Monday, June 05, 2006
I am in the process of writing a book, now, about Phillis Wheatley, who was a great poetess and the daughter of George Washington,
Yesterday I watched a drama on National Geographic about the Adam of Mankind, where they traced back a DNA link from Thomas Jefferson to Ghengis Khan of Mongolia. I was beside myself with excitement, because I thought the documentary would draw the conclusion that all of mankind sprang from a prototype of mankind found in Asia. But, I knew, from my own research, that Thomas Jefferson had been represented by at least four different persons in the course of time. And according to previous DNA tests concerning mixed offspring of Thomas Jefferson, it had already been implied that Thomas Jefferson was really a French man, ...although he was notably of Scottish ancestry. Then I thought to myself, I can use the recent information on DNA results to verify that one of the persons who was probably the last Thomas Jefferson was one of the Lee brothers (I think either Arthur Lee, who also was a "George Washington," or Richard Lee). A couple of other persons represented Thomas Jefferson, too, and possibly Thomas Jefferson, himself, for a short period, represented another important personage, who was deceased long before his official (recorded) date of death. It all was part of the drama that evolved around Phillis Wheatley and the mad struggle for supreme power.
Tuesday, January 17, 2006
Who could this child have been? Would not the descendents of this child be now in line for a great material, as well as historical, legacy?
As we will see, this geneology case could not have lead the progeny to great material fortune, for the illegitimate child was a mulatto. She was also a genius and, in fact, the African American poetess, Phillis Wheatly. Enchanting, fastidious, concentrated and prolific, Phillis was one of the geniuses of her age.
There is evidence that suggests that Phyllis could remember back to the time when she was three months old!
Biographers conjecture that Phillis came from deepest, darkest Africa, from Senegal, Gambia or Ethiopia, etc. But as we will see, probably Phillis was born in America, a baby given away after the “alleged” death of her controversial but magnificent, slave mother, a pubescent obsession of George Washington, who referred to her in his letters. It is documented that the baby had a baptism performed about 3 months after her suspected mother died.
According to Ann Woodlief, “[Phillis’] only written memory of her birthplace was of her mother performing a ritual of pouring water before the sun as it rose.”
This would mean that the earliest memory Phillis had was one concerning her baptism at the age of about three months.
Many years later, in one of her poems, Phillis writes so eloquently:
“Some view our sable race with scornful eye,
Their [our] colour is a diabolic die.
Negroes, black as Cain,
May be refine’d and join th’ angelic train.”
These facts alone raise questions about the ultimate fate of George Washington. Could he ever had become the first President of the U.S. after such a breach of the code of conduct? It is well known that there was an assassination plot against him in 1777. Did it succeed? Portraits from the colonial period imply that there could have been a substitution. And who could have replaced George Washington? Was it possibly Horatio Gates, Peter Schuyler or possibly Arthur Lee? We will return to this topic later.
Eventually, it will become clear that the story that is really being told here is the story of "Jacob's Ladder." The expression "Jacob's Ladder" can be considered a metaphor for the military tradition of replacing fallen leaders with successors of the same name and without delay, such as in the tradition behind the expression, "The King is dead. Long live the King." It consisted of the taking over of identities of deceased persons without announcement. By means of this habit, a successor, even one not in the blood-line, but with the same family name, could inherit the property of his namesake. It is a principle not too different from the one practiced by Biblical Jacob, who covered his arms in animal skins to fool his father into thinking he was Esau, the older brother, who was in line to receive his father's blessing and birthright. It is my belief that this practice was applied many times in the lives of the American heroes we have celebrated for so long.
We can say this: Whoever was the first President of the U.S., he was a symbolic mascot, one among others, for the powerful interest group that he represented.
Settlers of the new continent were, in some ways, only marginally better off than the African captives, since their everyday affairs and activities could be suddenly interrupted or halted by the chief, military contenders, i.e., the British, the French, the Indians, the Spanish, etc. but also the Chinese and Old South Church, that were operating in their midst. The estates of settlers, their houses or persons could be seized at any time, as they went about their daily affairs between the continually occupying battalions. Their possessions could be burned or seized during witch-hunts, Indian raids, grass-roots or racial rebellions. Life could be treacherous and uncertain.
In 1754, like many others, George Washington was striving, amid this motley battlefield and display of sovereign powers and military institutions, to make his fortune. Among his personal qualities, he had a reticence, shrewdness and humility that inspired the confidence and respect of other young recruits. He was liked and regarded as a true son of the American soil, with a love of nature and knowledge of the natural terrain that was truly considerable. Although a young land owner and budding, potential country gentleman, he obviously aspired to a military career and title.
In principle, this meant that much of his time would be spent in uncomfortable forts, short of provisions and uniforms, where soldiers died usually of starvation or disease and sometimes of grievous wounds without the help of any medical treatment. The profession of "soldier" was not just a job; In fact, it was a man trap.
Copyright 2005 La Di La Dah.
