Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[thegreekdog]

Well said.

Neoteny said it first and more succinctly. I thought maybe BBS would respond better to more words.

I mostly agree with your argument, but #3 and #4 shall be attacked without mercy!

Good, because #2 is the linchpin of my argument. The relationship between master and slave is inherently coercive. It is akin to the relationship between a prison guard and a prisoner (although even worse - prison guards can't beat the prisoners if they are lazy and not being "industrious").

I define "rape" as an involuntary exchange of sexual activities, and an "involuntary exchange" occurs when coercion or the threat of coercion is acted upon/engaged. To be clear, a voluntary exchange occurs when neither party uses coercion or threatens with coercion to make the exchange happen.

Ah, so you don't agree with my #2. I don't think there needs to be an overt threat of coercion for coercion to occur. As I indicated before, if the master says "have sex with me" to the slave, the slave is under the implied threat of coercion if she does not obey the order.

Are voluntary exchanges impossible between a master and a slave? I think they are. I think any request or order will have the threat of coercion behind it. Even if the slave says "You know, I do want to have sex with Tommy," there is an implication that if she didn't, she would face some punishment.

As for your true love comment...

"There, he said it - true love."
"No, what he clearly said was 'to blave' which means to bluff. You were probably playing cards and he cheated..."

In any event, we do know that the threat of coercion existed in the mind of the slave and therefore any interaction between slave and master was coercive. The only way I can foresee coercion not existing is if the slave was the one making the offer; even then there may have been non-verbal cues that Tommy wanted to have sex with the slave.

[BigBallinStalin]

Bollocks.

"we do know that the threat of coercion existed in the mind of the slave and therefore any interaction between slave and master was coercive."

And perhaps it didn't in this particular circumstance. Since we cannot know for certain, then we cannot come to your conclusion.

[stahrgazer]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

She was, however, given "her time," which is described as the only feasible way of freeing a slave in Virginia without forcing her to leave.

And, she was frequently PAID.

NOT the treatment of a slave so fearful of massah she'd be "coerced" by threat of his ownership.

If mere "coercion because he is rich and powerful" is the same as rape, than any richer man having sex with any woman must therefore have raped her, because their is coercion in the woman's mind of a man being absolutely able to take care of her.

[Symmetry]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

Ifs true, this is evidence of coercion.

[stahrgazer]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

Ifs true, this is evidence of coercion.

Then the State of Virginia is guilty of Raping Sally - not Jefferson - because it's the State of Virginia that forced this situation on all of them.

Not to mention, it's evidence she wished to stay, not leave (but if Jefferson were a rapist, she'd want to leave.)

[Symmetry]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

Ifs true, this is evidence of coercion.

Then the State of Virginia is guilty of Raping Sally - not Jefferson - because it's the State of Virginia that forced this situation on all of them.

No- if you're now allowing that it was rape, then Jefferson committed the act.

[stahrgazer]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

Ifs true, this is evidence of coercion.

Then the State of Virginia is guilty of Raping Sally - not Jefferson - because it's the State of Virginia that forced this situation on all of them.

No- if you're now allowing that it was rape, then Jefferson committed the act.

No. You have agreed over and over again that "coercion = rape" (I disagree that all coercion is rape, but it's a claim you've agreed with.)

Thus, the party doing the coercion must be the rapist. Since the State of Virginia is the one that decided that Sally must either leave Virginia or remain as slave in name (because she was getting free time for herself and sometimes being paid, she wasn't being treated as slave by the Jefferson family.)

it follows that, if "coercion" = "rape" then it's the State of Virginia that raped her; and, it appears that she must have chosen it as well, since she DID have ample opportunity to leave.

There's no evidence that Jefferson coerced her.

There's only evidence that the State of Virginia wouldn't allow her to live in Virginia as a totally free black woman.

[Symmetry]

You are negating the fact that Sally had ample opportunities to leave the family, but she could not STAY with the family in Virginia as a free woman.

Ifs true, this is evidence of coercion.

Then the State of Virginia is guilty of Raping Sally - not Jefferson - because it's the State of Virginia that forced this situation on all of them.

No- if you're now allowing that it was rape, then Jefferson committed the act.

No. You have agreed over and over again that "coercion = rape" (I disagree that all coercion is rape, but it's a claim you've agreed with.)

