Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[Symmetry]

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.

Weak dude, a 46 year old mam raping a 14 year old he owned as a slave ain't free of current legal ramifications. "I considered her a slave when i had sex with her at 14" is pretty clear evidence of guilt in a current trial. It's practically a confession.

[thegreekdog]

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.

I've dealt with this previously earlier in the thread, but I will do so again in the interest of this discussion.

The question is - "Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?"

(1) Sally was a slave.
(2) Sally was owned by Thomas Jefferson.
(3) Thomas Jefferson had sex with her.
(4) The relationship between master and slave is coercive by its very nature.
(5) Coercive sex is rape.
(6) Therefore, Thomas Jefferson is a rapist.

Which one of the above do you have a problem with? Presumably it's (4), although it could also be (6). The people that believe the relationship between a master and his slave is not coercive need to do a better job of convincing me that the master-slave relationship is not coercive and/or that the master-slave relationship between Jefferson and Sally was not coercive for some reason.

[Ray Rider]

I've dealt with this previously earlier in the thread, but I will do so again in the interest of this discussion.

The question is - "Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?"

(1) Sally was a slave.
(2) Sally was owned by Thomas Jefferson.
(3) Thomas Jefferson had sex with her.
(4) The relationship between master and slave is coercive by its very nature.
(5) Coercive sex is rape.
(6) Therefore, Thomas Jefferson is a rapist.

Which one of the above do you have a problem with? Presumably it's (4), although it could also be (6). The people that believe the relationship between a master and his slave is not coercive need to do a better job of convincing me that the master-slave relationship is not coercive and/or that the master-slave relationship between Jefferson and Sally was not coercive for some reason.

Yes, I feel like we're going in circles here. You posted that here, and Stahrgazer responded to you here pointing out that she had the ability to claim her freedom and abandon TJ if she wanted to; furthermore she was being paid (not a stereotypical coercive slave/master relationship) and she bargained with him (again, evidence against a stereotypical coercive slave/master relationship). As he said, this "implies she was free to choose, free to say no, thus was not coerced, thus Jefferson is not a rapist."

You responded to that here by bolding the part about the bargain and telling him to think about it (which you repeated here as well), then conceding here that she could've chosen freedom in France, yet here and here you say that it's irrelevant and we're arguing your points for you. I responded here asking for you to explain in what way we're doing such a thing (since you only repeat and highlight what we wrote as if something is self-evident when it clearly isn't) and that no, sexual harassment is only that if it is rejected (if the feeling or consent is not mutual). Every boss/employee master/slave sexual relationship is technically inappropriate, but that doesn't mean that every case is rape or else you're making the claim that no employee/slave could ever fall in love with (or be attracted to) their boss/master, which would be a ludicrous generalization.

[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.

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.

That isn't my argument at all, which is why I said "by your definition", which is not my definition.

Its that you are being extremely hypocritic and ignorant of the realities of that time in your declarations. You are picking one, prominent person who is lauded for many reasons in the development of our country and trying to claim that he is a terrible person, not someone worthy of respect because he did not act as is appropriate for a 21rst century.

[thegreekdog]

I've dealt with this previously earlier in the thread, but I will do so again in the interest of this discussion.

The question is - "Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?"

(1) Sally was a slave.
(2) Sally was owned by Thomas Jefferson.
(3) Thomas Jefferson had sex with her.
(4) The relationship between master and slave is coercive by its very nature.
(5) Coercive sex is rape.
(6) Therefore, Thomas Jefferson is a rapist.

Which one of the above do you have a problem with? Presumably it's (4), although it could also be (6). The people that believe the relationship between a master and his slave is not coercive need to do a better job of convincing me that the master-slave relationship is not coercive and/or that the master-slave relationship between Jefferson and Sally was not coercive for some reason.

Yes, I feel like we're going in circles here.

Every boss/employee master/slave sexual relationship is technically inappropriate, but that doesn't mean that every case is rape or else you're making the claim that no employee/slave could ever fall in love with (or be attracted to) their boss/master, which would be a ludicrous generalization.

