Conquer Club

Symmetry wrote:Get her name right first.

If it's that important to you, then first show me her birth certificate to prove her name wasn't misspelled over the decades.. because it's possible that my typo corrects far too many years of misspellings.

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Get her name right first.

If it's that important to you, then first show me her birth certificate to prove her name wasn't misspelled over the decades.. because it's possible that my typo corrects far too many years of misspellings.

And once again, you apply nonsequitors and force emotionalist meaning on them.

I don't "get names right." You got a problem with my disability?

stahrgazer wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Get her name right first.

If it's that important to you, then first show me her birth certificate to prove her name wasn't misspelled over the decades.. because it's possible that my typo corrects far too many years of misspellings.

And once again, you apply nonsequitors and force emotionalist meaning on them.

I don't "get names right." You got a problem with my disability?

Are you now disagreeing with yourself?

Symmetry wrote:Are you now disagreeing with yourself?

Have to admit, tho, it's interesting that you used the word, "contempt."

I think you must find her willingness to lay with a white dude in Virginia very contemptible. If you didn't find it that contemptible, you'd probably look at the evidence of how she was treated and stop with your emotionalist line all about how she could not have actually liked him and wanted sex with him.

Yup. If you didn't have such contempt for a female slave, you'd probably be willing to admit that just because she was slave didn't mean her emotions had been lobotomized.

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Are you now disagreeing with yourself?

Have to admit, tho, it's interesting that you used the word, "contempt."

I think you must find her willingness to lay with a white dude in Virginia very contemptible. If you didn't find it that contemptible, you'd probably look at the evidence of how she was treated and stop with your emotionalist line all about how she could not have actually liked him and wanted sex with him.

Yup. If you didn't have such contempt for a female slave, you'd probably be willing to admit that just because she was slave didn't mean her emotions had been lobotomized.

You're just being silly now stahr.

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Are you now disagreeing with yourself?

Have to admit, tho, it's interesting that you used the word, "contempt."

I think you must find her willingness to lay with a white dude in Virginia very contemptible. If you didn't find it that contemptible, you'd probably look at the evidence of how she was treated and stop with your emotionalist line all about how she could not have actually liked him and wanted sex with him.

Yup. If you didn't have such contempt for a female slave, you'd probably be willing to admit that just because she was slave didn't mean her emotions had been lobotomized.

You're just being silly now stahr.

No. I'm serious.

You, by continuing to deny that she could have been motivated by something as simple as love, are de-humanizing her.

You dehumanize her as badly if not worse than the Virginians whose "law" made it impossible for her and Jefferson to openly love each other as free white man and free black woman.

Evidence suggests she was treated pretty much as any bastard female of a family might have been treated even without "black blood" in her; evidence does NOT suggest she was treated as one might think "a mere black slave" would be treated.

According to the evidence, she comported herself so well she was Jefferson's daughter's attendant at many European functions, and was dressed to present well at those functions. She was also well educated; and, at times, paid.

It appears she was raised to have some pride and dignity.

And you would strip all that humanity away from her simply because the laws of Virginia at that time labelled her "slave."

That, Symmetry, is "contempt."

Misstating her name because I'm poor with names or misspelling it because I'm used to double consanants and hers is single, is not.

I, on the other hand, look at that evidence that is available and assign very female, very HUMAN, emotions to her. That, Symmetry, is "respect."

Your argument: she was too young. She would not have thought that, no woman at that time would have thought that because she was several years over the age of consent they were used to.

Your argument: she was slave. She would not have felt that because she wasn't TREATED as slave - as evidenced by the information about how she WAS treated.

Your argument: they had sex so it must be rape. If she loved him, she would have welcomed him, and evidence suggests she wanted to be there. Wanting to be there implies love.

Your argument: she feared him so wouldn't say no. If she feared him, she'd have fled, she had plenty of opportunity to do so, understood many languages, was used being "a foreigner" in "strange situations" so that would not have upset her. She even had a way to earn her living.