Thus, the party doing the coercion must be the rapist. Since the State of Virginia is the one that decided that Sally must either leave Virginia or remain as slave in name (because she was getting free time for herself and sometimes being paid, she wasn't being treated as slave by the Jefferson family.)

it follows that, if "coercion" = "rape" then it's the State of Virginia that raped her; and, it appears that she must have chosen it as well, since she DID have ample opportunity to leave.

There's no evidence that Jefferson coerced her.

There's only evidence that the State of Virginia wouldn't allow her to live in Virginia as a totally free black woman.

I have said that sex without freedom to consent is rape. So two questions.

1) Do you agree?
2) Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

[stahrgazer]

I have said that sex without freedom to consent is rape. So two questions.

1) Do you agree?
2) Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

1) Yes, sex without freedom to consent is rape; however, "freedom to consent" differs from "legal right to consent."

We can agree that Sally didn't have a "legal" right to consent.

What you wish to ignore is that, just because she didn't have a "legal" right doesn't mean the person in power was such a dickhead that he didn't ALLOW her the "freedom to consent."

A slave couldn't eat meat without massah's permission; doesn't mean the slave didn't frequently get to eat meat, nor does it mean the slave wasn't allowed to CHOOSE meat or CHOOSE vegetables at a meal. Because the owner very well could have GIVEN the slave FREEDOM TO CONSENT over what he or she ate.

No evidence suggests that Jefferson was such a total dickhead that he had to rape anything in skirts or was an abusive powermonger type "owner." No evidence suggests that he was such a gamester that he'd give freedom to consent then, if she made the "wrong choice" he take it away.

Evidence DOES suggest that Sally WAS given freedom to consent on things regarding her life. She she was GIVEN money, she was GIVEN an education, she was GIVEN clothing. She was GIVEN ample opportunity to flee if she wished; and she was GIVEN freedom of her own time, which was the closest thing to "full freedom" allowed in the state of Virginia at that time - since she apparently wished to remain in Virginia.

If she was given all those freedoms, and Jefferson wasn't a powermonger type dickhead, then she likely was given freedom to consent. Recognized between them, but NOT recognized by the state of Virginia.

So if any "rape" occurred due to "coercion," the coercion was by the state of Virginia, so the state, not Jefferson, is the rapist.

I think it's more likely that Jefferson was attracted to his deceased wife's half sister and she to him and that she consented, which is not rape.

2) irrelevant

[Symmetry]

I have said that sex without freedom to consent is rape. So two questions.

1) Do you agree?
2) Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

1) Yes, sex without freedom to consent is rape; however, "freedom to consent" differs from "legal right to consent."

We can agree that Sally didn't have a "legal" right to consent.

What you wish to ignore is that, just because she didn't have a "legal" right doesn't mean the person in power was such a dickhead that he didn't ALLOW her the "freedom to consent."

A slave couldn't eat meat without massah's permission; doesn't mean the slave didn't frequently get to eat meat, nor does it mean the slave wasn't allowed to CHOOSE meat or CHOOSE vegetables at a meal. Because the owner very well could have GIVEN the slave FREEDOM TO CONSENT over what he or she ate.

No evidence suggests that Jefferson was such a total dickhead that he had to rape anything in skirts or was an abusive powermonger type "owner." No evidence suggests that he was such a gamester that he'd give freedom to consent then, if she made the "wrong choice" he take it away.

Evidence DOES suggest that Sally WAS given freedom to consent on things regarding her life. She she was GIVEN money, she was GIVEN an education, she was GIVEN clothing. She was GIVEN ample opportunity to flee if she wished; and she was GIVEN freedom of her own time, which was the closest thing to "full freedom" allowed in the state of Virginia at that time - since she apparently wished to remain in Virginia.

If she was given all those freedoms, and Jefferson wasn't a powermonger type dickhead, then she likely was given freedom to consent. Recognized between them, but NOT recognized by the state of Virginia.

So if any "rape" occurred due to "coercion," the coercion was by the state of Virginia, so the state, not Jefferson, is the rapist.

2) irrelevant

1) He never freed her.
2) That you consider the question of consent so irrelevant to sexual acts is telling.

[stahrgazer]

1) He never freed her.

He freed her as much as allowed in the State of Virginia if she wished to remain in the State of Virginia and the evidence indicates she DID wish to remain.

2) That you consider the question of consent so irrelevant to sexual acts is telling.

