Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[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)?

[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.

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)?

Let's be clear here- she was not free in France, nor was there ever any option for her to be so. I appreciate your take TGD, but it operates on accepting a false premise.

[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.

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.

You seem to be mistaking the constitution for the entire law of France. There were other laws besides the constitution, FYI, laws which were in place before being codified into the constitution. Perhaps you would like to explain why you're ignoring the account of a first hand witness to the relationship, Sally's son Madison, who said she could have kept her freedom had she remained in France?

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.

Or how about Thomas Jefferson's own admission:

Jefferson had something of a problem keeping two slaves in France with him, however. According to French law, slavery was illegal, and they could petition for their freedom. During his tenure in France as U.S. minister, he received a query from an American couple about the legality of bringing a slave servant into the country. He replied that he had “made enquiries on the subject of the negro boy, and find that the laws of France give him freedom if he claims it, [414] and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to interrupt the course of the law. Nevertheless I have known an instance where a person bringing in a slave, and saying nothing about it, has not been disturbed in his possession.” This person was, of course, Jefferson himself, who brought James Hemings with him. Jefferson advised the Americans to take the same course; the slave was young and "it is not probable he will think of claiming freedom.”

It is unlikely that James Hemings remained ignorant of his status under French law; he was nineteen when Jefferson brought him to Paris and twenty-four when he and his sister Sally returned to America with Jefferson and his two daughters. Jefferson no doubt used all of his arts of persuasion to convince Hemings that a life of bondage as Thomas Jefferson’s cook was preferable to freedom in Paris. He would never be permitted to return to America, or to see his family again, for example. Jefferson’s trump card would have been a promise of future freedom. [415] It was a pledge he drew up into a formal document in 1793...

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)?

I think I began to address that here:

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.

Option (1) of remaining free but poverty stricken in France wasn't necessarily the best choice, considering we know that as Jefferson's slave she was given fine clothing, paid for her work, given "extraordinary privileges," and remained in the household of one of the most prominent men in the world. However to continue with your point (2), the possibility does exist that she may have loved him and felt comfortable remaining his slave; however given that there were no guarantees of how Jefferson's heirs would treat her children (or to whom they would have been sold, especially because of his debts) had they remained slaves, it would be reasonable of her to see that it would be safer to grant them their freedom a let them choose their own destiny.

[Symmetry]

So you were bullshitting. Thanks Ray. Feels free at any time to point out the law you and Stahr think existed making slavery illegal in France while Jefferson was there.

The reference to the constitution was, of course, something you brought up.

[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.

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)?

(1) might not be the best option. Consider moving away from everyone you know and living in a foreign country. Did she speak French fluently? How open were the French to black people? To former slaves? To Americans? To women? Did she even like France? What about the uncertainty of employment in France? How much does she value stability to uncertainty? We don't know.

(2) makes sense given the problems with (1). RE: (3), we can imagine that the relationship between her and TJ was not the same for her kids and TJ, and if given the choice, why burden her kids with slavery when she has the opportunity to opt for their freedom? I can't see why she would pick (3).

[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.

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)?

(1) might not be the best option. Consider moving away from everyone you know and living in a foreign country. Did she speak French fluently? How open were the French to black people? To former slaves? To Americans? To women? Did she even like France? What about the uncertainty of employment in France? How much does she value stability to uncertainty? We don't know.

(2) makes sense given the problems with (1). RE: (3), we can imagine that the relationship between her and TJ was not the same for her kids and TJ, and if given the choice, why burden her kids with slavery when she has the opportunity to opt for their freedom? I can't see why she would pick (3).

1) wasn't an option.
3) reality.

[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.

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.

Your comments about French law don't pertain to this discussion--especially the part in bold.

Whatever your response may be, please consider the following to gain the relevant context:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187020&start=210#p4098911

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187020&start=210#p4099491

Your discussion on French law bears no relevance to the above links, so I'll respond to you when you've caught up. Otherwise, it's a waste of my time.

[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.

Your comments about French law don't pertain to this discussion

They are relevant when the basis of the argument is that she was free under French law. A clear falsehood.

