Was Thomas Jefferson a rapist?

[Thorthoth]

Like Chigurh from No Country For Old Men, except nowhere near as cool.

What swdk finds cool = 'Revealing'.

[armati]

@ Symmetry on Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:53 pm

'I'm pretty sure that people can still claim that their grandparents and great-grandparents didn't have an underage spouse. I've no idea why someone would make that claim, but hey.'

I should have thought it thru better before posting.
Both my grandmothers were under age when they got married, pre 1920, Im sure my great grandparents were the same.
That was normal, lots of kids died for one reason or another and women had to be young to survive childbirth, in those days people didnt count on pensions, so they had kids that could take care of them in their old age.
Im not sure when later marriages started happening, after the 2nd war for sure, but I guess between say 1960 and now is enough time for someone to have both sets of grand parents married after the age of consent of 18.

[Symmetry]

@ Symmetry on Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:53 pm

'I'm pretty sure that people can still claim that their grandparents and great-grandparents didn't have an underage spouse. I've no idea why someone would make that claim, but hey.'

I should have thought it thru better before posting.
Both my grandmothers were under age when they got married, pre 1920, Im sure my great grandparents were the same.
That was normal, lots of kids died for one reason or another and women had to be young to survive childbirth, in those days people didnt count on pensions, so they had kids that could take care of them in their old age.
Im not sure when later marriages started happening, after the 2nd war for sure, but I guess between say 1960 and now is enough time for someone to have both sets of grand parents married after the age of consent of 18.

No worries, armati. Jefferson, of course, did not marry Sally Hemings- he kept her as a slave, even after his death (he could have freed her at any time, even after death in his will, but chose not to). And of course, he kept his own children by her as part of his personal slave property that he used to fund his lifestyle and political ambitions.

A slave at 14 years old in the 1780's/90's is not really the same as an underage free woman in the 1920's anyway.

[Bernie Sanders]

@ Symmetry on Sun Sep 17, 2017 11:53 pm

'I'm pretty sure that people can still claim that their grandparents and great-grandparents didn't have an underage spouse. I've no idea why someone would make that claim, but hey.'

I should have thought it thru better before posting.
Both my grandmothers were under age when they got married, pre 1920, Im sure my great grandparents were the same.
That was normal, lots of kids died for one reason or another and women had to be young to survive childbirth, in those days people didnt count on pensions, so they had kids that could take care of them in their old age.
Im not sure when later marriages started happening, after the 2nd war for sure, but I guess between say 1960 and now is enough time for someone to have both sets of grand parents married after the age of consent of 18.

No worries, armati. Jefferson, of course, did not marry Sally Hemings- he kept her as a slave, even after his death (he could have freed her at any time, even after death in his will, but chose not to). And of course, he kept his own children by her as part of his personal slave property that he used to fund his lifestyle and political ambitions.

A slave at 14 years old in the 1780's/90's is not really the same as an underage free woman in the 1920's anyway.

You fukn moron Sym! 14 is 14, not ready to have forced sex by a middle aged rapist.

[DoomYoshi]

If 14 isn't old enough for sex, why does puberty appear usually before that age?

[Thorthoth]

Damn it, Doshi.
I already discussed the imposed societal artificiality of the age of consent pages ago.
Scroll up and keep up.

Try again, snowflakes.
Statutory rape is an artificial construct and post-puberty age limits are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. For most of human history, and in all other species reproduction begins at puberty/sexual maturity.
Statutory rape was originally developed as a form of parental control, or in this case, owner control.

[Symmetry]

If 14 isn't old enough for sex, why does puberty appear usually before that age?

Is your argument really that every pubescent girl is up for rape? You realise that Sally Hemings was 14 years old, and had no right to say no, and had no escape. That her children were born slaves, right?

[DoomYoshi]

If 14 isn't old enough for sex, why does puberty appear usually before that age?

Is your argument really that every pubescent girl is up for rape? You realise that Sally Hemings was 14 years old, and had no right to say no, and had no escape. That her children were born slaves, right?

The fact that she was 14 and the fact that she was a slave are two totally different arguments.

14 has nothing to do with anything. God made people procreative at that age for a reason. The fact that she is a slave means it isn't rape. Every legal code in history has allowed people to have sex with slaves, that's one of their purposes. It's almost the entire point of owning female slaves. What part of that don't you understand? The crime isn't rape in any sense of the word. The only "crime" is slavery. You can use all the logical tricks you want. The answer is still no.

