course, and fathered children with her. It's all documented in detail. All children of white men had to be documented, including who their parents were and Jefferson was a major public figure so the documents were preserved and re-recorded over time. Sally's children had the last name Jefferson. It wasn't that long ago. You can look up all the info yourself:
https://monticello.org/sallyhemings/
You don't even need DNA evidence to confirm because it's in the documentation and primary sources from the people around the Jefferson at the time. The DNA evidence was just further confirmation. But again, what it your fucking point? What's the difference between owning dozens of slaves and raping one of them? It's all bad. Slave rape was common during that time and wasn't taboo.
The right wing loves to white wash history. Ann Coulter is one of the biggest right wing misinformation clowns out there. She's quite an evil cunt. You need to find different news sources or simply read more about history yourself from at least academic text books, not bullshit fake news sources like Ann Coulter.
It's people jobs to record and research this shit and get the facts straight. There is no mass conspiracy among historians to all lie about the same shit. That's nonsense. Some stupid right wing blowhard cunt with zero credibility wrote a bullshit fake news and fake history article and used fake evidence. That's all this is. -
Took me 30 seconds to find. I think PBS is probably more credible than whatever bullshit fake news source you got:Sledog said:
Article I posted referenced DNA evidence you claimed you had extensive DNA links to prove your point. Pony up. Your story is full of shit. DNA puts purple in prison pretty convincing stuff.StrongArmCobra said:I don't need it. You need evidence when your trying to disprove something accepted as historical fact. There are primary sources from that time that confirm Jefferson took Sally as his wife, not legally of course, and fathered children with her. It's all documented in detail. All children of white men had to be documented, including who their parents were and Jefferson was a major public figure so the documents were preserved and re-recorded over time. Sally's children had the last name Jefferson. It wasn't that long ago. You can look up all the info yourself:
https://monticello.org/sallyhemings/
You don't even need DNA evidence to confirm because it's in the documentation and primary sources from the people around the Jefferson at the time. The DNA evidence was just further confirmation. But again, what it your fucking point? What's the difference between owning dozens of slaves and raping one of them? It's all bad. Slave rape was common during that time and wasn't taboo.
The right wing loves to white wash history. Ann Coulter is one of the biggest right wing misinformation clowns out there. She's quite an evil cunt. You need to find different news sources or simply read more about history yourself from at least academic text books, not bullshit fake news sources like Ann Coulter.
It's people jobs to record and research this shit and get the facts straight. There is no mass conspiracy among historians to all lie about the same shit. That's nonsense. Some stupid right wing blowhard cunt with zero credibility wrote a bullshit fake news and fake history article and used fake evidence. That's all this is.
https://pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/
"In 1997, Dr. Eugene Foster, a retired medical professor, began investigating the possibility of a genetic link between living descendents of Thomas Jefferson and those of Sally Hemings. He compared the blood from five descendents of Field Jefferson, Thomas's paternal uncle, with the blood of the descendants of Sally Hemings, Thomas Woodson, and the Carrs. The DNA was extracted from the blood samples at the University of Virginia, then sent to Oxford, England where it was tested by three different laboratories. The results showed a match [see chart] between the Y chromosomes of the Field Jefferson descendents and the Eston Hemming descendent, providing strong support to the theory that Thomas Jefferson fathered at least one of Sally Hemings's children. The chances that this match happened by coincidence are less than .1 percent."
