Some movies get so much right that I can forget what they get wrong. This is the case with The Patriot. Every Independence Day, I watch it – usually alone, because no one else in the family can “take it.” My reasons for doing so are both out of appreciation for the film itself, and to remind me of the cost of my freedom. Even though the events and characters are fictional, they are loosely based on actual individuals from the Revolution. If nothing else, it reminds me that the noise I hear on the 4th of July is fireworks… for the Patriots, it was cannon fire.
Loving this movie as much as I do, I also realize that it is enormously controversial, primarily in its depiction of the English. Now, I am not one of those inclined to lump everyone on the opposing side of conflict into “evil” territory, but the Revolution had its share of barbaric behavior on both sides (including Francis Rawdon-Hastings writing that, ‘The fair nymphs of this isle are in wonderful tribulation… a girl cannot step into the bushes to pluck a rose without running the most imminent risk of being ravished, and they are so little accustomed to these vigorous methods that they don’t bear them with proper resignation, and of consequence we have the most entertaining courtsmartial every day’”). So, to head off potential arguments – the British might not have been “all bad” as shown here through Tavington, but some of them weren’t very nice either, so having a fictional villain as awful as Tavington is not as grievous an insult as some might think. Read the rest of this entry
Since I’ve been talking about different personality types in this blog for awhile, I thought it might be fun to address the personality types of our most famous founders: George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin. Read the rest of this entry
Gratuitous picture of Dillane’s Jefferson supplied by me, because we all need eye candy from time to time. ;)
Over the years, Thomas Jefferson has been accused of atheism, cutting up the Bible, detesting religion and desiring its separation from politics, and fathering children with a slave girl, Sally Hemings. A few of these rumors are taught as “facts” in the classroom, or are widely assumed to be true. Most of them are fabrications, a few are outright lies, and some are taken out of context.
Who was the real Thomas Jefferson? He struggled with his faith. He had very strong opinions. He was an idealist. He was a deeply personal man, who loved his wife with utter devotion, and mourned her loss in the depths of the blackest despair. He suffered from horrific migraines that in his later years kept him bedridden for days on end. He was one of the most articulate, brilliant minds of his generation.
There is a new book out by David Barton that proves how wrong our modern idea of him is, and reveals the origins of where most of our misinformation comes from. After I read the book (entitled “The Jefferson Lies”) I realized how wrong and maligned our perspective on him has been over the last century, and how deep of a faith he actually had.
Jefferson really did cut scriptures out of Bibles, but not because he denied the divinity of Christ. (That is the most popular way scholars try to claim he was anti-religious.) The first reason for cutting up one of his Bibles was because he was cutting out important verses to include in an Indian Bible. Jefferson believed it was best to instruct Indians in the ways of Christ, and then in the miracles of Christ. The second reason was because he was putting what he thought were the most inspiring verses into a personal diary to keep with him everyday. He was not trying to make his own Bible which left out doctrine he didn’t like. He was trying to do quite the opposite. He was creating a private devotional of his own with his own favorite verses and passages. He never intended for this “Bible” to be made public.
Many use the “separation of church and state” comment Jefferson wrote in a letter to say that he was against religion in government. This could not be further from the truth. He believed government had no business making an “official” church or exercising political authority over faith-based groups. He believed in the “separation of church and state” not to protect the government from religion, but to protect religion from the government. If Jefferson believed religion had no place in government, why would he authorize using federal funds for missionary work among the Indians? Why would he be part of a group that agreed to start church services each week in the capitol building?
Today it is taught that Sally Hemings bore the illegitimate children of Thomas Jefferson. What most history books fail to include is that the so-called “DNA evidence” is not only inconclusive, but the tests never included the DNA of Thomas Jefferson himself. All the DNA proves is that some of her children were fathered by a Jefferson. There were a dozen male Jeffersons living in the immediate area. It should also be noted that this rumor was started by a journalist with a grudge. Jefferson refused to give in to this person’s blackmail and appoint him to a local government post, and shortly thereafter the Sally Hemings story started. (The book In Defense of Thomas Jefferson, by William Hyland, explores all the evidence in the case, if you wish to hear all the pros and cons.)
There is nothing to prove Jefferson was pro-slavery. He owned slaves out of obligation. He inherited many through his marriage, and regarded them as “family” so much so that he nearly went broke over his refusal to sell his slaves to cover his mounting debts. He didn’t want them going to unknown homes or having their families broken up.
Thomas Jefferson, like all the other founders, even at his best was imperfect, but he never desecrated the Holy Scriptures, never was pro-slavery, and never had affairs with his slave girls. He was not the most religious of the founders, but neither was he an atheist. Out of all the Founding Fathers, for some reason, possibly his involvement in writing The Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson is the most maligned. But you can take heart. He wasn’t the man you’ve probably been told he was. ♥
There is storytelling and there is revision. The former means entwining actual events with fictional characters, and the latter includes rearranging fictional facts to suit your agenda. As a writer, I’m caught between admiration for those who do it well and horror for those who change things too much. I’m also uncertain whether or not it is disrespectful to do whatever you like with an actual historical figure or literary character.
Recently, monster mash-up books have become popular. I’m sure you have seen them. Queen Victoria and her court full of werewolves, Abraham Lincoln as a vampire hunter, and so forth. Then you have the literary assault in which Jane Eyre dispatches zombies whilst hungering for the love of Edward Rochester, or Colonel Brandon just happens to be a … sea monster? These kinds of books both amuse and offend me, because as an author it seems disrespectful to take someone else’s book and rewrite it full of zombies, vampires, werewolves, and other heinous creatures. But on the other hand, no one will ever believe the story; particularly that a young Honest Abe spent his nights hunting down bloodsucking fiends.