Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[stahrgazer]

According to this author, it wasn't Thomas Jefferson who impregnated Sally.

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/in-defe ... 1100351542

So.

Now we see evidence from a link posted by Symmetry that indicates Sally was Free in France.
Then we see evidence from a link posted by Symmetry that indicates a date when France really freed their slaves.
Then we see evidence from a different link posted by me refuting the dates Symmetry's link gives.
Now we see evidence posted by me (above) from a lawyer's researched history about the origins of the TJ/SH "sex scandal" coming from a drunk with a vendetta.
See, DNA that indicates Hemings' kids are of "the Jefferson family" still don't prove it was THOMAS who did the deed.

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

Can't even PROVE it was TJ's sperm.

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

Oh, and greek? You're right. If it was T Randomson, Symmetry wouldn't be whining about something that even historians cannot agree on, an argument first based on a rumor created by a drunk with a vendetta. The drunk wouldn't have a vendetta against Randomson.

But the idea that "any coercion = rape" is absolutely false. It depends on the form of coercion. If Sally felt she could say "no" without much reprisal, it wasn't rape. "Reprisal" can take many forms, you see. If Jefferson would harrumph and be grumpy but not really do anything, it wouldn't be rape. And we just don't know. Reading what her descendants say doesn't sound like she "feared" Jefferson but she might have and just never let on to her kids.

So, there is "doubt." And in the US, the defendant, be he Randomson or Jefferson, is supposed to get the benefit of the doubt.

But because it's Jefferson, Symmetry and those like him want to stone him.

[BigBallinStalin]

Well, they can certainly lower their bars of certainty some more to refute you.

[Ray Rider]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Symmetry]

Your source is a case from the 1830's Ray. I don't think you're helping yourself here.

[stahrgazer]

Your source is a case from the 1830's Ray. I don't think you're helping yourself here.

Your source is heresay dating back to the late 1790s and early 1800s, and your "source" did not leave any records herself, so you've definitely not proven YOURself here

[Symmetry]

Your source is a case from the 1830's Ray. I don't think you're helping yourself here.

Your source is heresay dating back to the late 1790s and early 1800s, and your "source" did not leave any records herself, so you've definitely not proven YOURself here

I'm sorry, but slavery wasn't illegal in France while Hemings was there. Your argument that it wasn't rape because she chose it doesn't play out.

On a personal level, I find it disgusting.

[2dimes]

If it's any comfort, I believe she has passed away. Tom can't harm her anymore.

Hug?

[Symmetry]

If it's any comfort, I believe she has passed away. Tom can't harm her anymore.

Hug?

Hug! You've caught me in a rad bromance.

[stahrgazer]

I'm sorry, but slavery wasn't illegal in France while Hemings was there. Your argument that it wasn't rape because she chose it doesn't play out.

On a personal level, I find it disgusting.

You've said that.

You've also indicated that you can't believe she could have been subject to human emotions, which would make her an animal instead of human.
Frankly, I find it disgusting that you would relegate her to "animal" status; that's the argument slavers used when they caught or bought Africans.

It's obvious that while Jefferson may have owned her legally, he, at least, treated her with the dignity any gentleman of that time would accord a woman he slept with.

According to the sites about Sally, she WAS legally free in France, and could have petitioned to remain.

Granted, the records on France's convoluted abolitionist movements are just that - convoluted. Some records indicate she would have been free, some indicate she would not have been.

But for you to continue to blindly claim she was slave merely slave and it couldn't have been love because she didn't have any emotions or rights, also disregards a fact that none of the sites dispute: Jefferson PAID her while in France, and paid James.

If they were being treated as "slave" in France, he would NOT have paid them, slaves didn't get paid.

On a personal level, I find it disgusting: your adherence to she must have just been an animal and your disregard of the other facts available that indicate she had choices and was treated with dignity and treated as free whether it was legally so or not.

[Symmetry]

I'm sorry, but slavery wasn't illegal in France while Hemings was there. Your argument that it wasn't rape because she chose it doesn't play out.