And again, the historical documentation is enough to confirm he fathered children with one of his slaves named Sally Hemings. The DNA is not necessary for proof but only further confirms it. Sounds like they only have enough DNA material from living relatives to confirm he fathered one child with her. But the historical documents say he fathered six with her. You think it's likely he took her as his wife, fathered one child with her, and also allowed other men to fuck her and father children on his property with his property? No. -
PBS? Run by the lefties?StrongArmCobra said:
Took me 30 seconds to find. I think PBS is probably more credible than whatever bullshit fake news source you got:Sledog said:
Article I posted referenced DNA evidence you claimed you had extensive DNA links to prove your point. Pony up. Your story is full of shit. DNA puts purple in prison pretty convincing stuff.StrongArmCobra said:I don't need it. You need evidence when your trying to disprove something accepted as historical fact. There are primary sources from that time that confirm Jefferson took Sally as his wife, not legally of course, and fathered children with her. It's all documented in detail. All children of white men had to be documented, including who their parents were and Jefferson was a major public figure so the documents were preserved and re-recorded over time. Sally's children had the last name Jefferson. It wasn't that long ago. You can look up all the info yourself:
https://monticello.org/sallyhemings/
You don't even need DNA evidence to confirm because it's in the documentation and primary sources from the people around the Jefferson at the time. The DNA evidence was just further confirmation. But again, what it your fucking point? What's the difference between owning dozens of slaves and raping one of them? It's all bad. Slave rape was common during that time and wasn't taboo.
The right wing loves to white wash history. Ann Coulter is one of the biggest right wing misinformation clowns out there. She's quite an evil cunt. You need to find different news sources or simply read more about history yourself from at least academic text books, not bullshit fake news sources like Ann Coulter.
It's people jobs to record and research this shit and get the facts straight. There is no mass conspiracy among historians to all lie about the same shit. That's nonsense. Some stupid right wing blowhard cunt with zero credibility wrote a bullshit fake news and fake history article and used fake evidence. That's all this is.
https://pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/
It only links the last child of Gemming to a Jefferson. Not Thomas Jefferson particularly. There were 17 Jefferson males about the place. The big rumor was it was her 1st child. Now it's the 6th with no direct link? -
Lol what the fuck are you talking about? Do you not know how DNA works? They don't need Thomas Jefferson's DNA to know who is and who isn't related to him. The Y chromosome is past down from the paternal side. All they have to do is match the Y chromosome of living descendants.Sledog said:
PBS? Run by the lefties?StrongArmCobra said:
Took me 30 seconds to find. I think PBS is probably more credible than whatever bullshit fake news source you got:Sledog said:
Article I posted referenced DNA evidence you claimed you had extensive DNA links to prove your point. Pony up. Your story is full of shit. DNA puts purple in prison pretty convincing stuff.StrongArmCobra said:I don't need it. You need evidence when your trying to disprove something accepted as historical fact. There are primary sources from that time that confirm Jefferson took Sally as his wife, not legally of course, and fathered children with her. It's all documented in detail. All children of white men had to be documented, including who their parents were and Jefferson was a major public figure so the documents were preserved and re-recorded over time. Sally's children had the last name Jefferson. It wasn't that long ago. You can look up all the info yourself:
https://monticello.org/sallyhemings/
You don't even need DNA evidence to confirm because it's in the documentation and primary sources from the people around the Jefferson at the time. The DNA evidence was just further confirmation. But again, what it your fucking point? What's the difference between owning dozens of slaves and raping one of them? It's all bad. Slave rape was common during that time and wasn't taboo.
The right wing loves to white wash history. Ann Coulter is one of the biggest right wing misinformation clowns out there. She's quite an evil cunt. You need to find different news sources or simply read more about history yourself from at least academic text books, not bullshit fake news sources like Ann Coulter.
It's people jobs to record and research this shit and get the facts straight. There is no mass conspiracy among historians to all lie about the same shit. That's nonsense. Some stupid right wing blowhard cunt with zero credibility wrote a bullshit fake news and fake history article and used fake evidence. That's all this is.
https://pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/
It only links the last child of Gemming to a Jefferson. Not Thomas Jefferson particularly. There were 17 Jefferson males about the place. The big rumor was it was her 1st child. Now it's the 6th with no direct link?
17 other Jefferson males? You mean the male slaves on his fucking plantation who were forced to take the Jefferson last name to identify themselves as his property? They didn't have Jefferson's Y chromosome. Jesus Christ.
