Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[Symmetry]

Your timeline is flawed. France abolished slavery in its colonies in 1794, and properly abolished it in 1848. Jefferson returned to the US in 1789. If you have evidence that slavery was illegal in France before then, I'm willing to look at it.

My "evidence" is the very same website YOU posted to support your position that Sally was not free to choose that indicated slavery was illegal in France at the time Sally was there with Jefferson.

If you're saying YOUR evidence is flawed, we toss out all of your statements and are left with, Sally had the opportunity to flee when traveling to, and in, Europe, and did not choose to do so.

I'm sorry- I've given you ample opportunity to provide an argument. You provide only bluster.

[thegreekdog]

When Symmetry, Neoteny, and I all agree, that answer is probably accurate.

I think the resistance here is a combination of "Thomas Jefferson was a great political mind, therefore he could not be a rapist" and "Shit, I know I'm wrong, but I'm going to dig in my heels."

There's a gap in the certainty which you three aren't willing to admit. I'm okay with saying, "gee, there is this unknown factor which denies us absolute certainty, thus soundness." You three brilliant minds are all like, "lololol certainty schmertainty, don't need that anymore."

As far as I can tell, Conquer Club (and history) are unfortunately not courts of law. While I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a rapist, in a civil court I would win.

The woman was a slave.
The woman had sex with the man who owner her.
Slavery is a coercive environment.
Therefore, the woman was coerced into having sex.
Therefore, Thomas Jefferson was a rapist.

[stahrgazer]

When Symmetry, Neoteny, and I all agree, that answer is probably accurate.

I think the resistance here is a combination of "Thomas Jefferson was a great political mind, therefore he could not be a rapist" and "Shit, I know I'm wrong, but I'm going to dig in my heels."

There's a gap in the certainty which you three aren't willing to admit. I'm okay with saying, "gee, there is this unknown factor which denies us absolute certainty, thus soundness." You three brilliant minds are all like, "lololol certainty schmertainty, don't need that anymore."

As far as I can tell, Conquer Club (and history) are unfortunately not courts of law. While I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a rapist, in a civil court I would win.

The woman was a slave.
The woman had sex with the man who owner her.
Slavery is a coercive environment.
Therefore, the woman was coerced into having sex.
Therefore, Thomas Jefferson was a rapist.

Nope. According to the sites about Sally, at the time she and Jefferson first made any baby, she was in France at a time when slavery was illegal and could have petitioned to stay in France rather than return to Virginia.

That she was being paid for her work in France indicates she was NOT being treated as a slave in France.

Also according to those sites she made a bargain with Jefferson that she would return with him provided he freed their offspring when those children came of age.

Someone in a coercive environment enough to imply Jefferson must have raped her would NOT have been in an environment to make that sort of bargain.


Since she did make that bargain, (according to the site which indicates this is verbal per her children since Sally herself left no written records of it) that implies she was free to choose, free to say no, thus was not coerced, thus Jefferson is not a rapist.

[Symmetry]

When Symmetry, Neoteny, and I all agree, that answer is probably accurate.

I think the resistance here is a combination of "Thomas Jefferson was a great political mind, therefore he could not be a rapist" and "Shit, I know I'm wrong, but I'm going to dig in my heels."

There's a gap in the certainty which you three aren't willing to admit. I'm okay with saying, "gee, there is this unknown factor which denies us absolute certainty, thus soundness." You three brilliant minds are all like, "lololol certainty schmertainty, don't need that anymore."

As far as I can tell, Conquer Club (and history) are unfortunately not courts of law. While I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a rapist, in a civil court I would win.

The woman was a slave.
The woman had sex with the man who owner her.
Slavery is a coercive environment.
Therefore, the woman was coerced into having sex.
Therefore, Thomas Jefferson was a rapist.

Nope. According to the sites about Sally, at the time she and Jefferson first made any baby, she was in France at a time when slavery was illegal and could have petitioned to stay in France rather than return to Virginia.

That she was being paid for her work in France indicates she was NOT being treated as a slave in France.

