Neoteny wrote:Consent; I don't know that anyone really claims to know if Sally did or did not consent, nor expressed any doubt that Jefferson was probably a relatively okay guy. But what we do know is that a child that was owned by a powerful man was probably engaging in sexual activity with that man. That's rape in most western countries now (among other issues), even if she consents. If that happened today, none of you would hesitate to condemn it. If you can somehow justify it in your mind because it happened 200 years ago, that's between you and you, I guess, though I'd be curious about some of your thoughts on absolute morality. There could be some grey area here, though, because I don't think anyone really knows when the sex started, and the later it starts, the less this becomes an issue.
No, we don't know that "a child" was engaging in sexual activity. Back then, folks died quicker so were considered mature at a younger age (7-12 depending on the state.)
Additionally, from the accounts, her offspring came years after his wife (her half-sister) passed away, which means that, while he "owned" her at a young age because he inherited her, he did not necessarily have sex with her while she was that young. (He may have, he may not have; the most direct evidence is the offspring which came later.)
Further, it's clear from the history of her travels with the family in various parts of Europe that she had ample opportunity to leave if she wished, and, since she was sometimes paid for her labors, she was not considered "merely a chattel," as some would have it.
Also, from those accounts, she was given some amount of freedom, the amount of freedom tolerated by the laws of the state of Virginia at the time that would still enable her to remain in Virginia. (If she had been fully freed, she would either have to leave the state to go to an abolitionist state; or would be subject to enslavement by anyone else who crossed her path in Virginia.) If the family would go as far as that, it's quite reasonable to assume she was consulted as to her wishes and chose to remain rather than depart.
So the evidence indicates she may have been "slave" in name only, in which case no coercion can be assumed.
Jefferson himself never referred to her as his slave or his daughter's slave, he spoke of her as his daughter's lady's maid.
Now, in the case of a maid today employed by a powerful man/family, one might be able to assume a level of coercion or appeal; but one cannot assume that just because the man has sex with the maid, it had to be rape. (I believe A. Schwarzanneger is proved to have had sex with his maid, but I don't recall any story where she called it rape.)
Same applies with Jefferson and Sally: appeal and some level of coercion might be there, but not necessarily enough to call it "rape."
(You or someone brought up Clinton. Clinton was never accused of "raping" Monica L. - just accused of perjuring himself by saying he didn't have sex with her. It's considered "inappropriate" for employer/employee, but it's not necessarily rape.)
As for the "pet" analogy - it's perfectly appropriate IF the slaveowner treated his slaves as chattel. If, on the other hand, there is evidence that the slaveowner treated the slave with some human dignity, then agreed, you have to toss out the pet analogy. But, when you add the human factor, you lose some credibility as far as the "coercion = rape" because if the owner treats the property as a human, the owner is also likely to consider that human's emotions in their dealings.
In the case of Sally, it's clear the family treated her with human dignity, not as mere chattel, thus, the simple "owning" of her is not enough to assume that because he asked, he wouldn't have accepted her saying no.
It's also not clear that she wasn't the one doing the asking. She'd known him a long time, she was his wife's half sister, perhaps she thought him lonely after her half sister passed, perhaps she'd come to love him herself, and perhaps she deliberately chose to be enticing, and perhaps her love of him is why she preferred NOT to be fully freed and sent away (because, again, according to the laws of Virginia, if she'd been fully freed she would HAVE to leave Virginia or be re-enslaved by any white asshole she met.)
"Absolute morality" - it doesn't exist. Each person's morality is subject to his/her perspectives which depend on their upbringing and other factors.
But for me, if she said no, and that no was ignored, it was rape. If she would have preferred to say no but feared the consequences of saying no, then it was emotional rape if not physical rape (if she wouldn't say no, how would he know she didn't want to say yes, and if she wouldn't say no, how do we know he wouldn't have stopped?) But if she chose the relationship, then no matter the appeal/coercion, then it wasn't rape.
Evidence suggests she could have left the family if she'd really wanted to.
She had "free time" in Virginia which would have enabled her to flee, even if the family didn't offer her total freedom and being shipped up north where she could remain free (and we don't know they didn't offer her that.) In Europe, she had ample chances to dash away and hide from the family, if she'd wished to. She was sometimes paid for her labors as well. This does NOT sound to me like the typical southern, "she's black so she's chattel," philosophy that the family would have had to have with her in order for your version of "coercion = rape" to exist.
Does it mean I feel I have to worship Jefferson or any other "founding father" just because they were what they were as relates to our nation's history? Nope. If it looked like he probably treated her like shit, I'd be condemning.
It just doesn't look like that. Instead, it looks like she was treated as, as much a member of the family - which she was, being his wife's half-sister - as was practicable given the laws of the time.
