Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[Symmetry]

I'll just say this;
It's offbase to try and enforce modern day morals and ethics on people and cultures centuries ago, since the morals and ethics of that time were completely different. It's easy to sit in your chair and say "oh, so-and-so was horrible because they did this!" when at the time it was the norm and not immoral or unethical to do so. By today's standards, yes, slavery is a horrible thing (though some into bondage disagree, but that's an entirely different matter) and rape is despicable. Back then, well, although personally I can't approve of such things, it was different times, morals, and ethics. Like it or not, that's historical fact.

I don't see why I can't condemn the holocaust simply because it occurred in a different century, and in a society where it was legal and the norm. Your argument doesn't work.

Dammit, I deleted one part. Said things along the lines of that there were exceptions, like Hitler and the Holocaust, but in general, my point still stands.

Do you consider rape and slavery as things that can't be judged as wrong? Your argument just doesn't work.

[Phatscotty]

I'll just say this;
It's offbase to try and enforce modern day morals and ethics on people and cultures centuries ago, since the morals and ethics of that time were completely different. It's easy to sit in your chair and say "oh, so-and-so was horrible because they did this!" when at the time it was the norm and not immoral or unethical to do so. By today's standards, yes, slavery is a horrible thing (though some into bondage disagree, but that's an entirely different matter) and rape is despicable. Back then, well, although personally I can't approve of such things, it was different times, morals, and ethics. Like it or not, that's historical fact.

this

[Ray Rider]

The way he treated his slaves is of no consequence to whether Sally was coerced into having sex with him. We keep having the same argument over and over and over again; namely, that she was either not coerced or that coercion is not rape. We're not getting anywhere because we're not addressing the root of the problem; namely the definition of coercion, the role of coercion in slavery, and the role of coercion, slavery and sex. There is nothing I want more than to admit defeat in this argument, because I do idolize certain aspects of Jefferson. But I cannot escape that this woman was his slave and therefore coercion was a necessary element of their relationship.

This is why the possibility of Sally's freedom in Paris is of paramount importance to the discussion. Actually, according to her son, she was free: "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." This entirely bypasses the question of coercion due to slavery.

Then it very well becomes coercion due to something else, which still doesn't excuse what happened before the move to France (and return from France).

Could you provide some evidence for the section in bold? A few of us have provided evidence of TJ being a kind owner, treating Sally exceptionally well, providing for her eduction and inoculation, paying her for her work, giving her only light duties such as sewing, being willing to do what she wanted regarding children; in general, good reasons for her to stay with him (not to mention the ability to return to her relatives in America rather than staying in France with only her brother). If, as Madison said, slavery wasn't a factor in Paris, what evidence is there of a different form of coercion? Is there absolutely no possibility that she may have liked him and/or figured the incentives for being his concubine were greater than the costs, like modern day gold diggers? Also, I'm not sure what you're referring to in saying he had no excuse for what happened before and after the move to France. Are you referring to his ownership of slaves in general?

[BigBallinStalin]

I'll just say this;
It's offbase to try and enforce modern day morals and ethics on people and cultures centuries ago, since the morals and ethics of that time were completely different. It's easy to sit in your chair and say "oh, so-and-so was horrible because they did this!" when at the time it was the norm and not immoral or unethical to do so. By today's standards, yes, slavery is a horrible thing (though some into bondage disagree, but that's an entirely different matter) and rape is despicable. Back then, well, although personally I can't approve of such things, it was different times, morals, and ethics. Like it or not, that's historical fact.

I don't see why I can't condemn the holocaust simply because it occurred in a different century, and in a society where it was legal and the norm. Your argument doesn't work.

Dammit, I deleted one part. Said things along the lines of that there were exceptions, like Hitler and the Holocaust, but in general, my point still stands.

Do you consider rape and slavery as things that can't be judged as wrong? Your argument just doesn't work.

Yeah, I pretty much agree with Symmetry on this. Depending on which moral positions we uphold, we can deem particular practices in other cultures and at other times as good or bad.

Enforcing our moral positions into other cultures is a different matter though.

