Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[stahrgazer]

I don't accept that rape is necessarily violent. It''s a terrible thing to do to a woman who is not free to consent.

If someone would accept another's "no" then she was free to consent. Since she was given education, given wonderful clothing, PAID for her work, allowed to go on excursions, given her own berth when traveling, then she was probably allowed to say "no" if she chose.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't accept that rape is necessarily violent. It''s a terrible thing to do to a woman who is not free to consent.

By your definition, virtually every woman alive back then was raped... seriously.
And for generations after that, pretty much up until the mid 20th century.

Yet.. I don't see you arguing any such thing. You are on some kind of hunt against Jefferson.
You are neither being honest nor aware in your comments. You are looking at labels and making snap judgements -- in other words, you are being prejudiced.

[Symmetry]

I don't accept that rape is necessarily violent. It''s a terrible thing to do to a woman who is not free to consent.

By your definition, virtually every woman alive back then was raped... seriously.
And for generations after that, pretty much up until the mid 20th century.

Yet.. I don't see you arguing any such thing. You are on some kind of hunt against Jefferson.
You are neither being honest nor aware in your comments. You are looking at labels and making snap judgements -- in other words, you are being prejudiced.

Your argument that it can't have been rape as it would condemn a lot of other men guilty of rape has never held much value to me. logically or morally.

[john9blue]

"Free" and "slave" are antithetical. Hemings was not free, She was a slave.

if your position is that slaves don't have free will, then i think we're done here.

[muy_thaiguy]

Either Sym is trolling, hard, or he is way too stubborn in this and was never going to change his position otherwise, despite evidence contrary to his idea on Jefferson being a rapist.

[Phatscotty]

No, Jefferson is not a rapist. They were in love. It's all about who you love, and the power of love can transcend the 1700's or even the world's history of slavery.

Yes, Symmetry is trolling hard.

[Funkyterrance]

Yes, Symmetry is trolling hard.

Wow, you don't waste any time do you PS?

[Phatscotty]

Yes, Symmetry is trolling hard.

Wow, you don't waste any time do you PS?

well? isn't he?

[Funkyterrance]

Yes, Symmetry is trolling hard.

Wow, you don't waste any time do you PS?

well? isn't he?

I haven't even read into this thread, not a big history buff unless we are going way back. That being said, I'm sure he is but dang man, dangle your feet over the water for five minutes lol. I'm just teasing anyhow, welcome back.

[Phatscotty]

Yes, Symmetry is trolling hard.

Wow, you don't waste any time do you PS?

well? isn't he?

I haven't even read into this thread, not a big history buff unless we are going way back. That being said, I'm sure he is but dang man, dangle your feet over the water for five minutes lol. I'm just teasing anyhow, welcome back.

Thanks, I don't really want to talk about that tho. I want to talk about the love between Jefferson and Sally. He spent way too much money on her to go shopping and tutoring to suggest otherwise.

there is an entry in his journal from Europe where she rang up a personal clothing bill of 234 francs (might make Sarah Palin jealous), when at the time 2 francs would get you a fancy pair of gloves.

[Funkyterrance]

Ok, just read the OP so's I know what I'm talking about.
Imho it's probably a lot like arranged marriages and such. She might not have been crazy about the idea in the beginning but who the heck knows. As far as being a rapist, yeah I doubt considering the context anyone would have thought so. That sort of shit was happening widespread between all classes, etc. That's the problem with dragging these scenarios from the past and putting them under modern scrutiny, the backdrop/frame of reference is so much changed between then and now that the comparison is more or less meaningless.

[Ray Rider]

Either Sym is trolling, hard, or he is way too stubborn in this and was never going to change his position otherwise, despite evidence contrary to his idea on Jefferson being a rapist.

I do believe it's the former...Sym's too smart to be that stubborn about an intellectual, abstract debate like this. I mean, I've been willing to admit that it was an inappropriate relationship with the chance of sexual harassment; but Sym won't admit the possibility of it being anything but rape. Heck, he won't even admit that she could have claimed her freedom in France when even TJ and Sally's own son admit that!

So in conclusion,

[thegreekdog]

I have engaged in several well-documented disagreements with Symmetry. Not only do I not believe he's trolling, I agree with him that Jefferson was a rapist. If you would prefer to discuss with me than with Symmetry, feel free. You'll have to look a few pages back for my arguments.

