Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[BigBallinStalin]

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.]

You're not really making any sense now. It would be impossible for a slave in a truly coercive relationship to bargain with their master. It would be a case of "do what I say or I'll have you whipped," not "if you do x for me, I'll do y for you."

Yup, exactly. TGD has reduced bargaining to something indicative of coercion which makes little sense, but in a convoluted way it supports his position--on poor grounds.

ITT, in general, the opposition has built a nice wall of arguments, but I'm still going to point to the huge crack in their foundation. They can ignore it all they like or imagined that it's paved over, but that doesn't change the problem with some of their fundamental assumptions.

Given that I disproved the basis of Ray's "she made a bargain" argument in the post just above yours, I'm unsure why you're pursuing it.

Your comments about French law don't pertain to this discussion--especially the part in bold.

Whatever your response may be, please consider the following to gain the relevant context:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187020&start=210#p4098911

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=187020&start=210#p4099491

Your discussion on French law bears no relevance to the above links, so I'll respond to you when you've caught up. Otherwise, it's a waste of my time.

[Symmetry]

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.]

You're not really making any sense now. It would be impossible for a slave in a truly coercive relationship to bargain with their master. It would be a case of "do what I say or I'll have you whipped," not "if you do x for me, I'll do y for you."

Yup, exactly. TGD has reduced bargaining to something indicative of coercion which makes little sense, but in a convoluted way it supports his position--on poor grounds.

ITT, in general, the opposition has built a nice wall of arguments, but I'm still going to point to the huge crack in their foundation. They can ignore it all they like or imagined that it's paved over, but that doesn't change the problem with some of their fundamental assumptions.

Given that I disproved the basis of Ray's "she made a bargain" argument in the post just above yours, I'm unsure why you're pursuing it.

Your comments about French law don't pertain to this discussion

They are relevant when the basis of the argument is that she was free under French law. A clear falsehood.

[BigBallinStalin]

And you did a poor job refuting Ray's points that it was, but I don't expect much from you--especially since you refuse to understand the discussion between TGD and I.

[Symmetry]

And you did a poor job refuting Ray's points that it was, but I don't expect much from you--especially since you refuse to understand the discussion between TGD and I.

I provided evidence showing his argument was false. I'm sorry that you based your premise on a false notion of negotiation. The idea that she was free doesn't hold water.

[Ray Rider]

The reference to the constitution was, of course, something you brought up.

The reference to the constitution was a minor detail in a quote laying claim to the fact that Sally could claim her freedom in France, a fact verified by Sally's son and Sally's master, although strangely you appear to be endeavoring to avoid that fact.

Feels free at any time to point out the law you and Stahr think existed making slavery illegal in France while Jefferson was there.

Sure, slavery was declared illegal in France on July 3, 1315 by Louis X:
"Whereas, according to natural right, everyone should be born free, and whereas, by certain customs which from long age, have been introduced into and preserved to this day in our kingdom....many persons amongst our common people have fallen into the bonds of slavery, which much displeaseth us; we, considering that our kingdom is called and named the kingdom of the Free...have by our grand council decreed and do decree that generally throughout our whole kingdom, such serfdom be redeemed to freedom, on fair and suitable conditions...and we will, likewise, that all other lords who have body-men (or serfs) do take example by us to bring them to freedom."

The laws varied on the matter between that time and 1789 and there was much disagreement between the various federal, colonial, and regional courts; however as I've already mentioned multiple times (yes, I'm trying to get you to at least respond to it), evidence from the time from both Madison and Jefferson point to the undeniable fact that Sally could have claimed her freedom while in France.

Here, I'll post it again in case you missed it the first couple times:

When Mr. Jefferson went to France Martha was just budding into womanhood. Their stay (my mother's and Maria's) was about eighteen months. But during that time my mother became Mr. Jefferson's concubine, and when he was called back home she was enciente by him. He desired to bring my mother back to Virginia with him but she demurred. 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. So she refused to return with him. To induce her to do so he promised her extraordinary privileges, and made a solemn pledge that her children should be freed at the age of twenty-one years. In consequence of his promise, on which she implicitly relied, she returned with him to Virginia. Soon after their arrival, she gave birth to a child, of whom Thomas Jefferson was the father. It lived but a short time. She gave birth to four others, and Jefferson was the father of all of them. Their names were Beverly, Harriet, Madison (myself), and Eston--three sons and one daughter. We all became free agreeably to the treaty entered into by our parents before we were born. We all married and have raised families.


Jefferson had something of a problem keeping two slaves in France with him, however. According to French law, slavery was illegal, and they could petition for their freedom. During his tenure in France as U.S. minister, he received a query from an American couple about the legality of bringing a slave servant into the country. He replied that he had “made enquiries on the subject of the negro boy, and find that the laws of France give him freedom if he claims it, [414] and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to interrupt the course of the law. Nevertheless I have known an instance where a person bringing in a slave, and saying nothing about it, has not been disturbed in his possession.” This person was, of course, Jefferson himself, who brought James Hemings with him. Jefferson advised the Americans to take the same course; the slave was young and "it is not probable he will think of claiming freedom.”