[muy_thaiguy]

I'll just say this;
It's offbase to try and enforce modern day morals and ethics on people and cultures centuries ago, since the morals and ethics of that time were completely different. It's easy to sit in your chair and say "oh, so-and-so was horrible because they did this!" when at the time it was the norm and not immoral or unethical to do so. By today's standards, yes, slavery is a horrible thing (though some into bondage disagree, but that's an entirely different matter) and rape is despicable. Back then, well, although personally I can't approve of such things, it was different times, morals, and ethics. Like it or not, that's historical fact.

I don't see why I can't condemn the holocaust simply because it occurred in a different century, and in a society where it was legal and the norm. Your argument doesn't work.

Dammit, I deleted one part. Said things along the lines of that there were exceptions, like Hitler and the Holocaust, but in general, my point still stands.

Do you consider rape and slavery as things that can't be judged as wrong? Your argument just doesn't work.

On modern level? Rape and slavery are horrible. Back then and going back thousands of years? It was the norm. Not saying I like it, but there it is. Slavery by kingdoms and by empires (Rome and the Greek City-States being examples of widespread slavery) was quite common up until the 16th and 17th centuries, and even today, although illegal, it is still done. As for rape, as detestable as it is, was done quite often by conquering armies and raiding forces. Hence the phrase "pillage and rape". Let's not forget that it still happens, actual rape, by individuals who are some of the worst scum on earth (I've stated my opinions on rapists).

To impose modern view points like morals and ethics, on what equates to completely different cultures (people of the past) is to look at historical figures and society as a whole, in the wrong light. To say they were wrong then? Not according to society and culture to their time periods. To observe what they did, capitalize on the good things and to fix the bad is what history is about. Go back 200 years, and wives were little more than slaves and it was not uncommon for them to be 14 years old or so, and marry someone old enough to be their father or even grandfather. Now a days, that's a serious crime punishable by long jail time. Back then, non-whites would be lucky enough to have a shack of their own, now a days, they can be in the most power office in the world.

Different times. You learn, you keep and improve the stuff that the people of the past did, but you fix the things that were wrong (that at the time, weren't).

[BigBallinStalin]

You learn, you keep and improve the stuff that the people of the past did, but you fix the things that were wrong (that at the time, weren't).

With what means?

[PLAYER57832]

@ Stahr

Part of the reason I've reduced my participation in this is that it feels wrong to be trying to define rape to women, for reasons I've illustrated elsewhere. And this is as good a place as any to bow out (well, I guess the best place would be to not get started, but at the beginning I was mostly discussing it with other dudes). I really don't need to have the last word on this, so I will leave it up to whomever.

@ PLAYER

I don't think Jefferson was an "evil criminal." He was a product of his time.

He was also, in my opinion, a rapist. These can coincide, in my view. It goes on the list of bad things he did, along with the good.

OK, I find your position similar to greekdogs.. one I can respect (as opposed to Symmetry's statements), I just happend to disagree.

I'm not trying to make him out to be anything other than who he is. Part of who he is involves raping a slave. Like I said to Stahr, I'm going to stop posting, since it feels wrong for me to continue, but I will read any further responses.

I have been convinced by other rape victims that coercive sex is rape. I feel slavery is a strong enough coercion to qualify it. It will be admittedly hard to break that. I'm not finding either of your lines of argumentation convincing.Thanks for your input though.

I think the fact that I am a woman my be significant here. Maybe not, not saying all women think alike, but I am saying that ANY woman, even today, but particularly back when I grew up faced a myriad of pressures and competing factors.

The thing is that for millenia sex with a man was either an obligation (wife/female concubine) or a career choice (wife or prostitute) or both (mistress, for example). It was a tool. Women were there to basically grow up to take care of men and have their babies and that was how it was "supposed to be". ANYTHING else was pretty much secondary, with very few exceptions.

It has become semi--common nowadays to try and paint slavery as much worse than it was. Starz made a good analogy with horses, but I would draw a slightly different analogy. Would every horse want to be free? The truth is that many horses do stay even when they have the opportunity to leave. In a traditional "broken" horse, you can say their spirit is broken (that IS where the term comes from), that any will has been taken out, but that is not the case is "soft broken" horses (aka the "horse whisperer" -- the real guy, not the movie).

For the idea of coersion to have force, meaning, the person being coerced must see an alternative, an alternative that they want. I would argue that Sally would not have really seen another alternative and very, very likely would have seen "pleasing" her master, Jefferson, as a very good career move. Would she turn Jefferson down so that she might "save herself" for some nice young black gentleman? Even if she had thought such were a possibility, would she truly have wanted to live the life of a free black woman back then, instead of the life she got as Jefferson's mistress?