On a personal level, I find it disgusting.

You've said that.

You've also indicated that you can't believe she could have been subject to human emotions, which would make her an animal instead of human.
Frankly, I find it disgusting that you would relegate her to "animal" status; that's the argument slavers used when they caught or bought Africans.

It's obvious that while Jefferson may have owned her legally, he, at least, treated her with the dignity any gentleman of that time would accord a woman he slept with.

According to the sites about Sally, she WAS legally free in France, and could have petitioned to remain.

Granted, the records on France's convoluted abolitionist movements are just that - convoluted. Some records indicate she would have been free, some indicate she would not have been.

But for you to continue to blindly claim she was slave merely slave and it couldn't have been love because she didn't have any emotions or rights, also disregards a fact that none of the sites dispute: Jefferson PAID her while in France, and paid James.

If they were being treated as "slave" in France, he would NOT have paid them, slaves didn't get paid.

On a personal level, I find it disgusting: your adherence to she must have just been an animal and your disregard of the other facts available that indicate she had choices and was treated with dignity and treated as free whether it was legally so or not.

I have never claimed she was an animal. On the contrary, I've argued for her full rights to be a free human. I don't like that you're resorting to lying here in order to justify your arguments.

[PLAYER57832]

I meant to post this earlier, in response to john9, but am not going to go back and dig up the old post.

One issue most of you keep skirting, probably don't really want to accept or deal with is just what it meant to be a women in that time and place, whether white or black. The plain fact is that finding the best man they could, attracting him was about the only "career" path most women had, no matter their class. For men, that women would simply serve them was a given, not really to be questioned for a couple of centuries in the future -- and still being debated today. The idea of "choice" presented above is just silly, given the reality, as is the ideas of "consent". A woman of that day might dream of choice, might dream of being "swept away" by a "white knight", but had few chances to even judge what that might be.

For the man's part, it was essentially assumed that women did not enjoy sex, had to be either forced or cajolled, seduced. A "gentleman" certainly tried to seduce, but that was sort of his being magnanamous, his showing great character. It was not considered required behavior and, in many cases was sort of optional. Men naturally varied in their skill of dealing with others, including wives. That "courseness" would translate into their dealings with wives, and wives would not even really consider that there were options.

Black women, ironically enough, often had a bit more choice in that they could actively "seduce" men to some extent. Since they were not considered "fully human", it was "socially permissable" for them to even enjoy sex, to contribute... etc. in ways that white women mostly would not consider "proper". (note, I realize there is a LOT of variation then as now, but am sticking to generalities to not get bogged down in that).

If you truly put yourself into Sally's place, you see she had few options. One, she could have been sold anywhere.. maybe as a "house slave", maybe as something far different, even a field hand, though apparently she was pretty "comly" and therefore would likely have wound up in a bedroom somewhere. Compare that to the life of a free servant. A free servant might be dismissed instead of sold, but if not given references and the like, would wind up either back with her family or on the street. She might be fortunate to marry someone who would treat her well, but even then, her life would be tough. Another option would be to try and be her master's mistress. She might face some social scorn, but could also wind up the beneficiary of largess. It would be tricky, though. If she did not play here cards precisely correctly, she would basically end up a hooker. Note that in many cases, she would have no choice. If the master decided he wanted her, she might try to escape, but likely would be "disgraced", unless she had a strong family to which to return. Even then, chances are things would not go so well.

A wealthier white woman might have a few more options, but even so, a LOT depending on her husband. In most states, even if she were herself wealthy from her father, once married, all assets went to the husband. Not married, she might have to endure a gaurdianship, well into adulthood... until she married. There were a very few exceptions, but they are notable because they are just that, exceptions of exceptional women who bucked the systems.

