Jefferson!

ok doser

Well-known member
No, the other one.

Some things I hadn't known before.

Sally Hemings was Jefferson's wife's half sister.
Sally Hemings was three quarters white. Any children with Jefferson would have been 7/8ths white and thus white by Virginia law. But born into slavery by virtue of their mother's status.
Their relationship likely started in permissive French society in France, after Martha Jefferson died.


 
Last edited:

Hilltrot

Well-known member
I would have to agree with aCultureWarrior in part and say that there is not really enough evidence to charge Thomas with having an affair with Sally.

That being said, aCultureWarrior's obsession that the defamation of Thomas must be a Libertarian conspiracy theory shows how his obsession has caused him mental damage.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
I would have to agree with aCultureWarrior in part and say that there is not really enough evidence to charge Thomas with having an affair with Sally.

That being said, aCultureWarrior's obsession that the defamation of Thomas must be a Libertarian conspiracy theory shows how his obsession has caused him mental damage.
Why is it a defamation of Jefferson, a deist, not a Christian?
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
Why is it a defamation of Jefferson, a deist, not a Christian?
Because under current society norms, sex with one's "black" slaves is considered to have a negative connotation. It was also considered to be a defamation during Thomas's time to be accused of fathering children with one's slave. In addition, the push to make Thomas the father of Sally's children is used to demote his importance as well as defame the country.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
Because under current society norms, sex with one's "black" slaves is considered to have a negative connotation. It was also considered to be a defamation during Thomas's time to be accused of fathering children with one's slave. In addition, the push to make Thomas the father of Sally's children is used to demote his importance as well as defame the country.
I don't see it that way. I accept that he was a man of his times and that he did what many did in his circumstances. It doesn't diminish my respect for his achievements. As far as defaming my country I don't accept that either. The founding fathers were men of their times, many of them brilliant, all of them flawed, as all of us are.
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
I don't see it that way. I accept that he was a man of his times and that he did what many did in his circumstances. It doesn't diminish my respect for his achievements. As far as defaming my country I don't accept that either. The founding fathers were men of their times, many of them brilliant, all of them flawed, as all of us are.
I can see that but when looking at defamation, one has to examine how the majority sees the issue - not the minority.

Although you might not see it as a problem, I think most do.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
I can see that but when looking at defamation, one has to examine how the majority sees the issue - not the minority.

Although you might not see it as a problem, I think most do.
This comes from an idolisation of the founding fathers that I have always found problematic.
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
This comes from an idolisation of the founding fathers that I have always found problematic.
It also comes from confusing cultural standards with Biblical standards. Biblically, there would be no problem with Thomas having a sexual relationship with Sally however people confuse cultural standards with Biblical ones.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
It also comes from confusing cultural standards with Biblical standards. Biblically, there would be no problem with Thomas having a sexual relationship with Sally however people confuse cultural standards with Biblical ones.
One of the other aspects that I always find pernicious and very difficult to overcome is that the public perception of slavery as an issue that is black-and-white (haha) is wrong. There is plenty of evidence to support a view of slavery that was in many instances benign and even beneficial to both parties, the enslaved and the masters.
Enslavement as practiced by indigenous peoples for instance was one of integration into the tribe.

One of the criticisms that is often leveled at Jefferson and other slave owning founding fathers is that if they believed in the ideals of the French enlightenment, why did they not free their own slaves? This assumes of course that their slaves would have wished to be free. And there's no reason to assume that that was true of any of them. We assume it through our lens of a lifestyle and longevity and degree of health, through the prism of our privilege of living in the 21st century, immersed in a bounty of food and material goods and distractions that would have been unimaginable 250 years ago. And we are so distant from that now that we can scarcely imagine how brutal life was at the end of the 1700s, how capricious it was.
 

Hilltrot

Well-known member
One of the other aspects that I always find pernicious and very difficult to overcome is that the public perception of slavery as an issue that is black-and-white (haha) is wrong. There is plenty of evidence to support a view of slavery that was in many instances benign and even beneficial to both parties, the enslaved and the masters.
Enslavement as practiced by indigenous peoples for instance was one of integration into the tribe.
Slavery is beneficial to the master, otherwise the master would get rid of the slave. The only time I think slavery might be good for the slave is when it is a punishment for a crime.
Enslavement as practiced by indigenous peoples for instance was one of integration into the tribe.
I don't consider the pre-Columbian Native American culture to be a good one. You might be integrated into the tribe, but you are integrated into the tribe as a slave. One rarely would be allowed to be fully integrated into a tribe and on the rare occasions it did happen, it happened because one was young enough to be adopted as a child. The only benefit one had is that one's children will not be considered slaves.
One of the criticisms that is often leveled at Jefferson and other slave owning founding fathers is that if they believed in the ideals of the French enlightenment, why did they not free their own slaves?
The Haitian revolt of 1791 was clearly in his mind. Any manumission by Jefferson was determined to be done only with the intent to deport them. He only gave up on this idea when he determined that it was infeasible. In fact, Thomas did consider the "black-skinned" people to be racially inferior.
This assumes of course that their slaves would have wished to be free.
I suppose some slaves might be ok with it. However, 40 of Thomas's slaves did try to escape.
 

ok doser

Well-known member
In fact, Thomas did consider the "black-skinned" people to be racially inferior.
There was similar thinking in Canada in the first century of that country's life regarding their indigenous peoples. They had government programs, government residential schools whose intent by their founder was to extinguish the indigenous culture and fully integrate the indigenous children into Anglo society. Kill the Indian in the child. The last one of these was closed in 1997. A black mark on their history that they're still struggling to come to terms with.
I suppose some slaves might be ok with it. However, 40 of Thomas's slaves did try to escape.
I had forgotten about that. Good point.
 
Top