[Neoteny]

I have engaged in several well-documented disagreements with Symmetry. Not only do I not believe he's trolling, I agree with him that Jefferson was a rapist. If you would prefer to discuss with me than with Symmetry, feel free. You'll have to look a few pages back for my arguments.

I am also in agreement with Symmetry in a non-trolling fashion. I don't have much time to discuss anything, but I wanted to note my support as well. I feel that the historical implications of this are probably minimal, since, as PLAYER and Stahr have repeated at us ad nauseum, Jefferson was not exactly in the minority, and may have been an OK guy overall for his time, but I do feel that the discussion is an important one as a consciousness-raiser about what rape is, and how the lessons learned from the past are relevant today. For example, rape is not always violent, and is often performed from a position of power, and usually from a familiar face.

[Symmetry]

Either Sym is trolling, hard, or he is way too stubborn in this and was never going to change his position otherwise, despite evidence contrary to his idea on Jefferson being a rapist.

I do believe it's the former...Sym's too smart to be that stubborn about an intellectual, abstract debate like this. I mean, I've been willing to admit that it was an inappropriate relationship with the chance of sexual harassment; but Sym won't admit the possibility of it being anything but rape. Heck, he won't even admit that she could have claimed her freedom in France when even TJ and Sally's own son admit that!

So in conclusion,

I don't understand why you think this. I demolished your claim that she was not a slave, and I showed my evidence. I did so politely, discussing only the merits of your arguments (which I showed to be factually incorrect). In response to being shown to be wrong, you have doubled down on a poor line of argument and are now calling me a troll for pointing out that the claims you made for saying it wasn't rape were simply untrue.

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes, Symmetry is trolling hard.

Wow, you don't waste any time do you PS?

well? isn't he?

Well, it's the Eternal Cyber Question:

"Don't know if trolling or just..."

[Symmetry]

Welcome back from your ban for trolling PS.

[Ray Rider]

I have engaged in several well-documented disagreements with Symmetry. Not only do I not believe he's trolling, I agree with him that Jefferson was a rapist. If you would prefer to discuss with me than with Symmetry, feel free. You'll have to look a few pages back for my arguments.

Certainly, here was my response to you from page 22:

"As Jefferson's slave she was given fine clothing, paid for her work, given 'extraordinary privilege' and remained in the household of one of the most prominent men in the world."

How is that not coercion? Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Jefferson was merely her boss (I don't agree with this by any means). If my boss propositioned me for sex and I said yes, it would be because I was coerced.

Please explain; I don't see what you claim I'm arguing for you. Sally could have remained in France and gained her freedom, thereby losing her job (I say "job" because he was paying her a regular wage) when TJ returned to America (why would TJ have an employee in France after he's moved home?). That's not coercion. That's quitting a job, and the natural negative ramifications which accompany joblessness (unless perhaps she had found a better one later). Are you making the point that he would have fired her if she refused to have sex with him? That's possible, and we would call that sexual harassment nowadays; but we have no evidence of that. It's pure conjecture.

You say that if your boss propositioned you for sex and you said yes, it would be because you were coerced. I agree, that may be the case in your situation. That doesn't mean it's the case in every situation across the board. What if hypothetically your boss was some hot momma that everyone wanted to get in bed and she propositioned you for sex? If you had no moral qualms about it, likely you'd say yes and it wouldn't be coercion. We have no idea how ugly or handsome TJ was at the time or whether there was any attraction felt on the side of Sally. So again we're left with a case of possible sexual harassment but no proof. At most we can say it was an inappropriate affair between boss and employee, master and slave; however inappropriate affairs happen all the time on the job (General Petraeus, Senator Boisvenu, President Clinton, etc) so I'm not sure what that would prove.

As for BBS, his standards are too high. I'm treating this as a civil case, not a criminal one. Therefore, if I can get to 51%, I win. I'm at well over 51% (which increases as stahr and Ray continue to provide more evidence for me).

I'm not sure why you're treating this as a civil case when rape is a criminal matter. Perhaps because under the surface you realize that it really cannot be proven to be a case of rape, and is therefore not a criminal matter?

Then we see evidence from a link posted by Symmetry that indicates a date when France really freed their slaves.
Then we see evidence from a different link posted by me refuting the dates Symmetry's link gives.