A black woman such as Sally would know all of this. I find it not unlikely at all that she would have tried to encourage Jefferson to be attracted to her. It would be one of hte best options available to her. Even all the talk of Jefferson freeing her children and the like (which, I will add, Jefferson did do!), ignores the reality of the time. If, as many assert most were white enough to "pass", then they could have been, say put up in boarding schools and the like, but its quite likely someone would have noticed, wondered why someone like Jefferson would support such children. Likely, they would guess and it would not go that well for the children. Other parents would not want their kids "tainted" by the "bastards", even if race were not brought into the picture. Further, she would have had to have essentially no contact with the children in order to maintain that illusion.

However, as black slave children, they escaped notice. No one would really pay much attention to them, even if they were pale skinned. Sally could treat them as what they were... her children. Jefferson could attend to them some in the privacy of his estates. He could and did educate them, at a time when real education was just a dream for many white children. At the age of "majority", though they faced a choice. At that point, they would have had to decide if they wanted to try and enter moderate levels of white society and "pass" or if they wanted to join the black community. Passing was, of course, the better option, but would mean turning their backs on their families and all they had known as children. As free blacks, their life would have been extremely hazardous, rife with the threat of being returned to slavery -- real, slavery, possibly even harsh abusive slavery and not the coddled kind of semi-servitude they would have known under Jefferson (in all likelihood a far better life than many white children, never mind black children would have enjoyed at the time).

All in all, given the true facts, the idea that Jefferson was some kind of ogre is just plain wrong. Calling him a rapist is to say he was that and it does an extreme disservice to all involved, plus distorting things happening today by applying standards ad terms to the past.

When you judge the past by today's standards, see, you do not just a disservice to those times, but also to today. Rape, historically, has been among the most violant and replusive of acts. It is perhaps ironic that part of the reason it is so considered is that, even today, raping a woman is in some respects considered still to be "damaging" her.. in the sense that she is not quite as "valuable" to other men. That is changing today into an awareness of betrayel and harm to the woman herself, not just of her "value" to men. However, to try and claim that what happened back in the 1700's, with Jefferson and Sally in particular meets either idea or definition is not just to extremely distort the actions of Sally and Jefferson, it is to distort the meaning of the word "rape" and why it is such a harmful crime.

Calling Jefferson a rapist is to pretend that rape is not what it truly is.. a violant act of dehumanizing another human being through sex.

Rape certainly and absolutely happened back then, just not in this particular case.

[Symmetry]

Calling Jefferson a rapist is to pretend that rape is not what it truly is.. a violant act of dehumanizing another human being through sex.

Rape certainly and absolutely happened back then, just not in this particular case.

Why not in this particular case? Is it because Jefferson was involved? We know the man was a slave trader

[stahrgazer]

Why not in this particular case? Is it because Jefferson was involved? We know the man was a slave trader

No. We know he was a slave owner. A slave owner and a slave trader are not the same.

Why not in this particular case because:
1) He PAID Sally, and James, when they were in France, not something he'd do if he was prone to dehumanizing either of them.
2) He had Sally educated, not something typically done for slaves, certainly not done if you were someone prone to dehumanizing them.
3) By having Sally educated, he risked censure within the States because educating a slave was frequently against state laws.
4) He purchased fine gowns and attire for Sally so that she could accompany his daughter to various events - not something he'd do if he was prone to dehumanizing her, and again, not something typically done for any slave. Slaves, after all, were to stay in back quarters and just be ready to help their mistress change her attire or bring her food and drink during rest periods. Slaves did NOT mingle with the guests, unlike Sally, who did.
5) When travelling, he purchased Sally her own ship's berth, not something he'd do if he was prone to dehumanizing her.
6) He fulfilled his commitment to Sally by freeing the children, as he would not do if he was prone to dehumanizing them.
7) He went beyond his commitment to merely free them, by petitioning the state of Virginia to allow the children to remain in Virginia if they chose.
8.) Absolutely nothing in her descendants' writing indicates he was cruel to her or them. If he was prone to dehumanizing her by rape, her children would sense her discomfort even if she said nothing - and that would be passed down their verbal histories along with their claim that he, and not some other Jefferson relation, was the father of her children. Yup, if the tale of "Jefferson is our father," continued down the Heming generations as it did, then I'm sure, "Jefferson was a nasty rapist," would have as well.

