Bacon's Rebellion

T.J. Becomes Governor

—

by

James A. Bacon
in

In his victory speech, Virginia’s new governor-elect Bob McDonnell spoke of his pride at holding the same post as so many awe-inspiring political figures and symbols of American Freedom and Rights of Man such as Thomas Jefferson.

As a non-Virginian who happens to live here, I am constantly amused by the mythology that white and mostly Virginian historians lay down about Jefferson and many others of his era. These folks are real warriors for rights, they claim, yet they were slaveholders. And when it is pointed out that many of the White Supremacy types, including Jefferson, crossed the sexual line with African-Americans, they shake their heads in disbelief.

This is a fascinating issue since I am finally reading Annette Gordon-Reed’s brilliant history “The Hemingses of Monticello, an American Family,” which details the forbidden fruit of T.J.’s sexual relationship with a favored slave.

Here’s one citation from the book about what was involved when T.J. was appointed governor of Virginia in 1779. He brought along quite a gathering of slave-servants:

“Seventeen-year-old Robert Hemings drove the phaeton that brought Jefferson and his family the the capital in Williamsburg in 1779. His brothers Martin and James rode alongside on horseback. All three men were there to perform the same
services they performed at Monticello — Martin, to be the butler for the governor’s household, and Robert and James to be Jefferson’s personal servants. Their half sisters Mary Hemings and Betty Brown were brought along as well. Mary was twenty-six by then the mother of Elizabeth Hemings’s first two grandchildren. Daniel Farley, who waseseven, and Molly, who was two. The Hemingses were joined by at least six other slaves; Jupiter and his wife Suckey, the cook John, and George and Ursula Granger and their son Isaac, who went by the name Jefferson.”

I wonder how many McDonnell will be bringing along when he moves to Richmond?
Peter Galuszka

Share this article

ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)

Comments

Comments

17 responses to “T.J. Becomes Governor”

  1. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    alright Peter.. I'm usually with you on most of your perspectives, but you lost me on this one unless you know more about McDonnells family tree than I do (which I admit is zilch).

  2. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Larry and Peter:

    We all need to recall that that was 'then' and this is 'now.'

    What is most important about this story is the too many now think they should be able, as individuals, to get away with making the decsisions 'now' that some did 'then.'

    On a planet with 6.7 Billion people it is not what individuals have the 'right' to do, it is finding the 'right' thing for citizens both as individuals and as communities (NB small 'c' communities) to do.

    EMR

  3. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    EMR,
    No, we do not need to recall that "that was then and this is now."
    I think we need to consider new views of history especially if they are more honest than the crap we've been fed for decades if not centuries.

    Peter Galuszka

  4. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Peter said:

    EMR,

    "No, we do not need to recall that "that was then and this is now."

    "I think we need to consider new views of history especially if they are more honest than the crap we've been fed for decades if not centuries."

    EMR agrees with the second statement but that statement does not challenge the validity of EMR's statement that you quote and dismiss.

    EMR was talking about what were acceptable pratices then and what is acceptable now, not the accuracy of reporting them.

    you are right that wrapping onself in the sugar coated myths of the past is foolish. It reflects badly on all members of both political clans.

    EMR

  5. subpatre Avatar
    subpatre

    The only thing anyone needs to remember is that Peter Galuszka lost; his team got creamed, his squad got mobbed. Gooze views lose.

    All the rest is sour grapes. His post —trying to throw mud at McDonnell via our Founders— doesn’t make a lick of sense and isn’t even logical. Of course it isn’t. As a “progressive” Glauszka isn’t a rational person, he is an emotional person, and right now the emotion is rage at being such a huge loser.

    It’s sour, bitter, ugly, venomous grapes.

  6. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    subparte,
    too bad tyou don't rwad Bacon's Rebellion regularly because you are missing the point. I simply found a passage from a history book interested and used McDonnell's victory as a way to launch it.