Evidence suggests she stayed out of love. That's what "any human female" would do.

And if she loved him, she'd have said yes. That, too, is what "any human female" would do.

He didn't rape her. She wanted him. If she didn't, she'd have left because she had many opportunities to do so. It's what "any human female" would do.

Stop denying her her humanity, Sym. Look at the evidence and see the brave black woman who loved a man, that it portrays.

And while you're at it, consider the white man she loved, and who loved her, trapped by society into concealing their love - just like any man with a mistress he loved would have to do.

Originally, Jefferson arranged for Polly to "be in the care of her nurse, a black woman, to whom she is confided with safety" [Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, Dec. 21, 1786]. According to Abigail Adams, however, "The old Nurse whom you expected to have attended her, was sick and unable to come. She has a Girl about 15 or 16 with her" [Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 26, 1787]. Polly and Sally stayed in London with Abigail and John Adams from June 26 until July 10, 1787, before Jefferson's associate, Mr. Petit, took the girls to Paris. In a letter to Jefferson on June 27, 1787, Abigail wrote, "The Girl who is with [Polly] is quite a child, and Captain Ramsey is of opinion will be of so little Service that he had better carry her back with him. But of this you will be a judge. She seems fond of the child and appears good naturd." On July 6, Abigail wrote to Jefferson, "The Girl she has with her, wants more care than the child, and is wholy incapable of looking properly after her, without some superiour to direct her."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings#The_Hemingses_in_Paris

Just want to be clear she was considered a child even then.

Symmetry wrote:

Originally, Jefferson arranged for Polly to "be in the care of her nurse, a black woman, to whom she is confided with safety" [Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, Dec. 21, 1786]. According to Abigail Adams, however, "The old Nurse whom you expected to have attended her, was sick and unable to come. She has a Girl about 15 or 16 with her" [Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 26, 1787]. Polly and Sally stayed in London with Abigail and John Adams from June 26 until July 10, 1787, before Jefferson's associate, Mr. Petit, took the girls to Paris. In a letter to Jefferson on June 27, 1787, Abigail wrote, "The Girl who is with [Polly] is quite a child, and Captain Ramsey is of opinion will be of so little Service that he had better carry her back with him. But of this you will be a judge. She seems fond of the child and appears good naturd." On July 6, Abigail wrote to Jefferson, "The Girl she has with her, wants more care than the child, and is wholy incapable of looking properly after her, without some superiour to direct her."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings#The_Hemingses_in_Paris

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.

AHAH! At the time they began their relationship, IN FRANCE, she was FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE to say no. She returned by choice.

Also, based on this, she was at least 18 when they engaged. (the letter abigail wrote was written in 87, when Sally was 15 or 16; while she became preggers in or after '89 )

Your arguments about her being a child and about her not being 'free to consent' are destroyed.

But nothing has evidenced that destroys my argument that she probably wanted him and willingly said yes.

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:

Originally, Jefferson arranged for Polly to "be in the care of her nurse, a black woman, to whom she is confided with safety" [Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, Dec. 21, 1786]. According to Abigail Adams, however, "The old Nurse whom you expected to have attended her, was sick and unable to come. She has a Girl about 15 or 16 with her" [Letter from Abigail Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 26, 1787]. Polly and Sally stayed in London with Abigail and John Adams from June 26 until July 10, 1787, before Jefferson's associate, Mr. Petit, took the girls to Paris. In a letter to Jefferson on June 27, 1787, Abigail wrote, "The Girl who is with [Polly] is quite a child, and Captain Ramsey is of opinion will be of so little Service that he had better carry her back with him. But of this you will be a judge. She seems fond of the child and appears good naturd." On July 6, Abigail wrote to Jefferson, "The Girl she has with her, wants more care than the child, and is wholy incapable of looking properly after her, without some superiour to direct her."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Hemings#The_Hemingses_in_Paris

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.

AHAH! At the time they began their relationship, IN FRANCE, she was FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE to say no. She returned by choice.