Your argument seems to be tied to one thing: he never freed Sally within the United States.
SHE may not have CARED.
SHE may not have WANTED him to do so.
Being part Negro, Sally would never be able to marry Jefferson.
As "his" she could conduct a relationship with him with less scorn for either of them than she could if she was legally free.
As "his" or later, as "his daughter's" Sally was more protected than if she was legally free.

You don't have to like it, Symmetry, but everything other than, "legally she was his slave in Virginia," points to Sally WANTING the relationship.

[Symmetry]

Why not in this particular case? Is it because Jefferson was involved? We know the man was a slave trader

No. We know he was a slave owner. A slave owner and a slave trader are not the same.

He purchased and sold slaves. He was a slave trader. May as well refuse to call him a rapist as he only raped Hemings.

[PLAYER57832]

Calling Jefferson a rapist is to pretend that rape is not what it truly is.. a violant act of dehumanizing another human being through sex.

Rape certainly and absolutely happened back then, just not in this particular case.

Why not in this particular case? Is it because Jefferson was involved? We know the man was a slave trader

Becuase of the facts surrounding how Jefferson treated Sally and actually his slaves in general. You want to judge based on labels, not facts, not the full situation. You are the one who is prejudiced here. I am not saying that Jefferson owning slaves gives him any accolades, not by a long stretch. I AM saying that Sally H was not victimized by Jefferson. By society, sure, but Jefferson.. no.
Most of your criticism is based solely on your assumption that Jefferson could have, by his lone self, somehow ended slavery and that that would have resulted in a better end than what we have now. You simply cannot rewrite history in that manner. Saying Jefferson was wrong to trade slaves is reasonable and correct. Saying he raped Sally because he had slaves and was therefore incapable of even understanding that blacks were human is not fully correct.

[Ray Rider]

Guys, seriously,



In case you haven't noticed, Sym is just posting an inflammatory comment, waiting for you to make an argument, then ignoring evidence he doesn't like and picking apart irrelevant details in an attempt to get you sidetracked or to see how many times you'll repeat your argument.

[Symmetry]

[I AM saying that Sally H was not victimized by Jefferson. By society, sure, but Jefferson.. no.

He literally owned her as a slave. How is that not evidence of victimhood? I can be as bleeding heart liberal and blame society too, but hell, the man was guilty of slavery.

[john9blue]

I meant to post this earlier, in response to john9, but am not going to go back and dig up the old post.

i don't necessarily disagree with your post. which of my posts are you responding to?

In case you haven't noticed, Sym is just posting an inflammatory comment, waiting for you to make an argument, then ignoring evidence he doesn't like and picking apart irrelevant details in an attempt to get you sidetracked or to see how many times you'll repeat your argument.

he either puts a tremendous amount of effort into trolling, or he is just consistently wrong.

"never ascribe to malice what can be explained by stupidity"

[PLAYER57832]

I meant to post this earlier, in response to john9, but am not going to go back and dig up the old post.

i don't necessarily disagree with your post. which of my posts are you responding to?

It was not a direct response per se, and more of a clarification of what I said than a true disagreement with you-- part of the "it shouldn't bother you guys.." back and forth, which you clarified yourself.

[stahrgazer]

He literally owned her as a slave. How is that not evidence of victimhood? I can be as bleeding heart liberal and blame society too, but hell, the man was guilty of slavery.

In and of itself, owning slaves back then doesn't mean the people were evil; it was simply the way of life for plantation owners in the south (much like many businesses today will hire folks just for minimum wage). Granted, some plantation owners were evil, but not all.

Back in 1976 I met a descendant of former slaves in Mississippi, who still worked for the descendants of the family that used to own her ancestors. She said it was a good family to work for, and always had been. Folk like that may have been the inspiration behind Mammy and Big Sam in the civil war novel, "Gone With the Wind" - former slaves who remained with or were loyal to what they found to be a decent family even after they were freed, because they felt the family was "a good family to work for."