    As for McDonnell, true, I am not a fan, but you might want to read this:

    http://baconsrebellion.blogspot.com/2009/10/mcdonnells-smart-campaign.html

    Peter Galuszka

  7. E M Risse Avatar
    E M Risse

    Subparte:

    It is not just sour grapes.

    There is something dispicable about the way the "leadership" of political clans try to hood wink citizens who do not have time to consider or understand the ramifications of the electeds superficial attempts to wrap themselves in favorable images.

    Also EMRs prior comment about "acceptable then" should not be interperted to suggest that such behavior was ever right. It may have been common pratice among those at the top of the Ziggurat "then"
    and should not be for anyone "now."

    EMR

  8. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "We all need to recall that that was 'then' and this is 'now.'"

    You really thinks so? My standing invitation is still open. Just show up any Saturday morning and I'll put you to work as a Fauquier county land serf.

    RH

  9. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    it is finding the 'right' thing for citizens both as individuals and as communities (NB small 'c' communities) to do.

    The right thing for individuals to do is whatever brings them the most profit. Short term or long term makes no difference. The way you make long term profits is make short term profits and reinvest them.

    The right thing for communities to do is ONLY those things that profit everyone and disprofit no one.

    RH

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The only thing anyone needs to remember is that Peter Galuszka lost; his team got creamed, his squad got mobbed. Gooze views lose."

    Nonsense. Democrats lost this round. If the Democrats really got creamed, they woudl fold and come back as the No Nothings, or some other party.

    Republicans won the right to try to use their approach, and their view of the world to accomplish something. To make life better for Virginians.

    With their approach to getting things done, all I can say is good luck.

    TC = PC + EC + GC

    Reducing GC (government cost) alone is not the way to reduce total costs, which is how you make Virginians better off.

    RH

  11. subpatre Avatar
    subpatre

    Peter Galuszka wrote: "I wonder how many [slaves] McDonnell will be bringing along when he moves to Richmond?"

    Sour, bitter grapes from a poor loser.

  12. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Look at the right side, Peter.

    He'll be a lame duck on his first day in office.

    RH

  13. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The best way to make Virginians better off would be to break the cycle of treating property rights in dirt as being greater than other property rights. Our transportation problems stem from local official approving more development than the transportation system can handle.

    Let's stop that foolishness.

    TMT

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    It seems to me, or what it sounds like is that you are suggesting that other property rights are greater than property rights in dirt.

    This is not a good way to protect your property rights because once ANYONE can claim,or is allowed to claim, a superior property right, then no one's rights are safe.

    You follow that line of reasoning at your own peril becasue it leads right back to the idea that the King owns everything by divine right.

    —————————–

    My comment that the best thing Virginains can do is to seek the maximum profit at every tep is based on the idea that to do any less means that you now have fewer resources with which to do good work.

    ——————————–

    "Our transportation problems stem from local official approving more development than the transportation system can handle."

    That is one way to look at it.

    95% of our congestion occurs on 10% of the roadways 15% of the time, so it would be equally correct to say that local officials have approved too much development in two few places. That our transportation system can, in fact, handle much more than it does using roads that are not now utilized.

    The argument here is that congestion has two sources, the beginning of the trips and the end of the trips (the business end). My experience has USUALLY (but not always) been that the closer you get to the business end, the more congestion you have.

    And yet, strangely enough, our efforts to control development mostly descend on the residential development. If we have the authority to control residential development then so have we the authority to control commercial development. It would appear that if optimizing our present transportation systemm is the goal then adjusting commercial development will yield the most results for the least effort and money.

    But, for political reasons that have nothing to do with logic we seem to prefer beating up on the little guy: prospective homeowners. They are the ones that take the brunt of our efforts to control traffic. And yet, those efforts have been unsuccessful, which also implies that maybe we should be focusing on fixing the excess density of commercial development.

    But that idea flies in the face of the conservationists who think that the way to conserve open space is to call cities green and sustainable. these are the same green people who use the slogan "congestion is our friend".