She was a child. And a slave. Her relatives were tortured by him and his goons, so no, I see no choice.

Symmetry wrote:She was a child. And a slave. Her relatives were tortured by him and his goons, so no, I see no choice.

She was at least 18 when she became preggers, because it was 89 or after - 2 years after Abigail's letter. In France she was free.

If her mother and siblings were being tortured, her FIRST instinct would be to protect the child she bore, and there's no way she'd have brought them back where they, too, would be tortured (from the time born until the time he legally freed them at their majority.) For that matter, she wouldn't have believed a torturer that he'd free her babies even if they survived all those years of torture you'd like to claim.

Unless she was an unknowing dog instead of the loving female she was.

Again, I respect her HUMANITY more than you appear to do.

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:She was a child. And a slave. Her relatives were tortured by him and his goons, so no, I see no choice.

She was at least 18 when she became preggers, because it was 89 or after - 2 years after Abigail's letter. In France she was free.

If her mother and siblings were being tortured, her FIRST instinct would be to protect the child she bore, and there's no way she'd have brought them back where they, too, would be tortured (from the time born until the time he legally freed them at their majority.) For that matter, she wouldn't have believed a torturer that he'd free her babies even if they survived all those years of torture you'd like to claim.

Unless she was an unknowing dog instead of the loving female she was.

Again, I respect her HUMANITY more than you appear to do.

She was a slave, her will was overridden.

Even by the standards of her time, she was considered a child.

symmetry has to be trolling. no literate person could be this stupid.

john9blue wrote:Symmetry has to be trolling. No literate person could be this stupid.

Corrected.

sym, why do you care whether any of us would do what jefferson did? that's irrelevant to the argument at hand. you're being a fag, and i suggest you look up alternative definitions of that word before you report me again.

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:She was a child. And a slave. Her relatives were tortured by him and his goons, so no, I see no choice.

She was at least 18 when she became preggers, because it was 89 or after - 2 years after Abigail's letter. In France she was free.

If her mother and siblings were being tortured, her FIRST instinct would be to protect the child she bore, and there's no way she'd have brought them back where they, too, would be tortured (from the time born until the time he legally freed them at their majority.) For that matter, she wouldn't have believed a torturer that he'd free her babies even if they survived all those years of torture you'd like to claim.

Unless she was an unknowing dog instead of the loving female she was.

Again, I respect her HUMANITY more than you appear to do.

She was a slave, her will was overridden.

Even by the standards of her time, she was considered a child.

She was not a slave at the time she got pregant, and she was not a slave when she, pregnant, made the choice to return with Jefferson where she WOULD be slave.

Maybe you cannot compute dates. I'll try to help again.

In 1787, while she was considered well above the age of consent, an old lady called her a child despite she was already 15 or 16 years old (16 is current age of consent in most states, by the way.)

When she got pregnant, it was at least two years later, making her 17 or 18 or older; because a law that had made her free was passed in 1789, and according to YOUR source, that law that made her free in France was in effect when she got pregnant.

Thus, she was not a child, by those standards OR by today's standards; and she was not a slave by the standards of the place they were, France.

She willingly involved herself with Jefferson, and willingly chose to continue the involvement with Jefferson by returning to Virginia with him, with full knowledge that when she did, she would become, again, a legal slave, and so would her children, until they were old enough to be freed and leave Virginia.

When she made that decision she was at least 17 or 18 (five years over the age of consent then, and 1-2 years over the age of consent NOW) and she was not a slave, she was free. She exercised her free will by returning to be the willing black mistress of the guy.

john9blue wrote:symmetry has to be trolling. no literate person could be this stupid.

A semi-literate person could; one literate enough to pick out single words, just not literate enough to understand what all the words together mean in a paragraph.

john9blue wrote:sym, why do you care whether any of us would do what jefferson did? that's irrelevant to the argument at hand. you're being a fag, and i suggest you look up alternative definitions of that word before you report me again.