Also according to those sites she made a bargain with Jefferson that she would return with him provided he freed their offspring when those children came of age.

Someone in a coercive environment enough to imply Jefferson must have raped her would NOT have been in an environment to make that sort of bargain.


Since she did make that bargain, (according to the site which indicates this is verbal per her children since Sally herself left no written records of it) that implies she was free to choose, free to say no, thus was not coerced, thus Jefferson is not a rapist.

I'm not sure your brand has much credit here anymore, dude.

[Neoteny]

Poll results are interesting.

[thegreekdog]

When Symmetry, Neoteny, and I all agree, that answer is probably accurate.

I think the resistance here is a combination of "Thomas Jefferson was a great political mind, therefore he could not be a rapist" and "Shit, I know I'm wrong, but I'm going to dig in my heels."

There's a gap in the certainty which you three aren't willing to admit. I'm okay with saying, "gee, there is this unknown factor which denies us absolute certainty, thus soundness." You three brilliant minds are all like, "lololol certainty schmertainty, don't need that anymore."

As far as I can tell, Conquer Club (and history) are unfortunately not courts of law. While I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a rapist, in a civil court I would win.

The woman was a slave.
The woman had sex with the man who owner her.
Slavery is a coercive environment.
Therefore, the woman was coerced into having sex.
Therefore, Thomas Jefferson was a rapist.

Nope. According to the sites about Sally, at the time she and Jefferson first made any baby, she was in France at a time when slavery was illegal and could have petitioned to stay in France rather than return to Virginia.

That she was being paid for her work in France indicates she was NOT being treated as a slave in France.

Also according to those sites she made a bargain with Jefferson that she would return with him provided he freed their offspring when those children came of age.

Someone in a coercive environment enough to imply Jefferson must have raped her would NOT have been in an environment to make that sort of bargain.


Since she did make that bargain, (according to the site which indicates this is verbal per her children since Sally herself left no written records of it) that implies she was free to choose, free to say no, thus was not coerced, thus Jefferson is not a rapist.

I bolded the most important part of your post. Think about that for a few minutes.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yet you are not absolutely certain that sex in a coercive environment is rape?

Not even a little rapey? Like just the tip in my sandwich?

(1) Are you certain that the coercive environment is actually coercive in all circumstances?

(2) Do you possess knowledge of the participants' actual valuations in that exchange?


In order to answer #1, we need to know #2, which cannot be fully known by an outsider. Also, roundabout evidence is lacking (IIRC, there's no journal entries, speculations on what kind people these are, etc. which provide a conclusive answer. Even the historians from the wiki page disagreed).

We can opt for a probabilistic 'truth', but it still doesn't make it true. All we can say with certainty, "Maybe TJ raped her."

[BigBallinStalin]

When Symmetry, Neoteny, and I all agree, that answer is probably accurate.

I think the resistance here is a combination of "Thomas Jefferson was a great political mind, therefore he could not be a rapist" and "Shit, I know I'm wrong, but I'm going to dig in my heels."

There's a gap in the certainty which you three aren't willing to admit. I'm okay with saying, "gee, there is this unknown factor which denies us absolute certainty, thus soundness." You three brilliant minds are all like, "lololol certainty schmertainty, don't need that anymore."

As far as I can tell, Conquer Club (and history) are unfortunately not courts of law. While I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Thomas Jefferson was a rapist, in a civil court I would win.

The woman was a slave.
The woman had sex with the man who owner her.
Slavery is a coercive environment.
Therefore, the woman was coerced into having sex.
Therefore, Thomas Jefferson was a rapist.

Which supports my point. As you relax your standard of certainty, you can arrive at a 'certain' conclusion. The soundness currently is unknown, but with a leap of faith--while omitting relevant premises*--you can arrive with 'certainty' to your conclusion.

*e.g. individual preferences which ignore the context that we impose onto their subjective valuations.

[WestWind]

Not gonna chime in on the argument here, but just gotta say that this poll would be, in social science terms, "omfgwtfareyouthinking biased". Seriously, if you want real results, give a real poll. Not your opinion dressed up as a poll.

