by PLAYER57832 on Sat Apr 06, 2013 8:08 am
I meant to post this earlier, in response to john9, but am not going to go back and dig up the old post.
One issue most of you keep skirting, probably don't really want to accept or deal with is just what it meant to be a women in that time and place, whether white or black. The plain fact is that finding the best man they could, attracting him was about the only "career" path most women had, no matter their class. For men, that women would simply serve them was a given, not really to be questioned for a couple of centuries in the future -- and still being debated today. The idea of "choice" presented above is just silly, given the reality, as is the ideas of "consent". A woman of that day might dream of choice, might dream of being "swept away" by a "white knight", but had few chances to even judge what that might be.
For the man's part, it was essentially assumed that women did not enjoy sex, had to be either forced or cajolled, seduced. A "gentleman" certainly tried to seduce, but that was sort of his being magnanamous, his showing great character. It was not considered required behavior and, in many cases was sort of optional. Men naturally varied in their skill of dealing with others, including wives. That "courseness" would translate into their dealings with wives, and wives would not even really consider that there were options.
Black women, ironically enough, often had a bit more choice in that they could actively "seduce" men to some extent. Since they were not considered "fully human", it was "socially permissable" for them to even enjoy sex, to contribute... etc. in ways that white women mostly would not consider "proper". (note, I realize there is a LOT of variation then as now, but am sticking to generalities to not get bogged down in that).
If you truly put yourself into Sally's place, you see she had few options. One, she could have been sold anywhere.. maybe as a "house slave", maybe as something far different, even a field hand, though apparently she was pretty "comly" and therefore would likely have wound up in a bedroom somewhere. Compare that to the life of a free servant. A free servant might be dismissed instead of sold, but if not given references and the like, would wind up either back with her family or on the street. She might be fortunate to marry someone who would treat her well, but even then, her life would be tough. Another option would be to try and be her master's mistress. She might face some social scorn, but could also wind up the beneficiary of largess. It would be tricky, though. If she did not play here cards precisely correctly, she would basically end up a hooker. Note that in many cases, she would have no choice. If the master decided he wanted her, she might try to escape, but likely would be "disgraced", unless she had a strong family to which to return. Even then, chances are things would not go so well.
A wealthier white woman might have a few more options, but even so, a LOT depending on her husband. In most states, even if she were herself wealthy from her father, once married, all assets went to the husband. Not married, she might have to endure a gaurdianship, well into adulthood... until she married. There were a very few exceptions, but they are notable because they are just that, exceptions of exceptional women who bucked the systems.
A black woman such as Sally would know all of this. I find it not unlikely at all that she would have tried to encourage Jefferson to be attracted to her. It would be one of hte best options available to her. Even all the talk of Jefferson freeing her children and the like (which, I will add, Jefferson did do!), ignores the reality of the time. If, as many assert most were white enough to "pass", then they could have been, say put up in boarding schools and the like, but its quite likely someone would have noticed, wondered why someone like Jefferson would support such children. Likely, they would guess and it would not go that well for the children. Other parents would not want their kids "tainted" by the "bastards", even if race were not brought into the picture. Further, she would have had to have essentially no contact with the children in order to maintain that illusion.
However, as black slave children, they escaped notice. No one would really pay much attention to them, even if they were pale skinned. Sally could treat them as what they were... her children. Jefferson could attend to them some in the privacy of his estates. He could and did educate them, at a time when real education was just a dream for many white children. At the age of "majority", though they faced a choice. At that point, they would have had to decide if they wanted to try and enter moderate levels of white society and "pass" or if they wanted to join the black community. Passing was, of course, the better option, but would mean turning their backs on their families and all they had known as children. As free blacks, their life would have been extremely hazardous, rife with the threat of being returned to slavery -- real, slavery, possibly even harsh abusive slavery and not the coddled kind of semi-servitude they would have known under Jefferson (in all likelihood a far better life than many white children, never mind black children would have enjoyed at the time).
All in all, given the true facts, the idea that Jefferson was some kind of ogre is just plain wrong. Calling him a rapist is to say he was that and it does an extreme disservice to all involved, plus distorting things happening today by applying standards ad terms to the past.
When you judge the past by today's standards, see, you do not just a disservice to those times, but also to today. Rape, historically, has been among the most violant and replusive of acts. It is perhaps ironic that part of the reason it is so considered is that, even today, raping a woman is in some respects considered still to be "damaging" her.. in the sense that she is not quite as "valuable" to other men. That is changing today into an awareness of betrayel and harm to the woman herself, not just of her "value" to men. However, to try and claim that what happened back in the 1700's, with Jefferson and Sally in particular meets either idea or definition is not just to extremely distort the actions of Sally and Jefferson, it is to distort the meaning of the word "rape" and why it is such a harmful crime.
Calling Jefferson a rapist is to pretend that rape is not what it truly is.. a violant act of dehumanizing another human being through sex.
Rape certainly and absolutely happened back then, just not in this particular case.