Yes, we are going in circles. While it may not mean that every case is rape, it must mean that most, if not almost all, cases are rape. As I said previously, if this was Thomas Smitherson, we wouldn't be having this discussion and it would be ludicrous for you and stahr to point out that the slave was in love with him. I think it remains ludicrous. In the history of slavery in the United States, when a master and slave had sex, what percentage do you think was consensual? 5%? 2%? Jefferson and Sally just happen to be in that small percentage? I lean heavily to "no."

As far as stahr's comment about the ability of Sally to stay in France... well, she didn't, did she? Why not? The answer I've been given is that she must have been in love with Jefferson. The more realistic answer was that she probably had a chance for a better life in Virginia with Jefferson than in France by herself. As I also indicated before, the deal was that her children would be free... why would she have to make that deal if she and Jefferson were in love? Wouldn't Jefferson have made that happen regardless of any deal?

Honestly, I'm kind of annoyed at this discussion. Common sense and history dictates this was a coercive relationship. Names of those involved and romanticism is what you've used to support this not being a coercive relationship.

[thegreekdog]

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.

That isn't my argument at all, which is why I said "by your definition", which is not my definition.

Its that you are being extremely hypocritic and ignorant of the realities of that time in your declarations. You are picking one, prominent person who is lauded for many reasons in the development of our country and trying to claim that he is a terrible person, not someone worthy of respect because he did not act as is appropriate for a 21rst century.

Ray - This is Exhibit A of what annoys me.

On the one hand, Player is correct in that Symmetry is using this to denigrate Jefferson as a political thinker and man of importance. But she's also noting the reasons she is defending Jefferson.

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable for me to respect Jefferson for his contribution to the United States while also acknowledging that he probably was a rapist. Symmetry has that part wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

For example, rape is not always violent, and is often performed from a position of power, and usually from a familiar face.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Even if its not physically violent, rape is, by definition, violance.

There is a fundamental difference between the actions of any man today in western society who would "take" a 14 year old and someone who would back then. The differences are legal, social and perception. If the woman was white, he would marry her. Consent would then be assumed, in fact legally enforced, even if it would meet the standards of rape today. A black could not be married. The only avenue then was as Jefferson acted.

When you talk about a black woman who was, by all accounts treated better than most white women could possibly dream; who's children were treated far better than most of the day, as well or better than even many born to "priviliage"; then the discussion of was this rape becomes rather erroneous.

The whole assumption here is that sex was something about which women decided. In that day, women did not decide. They were not even supposed to know about sex. The idea of consent being the standard just does not apply.

The bit about slavery being inherently coercive is generally true, but there are always exceptions. Jefferson is, by all accounts, reported to have been among those who treated his slaves more as human beings than property. All accounts indicate that what he had with Sally was a true relationship.

Also, when you start talking about the idea of freedom and chioce... then you ALSO have to look at the reality of women then, not today. The real fact is that most white women led lives that were less free than those of many slaves, and that, too, is the historical truth. Neither fact justifies the other, but this idea that all you have to do is look at labels to make judgements is just wrong.

[PLAYER57832]

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable for me to respect Jefferson for his contribution to the United States while also acknowledging that he probably was a rapist. Symmetry has that part wrong.

I fully respect that distinction and point. It is a valid one.

However, the biggest reason I take issue here is the gross distortion so many seem to want to perpetuate about what it was truly like to be a women back then. I posted most of that in my most recent post, so won't reiterate here, but that is part of why I really take exception to Symmetry's position. I take some exception to your position, but nowhere near as much. You seem more to be arguing a point of technicality. Symmetry is arguing a point of pretended morality.