It is unlikely that James Hemings remained ignorant of his status under French law; he was nineteen when Jefferson brought him to Paris and twenty-four when he and his sister Sally returned to America with Jefferson and his two daughters. Jefferson no doubt used all of his arts of persuasion to convince Hemings that a life of bondage as Thomas Jefferson’s cook was preferable to freedom in Paris. He would never be permitted to return to America, or to see his family again, for example. Jefferson’s trump card would have been a promise of future freedom. [415] It was a pledge he drew up into a formal document in 1793...

[Symmetry]

You serious? 1315? Your arguments get weaker as they grow long Ray.

[BigBallinStalin]

And you did a poor job refuting Ray's points that it was, but I don't expect much from you--especially since you refuse to understand the discussion between TGD and I.

I provided evidence showing his argument was false. I'm sorry that you based your premise on a false notion of negotiation. The idea that she was free doesn't hold water.

You serious? 1315? Your arguments get weaker as they grow long Ray.

The leaves rustle softly in Troll Forest, but a storm approaches from the East.

[Symmetry]

And you did a poor job refuting Ray's points that it was, but I don't expect much from you--especially since you refuse to understand the discussion between TGD and I.

I provided evidence showing his argument was false. I'm sorry that you based your premise on a false notion of negotiation. The idea that she was free doesn't hold water.

You serious? 1315? Your arguments get weaker as they grow long Ray.

The leaves rustle softly in Troll Forest, but a storm approaches from the East.

Oh for goodness sake, calm down sweetie.

[BigBallinStalin]

[Symmetry]

So can we get back on topic? Sally Hemings, neither free in France, nor able to petition.

[Ray Rider]

And you did a poor job refuting Ray's points that it was, but I don't expect much from you--especially since you refuse to understand the discussion between TGD and I.

I provided evidence showing his argument was false. I'm sorry that you based your premise on a false notion of negotiation. The idea that she was free doesn't hold water.

You serious? 1315? Your arguments get weaker as they grow long Ray.

The leaves rustle softly in Troll Forest, but a storm approaches from the East.

lol why do I even bother, eh?

You serious? 1315? Your arguments get weaker as they grow long Ray.

Yes, that was when slavery was first abolished in France and the idea of "Free Soil" began. Don't seem so incredulous! lol

Here, read for yourself (apologies for the weird format):
Free Soil 
I have coined the term “Free Soil principle” for the legal notion that slaves who crossed particular 
territorial boundaries became free. As I will discuss further below, this axiom of 
vernacular law was not unique to France, but I believe France’s articulation was the first national as opposed to municipal) formulation of the Free Soil principle. The procureur général in Furcy’s 
case articulated this “fundamental maxim” of the French nation as “nul n’est escla en France.” 71 
As I have shown elsewhere, this supposedly eternal French principle was cobbled 
together from a variety of statutory, historical and judicial sources and changed expression over 
time.72 In the late sixteenth century, Jean Bodin articulated the principle as, “la seruitude … n’a 
point de lieu en tout ce Royaume: de sorte mesme que l’esclaue d’un estranger est franc & libre 
si tost qu’il a mit le pied en France.” 73 Antoine Loisel was the first to call the principle a maxim, 
and included the condition of baptism in his seventeenth‐century formulation of the Free Soil 
principle: “Toutes personnes sont franches en ce roïaume: et sitost qu’un esclave a atteint les 
marches d’icelui, se faisant baptizer, est affranchi.”74 By the mid‐eighteenth century, most 
expressions of the Free Soil maxim omitted the condition of baptism (presumably because the 
1685 and 1724 Codes Noirs required all colonial slaves to be baptized while the metropolitan 
laws of 1716 and 1738 allowed for their religious education in the metropole), linking free 
status solely with the condition of crossing the territorial boundaries of metropolitan France.  
France’s increased participation in the trans‐oceanic slave trade and the use of slaves in 
its colonies over the late 17th and 18th centuries brought thousands of slaves to metropolitan 
France, primarily as personal servants. The presence of these slaves and the pressure of 
colonial lobbies prompted the royal government to issue a series of laws, whose ultimate effect 
was to suspend and eventually negate the Free Soil principle for colonial slaves who 
accompanied their masters to France. While maritime provinces, with their commercial and 
social ties to the colonies, typically supported the royal suspension of the Free Soil principle, jurists of the Admiralty Court of France and the Parlement of Paris resisted registration and 
implementation of these royal laws and continued to free hundreds of slaves who reached their 
jurisdiction throughout the 18th century.75