Where is this link? I must've missed it. Far as I can see, it is true that the revolutionary constitution codified the abolition of slavery in 1794, after TJ had left in 1789. However that's quite irrelevant to the case at hand. France first abolished slavery in 1315, although as I mentioned before, the laws varied on the matter between that time and 1789 and there was much disagreement between the various federal, colonial, and regional courts. And as I quoted earlier, at the time when TJ was in France, the royal courts had actually suspended the free soil principle; however the Admiralty Court of France and the Parlement of Paris (along with other lesser courts) spurned that law and continued freeing slaves on the basis of the earlier laws, precedents, and principles (again, this is also evidenced by both TJ and Sally's son). This is why we know for certain that Sally could have claimed her freedom had she chosen to do so.

This is a country where someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. I don't care if TJ was John Jacob Ingleheimer Schmidt instead of TJ... NOWHERE does Symmetry find evidence to PROVE rape.

All we can PROVE from this thread is, any "evidence" is conflicting. Conflicting evidence usually = not guilty.

Oh, and greek? You're right. If it was T Randomson, Symmetry wouldn't be whining about something that even historians cannot agree on...

Agreed. I've already mentioned before that I couldn't care less about TJ; however the tenacity with which Sym continues to pronounce guilt without evidence (while outright ignoring evidence to the contrary) gives the appearance that Sym has a personal vendetta against TJ himself. I think TGD has been reasonable, logical, and generally unbiased so far, although I'm curious to hear how he thinks I'm arguing his case.

Either Sym is trolling, hard, or he is way too stubborn in this and was never going to change his position otherwise, despite evidence contrary to his idea on Jefferson being a rapist.

I do believe it's the former...Sym's too smart to be that stubborn about an intellectual, abstract debate like this. I mean, I've been willing to admit that it was an inappropriate relationship with the chance of sexual harassment; but Sym won't admit the possibility of it being anything but rape. Heck, he won't even admit that she could have claimed her freedom in France when even TJ and Sally's own son admit that!

So in conclusion,

I don't understand why you think this. I demolished your claim that she was not a slave, and I showed my evidence. I did so politely, discussing only the merits of your arguments (which I showed to be factually incorrect). In response to being shown to be wrong, you have doubled down on a poor line of argument and are now calling me a troll for pointing out that the claims you made for saying it wasn't rape were simply untrue.

Please point me to the place where you discussed our first-hand, star witnesses in this trial, namely TJ and Sally's son both admitting that Sally could have claimed her freedom while in France, but instead chose to return as a slave to America (you've been avoiding this since page 19); or where you discussed the fact that concurrent with the time Sally was in Paris, the Admiralty Court of France and the Parlement of Paris as well as other courts were freeing hundreds of slaves based on French laws, precedents, and principles dating back to 1315 (you've been avoiding that one since page 21). Until then, I will continue to call you a troll.

[Symmetry]

I have engaged in several well-documented disagreements with Symmetry. Not only do I not believe he's trolling, I agree with him that Jefferson was a rapist. If you would prefer to discuss with me than with Symmetry, feel free. You'll have to look a few pages back for my arguments.

Certainly, here was my response to you from page 22:

"As Jefferson's slave she was given fine clothing, paid for her work, given 'extraordinary privilege' and remained in the household of one of the most prominent men in the world."

How is that not coercion? Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that Jefferson was merely her boss (I don't agree with this by any means). If my boss propositioned me for sex and I said yes, it would be because I was coerced.

Please explain; I don't see what you claim I'm arguing for you. Sally could have remained in France and gained her freedom, thereby losing her job (I say "job" because he was paying her a regular wage) when TJ returned to America (why would TJ have an employee in France after he's moved home?). That's not coercion. That's quitting a job, and the natural negative ramifications which accompany joblessness (unless perhaps she had found a better one later). Are you making the point that he would have fired her if she refused to have sex with him? That's possible, and we would call that sexual harassment nowadays; but we have no evidence of that. It's pure conjecture.