Monday, January 16, 2006
During the colonial period, there were several prominent families who captured the interest and imagination of their contemporaries and these families apparently played initial and significant roles in the destinies of George Washington and Phillis Wheatly. Among these were the van Cortlandts, the Jay’s, the Whites, the Philipses, the Robinson’s, the Chew’s, the Lee’s, the Putnam’s, the Livingston’s (or possibly the Jefferson’s?). We mention them briefly here but will return to their stories in detail later.
To understand the political arena, the Philipse family operated in, imagine man lands on the planet of Mars and a new quest for domination begins on the red planet. Your familiy arrives as astronauts there and, fortunately, strike it rich by
- finding gold or oil and/or gems
- win a favorable contract for a vast area of land from the martians.
According to Edward Hagaman Hall, L.H.D,
“It is not a little singular that this rich domain, so eligibly situated for commerce by reason of its location on the Hudson and so attractive on account of its good farm land and mill-streams, should so long have escaped bestowal upon some influential and worthy citizen of the Colony, after tracts more remote had been granted by the Crown to Thomas Pell, Kiliaen Van Rensselaer and Robert Livingston, not to mention less notable characters. It cannot be denied, however, that when Philipsborough Manor was created by Royal Charter on June 12, 1693, it was worthily bestowed.
“Frederick Philipse, the grantee, was born in Bolswaert, Friesland, in 1626 – the year in which Peter Minuit, the first Director-General of New Netherland, arrived at Manhattan Island with a fully equipped government and the year from which the City of New York dates its first permanent settlement. ...
his first appearance in the documentary history of the colony shows him acting as arbitrator in establishing the valuation of some disputed real estate in New Amsterdam. His native ability is also shown by the rapidity with which he rose from the calling of architect and builder, in which official capacity he served the West India Company, to become the leading merchant of his day and the possessor of a large fortune.”
Copyright La Di La Dah 2005
Sunday, January 15, 2006
“When the first Lord of the Manor died in 1702, he closed a career in which he may well have taken pride....It is a curious contrast of fate that the first Lord of the Manor, who was contumacious of the King's authority, died in possession of his estate, while the third Lord lost his because of loyalty to the King.”
According to Hall, “There was probably little luxury in the residences at Philipse's mills during the incumbency of the first Lord of the Manor…but with the advent of the second proprietor, the more settled condition of the country and greater security encouraged social life and gradually led to the Manor Hall becoming the centre of more social activity “
Mary Philipse, her wealth and beauty, coupled with a rumored marriage proposal from George Washington, became the intriguing subject of a romantic legend. Rumors of parties and hospitality to soldiers and visitors to the region became part of the folklore about their house, Manor Hall (and, later, Beverly House).
Another rumor concerned Susannah Philipse and Beverly Robinson. The latter came of a distinguished Virginian family, being the son of John Robinson who was President of the Colony of Virginia upon the retirement of Governor Gooch in 1734. He proposed to the 23-year old Susannah and their marriage about the year 1750 was one of the social events of the day.
Later, as we will see, however, the validity of the Philipse patent was challenged by the Wappinger Indians (perhaps under persuasion of Chinese politicians and the freemason societies), who believed that they were paying too much for their leases, especially after having served a stint in the American military, especially during the French and Indian War. But the court system, at that time, supported the legality of the Philipse's patent. Eventually, however, and after the Revolutionary War, the Philipses were deemed loyalists and lost all of their land except for the portion bequeathed to their children.
But were the Philipses ever real? A search in the records of vital statistics shows that a Susanna Philipse was born (in 1723) who died in the same year. Another Susanna Phillipse was born in 1727 and supposedly married Beverly Robinson, who took over her land possessions, but her trail seems to disappear after 1764 when leasers and Wappinger Indians revolted and ran Beverly Robinson off the land. A third puzzling piece of the puzzle comes in with the appearance of a Susannah Robinson, with the extra letter h on the end of her first name. Was she the same person as Susanna Robinson?
Copyright 2005 La Di La Dah.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Friday, January 13, 2006
Vital statistics of some of their early, colonial members and congregation, I believe, were taken note of in The History of Chelmsford, Mass. by Rev. Wilson Waters. Therein it states about a Mrs. Fiske, who had recently passed away:
"She, by her incomparable expertness in the scripture, had rendered any concordance of the Bible in his [Mr. Fiske's] library useless. Some years before her death she lost her sight. Under this disaster she exhibited a most exemplary patience by her view of the things which are not seen and are eternal. After many admonitions to her friends to improve their sight well whilst they had it; on the 14th February, 1671, she had her eyes opened by their being closed, and was by death carried from faith to immediate and everlasting sight."
Although not a Freemason, having, in the past, taught math at the Ohio State University and Howard University (also, my master thesis' title having been mentioned in the movie, "A Beautiful Mind" about Nobel prize winner, John Nash) I might be trusted to have some authority in claiming that there is a type of code or encrypted message that can be read from the events that took place in the lives of colonial Freemasons and which also tells a different story than the usual one about the course of American history. The few aspects I have deciphered and their interpretation will be revealed later. It is on the basis of my personal interpretation of the "code" that I will justify many unorthodox views on the events and personalities of colonial American history.