And here's the related footnote:
75 The most important of these laws were the Edict of October 1716, the Declaration of December 15, 1738, 
and the Declaration pour la Police des Noirs of August 9, 1777. The 1716 edict permitted slaves to accompany their 
masters to France for religious education or training in a useful trade, provided that they had the permission of 
colonial administrators, that the slaves were registered with the admiralty upon arrival, and that their stay was 
temporary; failure to comply with these conditions resulted in the slave’s freedom. The 1738 declaration 
reiterated the edict of 1716, closing some of the loopholes (e.g. specifying a stay of no longer than three years in 
the metropole) and changing the penalty for noncompliance to royal confiscation of the slave and transport to the 
colonies, thus completely suspending the Free Soil maxim. Neither of these laws was registered by the Parlement 
of Paris and they remained un‐enforced within its jurisdiction. The 1777 Police des Noirs deliberately avoided the 
offensive term “esclave,” replacing the laws of 1716 and 1738 with a ban on immigration by all “noirs, mulâtres et 
autres gens de couleur.” Both the Parlement of Paris and the Admiralty Court of France found this racial quarantine 
acceptable, soon registering the law. However, the Admiralty Court continued to free slaves who sued for their 
freedom on the grounds of the Free Soil maxim until it was disbanded in 1789. See Peabody, No Slaves, 122; Dwain 
C. Pruitt, “The Opposition of the Law to the Law: Race, Slavery and the Law in Nantes, 1715‐1778,” French 
Historical Studies 30:2 (2007): 147‐74; Boulle, Race et esclavage, 85‐107. 




And as I mentioned a multitude of times, Sally's son and Sally's master both admit the fact that Sally could have gained her freedom while in France. Here it is for you to read again as a reminder of what you're avoiding:
When Mr. Jefferson went to France Martha was just budding into womanhood. Their stay (my mother's and Maria's) was about eighteen months. But during that time my mother became Mr. Jefferson's concubine, and when he was called back home she was enciente by him. He desired to bring my mother back to Virginia with him but she demurred. 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. So she refused to return with him. To induce her to do so he promised her extraordinary privileges, and made a solemn pledge that her children should be freed at the age of twenty-one years. In consequence of his promise, on which she implicitly relied, she returned with him to Virginia. Soon after their arrival, she gave birth to a child, of whom Thomas Jefferson was the father. It lived but a short time. She gave birth to four others, and Jefferson was the father of all of them. Their names were Beverly, Harriet, Madison (myself), and Eston--three sons and one daughter. We all became free agreeably to the treaty entered into by our parents before we were born. We all married and have raised families.

Jefferson had something of a problem keeping two slaves in France with him, however. According to French law, slavery was illegal, and they could petition for their freedom. During his tenure in France as U.S. minister, he received a query from an American couple about the legality of bringing a slave servant into the country. He replied that he had “made enquiries on the subject of the negro boy, and find that the laws of France give him freedom if he claims it, [414] and that it will be difficult, if not impossible, to interrupt the course of the law. Nevertheless I have known an instance where a person bringing in a slave, and saying nothing about it, has not been disturbed in his possession.” This person was, of course, Jefferson himself, who brought James Hemings with him. Jefferson advised the Americans to take the same course; the slave was young and "it is not probable he will think of claiming freedom.”

It is unlikely that James Hemings remained ignorant of his status under French law; he was nineteen when Jefferson brought him to Paris and twenty-four when he and his sister Sally returned to America with Jefferson and his two daughters. Jefferson no doubt used all of his arts of persuasion to convince Hemings that a life of bondage as Thomas Jefferson’s cook was preferable to freedom in Paris. He would never be permitted to return to America, or to see his family again, for example. Jefferson’s trump card would have been a promise of future freedom. [415] It was a pledge he drew up into a formal document in 1793...

[Symmetry]

Bizarre, I asked for the law. Not the principles, Ray. Medieval stuff won't cut it.

[Ray Rider]

Bizarre, I asked for the law. Not the principles, Ray. Medieval stuff won't cut it.

I literally loled...I couldn't care less what you ask for, man. All relevant laws and precedents are discussed in the article I posted from the conference on the subject at Yale University. The point is, as it has been from the very start, that Sally could have claimed her freedom and remained in France. This is amply proven by various French laws, precedents, and principles dating back to 1315, by the evidence of the hundreds of slaves which were freed concurrent to the time she was in Paris, as well as by the first-hand admission of her son and her master. Instead of choosing freedom, she chose to rely on the bargain she struck with Jefferson and return to the United States as a slave. 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.

[Symmetry]

Bizarre, I asked for the law. Not the principles, Ray. Medieval stuff won't cut it.