Nor does owning, even selling, what you own, make you 'a trader' other than in the most loose sense of the word - anymore than selling baked goods for a cause one weekend makes you 'a baker' except in the most loose sense of the word.

So, we can agree that Jefferson owned slaves.

What you have shown yourself too blind to see or too obstinate to admit is that, merely owning slaves for labor on his plantation and in his home does not mean he was evil to them.

In the case of Sally, the evidence shows he was kinder and more respectful, by far, than one would expect of an "evil slave trader rapist," as you keep trying to paint him.

[Symmetry]

He literally owned her as a slave. How is that not evidence of victimhood? I can be as bleeding heart liberal and blame society too, but hell, the man was guilty of slavery.

In and of itself, owning slaves back then doesn't mean the people were evil; it was simply the way of life for plantation owners in the south (much like many businesses today will hire folks just for minimum wage). Granted, some plantation owners were evil, but not all.

They were doing something i consider to be evil. Slavery. That it was legal at the time does not mean you or I should equivocate our condemnation of evil. As with rape, that he was legally safe in his evil actions should not be an argument for ignoring them, or justifying them as not evil.

[PLAYER57832]

He literally owned her as a slave. How is that not evidence of victimhood? I can be as bleeding heart liberal and blame society too, but hell, the man was guilty of slavery.

In and of itself, owning slaves back then doesn't mean the people were evil; it was simply the way of life for plantation owners in the south (much like many businesses today will hire folks just for minimum wage). Granted, some plantation owners were evil, but not all.

They were doing something i consider to be evil. Slavery. That it was legal at the time does not mean you or I should equivocate our condemnation of evil. As with rape, that he was legally safe in his evil actions should not be an argument for ignoring them, or justifying them as not evil.

Except, that was not your argument about rape.. your argument was simply " I don't like slavery", this woman was a slave and so was obviously raped.

NONE of us like slavery. But slavery does not automatically mean rape, either.

[Symmetry]

He literally owned her as a slave. How is that not evidence of victimhood? I can be as bleeding heart liberal and blame society too, but hell, the man was guilty of slavery.

In and of itself, owning slaves back then doesn't mean the people were evil; it was simply the way of life for plantation owners in the south (much like many businesses today will hire folks just for minimum wage). Granted, some plantation owners were evil, but not all.

They were doing something i consider to be evil. Slavery. That it was legal at the time does not mean you or I should equivocate our condemnation of evil. As with rape, that he was legally safe in his evil actions should not be an argument for ignoring them, or justifying them as not evil.

Except, that was not your argument about rape.. your argument was simply " I don't like slavery", this woman was a slave and so was obviously raped.

NONE of us like slavery. But slavery does not automatically mean rape, either.

Rape is unfree sex. Sex without consent. Slavery is antithetical to freedom

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

[PLAYER57832]

He literally owned her as a slave. How is that not evidence of victimhood? I can be as bleeding heart liberal and blame society too, but hell, the man was guilty of slavery.

In and of itself, owning slaves back then doesn't mean the people were evil; it was simply the way of life for plantation owners in the south (much like many businesses today will hire folks just for minimum wage). Granted, some plantation owners were evil, but not all.

They were doing something i consider to be evil. Slavery. That it was legal at the time does not mean you or I should equivocate our condemnation of evil. As with rape, that he was legally safe in his evil actions should not be an argument for ignoring them, or justifying them as not evil.

Except, that was not your argument about rape.. your argument was simply " I don't like slavery", this woman was a slave and so was obviously raped.

NONE of us like slavery. But slavery does not automatically mean rape, either.

Rape is unfree sex. Sex without consent. Slavery is antithetical to freedom.

No, not really. Rape is a violant act of using sex to demean and control someone else. Today, we put a lot of emphasis on consent because women have the ability to consent. TODAY, rape is sex without consent. Back then women did not have the same right to consent or not consent and the definition differed. Women, at least "proper" women were assumed to not like sex, to only do it to please their men. Decent men tried to be kind, but that was it.

so again, you are taking labels and superficial understanding of terms, not really understanding what happened back then.

[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.