I mean even today if you owned a slave, you can have sex with her and isn't rape. I know this by reading the rules from places where slavery is still practiced.
e.g.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377086/Islamic-State-ruling-aims-settle-sex-female-slaves.html

Your argument also falls apart because you admit that she has no right to say no. She needs to say no for it to be rape, right?

[Thorthoth]

If 14 isn't old enough for sex, why does puberty appear usually before that age?

Is your argument really that every pubescent girl is up for rape? You realise that Sally Hemings was 14 years old, and had no right to say no, and had no escape. That her children were born slaves, right?

The fact that she was 14 and the fact that she was a slave are two totally different arguments.

14 has nothing to do with anything. God made people procreative at that age for a reason. The fact that she is a slave means it isn't rape. Every legal code in history has allowed people to have sex with slaves, that's one of their purposes. It's almost the entire point of owning female slaves. What part of that don't you understand? The crime isn't rape in any sense of the word. The only "crime" is slavery. You can use all the logical tricks you want. The answer is still no.

I mean even today if you owned a slave, you can have sex with her and isn't rape. I know this by reading the rules from places where slavery is still practiced.
e.g.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377086/Islamic-State-ruling-aims-settle-sex-female-slaves.html

Your argument also falls apart because you admit that she has no right to say no. She needs to say no for it to be rape, right?

Who knows? She may have even raped our boy Tommy. Get knocked up by a rich baby-daddy and you get yourself a plush set up in the main house.

[Symmetry]

If 14 isn't old enough for sex, why does puberty appear usually before that age?

Is your argument really that every pubescent girl is up for rape? You realise that Sally Hemings was 14 years old, and had no right to say no, and had no escape. That her children were born slaves, right?

The fact that she was 14 and the fact that she was a slave are two totally different arguments.

14 has nothing to do with anything. God made people procreative at that age for a reason. The fact that she is a slave means it isn't rape. Every legal code in history has allowed people to have sex with slaves, that's one of their purposes. It's almost the entire point of owning female slaves. What part of that don't you understand? The crime isn't rape in any sense of the word. The only "crime" is slavery. You can use all the logical tricks you want. The answer is still no.

I mean even today if you owned a slave, you can have sex with her and isn't rape. I know this by reading the rules from places where slavery is still practiced.
e.g.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3377086/Islamic-State-ruling-aims-settle-sex-female-slaves.html

Your argument also falls apart because you admit that she has no right to say no. She needs to say no for it to be rape, right?

What a weak excuse- that Sally Hemings was both 14 years old and a slave disallows either?

[Thorthoth]

Are you a slave-owner that has been sexually harassed, assaulted or even raped by your own slave that you trusted and purchased to serve you faithfully?

You are not alone, and you don't have to suffer in silence!

CC's slave-rape trauma counselors are here to help.

Confide in us, your privacy is our first concern.

Post here a detailed description of the events. Whatever you tell us will not leave the sanctity of this forum.

[Symmetry]

It's a topic that invites some weird excuses. Not just the people who have a sense of Jefferson as a kind of secular saint, but also those who think that rape isn't rape.

Hell, even the wiki page has a load of BS about how Hemings must have wanted it.

[DoomYoshi]

It's a topic that invites some weird excuses. Not just the people who have a sense of Jefferson as a kind of secular saint, but also those who think that rape isn't rape.

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who thinks sodomy isn't sodomy.

Could you define rape?

[Symmetry]

It's a topic that invites some weird excuses. Not just the people who have a sense of Jefferson as a kind of secular saint, but also those who think that rape isn't rape.

That's pretty funny coming from the guy who thinks sodomy isn't sodomy.

Could you define rape?

You're gonna have to explain what you mean by that first thing. It's a bit of a baffling accusation.

[DoomYoshi]

I think you know exactly what I mean.

[Symmetry]

I think you know exactly what I mean.

No clue- I don't think I've ever even used the word.

What are you upset about?

[jimboston]

OK so let's end this...

*Her being 14 is irrelevant. At the time of the alleged rape 14yo would have been old enough to give consent. The moral standards of today cannot be applied to the question, so calling it 'statutory rape' is a false argument.

*Her being a slave is irrelevant. Sure she had no legal standing and even if he had raped her he still wouldn't have been prosecuted. Also her status as a slave reduced or eliminated her ability to resist his advances... but it's not directly related to the question.

