Thomas Jefferson in “Notes on the State of Virginia” (1787) made the same two arguments against freeing the slaves that whites would later make against ending Jim Crow:
1. Race war:
- Deep rooted prejudices entertained by the whites;
- ten thousand recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained;
- new provocations;
- the real distinctions which nature has made;
- and many other circumstances,
will divide us into parties, and produce convulsions which will probably never end but in the extermination of the one or the other race.
2. Race mixing:
Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture.
He compares blacks to whites. Here is some of it:
Blacks are ugly:
- Whites have “flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form”.
- Even black men prefer white women over their own, just as orangutans prefer black women over their own.
Blacks smell bad:
They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour.
Blacks like sex more but love less deeply:
They are more ardent after their female: but love seems with them to be more an eager desire, than a tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation.
Blacks suffer less deeply:
Those numberless afflictions, which render it doubtful whether heaven has given life to us in mercy or in wrath, are less felt, and sooner forgotten with them.
Blacks are better at music, but:
Whether they will be equal to the composition of a more extensive run of melody, or of complicated harmony, is yet to be proved.
Blacks are brave, but:
this may perhaps proceed from a want of forethought, which prevents their seeing a danger till it be present.
Black intelligence:
in memory they are equal to the whites;
in reason much inferior, as I think one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid;
and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless, and anomalous.
Jefferson compares them to the white slaves of Rome who, despite living under crueler conditions, have produced great thinkers and writers – like Terence, Epictetus and Phaedrus. Unlike blacks.
Blacks have good moral character. Yes. Apart from their lack of respect for property laws, which is understandable, there are:
numerous instances of the most rigid integrity, and as many as among their better instructed masters, of benevolence, gratitude, and unshaken fidelity.
In conclusion he says more study is required, so:
I advance it therefore as a suspicion only, that the blacks, whether originally a distinct race, or made distinct by time and circumstances, are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. … This unfortunate difference of colour, and perhaps of faculty, is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people.
See also:
- Jefferson
- Jim Crow racism
- The Bell Curve
- other racists
- Lincoln – “there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”
- Madison Grant
- Steve Sailer
- black people according to white people
- Epictetus




I am sorry to repeat this.
Even black men prefer white women over their own, just as orangutans prefer black women over their own.
Besides being disgusting beyond words, I suspect there are still people who believe, deep down, that this might be the case.
(Just to make clear, I am not referring to black men preferring white women argument, but the orangutan analogy).
“Whites have “flowing hair, a more elegant symmetry of form”. Even black men prefer white women over their own, just as orangutans prefer black women over their own.”
“They secrete less by the kidnies, and more by the glands of the skin, which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odour.”
Bear in mind, that this was all written while he himself was sleeping with a Black woman [Sally Hemmings] on most nights.
But, of course that was an exception.
Ironies certainly abound, but in point of fact, he wrote most of the “Notes” in 1781 when Sally Hemings was eight.
Of orangutans, etc:
Back then one of the excuses used in England for the slave trade was that black women had sex with apes, proving that were not fully human. And even today White Americans still tend to think of monkeys when they think of blacks (but not when they think of whites). It is part of how they dehumanize blacks in their heads:
http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/02/25/black-people-as-monkeys/
“Even black men prefer white women over their own, just as orangutans prefer black women over their own.”
I read an article a while back that explains how the movie “King Kong” is symbolic to the white racial mindset that black men lusts for white women, and King Kong represents the black male lust.
Well the slave he was having sex with was a quadroon. She probably looked more white than black, still that doesn’t excuse his hypocrisy. Slave is a slave.
So was Thomas Jefferson a monkey ? Since he slept ith black women…
So were all these “fathers” of these “mixed” slaves monkey ? Since, to begin with, these “white” men raped black women- therefore all this mixing in this continent…
“he wrote most of the “Notes” in 1781 when Sally Hemings was eight.”
Then I am encouraged by his sudden change of heart… to so quickly have learned to love that which he so despised.
“Well the slave he was having sex with was a quadroon”
True. But I wonder how she got to be that way? There must have been quite a few fine Colonists in her parental past, who liked “ugly” and “stinky.”
Or weren’t there enough White prostitutes to go around?
Is there any true to …….. “just as orangutans prefer black women over their own.”???
This is not the 1st time I’ve read similar statements like the one above. Can anyone shed some light on this for me. Fact or Fiction.
@ E:
I’m not sure how you could even consider that it could be true, its so ridiculous. You may as well ask “is it true that once you go black, you can’t ever go back?”
Or weren’t there enough White prostitutes to go around?
Great question King. Because back then every mixed race person had a white father. Many of these slave mistresses had their own private quarters and it was made nice enough because Master would frequently stop by, It was his Home away from Home. So where were all these “more elegant symmetry of form” white women?
@ Eurasian Sensation
I never personally considered it true but i’ve read it at least 3 times. That’s just how many times I have seen it so imagine how many times other people have read it. I should have asked does anyone know how this lie got started?
@ Eurasian Sensation
and Yes. it is true once you go black, you never go back. LOL!!
