|
|
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 97
From: k bellYou need to have more pictures on this site. Otherwise it's perfect!
Response from Eyler Coates:
Thanks. The original work did not have any pictures, but that needn't prevent us from using them. Finding pictures that would be relevant to the text might prove to be difficult, but I'll see what can be done. It would be interesting to know if anyone else thinks the site needs more graphics.
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 97
From: jonturkGreat work. One question in regards to the Louisiana Purchase, Was there an abstention vote during the Senate's ratification? I see the vote was 24 to 7 -- a total of 31 votes and an odd number. Since each state was allotted two senators -- why the unequal no. of votes re: this treaty?
Response from Eyler Coates:
I'm sorry, but my resources are not sufficient to give you a precise answer. According to Dumas Malone, "Jefferson... himself estimated the division to be 25 to 9 in the Senate and 103 to 39 in the House... but the margin of approval was even greater than anticipated. Since there was no Republican defection and Senator Jonathan Dayton of New Jersey deserted his Federalist colleagues, the vote was 24 to 7." ("Jefferson and His Time," vol. 4, pg. 325-326)
Malone gives no explanation for the missing three votes. We know, however, that votes that do not add up to the total number of members are common in the Congress, due to absences, etc.
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 97
From: RUBEN TOLEDOHi. I was just wondering how come Britain was so cruel to the New World colonies? Why didn't they just give them freedom and the opportunity to trade and to communicate with the rest of the world?
Response from Eyler Coates:
The short answer is, greed and the desire to exploit people. The colonists could only trade through Great Britain, and taxes were imposed without the consent of the colonists. Even if the colonists wanted to sell or purchase goods from the West Indies, those goods had to go through a British port. All of this meant, of course, that the colonies were like a big cash cow that the British merchants, the King, and Parliament could milk on their own terms. Moreover, the colonists themselves had no voice -- "no representation" -- in the government that controlled this arrangement. If they objected, if they rebelled, they were punished severely. This, to our Founding Fathers, was like reducing a people entitled to be free to a state of bondage and servitude. The colonists went for years humbly seeking redress, sometimes rebelliously standing up for their rights, until finally they became convinced that there was nothing they could do but declare their independence, which they did in terms that became an inspiration to the whole world and to all succeeding generations. As Jefferson wrote,
"If ever there was a holy war, it was that which saved our liberties and gave us independence." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813.
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 97 01:09:49
From: Joshua SachtChapter 29. The Louisiana Purchase
Q: Where does all of this information come from?
What texts/documents were used?Response from Eyler Coates:
The above question, though mentioning specifically Chapter 29, is pertinent to the entire book, hence it is included here. It goes to the heart of the whole problem with Rayner's biography. Rayner provide almost zero bibliographical sources for the materials in his book. This is no doubt one reason why the book is not well-recognized in scholarly circles. Yet, it is a fascinating account and tells the story of the founding of this nation from a republican point of view -- something that just is not available anywhere else. It would be a shame to discard such an exciting story just because its citation of sources does not meet modern scholarly standards. At the same time, the reader deserves some kind of assurance that the materials are not made from whole cloth.
In editing this text, I endeavored to find acceptable backup for the quotations and the relating of events from standard reputable sources as I prepared it, chapter by chapter. If this was not possible and the material seemed questionable, I appended a note stating so. On at least one occasion, I substituted a story from an entirely authentic source for one in the original text that was similar but highly questionable. There may be some minor incidents that slipped by, but I tried to verify all questionable materials, and preferred to omit portions that seemed unreliable and not consonant with the biographical details contained in the standard biographies of Jefferson.
It was my hope that history teachers and students might adopt, say, a chapter or a series of chapters, critique Rayner's portrayal, and explain how it differs from that in other biographies. I even proposed such a project to a group of history teachers, but it was completely ignored. They seemed more interested in Sally Hemings, as if she had any significance at all to the great issues that engaged the attention of our Founding Fathers.
You will notice, however, that no biography of Jefferson or of anyone else provides sources for every bit of information included therein. It is obvious that Rayner was in contact with persons directly involved with Jefferson and knew intimately many of the details himself. Most of the events recorded by Rayner are easily traceable and verifiable. Before dismissing his account, therefore, we should require at least some evidence that his account is mistaken. And since the bulk of it is in accordance with known facts and materials, we must assume that any portions at variance with actual events are insignificant and inconsequential.
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 97
From: TonyFrom Ansonia, CT -- GREAT PAGE -- helped a lot with my assignment!!!
Thanks a lot.
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97
From: Josh GreeneALL there was more information on this one site then on all the other (50 or so) websites I have visited previously. Thanks so much for making a GREAT website.
-josh-
Top of This Page | Return to Front Page
This page hosted by GeoCities. Get your own Free Home Page.
© 1997 by Eyler Robert Coates, Sr.