In order to answer the question, we need two things.
1) A common definition for the word "rape".
2) A full accounting of the events leading up to the act(s) of sexuality, along with a full accounting of the act itself.

So let's try to get these two things...

1) We can agree to a definition. Eliminating "statutory rape" we can say that rape is essentially "undesired sexual acts forced upon a person by means of physical force or mental/psychological intimidation. Is this reasonable.

2) We can NEVER get a full accounting of what actually occurred between these two people. It's just not possible. We can make some guesses, but that's it...

We know that Sally Hemings was a slave, and therefore was not legally able to make all of her own decisions. This may lead you to suspect that she was therefore coerced or forced to engage in sexual acts with Jefferson. This however is only a suspicion, a strong suspicion perhaps... but a suspicion nonetheless.

It is possible and perhaps reasonable to believe that Sally decided to engage in sexual acts with Jefferson of her own volition. Perhaps she was attracted to Jefferson's wit and intelligence? Perhaps she was attracted to the idea that her status within the household would be elevated in she engaged in a sexual relationship with Jefferson. Neither of these ideas are proof, but they are reasonable conjectures.

Furthermore one could look at the character of Jefferson (as we know it). There is no evidence that he was a violent man, so the idea of him physically forcing himself on Sally Hemings seems unlikely. (Not impossible, but unlikely.) . There is also evidence that he was morally opposed to slavery. Many historians believe he was opposed to slavery, but more strongly opposed to the idea of giving up his comfortable lifestyle... and his vanity / lifestyle addiction prevented him from pushing his suppressed views of slavery. These two character traits prove nothing, but lead one to believe that he most likely did not force himself on Sally physically... though they really don't address the possibility of him coercing her in some other non-violent or indirect way.

The conclusion...

Thomas Jefferson may have raped Sally Hemings, or he may not have. Without additional evidence one must conclude that the answer is impossible to discern.

My belief (based on current evidence) is that she was likely coerced in part by her situation (i.e. by the fact that she was a slave), but that she likely saw this also as a way to elevate her status.

A jury would have to conclude he was innocent of the charge.

[Dukasaur]

OK so let's end this...

*Her being 14 is irrelevant. At the time of the alleged rape 14yo would have been old enough to give consent. The moral standards of today cannot be applied to the question, so calling it 'statutory rape' is a false argument.

*Her being a slave is irrelevant. Sure she had no legal standing and even if he had raped her he still wouldn't have been prosecuted. Also her status as a slave reduced or eliminated her ability to resist his advances... but it's not directly related to the question.

In order to answer the question, we need two things.
1) A common definition for the word "rape".
2) A full accounting of the events leading up to the act(s) of sexuality, along with a full accounting of the act itself.

So let's try to get these two things...

1) We can agree to a definition. Eliminating "statutory rape" we can say that rape is essentially "undesired sexual acts forced upon a person by means of physical force or mental/psychological intimidation. Is this reasonable.

2) We can NEVER get a full accounting of what actually occurred between these two people. It's just not possible. We can make some guesses, but that's it...

We know that Sally Hemings was a slave, and therefore was not legally able to make all of her own decisions. This may lead you to suspect that she was therefore coerced or forced to engage in sexual acts with Jefferson. This however is only a suspicion, a strong suspicion perhaps... but a suspicion nonetheless.

It is possible and perhaps reasonable to believe that Sally decided to engage in sexual acts with Jefferson of her own volition. Perhaps she was attracted to Jefferson's wit and intelligence? Perhaps she was attracted to the idea that her status within the household would be elevated in she engaged in a sexual relationship with Jefferson. Neither of these ideas are proof, but they are reasonable conjectures.

Furthermore one could look at the character of Jefferson (as we know it). There is no evidence that he was a violent man, so the idea of him physically forcing himself on Sally Hemings seems unlikely. (Not impossible, but unlikely.) . There is also evidence that he was morally opposed to slavery. Many historians believe he was opposed to slavery, but more strongly opposed to the idea of giving up his comfortable lifestyle... and his vanity / lifestyle addiction prevented him from pushing his suppressed views of slavery. These two character traits prove nothing, but lead one to believe that he most likely did not force himself on Sally physically... though they really don't address the possibility of him coercing her in some other non-violent or indirect way.

The conclusion...

Thomas Jefferson may have raped Sally Hemings, or he may not have. Without additional evidence one must conclude that the answer is impossible to discern.

My belief (based on current evidence) is that she was likely coerced in part by her situation (i.e. by the fact that she was a slave), but that she likely saw this also as a way to elevate her status.