Why shouldn't it bother me? And why are you complaining about your use of the word "fag" as if people don't know you're homophobic by this point.

Heads up, you call people a "fag" and think we don't understand what you're doing?

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:sym, why do you care whether any of us would do what jefferson did? that's irrelevant to the argument at hand. you're being a fag, and i suggest you look up alternative definitions of that word before you report me again.

Why shouldn't it bother me? And why are you complaining about your use of the word "fag" as if people don't know you're homophobic by this point.

Heads up, you call people a "fag" and think we don't understand what you're doing?

Are you a cigarette?

Can we ever be certain?

Symmetry wrote:

john9blue wrote:sym, why do you care whether any of us would do what jefferson did? that's irrelevant to the argument at hand. you're being a fag, and i suggest you look up alternative definitions of that word before you report me again.

Why shouldn't it bother me? And why are you complaining about your use of the word "fag" as if people don't know you're homophobic by this point.

Heads up, you call people a "fag" and think we don't understand what you're doing?

no, i don't, considering you're calling me homophobic despite the fact that i've never posted anything homophobic.

not my fault you misinterpret the meaning of a three-letter word.

sorry for not fitting into your little "conservative homophobe" box. i don't really fit into boxes.

Symmetry wrote:

stahrgazer wrote:

Symmetry wrote:Without the ability to freely consent, it's rape.

You don't know that she wasn't allowed to refuse. Just as many wives at that time and at other times in history had no "right" to refuse - doesn't mean they weren't allowed to refuse.

A slave had no "right" to "her time" but Sally was given, "her time," anyway.

She was a child and a slave. Your "other women were being raped so it's not rape" line of thought is contemptible.

Really? I think perhaps this hit a nerve.

Let's look a this from a different angle.. you know, the process of actually considering the whole story being critical to ensuring reasonable judgement as opposed to simple and easy answers that seem to fit superficially

Why do you assume that Sally would not consent? Even if your original facts were fully correct (they were not, but I will set that aside for now), you base your premise on 2 primary assumptions, assumptions you made based on what would be the reality today, not then. (note setting aside Starz evidenc In that day, a 14 year old girl WAS considered old enough to consent to marriage. Not only was she considered "old enough", but all but the wealthiest of women were already on the path they would take, having what we would call essentially adult responsibilities.

The second assumption is that she might possibly have chosen a different fate. I have to ask why you think that is true?

The full reality is that Sally was and did consider herself very fortunate. She lived a far, far better life than most white women of the day and certainly was intelligent enough to know that.

I find your attitude one of supreme arrogance and part of a hypocritical trend of viewing women. See, you assume , first that a 14 year old woman would not be able to think fully and to make her own choices, but the truth is that both boys and girls were considered essentially adults at 14. We don’t think so because its now impossible for a 14 year old to support him/herself AND because our life today is so much more complex that it takes longer to fully understand all the implications of decisions. Back then, it was not so. You also rather assume that

Second, by condemning Jefferson and saying “Sally could not consent”, you pretend that Sally would not have chosen this fate given full knowledge and ability to choose. Yet, the facts disagree with you. The facts are that her life was extremely good. Though history is rather mute on this point, iIt is just as likely that she initiated the action. Look at things from her perspective. What options did she have? Being the favored of her master was not a bad option, all things considered. Beyond that, evidence is quite clear that this particular relationship went well beyond that of normal master and slave, Evidence suggests they truly did care for each other deeply. It was probably closer to a true loving marriage than many legal relationships then OR today. It was certainly well beyond anything any black person would have though generally possible in that day.

See, your idea that the alterative for Sally would have been some kind of free and happy life is just not the truth. Your fiction that Jefferson did not consider Sally’s feelings, just basically used her to “satisfy his urges” is similarly wrong. The truth is that HE had as few options as Sally.