[Ray Rider]

When Symmetry, Neoteny, and I all agree, that answer is probably accurate.

I think the resistance here is a combination of "Thomas Jefferson was a great political mind, therefore he could not be a rapist" and "Shit, I know I'm wrong, but I'm going to dig in my heels."

Aye, that's been my general impression.

Oh, so three of you agree, therefore that is correct? I say meh, when a large number of people believe a fallacy, that just means a large number of people are wrong; nothing more, nothing less.

As for Thomas Jefferson's cult following; I'm not an American and couldn't care less about him or his reputation, yet I still don't see how you can prove he's a rapist.

He had sex with someone who wasn't free to consent to sex. That would be rape, no?

As has already been mentioned to you repeatedly, she could have claimed her freedom in France and abandoned Thomas Jefferson.
Under French law, both Sally and James could have petitioned for their freedom, as the 1789 revolutionary constitution in France abolished slavery in principle.[13] Hemings had the legal right to remain in France as a free person; if she returned to Virginia with Jefferson, it would be as a slave. According to her son's memoir, Hemings became pregnant by Jefferson in Paris and agreed to return with him to the United States after he promised to free her children when they came of age.[7] Hemings' strong kinship ties with her mother, extended family and siblings likely drew her back to Monticello.

When Mr. Jefferson went to France Martha was just budding into womanhood. Their stay (my mother's and Maria's) was about eighteen months. But during that time my mother became Mr. Jefferson's concubine, and when he was called back home she was enciente by him. He desired to bring my mother back to Virginia with him but she demurred. She was just beginning to understand the French language well, and in France she was free, while if she returned to Virginia she would be re-enslaved. So she refused to return with him. To induce her to do so he promised her extraordinary privileges, and made a solemn pledge that her children should be freed at the age of twenty-one years. In consequence of his promise, on which she implicitly relied, she returned with him to Virginia. Soon after their arrival, she gave birth to a child, of whom Thomas Jefferson was the father. It lived but a short time. She gave birth to four others, and Jefferson was the father of all of them. Their names were Beverly, Harriet, Madison (myself), and Eston--three sons and one daughter. We all became free agreeably to the treaty entered into by our parents before we were born. We all married and have raised families.

However even aside from that, you cannot prove that Thomas Jefferson was a rapist; merely that it is possible or likely that he was. BBS has made that point quite clearly:

Yet you are not absolutely certain that sex in a coercive environment is rape?

Not even a little rapey? Like just the tip in my sandwich?

(1) Are you certain that the coercive environment is actually coercive in all circumstances?

(2) Do you possess knowledge of the participants' actual valuations in that exchange?


In order to answer #1, we need to know #2, which cannot be fully known by an outsider. Also, roundabout evidence is lacking (IIRC, there's no journal entries, speculations on what kind people these are, etc. which provide a conclusive answer. Even the historians from the wiki page disagreed).

We can opt for a probabilistic 'truth', but it still doesn't make it true. All we can say with certainty, "Maybe TJ raped her."

Not gonna chime in on the argument here, but just gotta say that this poll would be, in social science terms, "omfgwtfareyouthinking biased". Seriously, if you want real results, give a real poll. Not your opinion dressed up as a poll.

Agreed, although I see many people voted for the obviously immoral option in the poll anyways out of protest for the general stupidity of the poll options.

[Neoteny]

Yet you are not absolutely certain that sex in a coercive environment is rape?

Not even a little rapey? Like just the tip in my sandwich?

(1) Are you certain that the coercive environment is actually coercive in all circumstances?

(2) Do you possess knowledge of the participants' actual valuations in that exchange?


In order to answer #1, we need to know #2, which cannot be fully known by an outsider. Also, roundabout evidence is lacking (IIRC, there's no journal entries, speculations on what kind people these are, etc. which provide a conclusive answer. Even the historians from the wiki page disagreed).