What's telling is that you consider what I'd do as evidence of what the State of Virginia allowed Jefferson to do to free his black mistress and still allow her to be near him.

[Night Strike]

1) He never freed her.

Because the state of Virginia forbade black people from being free. She would have had to go to another state to be legally free.

[stahrgazer]

1) He never freed her.

Because the state of Virginia forbade black people from being free. She would have had to go to another state to be legally free.

...and evidence suggest she didn't WANT to leave because if she did, she had ample opportunity to do so in Europe or when she was given her "free time" which was the nearest thing Virginia did allow Jefferson to do to free her.

[Symmetry]

1) He never freed her.

He freed her as much as allowed in the State of Virginia if she wished to remain in the State of Virginia and the evidence indicates she DID wish to remain.

2) That you consider the question of consent so irrelevant to sexual acts is telling.

What's telling is that you consider what I'd do as evidence of what the State of Virginia allowed Jefferson to do to free his black mistress and still allow her to be near him.

They allowed her to be a slave. Answer the question,

[stahrgazer]

They allowed her to be a slave.

The State of Virginia REQUIRED her to be slave since she wished to remain in Virginia.

Answer the question,

I did.

I have said that sex without freedom to consent is rape. So two questions.

1) Do you agree?

1) Yes, sex without freedom to consent is rape; however, "freedom to consent" differs from "legal right to consent." ... Evidence DOES suggest that Sally WAS given freedom to consent on things regarding her life. She she was GIVEN money, she was GIVEN an education, she was GIVEN clothing. She was GIVEN ample opportunity to flee if she wished; and she was GIVEN freedom of her own time, which was the closest thing to "full freedom" allowed in the state of Virginia at that time - since she apparently wished to remain in Virginia.

2) Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

2) irrelevant
What's telling is that you consider what I'd do as evidence of what the State of Virginia allowed Jefferson to do to free his black mistress and still allow her to be near him.

In reverse, a child has "freedom to consent" but does not have "legal right to consent," under many situations. If sex is between minors of equal age, then depending on the state, the child has "legal right to consent" but again the ages depend on whether the act is hetero or homosexual and varies state to state.

If sex is between minors of a certain age and those of legal consent age within so many years of the minor's age, then the child has "legal right to consent" but if the ages vary more the child may not have "legal right to consent."

Yet, an 89 year old can diddle a 16 year old (an age discrepancy far wider than Jefferson/Sally) in most states and the 16 year old has not only the "freedom to consent" that anyone has, but ALSO the "legal right to consent."

So, again, freedom to consent differs from legal right to consent. A slave has no legal right to consent but may well have freedom to consent just as the black person had no legal right to freedom but could be granted freedom of her own personal time in the state of Virginia at that time.

[Symmetry]

You have not answered the question.

Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

[stahrgazer]

You have not answered the question.

Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

I have answered the question as far as it is relevant to this thread.

If you wish to troll about what people would or would not do, themselves, sexually, then take it to a new thread, thank you.

THIS thread is about whether Jefferson raped his black mistress. I say not, and gave ample evidence why not. You say yes, and seem to think that whether someone can or would do something today matters as to what Jefferson and Sally were allowed to enjoy back then.

[Symmetry]

You have not answered the question.

Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

I have answered the question as far as it is relevant to this thread. If you wish to troll about what people would or would not do, themselves, sexually, then take it to a new thread, thank you.

The question of consent is important, You're acting as if replying with a yes or no would destroy your arguments.

[Night Strike]

You have not answered the question.

Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

I have answered the question as far as it is relevant to this thread. If you wish to troll about what people would or would not do, themselves, sexually, then take it to a new thread, thank you.

The question of consent is important, You're acting as if replying with a yes or no would destroy your arguments.

How is 2013 the same as 200+ years ago?

[Symmetry]

You have not answered the question.

Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

I have answered the question as far as it is relevant to this thread. If you wish to troll about what people would or would not do, themselves, sexually, then take it to a new thread, thank you.

The question of consent is important, You're acting as if replying with a yes or no would destroy your arguments.

How is 2013 the same as 200+ years ago?

It was not- rape was legal. If illegality is truly the only thing stopping you or Stahr from enslaving a kid and raping her, you should say so.

[thegreekdog]

They allowed her to be a slave.

The State of Virginia REQUIRED her to be slave since she wished to remain in Virginia.

Why does that matter?