    ———————

    The third way to look at it is that we have increased the number of veicles and the amont of commerce much faster than we have increased the amount of roadway. That is going to be hard to do in areas that are already built up, and probably already in nonattainment.

    We've got three general ways to approach this: one doesn't look so hot, one hasn't worked so far, and the third one is happening by default but ever so slowly.

    RH

  15. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The best way to make Virginians better off would be to break the cycle of treating property rights in dirt as being greater than other property rights. "

    I have never suggested that property rights in dirt are greater than other property rights – only that they are equal.

    They should be protected equally, meaning that they cannot be taken for public use without compensation.

    ————————–

    "When politicians talk about placing natural resources in public trust, landowners should be worried. The right to own and use private property is a bedrock principle of a free people. These rights are threatened by House Bill 5319, which would place groundwater in public trust and require landowners to secure a permit from the state of Michigan in order to use that water. The bill would essentially overturn more than a century of Michigan water law.

    Property rights are often compared to a bundle of sticks. Philosopher John Locke was an early proponent of this idea, which holds that the sticks that make up the bundle are a compilation of the various rights that come with owning private property, including the rights to live on or bequeath it.

    Water rights are a significant "stick" in that bundle. With the introduction of House Bill 5319, Michigan property owners are threatened by government action that would steal a stick from that bundle and give it to the state.

    ……………….

    Increasing government control of water in the state would not only be a taking of private property, but would be a serious threat to future economic growth. Access to abundant water in the state is a key advantage Michigan has in attracting much-needed jobs in energy, agriculture and manufacturing, including the so-called green jobs Gov. Jennifer Granholm seeks. The state cannot afford to throw that advantage away, especially since Michigan is not threatened by a shortage of water.

    Rather than threatening water rights, Michigan needs to follow the example of Ohio. A ballot initiative amending the Ohio Constitution and protecting the rights of landowners to use groundwater was approved by an impressive 72 percent of the voters in the November 2008 election. The constitutional amendment in Ohio merely codified existing riparian water law, which was similar to the kind used successfully in Michigan for the past century.

    Many Michigan officials seem more interested in taking away existing rights of property owners rather than protecting them. It may be time to take the critical issue of property rights directly to the voters, bypassing the political class. As the Ohio example shows, residents understand the importance of property rights better than do many politicians."

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Here is another spin on Property rights in dirt:

    CHATTANOOGA, Tenn. (AP) — A legal fight over ownership of mountain stone — and whether property owners can stop removal of the decorative rocks by others who hold mineral rights to their land — goes to trial before a Tennessee judge Tuesday.

    They key question may be: Is a rock a mineral?

    Ed Lewis and four other property owners on Sequatchie County's Fredonia Mountain contend that if owners of mineral rights are allowed to take the rocks, the property owners' scenic bluffs and land covered with hardwoods and evergreens will be ruined by blasting and bulldozers.

    A chancery judge will decide if mineral rights from decades ago also apply to sandstone, fieldstone and flagstone on the mountain north of Chattanooga. Demand for the rocks has grown in recent years for building houses, commercial buildings, fireplaces and landscaping.

    The judge's decision could have implications for many property owners who don't own the mineral rights to their land.

    Roy Rumfelt, director of real property for neighboring Hamilton County in Chattanooga, has said of the mountainous region that "about 50 percent of the properties are owned by people who don't own the mineral rights."

    —————————-

    Oops, there's your bundle of sticks problem. so we hae development rights, water rights, ineral rights, all of which can be bought and sold independent of the dirt.

    Regardless of which kind of property I own, I want it protected equally as any other person;s property. No more, no less.

    RH

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    That's the interesting thing about KELO. KELO says the government can take your property for just about any public purpose, including giving it to someone else who will pay more taxes on it (more taxes being a "public purpose").

    But that also implies that they have to PAY for it under eminent domain.

    Communities that have enacted new ordinances to prevent the application of KELO may also be preventing their citiezens from gatting paid for a taking.

    RH

Leave a Reply

ADVERTISEMENT