We can opt for a probabilistic 'truth', but it still doesn't make it true. All we can say with certainty, "Maybe TJ raped her."

It's all probabilistic truth. And here are the probabilities: Jefferson had sex with a person he owned = High probability. The answer to #1 is yes, btw.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yet you are not absolutely certain that sex in a coercive environment is rape?

Not even a little rapey? Like just the tip in my sandwich?

(1) Are you certain that the coercive environment is actually coercive in all circumstances?

(2) Do you possess knowledge of the participants' actual valuations in that exchange?


In order to answer #1, we need to know #2, which cannot be fully known by an outsider. Also, roundabout evidence is lacking (IIRC, there's no journal entries, speculations on what kind people these are, etc. which provide a conclusive answer. Even the historians from the wiki page disagreed).

We can opt for a probabilistic 'truth', but it still doesn't make it true. All we can say with certainty, "Maybe TJ raped her."

It's all probabilistic truth. And here are the probabilities: Jefferson had sex with a person he owned = High probability. The answer to #1 is yes, btw.

If we were radical skeptics, then we would agree that "it's all probabilistic truth," but I think we can agree that you and I exist, and that if we push back our chairs and stand up, we won't fall through the floor. With that standard of certainty, there are some truths which aren't probabilistic.

But if we lower that standard even further (e.g. TGD's civil court example), then sure, you guys 'certainly' are correct, but not really.

[john9blue]

are any of you willing to concede that there are different degrees of coercion and therefore different degrees of "rape"?

some of which can hardly be called rape at all?

[thegreekdog]

are any of you willing to concede that there are different degrees of coercion and therefore different degrees of "rape"?

some of which can hardly be called rape at all?

I would answer no to both questions. Second answer first - I think there are probably circumstances where one person doesn't want to have sex with another person where it probably isn't rape (e.g. "I really don't want to bang tonight, but I feel like I should" or something), but I wouldn't call that coercion.

I probably need to think about the first question some more though. My thought here is that if you get to a certain level of coercion, it's no longer coercion.

[john9blue]

i mean, you guys can set arbitrary limits for what qualifies as "coercion", but it's not going to get you anywhere in the debate.

not all rape is created equal... you've got legitimate rapes where the victim was traumatized for life, and then you've got fake "rapes" from skanky drunk girls who have regrets about their bad decisions.

i'm sure jefferson was well within his legal rights to ACTUALLY rape his slave, but he chose not to. calling what he did "rape" is demeaning to actual rape victims.

[BigBallinStalin]

J9B is right to point out the gray area involved in rape, and his last paragraph adds an interesting twist ITT.

[thegreekdog]

i mean, you guys can set arbitrary limits for what qualifies as "coercion", but it's not going to get you anywhere in the debate.

not all rape is created equal... you've got legitimate rapes where the victim was traumatized for life, and then you've got fake "rapes" from skanky drunk girls who have regrets about their bad decisions.

i'm sure jefferson was well within his legal rights to ACTUALLY rape his slave, but he chose not to. calling what he did "rape" is demeaning to actual rape victims.

I just want to make sure I understand that you're making an analogy between a slave being coerced into having sex with her master with a skanky drunk girl who regrets her bad decisions. While I agree there may be gray areas involved in rape, this is not really a gray area.

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.

Two other things that might help people be on the right side of this. First, stop romanticizing the situation. Second, substitute a different name for Thomas Jefferson so you don't bring a bias into this discussion.

[chang50]

i mean, you guys can set arbitrary limits for what qualifies as "coercion", but it's not going to get you anywhere in the debate.

not all rape is created equal... you've got legitimate rapes where the victim was traumatized for life, and then you've got fake "rapes" from skanky drunk girls who have regrets about their bad decisions.

i'm sure jefferson was well within his legal rights to ACTUALLY rape his slave, but he chose not to. calling what he did "rape" is demeaning to actual rape victims.

I just want to make sure I understand that you're making an analogy between a slave being coerced into having sex with her master with a skanky drunk girl who regrets her bad decisions. While I agree there may be gray areas involved in rape, this is not really a gray area.