Your article is straight bullshit. Sources like Brietbart and Fox News are straight bullshit. Get over it. -
"In 1998, a retired pathologist, Dr. Eugene Foster, performed a DNA test on the Y-chromosomes of living male descendants of Sally Hemings, as well as those from Jefferson’s paternal uncle. The Y-chromosome is passed from male to male, so, if the story were true, Hemings’ male descendants ought to have the Y-chromosome of the Jefferson male bloodline.StrongArmCobra said:
Lol what the fuck are you talking about? Do you not know how DNA works? They don't need Thomas Jefferson's DNA to know who is and who isn't related to him. The Y chromosome is past down from the paternal side. All they have to do is match the Y chromosome of living descendants.Sledog said:
PBS? Run by the lefties?StrongArmCobra said:
Took me 30 seconds to find. I think PBS is probably more credible than whatever bullshit fake news source you got:Sledog said:
Article I posted referenced DNA evidence you claimed you had extensive DNA links to prove your point. Pony up. Your story is full of shit. DNA puts purple in prison pretty convincing stuff.StrongArmCobra said:I don't need it. You need evidence when your trying to disprove something accepted as historical fact. There are primary sources from that time that confirm Jefferson took Sally as his wife, not legally of course, and fathered children with her. It's all documented in detail. All children of white men had to be documented, including who their parents were and Jefferson was a major public figure so the documents were preserved and re-recorded over time. Sally's children had the last name Jefferson. It wasn't that long ago. You can look up all the info yourself:
https://monticello.org/sallyhemings/
You don't even need DNA evidence to confirm because it's in the documentation and primary sources from the people around the Jefferson at the time. The DNA evidence was just further confirmation. But again, what it your fucking point? What's the difference between owning dozens of slaves and raping one of them? It's all bad. Slave rape was common during that time and wasn't taboo.
The right wing loves to white wash history. Ann Coulter is one of the biggest right wing misinformation clowns out there. She's quite an evil cunt. You need to find different news sources or simply read more about history yourself from at least academic text books, not bullshit fake news sources like Ann Coulter.
It's people jobs to record and research this shit and get the facts straight. There is no mass conspiracy among historians to all lie about the same shit. That's nonsense. Some stupid right wing blowhard cunt with zero credibility wrote a bullshit fake news and fake history article and used fake evidence. That's all this is.
https://pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/
It only links the last child of Gemming to a Jefferson. Not Thomas Jefferson particularly. There were 17 Jefferson males about the place. The big rumor was it was her 1st child. Now it's the 6th with no direct link?
17 other Jefferson males? You mean the male slaves on his fucking plantation who were forced to take the Jefferson last name to identify themselves as his property? They didn't have Jefferson's Y chromosome. Jesus Christ.
Your article is straight bullshit. Sources like Brietbart and Fox News are straight bullshit. Get over it.
What the DNA tests showed was that Hemings’ firstborn son, Tom — the Tom whose alleged paternity was the basis for Callender’s accusation — was not related to any Jefferson male.
Foster’s study did establish that Hemings’ last-born son, Eston, was the son of some Jefferson male, but could not possibly say whether that was Thomas Jefferson or any of the other 25 adult male Jeffersons living in Virginia at the time, eight of them at or near Monticello. "
Sorry 25 male Jefferson's. Not slaves. Actual Jefferson males.
So none of the historians of the time believed this crap but now it's true?
DNA says it ain't especially in the case specifically cited at that time of Hemming's first born.