Its funny that I am here in the position of defending Jefferson so strongly. I have previously condemned him for being a slave owner. However, as much as I do feel that was wrong, I also understand that in that day and time and place, he could not have reached the position he was in without owning a plantation and therefore slaves. Also, from what I have found, he was among the mananamous of owners, not just to Sally, but to all his slaves. (I may be misinformed in that, but that would be a different topic) We today, sometimes have this tendency to see slavery solely through the eyes of Harriet Beecher Stowe, Roots and the KKK. It is, essentially to dehumanize slave owners as much as the slavers dehumanized the slaves. Facing the complexities is both more difficult and more illuminating. If we admit that Jefferson could be an upstanding and essentially decent man, but still own slaves, then it challenges our world view more... sort of makes us look at the things we take for granted to see if maybe future generations will judge us as harshly.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

It's history, not a civil trial, amirite?

[Neoteny]

For example, rape is not always violent, and is often performed from a position of power, and usually from a familiar face.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Even if its not physically violent, rape is, by definition, violance.

There is a fundamental difference between the actions of any man today in western society who would "take" a 14 year old and someone who would back then. The differences are legal, social and perception. If the woman was white, he would marry her. Consent would then be assumed, in fact legally enforced, even if it would meet the standards of rape today. A black could not be married. The only avenue then was as Jefferson acted.

When you talk about a black woman who was, by all accounts treated better than most white women could possibly dream; who's children were treated far better than most of the day, as well or better than even many born to "priviliage"; then the discussion of was this rape becomes rather erroneous.

The whole assumption here is that sex was something about which women decided. In that day, women did not decide. They were not even supposed to know about sex. The idea of consent being the standard just does not apply.

The bit about slavery being inherently coercive is generally true, but there are always exceptions. Jefferson is, by all accounts, reported to have been among those who treated his slaves more as human beings than property. All accounts indicate that what he had with Sally was a true relationship.

Also, when you start talking about the idea of freedom and chioce... then you ALSO have to look at the reality of women then, not today. The real fact is that most white women led lives that were less free than those of many slaves, and that, too, is the historical truth. Neither fact justifies the other, but this idea that all you have to do is look at labels to make judgements is just wrong.

Physical violence is more what I meant. Rape is inherently violent in a general sense because it relies on some form of coercion.

Regardless of the standard of the time, rape is rape. If all women were not allowed consent (I don't think this was the case), then all women were raped. You could argue that such a perspective might trivialize the definition of rape, but I think it speaks more to the plight of women through history. At any rate, you can repeat it at us all you want, and we will keep telling you that "it's just the way it was" is not a good enough justification for why society was structured the way it was. It was a shitty set up because women were jilted, and we have every right to call it a shitty situation. Why you are trying to convince us otherwise is beyond me. The fact that Hemings was owned by Jefferson increases that shittiness as well. I seriously do not understand your "all women had it bad" argument. The reality that women had little choice does not affect the fact that they should have had the choice. Women should always have a choice, and they all should have had a choice. Women were no less human two hundred or two thousand years ago. You are willing to admit that they had an inferior role in society, but can't bear describing that as a bad thing? You keep talking about this, but I really have no idea what you are trying to prove.

Are you really trying to convince me that women have had it bad through history, therefore Jefferson did not have coercive sex with his slave? Because that's not actually how it works.

[Neoteny]

Again, even if they were in a "true relationship," whatever that is, and loved each other with mutual respect and equal treatment and all that other stuff, the fact that Jefferson legally owned her makes it rape. It is rape by the act itself, not because of the feelings or opinions of those involved. Sally could have been completely free of capture-bonding and have been an omniscient, magical genie, but as long as Jefferson owned her, that's pretty much still coercive sex.

[stahrgazer]

Yes, we are going in circles. While it may not mean that every case is rape, it must mean that most, if not almost all, cases are rape. As I said previously, if this was Thomas Smitherson, we wouldn't be having this discussion and it would be ludicrous for you and stahr to point out that the slave was in love with him. I think it remains ludicrous. In the history of slavery in the United States, when a master and slave had sex, what percentage do you think was consensual? 5%? 2%? Jefferson and Sally just happen to be in that small percentage? I lean heavily to "no."