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.

Two other things that might help people be on the right side of this. First, stop romanticizing the situation. Second, substitute a different name for Thomas Jefferson so you don't bring a bias into this discussion.

How about Benedict Arnold,or George 3rd as contempories,or Ho Chi Minh,and Osama Binladen more recently?

[thegreekdog]

i mean, you guys can set arbitrary limits for what qualifies as "coercion", but it's not going to get you anywhere in the debate.

not all rape is created equal... you've got legitimate rapes where the victim was traumatized for life, and then you've got fake "rapes" from skanky drunk girls who have regrets about their bad decisions.

i'm sure jefferson was well within his legal rights to ACTUALLY rape his slave, but he chose not to. calling what he did "rape" is demeaning to actual rape victims.

I just want to make sure I understand that you're making an analogy between a slave being coerced into having sex with her master with a skanky drunk girl who regrets her bad decisions. While I agree there may be gray areas involved in rape, this is not really a gray area.

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.

Two other things that might help people be on the right side of this. First, stop romanticizing the situation. Second, substitute a different name for Thomas Jefferson so you don't bring a bias into this discussion.

How about Benedict Arnold,or George 3rd as contempories,or Ho Chi Minh,and Osama Binladen more recently?

Sure, those would work. I was thinking more along the lines of a slave owner that didn't write one of the most important documents in our history and wasn't president.

[Ray Rider]

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.

You're not really making any sense now. It would be impossible for a slave in a truly coercive relationship to bargain with their master. It would be a case of "do what I say or I'll have you whipped," not "if you do x for me, I'll do y for you." As I quoted, Sally's own son said that Sally was free in France therefore her children would have been free as well; instead she chose to return to slavery in America with Jefferson under the agreement that she would give up her freedom, but he would restore freedom to her children.

Two other things that might help people be on the right side of this. First, stop romanticizing the situation. Second, substitute a different name for Thomas Jefferson so you don't bring a bias into this discussion.

As I already mentioned on the previous page, I couldn't care less about him or his name. The fact that you and Sym keep bringing up Jefferson's name when that hasn't even been an issue shows that you've run out of arguments and have to resort to red herrings. If you really want to discuss the impact of his name, we can do so; but what we think of him doesn't matter in the least--the real question is, did Sally care about him or his title/position? That may have been part of the reason why she chose slavery under him over freedom. Consider her choice between freedom in poverty as a nobody in a foreign land or returning to her home country as a slave to one of the most important officials in the world with promised "extraordinary privileges" and children who would be freed.

Edit: Corrected my mistake in calling Madison a daughter.

[Symmetry]

When Symmetry, Neoteny, and I all agree, that answer is probably accurate.

I think the resistance here is a combination of "Thomas Jefferson was a great political mind, therefore he could not be a rapist" and "Shit, I know I'm wrong, but I'm going to dig in my heels."

Aye, that's been my general impression.

Oh, so three of you agree, therefore that is correct? I say meh, when a large number of people believe a fallacy, that just means a large number of people are wrong; nothing more, nothing less.

As for Thomas Jefferson's cult following; I'm not an American and couldn't care less about him or his reputation, yet I still don't see how you can prove he's a rapist.

He had sex with someone who wasn't free to consent to sex. That would be rape, no?

As has already been mentioned to you repeatedly, she could have claimed her freedom in France and abandoned Thomas Jefferson.
Under French law, both Sally and James could have petitioned for their freedom, as the 1789 revolutionary constitution in France abolished slavery in principle.[13] Hemings had the legal right to remain in France as a free person; if she returned to Virginia with Jefferson, it would be as a slave. According to her son's memoir, Hemings became pregnant by Jefferson in Paris and agreed to return with him to the United States after he promised to free her children when they came of age.[7] Hemings' strong kinship ties with her mother, extended family and siblings likely drew her back to Monticello.

No- you're suffering under the same delusion as Stahr on this.