[stahrgazer]

You have not answered the question.

Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

I have answered the question as far as it is relevant to this thread. If you wish to troll about what people would or would not do, themselves, sexually, then take it to a new thread, thank you.

The question of consent is important, You're acting as if replying with a yes or no would destroy your arguments.

The question of "legal right to consent" versus "freedom to consent" has been answered.

You're trolling your thread with this continuance about what of today and what of me, and it's beyond assinine of you.

Today is not then. I am neither Jefferson, NOR his willing black mistress, Sally - who could've left the Jefferson household and the state if she'd wanted to, but she obviously didn't want to and likely had freedom to consent or deny any sexual activity with Jefferson even though she didn't have "legal right to consent."

You're the one acting as if just because it was legal (or illegal) means someone did it, so YOU are the one who's acting as though a person's character doesn't count "as long as it's legal."

As for Greek, "why does it matter?" you're usually not this obtuse, but I'll answer again.

IF Sally had wished to leave, she had ample opportunities through the years including the amount of freedom she was given, called "her time." State laws matter because, since Sally had all those opportunities to leave and did not take them, obviously she did not wish to leave.

Jefferson could have freed her fully, not just with the "her time" but if he had, she would have been re-enslaved by another person if she'd stayed in Virginia.

So, according to the laws of the state in which they resided, and which it's obvious she continued to wish to reside, Sally could NOT be fully free AND reside in the state she'd obviously chosen to stay in.

But, Jefferson did allow her the maximum freedom allowed by Virginia law, which was the "her time" referred to in the website.

It matters. it goes to character.

Jefferson's character is more important to a discussion of whether Jefferson was a rapist or merely had a willing black mistress at that time in Virginia.

How I would personally answer the question sym keeps trolling has absolutely NO bearing on it.

[Symmetry]

You have not answered the question.

Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

I have answered the question as far as it is relevant to this thread. If you wish to troll about what people would or would not do, themselves, sexually, then take it to a new thread, thank you.

The question of consent is important, You're acting as if replying with a yes or no would destroy your arguments.

The question of "legal right to consent" versus "freedom to consent" has been answered.

You're trolling your thread with this continuance about what of today and what of me, and it's beyond assinine of you.

Today is not then. I am neither Jefferson, NOR his willing black mistress, Sally - who could've left the Jefferson household and the state if she'd wanted to, but she obviously didn't want to and likely had freedom to consent or deny any sexual activity with Jefferson even though she didn't have "legal right to consent."

You're the one acting as if just because it was legal (or illegal) means someone did it, so YOU are the one who's acting as though a person's character doesn't count "as long as it's legal."

As for Greek, "why does it matter?" you're usually not this obtuse, but I'll answer again.

IF Sally had wished to leave, she had ample opportunities through the years including the amount of freedom she was given, called "her time." State laws matter because, since Sally had all those opportunities to leave and did not take them, obviously she did not wish to leave.

Jefferson could have freed her fully, not just with the "her time" but if he had, she would have been re-enslaved by another person if she'd stayed in Virginia.

So, according to the laws of the state in which they resided, and which it's obvious she continued to wish to reside, Sally could NOT be fully free AND reside in the state she'd obviously chosen to stay in.

But, Jefferson did allow her the maximum freedom allowed by Virginia law, which was the "her time" referred to in the website.

It matters. it goes to character.

Jefferson's character is more important to a discussion of whether Jefferson was a rapist or merely had a willing black mistress at that time in Virginia.

How I would personally answer the question sym keeps trolling has absolutely NO bearing on it.

You know that answering yes or no would hurt your argument.

[thegreekdog]

I think you misunderstand my question and I'm sorry if you think I'm being obtuse.

I think what you're saying is that she freely subjected herself to being a slave because that was the law in Virginia.

My response is why does that make a difference? If she was free to leave the Commonwealth, why didn't she? Like Symmetry asked, would you stay in Virginia if you were a slave or would you leave and not be a slave?

In any event, I'm not being obtuse. She was in the position of slave, regardless of the laws of the state and her potential for freedom, and Jefferson was in the position of master. That dynamic is necessarily coercive.

To put it another way, every slave was "free to leave" if he or she could suffer the consequences of leaving. The woman was free to say no to sex if she would suffer the consequences. Just because Jefferson didn't violently rape her doesn't mean he didn't rape her. And just because Jefferson is Jefferson doesn't mean he didn't rape her.

