The bane of us rational hard-working types the world over.
So, how exactly does one subordinate basic facts and inconvenient truths and rise to a position of emotional influence? Is there a noticeable point at which someone's story sheds it's factual skin and become legend?
No need to answer, I'll just watch the news and learn it from Harper.
An interesting diversion.
Some things about Jefferson I have learned never to forget:
Lots of Founding Fathers had slaves, although some freed them while living (e.g., Franklin) and others freed them in their wills (e.g., Washington). Jefferson had them, kept them, and fathered children with them. It's gotta say something about the man's soul.
Jefferson did not write the legendary words ascribed to him, and which place him at the pinnacle of the philosophers who crafted the nation. Specifically, he did NOT write "I hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal... " What he wrote was "I hold these truths to be sacred and inviolatable..." It was Franklin who changed the words (his bold cross-outs on the original draft remain extant, as do his explanations for the changes). First, Franklin recognized that the word "sacred" was too religious for so secular a document, particularly given its pledge to separate church and state. And "inviolatable" struck Dr. Franklin as unnecessarily obtuse and difficult (which it is). So, those words were neither original (they were borrowed from the French philosophes), they were pretty crappy as written by Jefferson (the credit should go to Franklin, the old codger), and they were a lie (as Jefferson personally kept slaves and considered Native Americans less than fully equal).
Jefferson was extraordinarily ill-disciplined, especially with his own money. He was a known wasteful spender -- a flawed character trait noted not only by infamous tight-wads like John Adams, but also by infamous gregarious Benjamin Franklin. (Unlike Jefferson, both Adams and Franklin practiced what they preached, tho they preached very different sermons, indeed). Jefferson was known to buy enormous quanitites of books with money he did not have, and then compounded his excessive spending by dabbling in architecure and landscaping, once again spending enormous sums that he did not have. He would also tinker with designs for columns for his estate instead of working on matters of import for which he was elected.
Jefferson did not obtain the Louisiana Purchase through some great effort or insight or foresight or planning, as is sometimes taught in American schools. Rather, the United States doubled in size because Jefferson had the good fortune of being president at precisely the time Napoleon desperately needed money to raise, equip, train and feed his enormous armies and navies for the wars in Europe -- and because the best way for Napoleon to do that was to sell 1/3 of North America to the Americans at cut-rate prices. True, Jefferson had the intelligence to say "yes" when Napoleon offered to sell the land -- but the offered price was so rediculously low that even George W. Bush could not possibly have screwed that one up.
Jefferson was no military genius, either. In one notorious episode (although one I personally find understandable), he fled just ahead of a superior British force in Virginia during the American Revolution, rather than do the honorable thing like defend himself and his charges. He did not fight in the war. And he later supported the War of 1812, famously announcing that the capture of Canada would be "a mere matter of marching." Thirteen cross-border campaigns later, not one inch of Canada went to the Americans. Last time I checked, Canada is still there.
As a politician, Jefferson was utterly ruthless, backing (even encouraging) some of the worst mud-slinging in the history of the free democratic press anywhere in the world, excoriating rivals such as John Adams in ways that make today's politics seem downright bland.
And although he looks impressive in marble, Jefferson had a high-pitched voice that apparently sounded like his britches were tied too tight. In other words, he would not get elected in today's world -- not manly enough, or so it would seem. In fact, without slaves around anymore, the man worshipped as one of the greatest Founding Fathers might even have trouble getting laid.