On 26 August 1789, the Assembly published the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, which comprised a statement of principles rather than a constitution with legal effect. The National Constituent Assembly functioned not only as a legislature, but also as a body to draft a new constitution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Revolution#Working_toward_a_constitution

So no 1789 constitution. If we're talking about the declaration, it says nothing about slavery-

The declaration did not revoke the institution of slavery, as lobbied for by Jacques-Pierre Brissot's Les Amis des Noirs and defended by the group of colonial planters called the Club Massiac because they met at the Hôtel Massiac.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citizen#Slavery

Even if it had, Jefferson was back in the US within weeks of its publication. Can we put this tiresome myth to bed now? She went to France as a slave, was a slave in France, and returned to the US as a slave. She was neither free, nor did she have legal recourse to become free under a non-existent constitution.

Feel free to show me the 1789 revolutionary constitution that would have allowed her to petition for freedom if you feel I've missed it in my research.

[BigBallinStalin]

i mean, you guys can set arbitrary limits for what qualifies as "coercion", but it's not going to get you anywhere in the debate.

not all rape is created equal... you've got legitimate rapes where the victim was traumatized for life, and then you've got fake "rapes" from skanky drunk girls who have regrets about their bad decisions.

i'm sure jefferson was well within his legal rights to ACTUALLY rape his slave, but he chose not to. calling what he did "rape" is demeaning to actual rape victims.

I just want to make sure I understand that you're making an analogy between a slave being coerced into having sex with her master with a skanky drunk girl who regrets her bad decisions. While I agree there may be gray areas involved in rape, this is not really a gray area.

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.

Two other things that might help people be on the right side of this. First, stop romanticizing the situation. Second, substitute a different name for Thomas Jefferson so you don't bring a bias into this discussion.

Done and done. My criticism still holds.

[BigBallinStalin]

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.]

You're not really making any sense now. It would be impossible for a slave in a truly coercive relationship to bargain with their master. It would be a case of "do what I say or I'll have you whipped," not "if you do x for me, I'll do y for you."

Yup, exactly. TGD has reduced bargaining to something indicative of coercion which makes little sense, but in a convoluted way it supports his position--on poor grounds.

ITT, in general, the opposition has built a nice wall of arguments, but I'm still going to point to the huge crack in their foundation. They can ignore it all they like or imagined that it's paved over, but that doesn't change the problem with some of their fundamental assumptions.

[Symmetry]

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.]

You're not really making any sense now. It would be impossible for a slave in a truly coercive relationship to bargain with their master. It would be a case of "do what I say or I'll have you whipped," not "if you do x for me, I'll do y for you."

Yup, exactly. TGD has reduced bargaining to something indicative of coercion which makes little sense, but in a convoluted way it supports his position--on poor grounds.

ITT, in general, the opposition has built a nice wall of arguments, but I'm still going to point to the huge crack in their foundation. They can ignore it all they like or imagined that it's paved over, but that doesn't change the problem with some of their fundamental assumptions.

Given that I disproved the basis of Ray's "she made a bargain" argument in the post just above yours, I'm unsure why you're pursuing it.

[thegreekdog]

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.]

You're not really making any sense now. It would be impossible for a slave in a truly coercive relationship to bargain with their master. It would be a case of "do what I say or I'll have you whipped," not "if you do x for me, I'll do y for you."

Yup, exactly. TGD has reduced bargaining to something indicative of coercion which makes little sense, but in a convoluted way it supports his position--on poor grounds.

ITT, in general, the opposition has built a nice wall of arguments, but I'm still going to point to the huge crack in their foundation. They can ignore it all they like or imagined that it's paved over, but that doesn't change the problem with some of their fundamental assumptions.

Oh boy. I'm not sure some of you guys understand coercion.

What were the choices of the slave when she was in France:

(1) Have children, remain free in France, children free in France.
(2) Have children, remain a slave in the US, children free in the US.
(3) Have children, remain a slave in the US, children slaves in the US.

The best option is (1), no? Then why did she select (2)? Because she was in love with Jefferson? If she was in love with Jefferson, why didn't she choose (3)?