As far as stahr's comment about the ability of Sally to stay in France... well, she didn't, did she? Why not? The answer I've been given is that she must have been in love with Jefferson. The more realistic answer was that she probably had a chance for a better life in Virginia with Jefferson than in France by herself. As I also indicated before, the deal was that her children would be free... why would she have to make that deal if she and Jefferson were in love? Wouldn't Jefferson have made that happen regardless of any deal?

Honestly, I'm kind of annoyed at this discussion. Common sense and history dictates this was a coercive relationship. Names of those involved and romanticism is what you've used to support this not being a coercive relationship.

The "chance for a better life," implies the very CHOICE I was indicating.
Jefferson might have chosen to free the children when they came of age - but we can't know that via direct or indirect evidence, so given it a moot point we'll leave it at the agreement they made.


I'm annoyed that you think ANY coercion = rape. it's not so.

, the fact that Jefferson legally owned her makes it rape. It is rape by the act itself, not because of the feelings or opinions of those involved.

WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've been coerced, and I've been raped, and they're NOT THE F*CKING SAME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It IS the feelings in it that make the difference! Maybe you need a vagina instead of a penis to get that it's different.

IT'S DIFFERENT!

As for your statistics about the percentage of choice, frankly I don't think there's any data.

But by implication, treating slaves well was probably more common than folks would like to think it. Here's why I say that.
Slaves were property, valuable property. In today's environment, maybe you could relate to a racing horse, another form of valuable property.

Some horse trainers/owners treat their horses badly, and those frequently make the news. But if the majority of trainers/owners treated their horses as badly as those that make the news, horseracing wouldn't be the big thing it is, because the horses just wouldn't survive it long enough to win or breed. Similarly, if the majority of slave owners were prone to beat their slaves night to death, "plantation life" couldn't have lasted as long as it did.

[PLAYER57832]

For example, rape is not always violent, and is often performed from a position of power, and usually from a familiar face.

This is fundamentally incorrect. Even if its not physically violent, rape is, by definition, violance.

There is a fundamental difference between the actions of any man today in western society who would "take" a 14 year old and someone who would back then. The differences are legal, social and perception. If the woman was white, he would marry her. Consent would then be assumed, in fact legally enforced, even if it would meet the standards of rape today. A black could not be married. The only avenue then was as Jefferson acted.

When you talk about a black woman who was, by all accounts treated better than most white women could possibly dream; who's children were treated far better than most of the day, as well or better than even many born to "priviliage"; then the discussion of was this rape becomes rather erroneous.

The whole assumption here is that sex was something about which women decided. In that day, women did not decide. They were not even supposed to know about sex. The idea of consent being the standard just does not apply.

The bit about slavery being inherently coercive is generally true, but there are always exceptions. Jefferson is, by all accounts, reported to have been among those who treated his slaves more as human beings than property. All accounts indicate that what he had with Sally was a true relationship.

Also, when you start talking about the idea of freedom and chioce... then you ALSO have to look at the reality of women then, not today. The real fact is that most white women led lives that were less free than those of many slaves, and that, too, is the historical truth. Neither fact justifies the other, but this idea that all you have to do is look at labels to make judgements is just wrong.

Physical violence is more what I meant. Rape is inherently violent in a general sense because it relies on some form of coercion.

Regardless of the standard of the time, rape is rape. If all women were not allowed consent (I don't think this was the case), then all women were raped. You could argue that such a perspective might trivialize the definition of rape, but I think it speaks more to the plight of women through history.

I have never said it trivializes rape. It very much is speaking of the plight of women through history.
Its sort of ironic, in some ways that rape is considered such a horrible crime, IS such a horrible crime in our society. The truth about why that is so actually gets back to the fact that women were for a long time considered property of men. Raping, then was either to take something "belonging" to another man or destroying the value of something that would become someone else's (another man's).

It is only in recent times that the idea of rape being more than just sex, just a man taking something not his, has come into play. That came with women having more say, more power to be taken.

So, yeah.. it is a statement about the plight of women through history. But, my point is that you cannot rewrite history and judge it by today's standards. That is what Symmetry is doing and that is why it is wrong. The fact that he does this just becuase Jefferson is a prominent person doesn't make it more appropriate, it makes it less appropriate, but if it were a general argument, then I could agree more.