See, you assume that Jefferson made all the choices and that Sally had no options. I disagree. If she had wanted to avoid Jefferson, there are many things she could have done.. things that women back then did do to discourage men they disliked. A woman who was a slave was not so much powerless as just with few options. If she did not attract the "favor" of her master or one of his close relatives, then she would not have a very good life at all. If she did attract a white man, then she had a chance to be treated well.

I am not arguing that was always the case. Then, as now, some men just plain took pleasure in subjugating women.. or, well, saw the slaves as a means of seeking gratification in ways their wives would not provide. I would certainly call those cases rape (though I suppose there might be exceptions).

Anyway, my main point is just that you cannot always take definitions and standards that are real and true today and always assume they apply in the same way to the past. Its not just that you put those in the past under a harsher judgement than they deserve, its also that you take credit away from those who made the change to what we see today.

See, when you say "it was force, it was slavery, it was rape". Then I feel you actually take away from the struggle that brought us to the point today where I can sit here and argue with a bunch of guys who may not agree with me, may not even always respect what I say much, but who none-the-less basically listen and overall accept that I have as much "right" to be here voicing my opinion as anyone else.

It also takes away from the many women who have really and truly suffered rape throughout time. I would argue some, even within the bounds of marriage.

I understand and accept both your and greekdog's arguments. They are valid, I just disagree. Symmetry's arguments, I don't respect, because he is trying to pretend that he has the right to judge the past because, essentially, he would never act in the same manner even had he lived back then. I find that destructive, not helpful.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry's arguments, I don't respect, because he is trying to pretend that he has the right to judge the past because, essentially, he would never act in the same manner even had he lived back then. I find that destructive, not helpful.

This is not an argument I have employed. Are you saying that the only thing stopping you from raping a slave child is that it is no longer legally or culturally acceptable?

[PLAYER57832]

Symmetry's arguments, I don't respect, because he is trying to pretend that he has the right to judge the past because, essentially, he would never act in the same manner even had he lived back then. I find that destructive, not helpful.

This is not an argument I have employed. Are you saying that the only thing stopping you from raping a slave child is that it is no longer legally or culturally acceptable?

And while claiming this was not an argument you made... you just did it again.

I am saying that claiming Jefferson's realtionship was raping a child slave is only accurate if you transpose the terms into today's standards. Begin with the fact that a 14 year old was considered essentially an adult, well able to marry and make decisions and then go back and actually consider what other people are saying.

Or continue to dig yourself into a prejudicial, hypocritically judgemental hole.

[Symmetry]

I can accept the charge of being judgmental, though I don't understand why you consider it a problem (aren't you making judgments on the past and present too?).

I don't think I'm being hypocritical. I've never raped or enslaved anyone.

As for the charge of prejudice- against who? Slave traders? Rapists?

I quite like "today's standards". Do you truly abandon your principles when you judge anything that occurred more than 24 hours ago?

[Gillipig]

It doesn't really matter if he did, because he did it with style, like this guy:

[Symmetry]

It doesn't really matter if he did, because he did it with style, like this guy:

Fun fact- James Bond, also a rapist.

“She explained to me later that she must have been possessed by a subconscious desire to be raped. Well she found me in the mountains and she was raped - by me.”

Still, how can we judge? It's from a previous century.

[Gillipig]

It doesn't really matter if he did, because he did it with style, like this guy:

Fun fact- James Bond, also a rapist.

“She explained to me later that she must have been possessed by a subconscious desire to be raped. Well she found me in the mountains and she was raped - by me.”

Still, how can we judge? It's from a previous century.

If there was a guy like James Bond in real life, and he wanted to f*ck you, you'd bend your ass in a heartbeat, and you KNOW it!

[chang50]

It doesn't really matter if he did, because he did it with style, like this guy:

Fun fact- James Bond, also a rapist.

“She explained to me later that she must have been possessed by a subconscious desire to be raped. Well she found me in the mountains and she was raped - by me.”

Still, how can we judge? It's from a previous century.

I never knew there were so many moral relativists on cc,will be interesting to see if any of them argue for absolute morality later on.

[john9blue]

not assigning as much blame to people in more primitive societies = moral relativism?

not at all.