I have had the misfortune to stumble upon some of the most vile of yt supremacist web-sites, and see much of this type of rhetoric spilled all over in ‘discussions’ and race debates. To learn that much of what I have read on these sites, coming from such a ‘learned’ man as Thomas Jefferson, is disturbing.
And these words of “wisdom” are still a point of reference for many WP.
E said, “Many of these slave mistresses had their own private quarters and it was made nice enough because Master would frequently stop by.” Ehhh I think “many” is an exaggeration. Much of the time slave women were raped in your standard horrific fashion unless/until it became a routine in which, if she were lucky, she could disassociate until it was over with. I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not, sorry. I felt compelled to make sure there was no mistaking rape for a hidden romance in a private chamber.
It’s interesting the Thomas Jefferson would think blacks to love “eagerly” when whites weren’t exactly taking black women to dinner first and sweet walks in the park before they forced their “love” upon them. And someone should have told his ass that it’s reaaaaaaaaalllllllly hard to maintain a “tender delicate mixture of sentiment and sensation” when, oh I don’t know, black couples were regularly separated, not legally allowed to marry, and usually denied even simple unions there on the property.
How did he think that the people he denied an education would be on their A-game in the Euclid department? WTF.
“How did he think that the people he denied an education would be on their A-game in the Euclid department?”
Hey, the people who we won’t allow to read books are not becoming philosophers!!!!!
@King
You are correct. As is the case with most mixed slaves Hemmings’ white ancestry was paternal. There were certainly men of his race that got down with some “stinking”, “ugly”, “ape” of a BW.
It is so interesting he would say all of that when so many white masters had black mistresses. Even the women on my mother’s side of the family who were slaves slept with the white masters. In fact, that is how we obtained land down in Alabama; the white masters loved her so much they gave her land when slavery was abolished.
@ E:
“Is there any true to …….. “just as orangutans prefer black women over their own.”???
This is not the 1st time I’ve read similar statements like the one above. Can anyone shed some light on this for me. Fact or Fiction.”
Well, I saw a documentary in which a huge male orangutang wanted Julia Roberts as his own and almost kidnapped her from the film crew. Maybe he had seen Pretty Woman, I don’t know.
I think this was and still is hypocracy. White men have always had sex with black women as black men with white women, given a chance to do so. And as we vey well know, Ole Thomas here was head over heels with a black lady, so…
Racism is funny thing. It makes liars out of everyone. I have never met a single white guy who hasn’t drooled over a black women at some moment, usually they do not even realize it. Some of these guys have said out loud that black women are ugly, monkeys etc., but once Beyonce or some other steps into a tv screen they are: Wow! I sure like her…
Ole Thomas did what they all did on those days and still do in our days: he lied. He knew that somebody would read his writings so he wrote what he believed was smart and the common view in the future. I doubt he knew that we would know his hump o pump with a black woman. He thoughed that he could get away with it. Well, he did not and was caught
Litterally with his pants down
What I find the most disturbing, is that he started pumping this girl when she was 14 or 15 years old and he was in his late thirties or forties. Your third president was in effect, a child molester as well as a racist hypocrite!
@herneith: that is a bit strange. I wonder is there anything out there which tells her side of that “relationship”. I mean historical stuff, not movies nor novels.
Herneith said:
“What I find the most disturbing, is that he started pumping this girl when she was 14 or 15 years old and he was in his late thirties or forties. Your third president was in effect, a child molester as well as a racist hypocrite!”
Jefferson was 30 years older than Hemings, so he was 44 or 45 then.
I wonder is there anything out there which tells her side of that “relationship”.
Probably not. There is no excuse for how this girl/woman was treated, no justification. The yolk of oppression notwithstanding, which, at the time, was fairly common, does not make this wicked treatment excusable. Hence, that old standby argument; “It was the times!”, holds no water. Such behaviour is inexcusable in any era.
Well, about the age difference… You shouldn’t judge that based on our own ideas about what is an acceptable age difference. It was (is?) a norm in some societies for a girl to marry at the age of 14 or 15, to the men twice their age (or more). We shouldn’t judge the age difference based on our idea of what is acceptable and what is not. The more important question is, how did THEY, back then, see this age difference? I guess he was seen as too old for her, but she wasn’t seen as a child the way we see 14 year olds today, and she certainly wasn’t the only young woman who was with men much older than themselves.
The problems I see with their union have nothing to do with the age difference, and I highly doubt anybody in their days thought the age difference to be the most questionable thing about them.
The main problem here was the fact she was a slave, and he was her master. THAT’S the problem I see with their union, not the fact a young woman had sex with an older man, which was, more or less, norm back then (maybe not so much of an age difference, but it was certainly not unheard of).
Also, I don’t see anything surprising about their “union”: she was young and (presumably) beautiful, and he owned her, so he could do whatever he wanted with her (and we all know men are known for exploiting women sexually). She had no choice.
She wasn’t the first, the last or the only black woman with a similar destiny, she is more famous than the others because her master was more famous, but there are thousands and thousands of those young women who suffered the same destiny.