At any rate, you can repeat it at us all you want, and we will keep telling you that "it's just the way it was" is not a good enough justification for why society was structured the way it was.

STOP!

There is a BIG difference between saying its "justification" and saying that to be not considered an evil criminal (even one that also did some good in his day), one has to utterly buck one's entire society. No one can live up to that standard. (well.. OK, I would say 1 person, exactly, but that's religion). People MUST exist in the time when they live. Jefferson was exceptional in that he was able to step outside the bounds of his society in many ways. It is part of why he was able to be part of the declaration on independence, developing our government in the way it was developed. However, no person can do everything. he could not break the bounds of slavery, could not destroy the institution... and neither could anyone else for about 200 years after.

It was a shitty set up because women were jilted, and we have every right to call it a shitty situation. Why you are trying to convince us otherwise is beyond me.

Nothing I have said indicates I think otherwise, so why would I be trying to convince you? and, its a lot more than women being "jilted."

[The fact that Hemings was owned by Jefferson increases that shittiness as well. I seriously do not understand your "all women had it bad" argument. The reality that women had little choice does not affect the fact that they should have had the choice.

It impacts how they were treated and how people who treated them as they were treated should be judged. Again, I take strong exception to this idea that we can go back from our warm, educated seats and pass judgement on the past because they did not already see what we see now. How could they? The ideas had not yet emerged!

THAT is the point I am making.

Also, I think the reason my words hit such a nerve is because many of you do recognize the truth. Its a lot easier to go back and say "eh.. that Jefferson, he was a jerk", than to say "he did much, MUCH better given his circumstances than any of us would have in his place.

MY further argument regarding Hemmings regards how she was actually treated. She was treated well, by the standards of any woman of the day, and I don't mean just in material goods.

[Women should always have a choice, and they all should have had a choice. Women were no less human two hundred or two thousand years ago. You are willing to admit that they had an inferior role in society, but can't bear describing that as a bad thing? You keep talking about this, but I really have no idea what you are trying to prove.

HUH? Since when did I say it was not a bad thing.

Are you really trying to convince me that women have had it bad through history, therefore Jefferson did not have coercive sex with his slave? Because that's not actually how it works.

No. I am saying that you cannot jump back in history without actually fully jumping back into what times were really like. You want to pretend that Jefferson should have acted as we would expect a man of today to act. I am saying that is the wrong standard. AND, I am saying that while no one today truly knows Sally Hemming's mind, the evidence is strong that did not feel abused. in fact felt and was quite priviliaged --despite being a slave. In fact, as was pointed out before, had she not been a slave, she could never have had such priviliage, nor could her children have enjoyed the real and true freedom they enjoyed.

[Neoteny]

@ 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. 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.

[Ray Rider]

Yes, we are going in circles. While it may not mean that every case is rape, it must mean that most, if not almost all, cases are rape.

Sure it's possible that most were, but certainly not all; and there is good evidence leading to the conclusion that it was not so in this case.

As far as stahr's comment about the ability of Sally to stay in France... well, she didn't, did she? Why not? The answer I've been given is that she must have been in love with Jefferson. The more realistic answer was that she probably had a chance for a better life in Virginia with Jefferson than in France by herself. As I also indicated before, the deal was that her children would be free... why would she have to make that deal if she and Jefferson were in love? Wouldn't Jefferson have made that happen regardless of any deal?

We don't know the reason why she chose to return to America. It is possible that she loved him (unlikely, but possible); more realistically it is as you say, she had a chance at a better life with Jefferson (and it is probable that she did like him to a certain extent). If she were forced into sex (i.e. raped) and abused by TJ in some way, it is highly improbable that she would have returned to America with him. It is only because he was a good master and treated her well that she would've decided to return with him, unless you want to try to prove she was suffering from Stockholm syndrome or something, but I haven't heard that argument yet.