[BigBallinStalin]

And you did a poor job refuting Ray's points that it was, but I don't expect much from you--especially since you refuse to understand the discussion between TGD and I.

[Symmetry]

And you did a poor job refuting Ray's points that it was, but I don't expect much from you--especially since you refuse to understand the discussion between TGD and I.

I provided evidence showing his argument was false. I'm sorry that you based your premise on a false notion of negotiation. The idea that she was free doesn't hold water.

[Ray Rider]

The reference to the constitution was, of course, something you brought up.

The reference to the constitution was a minor detail in a quote laying claim to the fact that Sally could claim her freedom in France, a fact verified by Sally's son and Sally's master, although strangely you appear to be endeavoring to avoid that fact.

Feels free at any time to point out the law you and Stahr think existed making slavery illegal in France while Jefferson was there.

Sure, slavery was declared illegal in France on July 3, 1315 by Louis X:
"Whereas, according to natural right, everyone should be born free, and whereas, by certain customs which from long age, have been introduced into and preserved to this day in our kingdom....many persons amongst our common people have fallen into the bonds of slavery, which much displeaseth us; we, considering that our kingdom is called and named the kingdom of the Free...have by our grand council decreed and do decree that generally throughout our whole kingdom, such serfdom be redeemed to freedom, on fair and suitable conditions...and we will, likewise, that all other lords who have body-men (or serfs) do take example by us to bring them to freedom."

The laws varied on the matter between that time and 1789 and there was much disagreement between the various federal, colonial, and regional courts; however as I've already mentioned multiple times (yes, I'm trying to get you to at least respond to it), evidence from the time from both Madison and Jefferson point to the undeniable fact that Sally could have claimed her freedom while in France.

Here, I'll post it again in case you missed it the first couple times:

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.


Jefferson had something of a problem keeping two slaves in France with him, however. According to French law, slavery was illegal, and they could petition for their freedom. During his tenure in France as U.S. minister, he received a query from an American couple about the legality of bringing a slave servant into the country. He replied that he had “made enquiries on the subject of the negro boy, and find that the laws of France give him freedom if he claims it, [414] and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to interrupt the course of the law. Nevertheless I have known an instance where a person bringing in a slave, and saying nothing about it, has not been disturbed in his possession.” This person was, of course, Jefferson himself, who brought James Hemings with him. Jefferson advised the Americans to take the same course; the slave was young and "it is not probable he will think of claiming freedom.”

It is unlikely that James Hemings remained ignorant of his status under French law; he was nineteen when Jefferson brought him to Paris and twenty-four when he and his sister Sally returned to America with Jefferson and his two daughters. Jefferson no doubt used all of his arts of persuasion to convince Hemings that a life of bondage as Thomas Jefferson’s cook was preferable to freedom in Paris. He would never be permitted to return to America, or to see his family again, for example. Jefferson’s trump card would have been a promise of future freedom. [415] It was a pledge he drew up into a formal document in 1793...

[Symmetry]

You serious? 1315? Your arguments get weaker as they grow long Ray.

[BigBallinStalin]

And you did a poor job refuting Ray's points that it was, but I don't expect much from you--especially since you refuse to understand the discussion between TGD and I.

I provided evidence showing his argument was false. I'm sorry that you based your premise on a false notion of negotiation. The idea that she was free doesn't hold water.

You serious? 1315? Your arguments get weaker as they grow long Ray.

The leaves rustle softly in Troll Forest, but a storm approaches from the East.

[Symmetry]

And you did a poor job refuting Ray's points that it was, but I don't expect much from you--especially since you refuse to understand the discussion between TGD and I.

I provided evidence showing his argument was false. I'm sorry that you based your premise on a false notion of negotiation. The idea that she was free doesn't hold water.

You serious? 1315? Your arguments get weaker as they grow long Ray.

The leaves rustle softly in Troll Forest, but a storm approaches from the East.

Oh for goodness sake, calm down sweetie.

[BigBallinStalin]

[Symmetry]

So can we get back on topic? Sally Hemings, neither free in France, nor able to petition.