You say that if your boss propositioned you for sex and you said yes, it would be because you were coerced. I agree, that may be the case in your situation. That doesn't mean it's the case in every situation across the board. What if hypothetically your boss was some hot momma that everyone wanted to get in bed and she propositioned you for sex? If you had no moral qualms about it, likely you'd say yes and it wouldn't be coercion. We have no idea how ugly or handsome TJ was at the time or whether there was any attraction felt on the side of Sally. So again we're left with a case of possible sexual harassment but no proof. At most we can say it was an inappropriate affair between boss and employee, master and slave; however inappropriate affairs happen all the time on the job (General Petraeus, Senator Boisvenu, President Clinton, etc) so I'm not sure what that would prove.

As for BBS, his standards are too high. I'm treating this as a civil case, not a criminal one. Therefore, if I can get to 51%, I win. I'm at well over 51% (which increases as stahr and Ray continue to provide more evidence for me).

I'm not sure why you're treating this as a civil case when rape is a criminal matter. Perhaps because under the surface you realize that it really cannot be proven to be a case of rape, and is therefore not a criminal matter?

Then we see evidence from a link posted by Symmetry that indicates a date when France really freed their slaves.
Then we see evidence from a different link posted by me refuting the dates Symmetry's link gives.

Where is this link? I must've missed it. Far as I can see, it is true that the revolutionary constitution codified the abolition of slavery in 1794, after TJ had left in 1789. However that's quite irrelevant to the case at hand. France first abolished slavery in 1315, although as I mentioned before, the laws varied on the matter between that time and 1789 and there was much disagreement between the various federal, colonial, and regional courts. And as I quoted earlier, at the time when TJ was in France, the royal courts had actually suspended the free soil principle; however the Admiralty Court of France and the Parlement of Paris (along with other lesser courts) spurned that law and continued freeing slaves on the basis of the earlier laws, precedents, and principles (again, this is also evidenced by both TJ and Sally's son). This is why we know for certain that Sally could have claimed her freedom had she chosen to do so.

This is a country where someone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. I don't care if TJ was John Jacob Ingleheimer Schmidt instead of TJ... NOWHERE does Symmetry find evidence to PROVE rape.

All we can PROVE from this thread is, any "evidence" is conflicting. Conflicting evidence usually = not guilty.

Oh, and greek? You're right. If it was T Randomson, Symmetry wouldn't be whining about something that even historians cannot agree on...

Agreed. I've already mentioned before that I couldn't care less about TJ; however the tenacity with which Sym continues to pronounce guilt without evidence (while outright ignoring evidence to the contrary) gives the appearance that Sym has a personal vendetta against TJ himself. I think TGD has been reasonable, logical, and generally unbiased so far, although I'm curious to hear how he thinks I'm arguing his case.

Either Sym is trolling, hard, or he is way too stubborn in this and was never going to change his position otherwise, despite evidence contrary to his idea on Jefferson being a rapist.

I do believe it's the former...Sym's too smart to be that stubborn about an intellectual, abstract debate like this. I mean, I've been willing to admit that it was an inappropriate relationship with the chance of sexual harassment; but Sym won't admit the possibility of it being anything but rape. Heck, he won't even admit that she could have claimed her freedom in France when even TJ and Sally's own son admit that!

So in conclusion,

I don't understand why you think this. I demolished your claim that she was not a slave, and I showed my evidence. I did so politely, discussing only the merits of your arguments (which I showed to be factually incorrect). In response to being shown to be wrong, you have doubled down on a poor line of argument and are now calling me a troll for pointing out that the claims you made for saying it wasn't rape were simply untrue.

Please point me to the place where you discussed our first-hand, star witnesses in this trial, namely TJ and Sally's son both admitting that Sally could have claimed her freedom while in France, but instead chose to return as a slave to America (you've been avoiding this since page 19); or where you discussed the fact that concurrent with the time Sally was in Paris, the Admiralty Court of France and the Parlement of Paris as well as other courts were freeing hundreds of slaves based on French laws, precedents, and principles dating back to 1315 (you've been avoiding that one since page 21). Until then, I will continue to call you a troll.

I pointed out that the constitution you claimed would give her that ability did not exist. I asked you to provide evidence of it. You were unable. You were clearly wrong.

[Ray Rider]

I pointed out that the constitution you claimed would give her that ability did not exist. I asked you to provide evidence of it. You were unable. You were clearly wrong.