I literally loled...I couldn't care less what you ask for, man. All relevant laws and precedents are discussed in the article I posted from the conference on the subject at Yale University. The point is, as it has been from the very start, that Sally could have claimed her freedom and remained in France. This is amply proven by various French laws, precedents, and principles dating back to 1315, by the evidence of the hundreds of slaves which were freed concurrent to the time she was in Paris, as well as by the first-hand admission of her son and her master. Instead of choosing freedom, she chose to rely on the bargain she struck with Jefferson and return to the United States as a slave. 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.

I read the paper. It does not claim what you say it does. I guess that's why you won't post it openly.

How're you doing on that constitution?

[thegreekdog]

Let's be clear here- she was not free in France, nor was there ever any option for her to be so. I appreciate your take TGD, but it operates on accepting a false premise.

I'm conceding the premise because it doesn't matter.

[thegreekdog]

Option (1) of remaining free but poverty stricken in France wasn't necessarily the best choice, considering we know that as Jefferson's slave she was given fine clothing, paid for her work, given "extraordinary privileges," and remained in the household of one of the most prominent men in the world. However to continue with your point (2), the possibility does exist that she may have loved him and felt comfortable remaining his slave; however given that there were no guarantees of how Jefferson's heirs would treat her children (or to whom they would have been sold, especially because of his debts) had they remained slaves, it would be reasonable of her to see that it would be safer to grant them their freedom a let them choose their own destiny.

You guys are a hoot. Seriously. I'm not sure how you don't understand how you're making the point in favor of coercion. You're making my argument for me!

"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.

[Symmetry]

Let's be clear here- she was not free in France, nor was there ever any option for her to be so. I appreciate your take TGD, but it operates on accepting a false premise.

I'm conceding the premise because it doesn't matter.

I actually agree. Even if the Ray/Stahr argument that slavery was illegal could be backed up, your arguments would stand.

[thegreekdog]

Let's be clear here- she was not free in France, nor was there ever any option for her to be so. I appreciate your take TGD, but it operates on accepting a false premise.

I'm conceding the premise because it doesn't matter.

I actually agree. Even if the Ray/Stahr argument that slavery was illegal could be backed up, your arguments would stand.

Yep. I'm going to say this again - if we were talking about Thomas Randomson, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is really that simple.

Stahr and Ray are making my arguments for me.

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).

[john9blue]

i mean, you guys can set arbitrary limits for what qualifies as "coercion", but it's not going to get you anywhere in the debate.

not all rape is created equal... you've got legitimate rapes where the victim was traumatized for life, and then you've got fake "rapes" from skanky drunk girls who have regrets about their bad decisions.

i'm sure jefferson was well within his legal rights to ACTUALLY rape his slave, but he chose not to. calling what he did "rape" is demeaning to actual rape victims.

I just want to make sure I understand that you're making an analogy between a slave being coerced into having sex with her master with a skanky drunk girl who regrets her bad decisions. While I agree there may be gray areas involved in rape, this is not really a gray area.

I typed this before, but imagine you are in the same position as this slave and make your determination on that basis. We know the relevant pieces of information as I laid out in handy list format above. Stahr provided even further evidence for the coercive aspect of the relationship; namely that she had to bargain to have her children not be slaves.

i'm not saying that it was or was not rape. i'm saying that you could call it rape if you like (you can call a LOT of things rape if you like) but you have to lower your threshold for the definition of "rape" to a level that i don't think is meaningful.

[BigBallinStalin]

Let's be clear here- she was not free in France, nor was there ever any option for her to be so. I appreciate your take TGD, but it operates on accepting a false premise.

I'm conceding the premise because it doesn't matter.

I actually agree. Even if the Ray/Stahr argument that slavery was illegal could be backed up, your arguments would stand.

Yep. I'm going to say this again - if we were talking about Thomas Randomson, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is really that simple.

Stahr and Ray are making my arguments for me.

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've no choice but to bribe the judge. Thanks, TGD.

[Funkyterrance]

Can't we just let bygones be bygones?

[Symmetry]

Can't we just let bygones be bygones?

A tad difficult in a history thread.

[stahrgazer]

Symmetry's evidence is flawed.

1794: France abolishes slavery in all its possessions; slavery is restored by Napoleon in 1802.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_ ... y_timeline

Let's be clear here: Sally Hinson was free in France at the time she became enceinte. Further proof is Jefferson PAID her for her work in France, just as he PAID James for his work in France.

[Symmetry]

Symmetry's evidence is flawed.

1794: France abolishes slavery in all its possessions; slavery is restored by Napoleon in 1802.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_ ... y_timeline

Let's be clear here: Sally Hinson was free in France at the time she became enceinte. Further proof is Jefferson PAID her for her work in France, just as he PAID James for his work in France.

And Jefferson and Hemings returned the US in 1789. I don't get how you think a law made after she was there was applicable before it was made.

[Symmetry]

Not that it will stop[ you.