If you want to know how he treated his slaves, how about reading some first-hand accounts from his own slaves after his death:

After Mr. Jefferson had left his home to assume the duties of the office of President, all became quiet again in Monticello. But as he was esteemed by both whites and blacks as a very great man, his return home, for a brief period, was a great event. His visits were frequent, and attended with considerable ceremony. It was a time looked forward to with great interest by his servants, for when he came home many of them, especially the leading ones, were sure to receive presents from his hands.
...
Mr. Jefferson replied that he thought the time would come when the slaves would be free, but did not indicate when or in what manner they would get their freedom. He seemed to think that the time had not then arrived. To the latter proposition of Gen. Lafayette, Mr. Jefferson in part assented. He was in favor of teaching the slaves to learn to read print; that to teach them to write would enable them to forge papers, when they could no longer be kept in subjugation.
This conversation was very gratifying to me, and I treasured it up in my heart."
--Israel Jefferson, TJ's slave

´I was born,' he said, ´at Monticello, Jefferson's beautiful Virginia home, on June 6, 1815, just before Waterloo. Jefferson was an ideal master. He was a democrat in practice as well as theory, was opposed to the slave trade, tried to keep it out of the Territories beyond the Ohio river and was in favor of freeing the slaves in Virginia.

´As a master Jefferson was kind and indulgent. Under his management his slaves were seldom punished, except for stealing and fighting. They were tried for any offense as at court and allowed to make their own defense.
--Peter Fossett, another TJ slave

"His general temperament was smooth and even; he was very undemonstrative. He was uniformly kind to all about him."
--Madison Jefferson, Sally's son born into slavery and later freed

As for the deal, even if they were in love, why would she not make certain that her children would be free? Slaves were extremely valuable either to keep as free labor or to sell for a good chunk of change. TJ was massively in debt for most of his life, so it's reasonable that she would consider the possibility of him selling his slaves to pay off his debt. After all, it was uncommon for a master to treat his slaves, especially Sally, as well as he did; it was even more unusual for a slave owner to set his slaves free unless for a very good reason.

...As I said previously, if this was Thomas Smitherson, we wouldn't be having this discussion and it would be ludicrous for you and stahr to point out that the slave was in love with him. I think it remains ludicrous. In the history of slavery in the United States, when a master and slave had sex, what percentage do you think was consensual? 5%? 2%? Jefferson and Sally just happen to be in that small percentage? I lean heavily to "no."

Honestly, I'm kind of annoyed at this discussion. Common sense and history dictates this was a coercive relationship. Names of those involved and romanticism is what you've used to support this not being a coercive relationship.

I'm not sure how to state this any more clearly. I'm not an American and I couldn't care less about Thomas Jefferson or his name. Please refer me to anywhere this has been a part of my arguments. Why do you keep repeating that accusation against me when it is baseless? Maybe that is a valid accusation against Player or someone, but when you repeat it to me it leads me to believe you're running out of real arguments. As for the possible romance between TJ and Sally, it is one possibility among many which we will never know for certain. There is no harm in bringing that up.

If the question was "Did most masters throughout history who had sex with their slaves do so forcibly," it is quite possible the answer would be yes. But Sym brought up a very specific case which is (fairly) well documented and we know the way he treated his slaves (especially the way he treated her) and that she rejected the opportunity for freedom in favor of remaining his slave, so the answer to "Did Thomas Jefferson rape Sally?" is "likely not," although it impossible to state either way conclusively.

[thegreekdog]

If you want to know how he treated his slaves, how about reading some first-hand accounts from his own slaves after his death:

I said this before, and I'll say it again, unless he freed all of his slaves, it doesn't matter to me how he treated his slaves. They remained his slaves in that they were owned and controlled by him.

I'm not an American and I couldn't care less about Thomas Jefferson or his name. Please refer me to anywhere this has been a part of my arguments.

It doesn't matter if you're American or not or if you used this as part of your argument or not; whether consciously or subconsciously, we're having this argument because you put Jefferson on a pedestal as compared to others.

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.

[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.

That isn't my argument at all, which is why I said "by your definition", which is not my definition.