[chang50]

not assigning as much blame to people in more primitive societies = moral relativism?

not at all.

Whatever you call it,moral absolutism it is not.

[john9blue]

not assigning as much blame to people in more primitive societies = moral relativism?

not at all.

Whatever you call it,moral absolutism it is not.

as far as i'm concerned, moral absolutism is the belief that right and wrong are well-defined. that doesn't exclude the possibility that someone holds less responsibility for their actions because of the beliefs of the society that they lived in.

[Phatscotty]

that doesn't mean you can just redefine things and then attack people for saying or doing something before the redefinition either.

One day in the future, it may be racist to refer to a Caucasian by the color "white", and then they can go back over everything you said in the last 50 years and destroy you as a racist. Nobody will care that it wasn't a big deal at the time.

Words have definitions and meaning. Anyone trying to redefine words has malicious intentions

[chang50]

that doesn't mean you can just redefine things and then attack people for saying or doing something before the redefinition either.

One day in the future, it may be racist to refer to a Caucasian by the color "white", and then they can go back over everything you said in the last 50 years and destroy you as a racist. Nobody will care that it wasn't a big deal at the time.

Words have definitions and meaning. Anyone trying to redefine words has malicious intentions

Most redefining of words happens gradually and is undirected,a bit like evolution.When I was a youngster the word sceptic described someone who was unsure or doubtful,then it started to shift towards opposed to or anti.So we saw words emege like Eurosceptic to describe someone opposed to membership of the EEC.I don't think it was malicious or even deliberate.

[chang50]

not assigning as much blame to people in more primitive societies = moral relativism?

not at all.

It is possible to describe behaviour without assigning blame.So you could say TJ was a rapist in a time when it was so commonplace that it was considered acceptable,or at least not as reprehensible as today.Player has argued that the vast majority of women were victims of coercive sex back then and I have no reason to contest this.

[PLAYER57832]

Words have definitions and meaning. Anyone trying to redefine words has malicious intentions

I find it supremely ironic that you would voice this opinion, given your views on words like "freedom", "liberal", etc.

Howevever, I firmly agree with the sentiment.

[BigBallinStalin]

that doesn't mean you can just redefine things and then attack people for saying or doing something before the redefinition either.

One day in the future, it may be racist to refer to a Caucasian by the color "white", and then they can go back over everything you said in the last 50 years and destroy you as a racist. Nobody will care that it wasn't a big deal at the time.

Words have definitions and meaning. Anyone trying to redefine words has malicious intentions

Oh really?

If that is true,
and since we have demonstrated that you exhibit such behavior,

then you have malicious intentions.

[Phatscotty]

that doesn't mean you can just redefine things and then attack people for saying or doing something before the redefinition either.

One day in the future, it may be racist to refer to a Caucasian by the color "white", and then they can go back over everything you said in the last 50 years and destroy you as a racist. Nobody will care that it wasn't a big deal at the time.

Words have definitions and meaning. Anyone trying to redefine words has malicious intentions

Oh really?

If that is true,
and since we have demonstrated that you exhibit such behavior,

then you have malicious intentions.

I didn't try to redefine Marxism. I just needed to learn more about it, and I'm sorry that I had to misspeak in order to learn, but if I didn't misspeak, I would still be mislead about the wonders of Marxism.

[BigBallinStalin]

that doesn't mean you can just redefine things and then attack people for saying or doing something before the redefinition either.

One day in the future, it may be racist to refer to a Caucasian by the color "white", and then they can go back over everything you said in the last 50 years and destroy you as a racist. Nobody will care that it wasn't a big deal at the time.

Words have definitions and meaning. Anyone trying to redefine words has malicious intentions

Oh really?

If that is true,
and since we have demonstrated that you exhibit such behavior,

then you have malicious intentions.

I didn't try to redefine Marxism. I just needed to learn more about it, and I'm sorry that I had to misspeak in order to learn, but if I didn't misspeak, I would still be mislead about the wonders of Marxism.

Well said, and very honorable of you. Hopefully, others can realize similar gains.

[Symmetry]

Words have definitions and meaning. Anyone trying to redefine words has malicious intentions

I find it supremely ironic that you would voice this opinion, given your views on words like "freedom", "liberal", etc.

Howevever, I firmly agree with the sentiment.

Damn those malicious people re-defining slavery and rape when it comes to Tom J.