If Symmetry had made this thread "Was Bob Smith a rapist?" and posted the same facts without disclosing that he was talking about Thomas Jefferson, you'd all be agreeing with him. Sadly, I also think that if Symmetry had noted some non-American instead of Jefferson, you'd all be agreeing with him.

[stahrgazer]

I think you misunderstand my question and I'm sorry if you think I'm being obtuse.

I think what you're saying is that she freely subjected herself to being a slave because that was the law in Virginia.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that she was "Jefferson's slave" at the time he had sex with her because the only way to stay with him was to be his slave, but she had many options to leave.

Maybe she would have preferred to be fully free AND remain in Virginia, and from the way the entire family had always treated her, maybe they, too, including Jefferson, would have preferred that she be fully free AND remain in Virginia.

That wasn't the options they had.

The options were:

a) fully free her, letting her stay until such time as she's caught by some dickhead of a whiteboy who then has legal right to enslave and abuse her
b) fully free her, sending her north or to Europe to safety
c) Sally herself choose to flee north or to Europe to safety
d) Keep her the "slave who's paid sometimes and with time on her own and quality education to better her skills and with her loving family,"

I believe a was more detrimental and based on them treating her as part family, part maid, even paying her, it's obvious they weren't doing things for her detriment.
I believe b and c were something she did not choose.
That leaves d.

Option d alone doesn't imply sex, but it does imply she willingly chose to stay. If she feared "rape" d would not have been the option she chose.

My response is why does that make a difference? If she was free to leave the Commonwealth, why didn't she?

I believe evidence reflects she did not leave because she liked being with the Jeffersons. Further, I believe it's quite likely she and Thomas were "in love" - perhaps not recognized until his wife had passed, but presumably (based on when she bore children) not consummated until after his wife had passed.

Like Symmetry asked, would you stay in Virginia if you were a slave or would you leave and not be a slave?

That's not what he asked. THIS is what HE asked:

Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?

His question is irrelevant.

Your question leads to female motivation, implying the freedom of choice I'm saying is indicated that Sally had. IF she were in love, happy, well treated, that she was "slave in name," wouldn't much matter to her. Ever read Alex Haley's Queenie? In part, it's a book about a black slave in love with her white owner.

In any event, I'm not being obtuse. She was in the position of slave, regardless of the laws of the state and her potential for freedom, and Jefferson was in the position of master. That dynamic is necessarily coercive.

To put it another way, every slave was "free to leave" if he or she could suffer the consequences of leaving. The woman was free to say no to sex if she would suffer the consequences. Just because Jefferson didn't violently rape her doesn't mean he didn't rape her. And just because Jefferson is Jefferson doesn't mean he didn't rape her.

Not all coercive relationships are rape. Money is a type of coercion; doesn't mean a woman who marries money is raped.

Rape has to do with the consequences of saying no specifically to the sexual acts. I'm saying, indications are, she may have preferred to be free and still say yes to Jefferson's sexual act, but given the choice, she was willing to be slave and say yes to Jefferson's sexual act rather than say no and thus, have to say no to his sexual act.

If Symmetry had made this thread "Was Bob Smith a rapist?" and posted the same facts without disclosing that he was talking about Thomas Jefferson, you'd all be agreeing with him. Sadly, I also think that if Symmetry had noted some non-American instead of Jefferson, you'd all be agreeing with him.

I would not.

Before I'd researched Sally's life as much as I could find, I said it was only rape if she was not allowed by Jefferson to say no.

I STILL maintain that it's only rape if she was not allowed by Jefferson to say no.

After reading what I could find of Sally Hinson I'm of the opinion she would have been allowed to say no, but deliberately said yes.

Her reason may have been love.
Her reason may have been security.

It just doesn't appear that her reason is "fear of what would happen if she said no."

If that wasn't her fear, then it wasn't "rape."

You might be trying to imply that she said yes because she feared she'd be kicked out if she said no. Evidence indicates she was given alot of freedom, educated handsomely as a ladies' maid, and sometimes was even paid for her maidservices.

That indicates you think her choice must be, "Accept rape or go live as some nicer lady's maid somewhere up north or in Europe where I'd be free."
If that were the option, I think she'd have chosen to go live as a nicer lady's maid somewhere. She was well-travelled, so wouldn't fear the unknown too much.