thegreekdog wrote:I think you misunderstand my question and I'm sorry if you think I'm being obtuse.
I think what you're saying is that she freely subjected herself to being a slave because that was the law in Virginia.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that she was "Jefferson's slave" at the time he had sex with her because the only way to stay with him was to be his slave, but she had many options to leave.
Maybe she would have preferred to be fully free AND remain in Virginia, and from the way the entire family had always treated her, maybe they, too, including Jefferson, would have preferred that she be fully free AND remain in Virginia.
That wasn't the options they had.
The options were:
a) fully free her, letting her stay until such time as she's caught by some dickhead of a whiteboy who then has legal right to enslave and abuse her
b) fully free her, sending her north or to Europe to safety
c) Sally herself choose to flee north or to Europe to safety
d) Keep her the "slave who's paid sometimes and with time on her own and quality education to better her skills and with her loving family,"
I believe a was more detrimental and based on them treating her as part family, part maid, even paying her, it's obvious they weren't doing things for her detriment.
I believe b and c were something she did not choose.
That leaves d.
Option d alone doesn't imply sex, but it does imply she willingly chose to stay. If she feared "rape" d would not have been the option she chose.
thegreekdog wrote:My response is why does that make a difference? If she was free to leave the Commonwealth, why didn't she?
I believe evidence reflects she did not leave because she liked being with the Jeffersons. Further, I believe it's quite likely she and Thomas were "in love" - perhaps not recognized until his wife had passed, but presumably (based on when she bore children) not consummated until after his wife had passed.
thegreekdog wrote:Like Symmetry asked, would you stay in Virginia if you were a slave or would you leave and not be a slave?
That's not what he asked. THIS is what HE asked:
Symmetry wrote:Would you have sex with someone who couldn't consent?
His question is irrelevant.
Your question leads to female motivation, implying the freedom of choice I'm saying is indicated that Sally had. IF she were in love, happy, well treated, that she was "slave in name," wouldn't much matter to her. Ever read Alex Haley's Queenie? In part, it's a book about a black slave in love with her white owner.
thegreekdog wrote:In any event, I'm not being obtuse. She was in the position of slave, regardless of the laws of the state and her potential for freedom, and Jefferson was in the position of master. That dynamic is necessarily coercive.
To put it another way, every slave was "free to leave" if he or she could suffer the consequences of leaving. The woman was free to say no to sex if she would suffer the consequences. Just because Jefferson didn't violently rape her doesn't mean he didn't rape her. And just because Jefferson is Jefferson doesn't mean he didn't rape her.
Not all coercive relationships are rape. Money is a type of coercion; doesn't mean a woman who marries money is raped.
Rape has to do with the consequences of saying no specifically to the sexual acts. I'm saying, indications are, she may have preferred to be free and still say yes to Jefferson's sexual act, but given the choice, she was willing to be slave and say yes to Jefferson's sexual act rather than say no and thus, have to say no to his sexual act.
thegreekdog wrote:If Symmetry had made this thread "Was Bob Smith a rapist?" and posted the same facts without disclosing that he was talking about Thomas Jefferson, you'd all be agreeing with him. Sadly, I also think that if Symmetry had noted some non-American instead of Jefferson, you'd all be agreeing with him.
I would not.
Before I'd researched Sally's life as much as I could find, I said it was only rape if she was not allowed
by Jefferson to say no.
I STILL maintain that it's only rape if she was not allowed
by Jefferson to say no.
After reading what I could find of Sally Hinson I'm of the opinion she would have been allowed to say no, but deliberately said yes.
Her reason may have been love.
Her reason may have been security.
It just doesn't appear that her reason is "fear of what would happen if she said no."
If that wasn't her fear, then it wasn't "rape."
You might be trying to imply that she said yes because she feared she'd be kicked out if she said no. Evidence indicates she was given alot of freedom, educated handsomely as a ladies' maid, and sometimes was even paid for her maidservices.
That indicates you think her choice must be, "Accept rape or go live as some nicer lady's maid somewhere up north or in Europe where I'd be free."
If that were the option, I think she'd have chosen to go live as a nicer lady's maid somewhere. She was well-travelled, so wouldn't fear the unknown too much.