Keep trying. -
Lol 25 other Jefferson's around the state at the time? It's already proven ONE of her children was fathered through DNA evidence. You wanna argue that he possibly passed her around to his relatives and let them have a piece that's fine but that's even worse. She was his slave. Slaves weren't allowed to have sex or get pregnant without their masters consent. Your argument so stupid and futile and pointless and goes against the evidence and facts as well as common sense.Sledog said:
"In 1998, a retired pathologist, Dr. Eugene Foster, performed a DNA test on the Y-chromosomes of living male descendants of Sally Hemings, as well as those from Jefferson’s paternal uncle. The Y-chromosome is passed from male to male, so, if the story were true, Hemings’ male descendants ought to have the Y-chromosome of the Jefferson male bloodline.StrongArmCobra said:
Lol what the fuck are you talking about? Do you not know how DNA works? They don't need Thomas Jefferson's DNA to know who is and who isn't related to him. The Y chromosome is past down from the paternal side. All they have to do is match the Y chromosome of living descendants.Sledog said:
PBS? Run by the lefties?StrongArmCobra said:
Took me 30 seconds to find. I think PBS is probably more credible than whatever bullshit fake news source you got:Sledog said:
Article I posted referenced DNA evidence you claimed you had extensive DNA links to prove your point. Pony up. Your story is full of shit. DNA puts purple in prison pretty convincing stuff.StrongArmCobra said:I don't need it. You need evidence when your trying to disprove something accepted as historical fact. There are primary sources from that time that confirm Jefferson took Sally as his wife, not legally of course, and fathered children with her. It's all documented in detail. All children of white men had to be documented, including who their parents were and Jefferson was a major public figure so the documents were preserved and re-recorded over time. Sally's children had the last name Jefferson. It wasn't that long ago. You can look up all the info yourself:
https://monticello.org/sallyhemings/
You don't even need DNA evidence to confirm because it's in the documentation and primary sources from the people around the Jefferson at the time. The DNA evidence was just further confirmation. But again, what it your fucking point? What's the difference between owning dozens of slaves and raping one of them? It's all bad. Slave rape was common during that time and wasn't taboo.
The right wing loves to white wash history. Ann Coulter is one of the biggest right wing misinformation clowns out there. She's quite an evil cunt. You need to find different news sources or simply read more about history yourself from at least academic text books, not bullshit fake news sources like Ann Coulter.
It's people jobs to record and research this shit and get the facts straight. There is no mass conspiracy among historians to all lie about the same shit. That's nonsense. Some stupid right wing blowhard cunt with zero credibility wrote a bullshit fake news and fake history article and used fake evidence. That's all this is.
https://pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/
It only links the last child of Gemming to a Jefferson. Not Thomas Jefferson particularly. There were 17 Jefferson males about the place. The big rumor was it was her 1st child. Now it's the 6th with no direct link?
17 other Jefferson males? You mean the male slaves on his fucking plantation who were forced to take the Jefferson last name to identify themselves as his property? They didn't have Jefferson's Y chromosome. Jesus Christ.
Your article is straight bullshit. Sources like Brietbart and Fox News are straight bullshit. Get over it.
What the DNA tests showed was that Hemings’ firstborn son, Tom — the Tom whose alleged paternity was the basis for Callender’s accusation — was not related to any Jefferson male.
Foster’s study did establish that Hemings’ last-born son, Eston, was the son of some Jefferson male, but could not possibly say whether that was Thomas Jefferson or any of the other 25 adult male Jeffersons living in Virginia at the time, eight of them at or near Monticello. "
Sorry 25 male Jefferson's. Not slaves. Actual Jefferson males.
So none of the historians of the time believed this crap but now it's true?
DNA says it ain't especially in the case specifically cited at that time of Hemming's first born.
Keep trying.