A jury would have to conclude he was innocent of the charge.

Nice summation!

[notyou2]

Is this over?

[Thorthoth]

The real problem with society has nothing to do with these inconstant and insincere re-definitions of rape, slavery, human rights and the age of consent.
Rather it is the ever-expanding totalitarian power of the fascist-snowflake overmind.
(And at this point, it's probably been co-opted by ai as a monkey-kill social program anyway)

[jimboston]

The real problem with society has nothing to do with these inconstant and insincere re-definitions of rape, slavery, human rights and the age of consent.
Rather it is the ever-expanding totalitarian power of the fascist-snowflake overmind.
(And at this point, it's probably been co-opted by ai as a monkey-kill social program anyway)

This is off-topic. You'll have to start a new thread to discuss these points.

[jimboston]

Is this over?

Yes.

[riskllama]

jimboston wins this thread.

[jimboston]

jimboston wins this thread.

Yah! I've been validated.

I'll go disappear for another 3-6 months.

[Symmetry]

OK so let's end this...

*Her being 14 is irrelevant. At the time of the alleged rape 14yo would have been old enough to give consent. The moral standards of today cannot be applied to the question, so calling it 'statutory rape' is a false argument.

*Her being a slave is irrelevant. Sure she had no legal standing and even if he had raped her he still wouldn't have been prosecuted. Also her status as a slave reduced or eliminated her ability to resist his advances... but it's not directly related to the question.

In order to answer the question, we need two things.
1) A common definition for the word "rape".
2) A full accounting of the events leading up to the act(s) of sexuality, along with a full accounting of the act itself.

So let's try to get these two things...

1) We can agree to a definition. Eliminating "statutory rape" we can say that rape is essentially "undesired sexual acts forced upon a person by means of physical force or mental/psychological intimidation. Is this reasonable.

2) We can NEVER get a full accounting of what actually occurred between these two people. It's just not possible. We can make some guesses, but that's it...

We know that Sally Hemings was a slave, and therefore was not legally able to make all of her own decisions. This may lead you to suspect that she was therefore coerced or forced to engage in sexual acts with Jefferson. This however is only a suspicion, a strong suspicion perhaps... but a suspicion nonetheless.

It is possible and perhaps reasonable to believe that Sally decided to engage in sexual acts with Jefferson of her own volition. Perhaps she was attracted to Jefferson's wit and intelligence? Perhaps she was attracted to the idea that her status within the household would be elevated in she engaged in a sexual relationship with Jefferson. Neither of these ideas are proof, but they are reasonable conjectures.

Furthermore one could look at the character of Jefferson (as we know it). There is no evidence that he was a violent man, so the idea of him physically forcing himself on Sally Hemings seems unlikely. (Not impossible, but unlikely.) . There is also evidence that he was morally opposed to slavery. Many historians believe he was opposed to slavery, but more strongly opposed to the idea of giving up his comfortable lifestyle... and his vanity / lifestyle addiction prevented him from pushing his suppressed views of slavery. These two character traits prove nothing, but lead one to believe that he most likely did not force himself on Sally physically... though they really don't address the possibility of him coercing her in some other non-violent or indirect way.

The conclusion...

Thomas Jefferson may have raped Sally Hemings, or he may not have. Without additional evidence one must conclude that the answer is impossible to discern.

My belief (based on current evidence) is that she was likely coerced in part by her situation (i.e. by the fact that she was a slave), but that she likely saw this also as a way to elevate her status.

A jury would have to conclude he was innocent of the charge.

You rely on three deeply flawed assumptions:

1) That her being 14 is irrelevant
2) That her being literally owned by her master is irrelevant
3) That this is some sort of a trial.

Upon that shaky foundation you conclude that there was no rape. Or more correctly that he would never have been convicted.

Your evaluation- that she probably wanted it, is more than a little sickening. We know that Jefferson was a brutal man- he had his slaves whipped and beaten into obedience.

One of the things that really struck me recently was the way in which a man can present himself in public, while being a monster in his private life. There's no shortage of examples- take Bill Cosby for a modern American example, or Jimmy Savile in the UK. Seeming models of the family man and the children's entertainer.

Jefferson's public persona was clearly different from the man he was in reality. Perhaps some of his public facade was an indication of a private guilt? Or a way to mask his abuses? I'm no psychologist, but there are enough modern day examples of public virtue masking an abusive personality around for anyone to see.