In case you didn't notice, I already repsonded to that on page 22 as well as previously here and here. I'll requote the most recent one:

Far as I can see, it is true that the revolutionary constitution codified the abolition of slavery in 1794, after TJ had left in 1789. However that's quite irrelevant to the case at hand. France first abolished slavery in 1315, although as I mentioned before, the laws varied on the matter between that time and 1789 and there was much disagreement between the various federal, colonial, and regional courts. And as I quoted earlier, at the time when TJ was in France, the royal courts had actually suspended the free soil principle; however the Admiralty Court of France and the Parlement of Paris (along with other lesser courts) spurned that law and continued freeing slaves on the basis of the earlier laws, precedents, and principles (again, this is also evidenced by both TJ and Sally's son). This is why we know for certain that Sally could have claimed her freedom had she chosen to do so.

Now would you care to respond to my evidence which you've been ignoring since page 19:

Please point me to the place where you discussed our first-hand, star witnesses in this trial, namely TJ and Sally's son both admitting that Sally could have claimed her freedom while in France, but instead chose to return as a slave to America (you've been avoiding this since page 19); or where you discussed the fact that concurrent with the time Sally was in Paris, the Admiralty Court of France and the Parlement of Paris as well as other courts were freeing hundreds of slaves based on French laws, precedents, and principles dating back to 1315 (you've been avoiding that one since page 21).

Oh, and in the meant time:

[Symmetry]

I pointed out that the constitution you claimed would give her that ability did not exist. I asked you to provide evidence of it. You were unable. You were clearly wrong.

In case you didn't notice, I already repsonded to that on page 22 as well as previously here and here. I'll requote the most recent one:

Far as I can see, it is true that the revolutionary constitution codified the abolition of slavery in 1794, after TJ had left in 1789. However that's quite irrelevant to the case at hand. France first abolished slavery in 1315, although as I mentioned before, the laws varied on the matter between that time and 1789 and there was much disagreement between the various federal, colonial, and regional courts. And as I quoted earlier, at the time when TJ was in France, the royal courts had actually suspended the free soil principle; however the Admiralty Court of France and the Parlement of Paris (along with other lesser courts) spurned that law and continued freeing slaves on the basis of the earlier laws, precedents, and principles (again, this is also evidenced by both TJ and Sally's son). This is why we know for certain that Sally could have claimed her freedom had she chosen to do so.

Now would you care to respond to my evidence which you've been ignoring since page 19:

Please point me to the place where you discussed our first-hand, star witnesses in this trial, namely TJ and Sally's son both admitting that Sally could have claimed her freedom while in France, but instead chose to return as a slave to America (you've been avoiding this since page 19); or where you discussed the fact that concurrent with the time Sally was in Paris, the Admiralty Court of France and the Parlement of Paris as well as other courts were freeing hundreds of slaves based on French laws, precedents, and principles dating back to 1315 (you've been avoiding that one since page 21).

Oh, and in the meant time:

Your links are to your own posts and to a case around 40 years after Jefferson left France.

[Ray Rider]

Your links are to your own posts and to a case around 40 years after Jefferson left France.

Links to my previous posts which you have either ignored or responded to with red herrings such as this one. The case refers back to earlier precedents, principles, and laws in tracing back the history of slaves freed in France, which is why it is clearly relevant to the case at hand (especially the sections I quoted for you which discuss the situation in France at the time when Sally and TJ lived in Paris).

Since it is apparent that you have no new evidence to add to the case and refuse to discuss any evidence contrary to you, I will revert back to my previous verdict:

Based on these facts which have been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is highly unlikely that Jefferson was a rapist as you have been claiming. Until you produce real evidence for his guilt in the matter, I'm declaring this case closed. Troll on as much as you like to others who may pay attention to you; I've got more important things to do.

Oh, and also:

[thegreekdog]

Please explain; I don't see what you claim I'm arguing for you. Sally could have remained in France and gained her freedom, thereby losing her job (I say "job" because he was paying her a regular wage) when TJ returned to America (why would TJ have an employee in France after he's moved home?). That's not coercion. That's quitting a job, and the natural negative ramifications which accompany joblessness (unless perhaps she had found a better one later). Are you making the point that he would have fired her if she refused to have sex with him? That's possible, and we would call that sexual harassment nowadays; but we have no evidence of that. It's pure conjecture.