You don’t even consider what is often considered to be the real truth by most… that Jefferson actually fell in love with Sally and acted upon that love in the way he could. As several, including myself have pointed out, your idea of setting her free and letting her be happy was not the truth. Freedom would not have given her a better position and actually would have put her at risk of being put back into slavery.. real slavery with a harsh master that time. Similarly, her children could not have had true freedom in that society. They certainly would have had a harder time getting education! Add to this that accounts indicate a couple of her children were pale enough that they could “pass” and thus, once off the plantation, wound up having a real and true free life. NONE of that would have been possible had things not transpired as they did.

Beyond that, people speculate over the impact the relationship had on Jefferson’s attitudes about slavery and blacks in general. However, on one point there is agreement… It was partially because of Jefferson that we have the society we have today, that we have the freedoms we have today, freedoms that are enjoyed by ALL people, not just white males.

I know I said I was going to reply to Stahrgazer, but I've been gone for a while, and she doesn't seem to want to consider how Sally could have been coerced even unintentionally by Jefferson.

For example, if Hemings wanted to stay in France, she would have been abandoning all her family in the US, and facing a whole new world alone. Same for if she went to a free state. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

If Jefferson had no interest in mistreating his slaves, or even treating them as slaves, it was still within his legal right to do so. As no slave can ever know the mind of Jefferson, they can never be sure if resisting his will brings no ill effects. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

And that's just some issues with this particular case. Because of this inherent coercion, even if I don't know the mind of Hemings, and I don't know the mind of Jefferson, the activity of Jefferson takes advantage of this coercion whether he intended it to or not. I'm literally telling you how to convince me that it wasn't rape. "Jefferson was nice to his slaves" is not it. "Hemings may have loved Jefferson" is not it. "We don't know what they were thinking" is not it. If you can convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive, then you will convince me that it was not rape. The age thing still gives me the heebeejeebees, but I'm willing to let it slide based on a difference in factors that contribute to maturity.

So, again, if anyone wants to convince me that Jefferson did not rape Hemings, you need to convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive. Maybe this is irrational. If you can convince me of this, I might concede then too.

Neoteny wrote:I know I said I was going to reply to Stahrgazer, but I've been gone for a while, and she doesn't seem to want to consider how Sally could have been coerced even unintentionally by Jefferson.

For example, if Hemings wanted to stay in France, she would have been abandoning all her family in the US, and facing a whole new world alone. Same for if she went to a free state. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

If Jefferson had no interest in mistreating his slaves, or even treating them as slaves, it was still within his legal right to do so. As no slave can ever know the mind of Jefferson, they can never be sure if resisting his will brings no ill effects. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

And that's just some issues with this particular case. Because of this inherent coercion, even if I don't know the mind of Hemings, and I don't know the mind of Jefferson, the activity of Jefferson takes advantage of this coercion whether he intended it to or not. I'm literally telling you how to convince me that it wasn't rape. "Jefferson was nice to his slaves" is not it. "Hemings may have loved Jefferson" is not it. "We don't know what they were thinking" is not it. If you can convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive, then you will convince me that it was not rape. The age thing still gives me the heebeejeebees, but I'm willing to let it slide based on a difference in factors that contribute to maturity.

So, again, if anyone wants to convince me that Jefferson did not rape Hemings, you need to convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive. Maybe this is irrational. If you can convince me of this, I might concede then too.

Hear hear!

thegreekdog wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I know I said I was going to reply to Stahrgazer, but I've been gone for a while, and she doesn't seem to want to consider how Sally could have been coerced even unintentionally by Jefferson.

For example, if Hemings wanted to stay in France, she would have been abandoning all her family in the US, and facing a whole new world alone. Same for if she went to a free state. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

If Jefferson had no interest in mistreating his slaves, or even treating them as slaves, it was still within his legal right to do so. As no slave can ever know the mind of Jefferson, they can never be sure if resisting his will brings no ill effects. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

And that's just some issues with this particular case. Because of this inherent coercion, even if I don't know the mind of Hemings, and I don't know the mind of Jefferson, the activity of Jefferson takes advantage of this coercion whether he intended it to or not. I'm literally telling you how to convince me that it wasn't rape. "Jefferson was nice to his slaves" is not it. "Hemings may have loved Jefferson" is not it. "We don't know what they were thinking" is not it. If you can convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive, then you will convince me that it was not rape. The age thing still gives me the heebeejeebees, but I'm willing to let it slide based on a difference in factors that contribute to maturity.