What is your fucking point? That he wasn't such a bad guy because he owned all these slaves but didn't rape one of them? That's the dumbest fucking argument ever. -
We're both talking about the same DNA test. It does not link the president and does not prove he fathered a child. "Foster admitted that the DNA had not proved Jefferson fathered any children by Sally Hemings, merely that he could have fathered one child. Only eight newspapers mentioned the retraction. "StrongArmCobra said:
Lol 25 other Jefferson's? It's already proven ONE of her children was fathered through DNA evidence. You wanna argue that he possibly passed her around to his relatives and let them have a piece that's fine but that's even worse. She was his slave. Slaves weren't allowed to to have sex or get pregnant without their masters consent. Your argument so stupid and futile and pointless.Sledog said:
"In 1998, a retired pathologist, Dr. Eugene Foster, performed a DNA test on the Y-chromosomes of living male descendants of Sally Hemings, as well as those from Jefferson’s paternal uncle. The Y-chromosome is passed from male to male, so, if the story were true, Hemings’ male descendants ought to have the Y-chromosome of the Jefferson male bloodline.StrongArmCobra said:
Lol what the fuck are you talking about? Do you not know how DNA works? They don't need Thomas Jefferson's DNA to know who is and who isn't related to him. The Y chromosome is past down from the paternal side. All they have to do is match the Y chromosome of living descendants.Sledog said:
PBS? Run by the lefties?StrongArmCobra said:
Took me 30 seconds to find. I think PBS is probably more credible than whatever bullshit fake news source you got:Sledog said:
Article I posted referenced DNA evidence you claimed you had extensive DNA links to prove your point. Pony up. Your story is full of shit. DNA puts purple in prison pretty convincing stuff.StrongArmCobra said:I don't need it. You need evidence when your trying to disprove something accepted as historical fact. There are primary sources from that time that confirm Jefferson took Sally as his wife, not legally of course, and fathered children with her. It's all documented in detail. All children of white men had to be documented, including who their parents were and Jefferson was a major public figure so the documents were preserved and re-recorded over time. Sally's children had the last name Jefferson. It wasn't that long ago. You can look up all the info yourself:
https://monticello.org/sallyhemings/
You don't even need DNA evidence to confirm because it's in the documentation and primary sources from the people around the Jefferson at the time. The DNA evidence was just further confirmation. But again, what it your fucking point? What's the difference between owning dozens of slaves and raping one of them? It's all bad. Slave rape was common during that time and wasn't taboo.
The right wing loves to white wash history. Ann Coulter is one of the biggest right wing misinformation clowns out there. She's quite an evil cunt. You need to find different news sources or simply read more about history yourself from at least academic text books, not bullshit fake news sources like Ann Coulter.
It's people jobs to record and research this shit and get the facts straight. There is no mass conspiracy among historians to all lie about the same shit. That's nonsense. Some stupid right wing blowhard cunt with zero credibility wrote a bullshit fake news and fake history article and used fake evidence. That's all this is.
https://pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/jefferson/true/
It only links the last child of Gemming to a Jefferson. Not Thomas Jefferson particularly. There were 17 Jefferson males about the place. The big rumor was it was her 1st child. Now it's the 6th with no direct link?
17 other Jefferson males? You mean the male slaves on his fucking plantation who were forced to take the Jefferson last name to identify themselves as his property? They didn't have Jefferson's Y chromosome. Jesus Christ.
Your article is straight bullshit. Sources like Brietbart and Fox News are straight bullshit. Get over it.
What the DNA tests showed was that Hemings’ firstborn son, Tom — the Tom whose alleged paternity was the basis for Callender’s accusation — was not related to any Jefferson male.
Foster’s study did establish that Hemings’ last-born son, Eston, was the son of some Jefferson male, but could not possibly say whether that was Thomas Jefferson or any of the other 25 adult male Jeffersons living in Virginia at the time, eight of them at or near Monticello. "
Sorry 25 male Jefferson's. Not slaves. Actual Jefferson males.
So none of the historians of the time believed this crap but now it's true?
DNA says it ain't especially in the case specifically cited at that time of Hemming's first born.
Keep trying.
What is your fucking point? That he wasn't such a bad guy because he owned all these slaves but didn't rape one of them? That's the dumbest fucking argument ever.
My point is that Jefferson is disparaged by the left in order to diminish his accomplishments and the constitution in particular.
Get it?
Others couldn't.