You say that if your boss propositioned you for sex and you said yes, it would be because you were coerced. I agree, that may be the case in your situation. That doesn't mean it's the case in every situation across the board. What if hypothetically your boss was some hot momma that everyone wanted to get in bed and she propositioned you for sex? If you had no moral qualms about it, likely you'd say yes and it wouldn't be coercion. We have no idea how ugly or handsome TJ was at the time or whether there was any attraction felt on the side of Sally. So again we're left with a case of possible sexual harassment but no proof. At most we can say it was an inappropriate affair between boss and employee, master and slave; however inappropriate affairs happen all the time on the job (General Petraeus, Senator Boisvenu, President Clinton, etc) so I'm not sure what that would prove.

This didn't actually address my post. I gave the example of work-place harrassment as an example of something that you and I, in 2013, would take for granted as happening and wrong. What we're talking about with TJ is that he owned a person and had sex with her. It doesn't matter if he treated her well or if she was attracted to him physically or whatever other excuses you guys can come up with. The master-slave relationships is MORE coercive than boss-employee in that there were laws protecting the coercive nature of the relationship (except in France).

In terms of why I have to be 51% and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" - because it's history, not a criminal trial. It is probably that the relationship between Jefferson and this woman was coercive and nature and thus Jefferson was a rapist. In the context of history (as FT indicated), it probably doesn't matter all that much because everyone was doing it; and I would be the first to denigrate Symmetry for trying to link Jefferson's status as a rapist with his political importance.

[Symmetry]

Cheers Ray. I note you offer no evidence again. Again I point out that you only link to your own posts as "evidence" and a report about a case that occurred 40 years or so after you claim it to be relevant to the Hemings' rape.

[Ray Rider]

Please explain; I don't see what you claim I'm arguing for you. Sally could have remained in France and gained her freedom, thereby losing her job (I say "job" because he was paying her a regular wage) when TJ returned to America (why would TJ have an employee in France after he's moved home?). That's not coercion. That's quitting a job, and the natural negative ramifications which accompany joblessness (unless perhaps she had found a better one later). Are you making the point that he would have fired her if she refused to have sex with him? That's possible, and we would call that sexual harassment nowadays; but we have no evidence of that. It's pure conjecture.

You say that if your boss propositioned you for sex and you said yes, it would be because you were coerced. I agree, that may be the case in your situation. That doesn't mean it's the case in every situation across the board. What if hypothetically your boss was some hot momma that everyone wanted to get in bed and she propositioned you for sex? If you had no moral qualms about it, likely you'd say yes and it wouldn't be coercion. We have no idea how ugly or handsome TJ was at the time or whether there was any attraction felt on the side of Sally. So again we're left with a case of possible sexual harassment but no proof. At most we can say it was an inappropriate affair between boss and employee, master and slave; however inappropriate affairs happen all the time on the job (General Petraeus, Senator Boisvenu, President Clinton, etc) so I'm not sure what that would prove.

This didn't actually address my post. I gave the example of work-place harrassment as an example of something that you and I, in 2013, would take for granted as happening and wrong. What we're talking about with TJ is that he owned a person and had sex with her. It doesn't matter if he treated her well or if she was attracted to him physically or whatever other excuses you guys can come up with. The master-slave relationships is MORE coercive than boss-employee in that there were laws protecting the coercive nature of the relationship (except in France).

I addressed your post very specifically, showing how your example of working-place harassment is only considered that if it is deemed unwanted attention by the possible victim. In the case of Sally, we cannot know her response and therefore we cannot say whether it was an example of love or sexual harassment (although we can say for certain that it was inappropriate based on today's standards). We do know (as you were willing to concede) that Sally and her brother could have claimed their freedom and abandoned TJ while in Paris if TJ had been abusive, therefore it is likely that this was not a case of rape. She liked him enough to decide to remain his slave and return to America with him.

In terms of why I have to be 51% and not "beyond a reasonable doubt" - because it's history, not a criminal trial. It is probably that the relationship between Jefferson and this woman was coercive and nature and thus Jefferson was a rapist. In the context of history (as FT indicated), it probably doesn't matter all that much because everyone was doing it; and I would be the first to denigrate Symmetry for trying to link Jefferson's status as a rapist with his political importance.

I guess here we'll have to disagree. I agree the whole concept is an abstract, intellectual discussion void of current legal ramifications, however as you say, because it is history, it is technically neither a criminal nor a civil trial. But if it were a current trial, it would be a criminal trial which is why I would require clear evidence of guilt before judgement.