So, again, if anyone wants to convince me that Jefferson did not rape Hemings, you need to convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive. Maybe this is irrational. If you can convince me of this, I might concede then too.

Hear hear!

Bollocks on bollocks!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187020&start=165#p4095803


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187020&start=150#p4095305

Main Point:
In other words, I maintain that we don't know if the threat/use of coercion existed between their particular exchange. Perhaps, True Love conquered all in this case. Therefore, we can only arrive at a probabilistic truth, which isn't sound enough.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I know I said I was going to reply to Stahrgazer, but I've been gone for a while, and she doesn't seem to want to consider how Sally could have been coerced even unintentionally by Jefferson.

For example, if Hemings wanted to stay in France, she would have been abandoning all her family in the US, and facing a whole new world alone. Same for if she went to a free state. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

If Jefferson had no interest in mistreating his slaves, or even treating them as slaves, it was still within his legal right to do so. As no slave can ever know the mind of Jefferson, they can never be sure if resisting his will brings no ill effects. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

And that's just some issues with this particular case. Because of this inherent coercion, even if I don't know the mind of Hemings, and I don't know the mind of Jefferson, the activity of Jefferson takes advantage of this coercion whether he intended it to or not. I'm literally telling you how to convince me that it wasn't rape. "Jefferson was nice to his slaves" is not it. "Hemings may have loved Jefferson" is not it. "We don't know what they were thinking" is not it. If you can convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive, then you will convince me that it was not rape. The age thing still gives me the heebeejeebees, but I'm willing to let it slide based on a difference in factors that contribute to maturity.

So, again, if anyone wants to convince me that Jefferson did not rape Hemings, you need to convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive. Maybe this is irrational. If you can convince me of this, I might concede then too.

Hear hear!

Bollocks on bollocks!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187020&start=165#p4095803


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187020&start=150#p4095305

Main Point:
In other words, I maintain that we don't know if the threat/use of coercion existed between their particular exchange. Perhaps, True Love conquered all in this case. Therefore, we can only arrive at a probabilistic truth, which isn't sound enough.

Utter shite.

So you're saying slavery is not inherently coercive?

Neoteny wrote:I know I said I was going to reply to Stahrgazer, but I've been gone for a while, and she doesn't seem to want to consider how Sally could have been coerced even unintentionally by Jefferson.

For example, if Hemings wanted to stay in France, she would have been abandoning all her family in the US, and facing a whole new world alone. Same for if she went to a free state. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

If Jefferson had no interest in mistreating his slaves, or even treating them as slaves, it was still within his legal right to do so. As no slave can ever know the mind of Jefferson, they can never be sure if resisting his will brings no ill effects. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

And that's just some issues with this particular case. Because of this inherent coercion, even if I don't know the mind of Hemings, and I don't know the mind of Jefferson, the activity of Jefferson takes advantage of this coercion whether he intended it to or not. I'm literally telling you how to convince me that it wasn't rape. "Jefferson was nice to his slaves" is not it. "Hemings may have loved Jefferson" is not it. "We don't know what they were thinking" is not it. If you can convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive, then you will convince me that it was not rape. The age thing still gives me the heebeejeebees, but I'm willing to let it slide based on a difference in factors that contribute to maturity.

So, again, if anyone wants to convince me that Jefferson did not rape Hemings, you need to convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive. Maybe this is irrational. If you can convince me of this, I might concede then too.