Its that you are being extremely hypocritic and ignorant of the realities of that time in your declarations. You are picking one, prominent person who is lauded for many reasons in the development of our country and trying to claim that he is a terrible person, not someone worthy of respect because he did not act as is appropriate for a 21rst century.

Ray - This is Exhibit A of what annoys me.

On the one hand, Player is correct in that Symmetry is using this to denigrate Jefferson as a political thinker and man of importance. But she's also noting the reasons she is defending Jefferson.

On the other hand, it is perfectly acceptable for me to respect Jefferson for his contribution to the United States while also acknowledging that he probably was a rapist. Symmetry has that part wrong.

Can you tell me where I have done that here? it's a claim a few posters have made totally counter to what I've said, which is identical to your argument.

[Phatscotty]

Symmetry, all that matters is "who do you love"

Sally Hemmings was lovingly by Jefferson's side until the day he died. He showed her a life that 99% of the earth population at the time could only dream of. That's love.

I challenge you to stop judging Hemmings, and Jefferson for that matter, because of the way she was born

[Ray Rider]

If you want to know how he treated his slaves, how about reading some first-hand accounts from his own slaves after his death:

I said this before, and I'll say it again, unless he freed all of his slaves, it doesn't matter to me how he treated his slaves. They remained his slaves in that they were owned and controlled by him.

Knowledge of the treatment of his slaves is essential in deciding the coercive nature of slavery under TJ is it not? Unless you are making the claim that every master/slave relationship was the same.

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.

Btw, Kudos to Neoteny for stepping out like gentleman. I may soon do the same--perhaps the debate has turned to a personal level from the abstract? However I have a feeling this thread is nearing its natural end anyway.

[Symmetry]

But Sym brought up a very specific case which is (fairly) well documented and we know the way he treated his slaves (especially the way he treated her) and that she rejected the opportunity for freedom in favor of remaining his slave, so the answer to "Did Thomas Jefferson rape Sally?" is "likely not," although it impossible to state either way conclusively.

He whipped and raped his slaves. He was a slave trader. She was not rejecting a choice to be free as no such choice was available. You're getting tiresome in your arguments Ray.

[BigBallinStalin]

Again, even if they were in a "true relationship," whatever that is, and loved each other with mutual respect and equal treatment and all that other stuff, the fact that Jefferson legally owned her makes it rape. It is rape by the act itself, not because of the feelings or opinions of those involved. Sally could have been completely free of capture-bonding and have been an omniscient, magical genie, but as long as Jefferson owned her, that's pretty much still coercive sex.

Sure, he owned her, but the possibility of coercion not being involved leaves their exchange open to two possibilities: either it was rape, or it was consensual sex.


Of course, you'll say, "I'ma discard their subjective preferences and their actual interpretation of their relationship by painting over all that with my bold proclamation: if slavery is involved, then it must be rape." That's simply dodging the unknown by substituting it with your presumption.

In this circumstance, I wouldn't be confident in holding your kind of argument.

[Phatscotty]

But Sym brought up a very specific case which is (fairly) well documented and we know the way he treated his slaves (especially the way he treated her) and that she rejected the opportunity for freedom in favor of remaining his slave, so the answer to "Did Thomas Jefferson rape Sally?" is "likely not," although it impossible to state either way conclusively.

He whipped and raped his slaves. He was a slave trader. She was not rejecting a choice to be free as no such choice was available.irrelevant

Slavery was the way of the world, for almost all of human history, in all places.

Why don't you join humanity and be happy in it's advances and that slavery is being put behind us, and move forward with us, rather than be dominated and obsessed with and stuck in the past of the old world.

We (America) ended slavery in our first born generation, and I am proud of that.

[_sabotage_]

If King says getting a little young black couchie is ok, who are we to begrudge Tommy?

[Phatscotty]

If King says getting a little young black couchie is ok, who are we to begrudge Tommy?

Interracial marriage is perfectly okay, and so is interracial love.

[_sabotage_]

Damn better be, I'm not planning on a divorce.