This is a general condemnation of slavery. I don’t think anyone here would say slavery is a good thing by any stretch of the imagination. But, I look at things from another perspective and maybe that is why I get a different conclusion. See, I compare the life of a fully “free” white woman.

The second truth behind MY words is that the life of women until very, very recently was not all that different from that of a slave. I think this thought is part of what makes this so uncomfortable for so many people. The truth is that most women, in time, have had the same basic options that Sally had. At best, they could find a man they believed would treat them kindly, perhaps one to whom they were attracted or maybe just someone they felt could support them. The alternatives were few. They could be a “spinster” – generally dependent on relatives. They might, if they were fortunate obtain some work either as a waitress/bar maid or seamstress (few other occupations) . If they were educated (and usually of a “certain class”), they might be a governess. As such, they would work very hard and wind up eventually being dependent upon relatives to care for them in their old age.

Women had few options.. and were judged, regardless. ANY white woman who became pregnant outside of marriage would find her life and that of her child essentially “ruined”. Her best hope was to leave for somewhere unknown and pretend she was a widow, but that was difficult in those days.

The life of free black women was even more difficult. They had the added risk of being “taken” by essentially any white man, even being compelled back into slavery.

Today, when most people think of slavery, we tend to think “Simon Legree”… and make no mistake, that did happen. BUT, it actually happened rarely. I happened rarely for quite a few reasons, primary being that owners valued their slaves and cared for them, much like farmers today care for farm animals. In fact, some of the worst treatment of blacks happened in areas where blacks were supposedly “free” or later, when slavery ended. Then it became important to bullies to “keep them in their place”. Under slavery, that was not a question and many a black found education, occupation and safety. Sally was far from the only black person to decide to stay a slave with a decent master. Even when things were not so peachy, leaving was not necessarily the easiest thing.
However, in Sally’s case, she had many opportunities to leave. She had more opportunities than many white servants would have had, in fact.. and faced the exact same choices, except that her options in returning were worse.

thegreekdog wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

thegreekdog wrote:

Neoteny wrote:I know I said I was going to reply to Stahrgazer, but I've been gone for a while, and she doesn't seem to want to consider how Sally could have been coerced even unintentionally by Jefferson.

For example, if Hemings wanted to stay in France, she would have been abandoning all her family in the US, and facing a whole new world alone. Same for if she went to a free state. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

If Jefferson had no interest in mistreating his slaves, or even treating them as slaves, it was still within his legal right to do so. As no slave can ever know the mind of Jefferson, they can never be sure if resisting his will brings no ill effects. This is the inherent coercion of slavery.

And that's just some issues with this particular case. Because of this inherent coercion, even if I don't know the mind of Hemings, and I don't know the mind of Jefferson, the activity of Jefferson takes advantage of this coercion whether he intended it to or not. I'm literally telling you how to convince me that it wasn't rape. "Jefferson was nice to his slaves" is not it. "Hemings may have loved Jefferson" is not it. "We don't know what they were thinking" is not it. If you can convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive, then you will convince me that it was not rape. The age thing still gives me the heebeejeebees, but I'm willing to let it slide based on a difference in factors that contribute to maturity.

So, again, if anyone wants to convince me that Jefferson did not rape Hemings, you need to convince me that slavery is not inherently coercive. Maybe this is irrational. If you can convince me of this, I might concede then too.

Hear hear!

Bollocks on bollocks!

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187020&start=165#p4095803


viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187020&start=150#p4095305

Main Point:
In other words, I maintain that we don't know if the threat/use of coercion existed between their particular exchange. Perhaps, True Love conquered all in this case. Therefore, we can only arrive at a probabilistic truth, which isn't sound enough.

Utter shite.

So you're saying slavery is not inherently coercive?

No.
You're assuming that the institution of slavery (i.e. those rules of the game) are 100% active, all the time, ever-imposing the threat of coercion---but in some circumstances, that might not be the case. Sometimes, people can ignore the rules, ignore their incentives, etc.

Therefore, the soundness of "TJ = rapist" conclusion is unknown.