What I dislike about this story is the fact some people want to romanticize it, which was really disrespectful to say the least. It’s not really about them; ok, maybe, somewhere, was a master who really fell in love with the slave girl and who, maybe, loved him back. There are all kinds of strange couples, and there’s also Stockholm syndrome that maybe worked in some cases… Some very rare cases. To portray these rare cases as the norm instead of a rarity is extremely disrespectful.
Also, people need to live with the face Jefferson was racist, end of story.
It’s easy to test. Would Jefferson have allowed a White daughter of his to become the mistress of a 44 year old, married man of another race?
He wouldn’t, but I doubt the age difference would be the main factor in his decision.
The better question to ask is would Jefferson have allowed a white daughter of his to marry a white 44 old man? Maybe not, but there were plenty of fathers who have allowed it to happen back in the days.
Also, I agree that Jefferson (given the times that he lived in) can’t be looked at in the same light as a modern-day pedophile, since women were being married off in their teens quite regularly, at the time. (usually after 16).
However, the whole system, was guided by different social norms and gender expectations. How many 15-year-old boys were being married off to 30 year old women? Lol! It was expected that the wife would be subservient to her husband and that the husband would be older, wiser, and wealthier, than his bride. Therefore, men were older, but usually in their 20s, not their 40s!
True. But marrying someone 30 years older wasn’t unheard of. Just like today, age difference of 5 years is more often seen than the one of 20 years… But it’s not unheard of.
There were plenty of young women, that we would call girls today, who were forced to marry men in their 40s, because of whatever reason. I don’t know if these sort of things happened in African communities, but were definitely common (well, relatively common) in Europe, and I assume, white America (though I can’t be sure about America).
I do think the age difference is hardly the most alarming thing about Jefferson and Hemings (though I don’t disrespect anybody’s personal opinion on what they find the most disgusting about the story… It’s not like there aren’t plenty of ugly things to choose from).
well, the age difference of 20 yrs is not that bad, IF the guy is 40 and the girl is 20, OR the guy is 20 and the woman is 40 ( I know these too, so do not laugh out there
).
the problem is that if this girl was 14-15, that is yong by any day and of the guy was 40, that is a bit of stretch even by that days standards. but that is the point: Ole Thomas was his master and could what ever he wanted with her and did too. Nobody gave it a thought since, hey, that is the dudes slave, so…
But if a 40 yr old guy would have taken 15 yr old white girl, that would’ve been rising some eyebrows even back then.
It would be rising some eyebrows, but not in today’s sense of the word (pedophilia cases).
I agree with Mira. The age thing is sketch but the fact that she was a slave and he was the maters alarms me the most. Most teens back in those days married men who were about 10 years their senior. The Jefferson-Hemmings relationship was definitely pushing the limit in that regard.
I too am appaulded by the romanticizing of this relationship. I’m sure there were slave-master relationships that involved feelings/love but I don’t think that was the norm. Jefferson was a Founding Father and this country puts these men on a God like pedestal. Nobody is going to get onto mainstream TV and speak frankly about Jefferson’s racism, hypocrisy and sexual misconduct. It’s much easier to spin the story into a “forbidden romance”.
It would probably raise eyebrows the same way a 18-21 yr woman dating a 40-50 yr old man would.
Yeah it’s legal but still considered “creepy” and pushing the limit.
@ Y: well, I have dated women 20 yrs younger than I am and the only comments I get are schauvinistic “Good for you” or “Can you keep up the pace”. Some younger women seem to like older guys but I have to remind them about the realities of life; when they are forty I’ll be sixty
After that they usually go
!
Actually the mother of my daughter was 18 when we met and I was 30. I got some comments on that but after we got married, nobody said a word.
And before anybody gets any funny ideas; I have been with women of my age and dated fifty year old lady before I met the mother of my child.
Now that I really think about it, age has never been a real issue for me. But I know, that if some forty year old geezer would go out with my daughter now (she is fifteen), that guy would have very limited life expectancy indeed.
Indeed. Still, the wost part about this particular couple is not the fact he was a slave master who did this to his slave (not because it wasn’t horrible, but because it’s not unique to them and it would be disrespectful to all anonymous black girls who suffered to focus on Hamings story exclusively). The worst part for me is the romanticism some people want to see here. Or people who claim he was gentle with her or something. (What does that have to do with anything? A rape doesn’t have to be violent or to involve knives and punches to be a rape!)
Heck, if you really want to go into that, I bet Jefferson thought he was fair to her, that he gave her many thing and treated her well. Still doesn’t sound romantic to me.
I MEAN SHE WAS HIS PROPERTY. How romantic is that?
sam,
But the guy would be with your daughter.
Actually, I am not into relationships with great age difference. I was never into that. Though I must admit I did date men younger than myself, but not much older than myself. So it’s not like I’m defending something personal here.
Jefferson’s attitude was shared by many people, then and now. It’s not surprising.
“Heck, if you really want to go into that, I bet Jefferson thought he was fair to her, that he gave her many thing and treated her well. Still doesn’t sound romantic to me.”
Yes, but the only truly relevant question is, ‘could she say NO?’
@mira: not for long
The age difference was a stretch here but the thing is, she did not have a choice here. That bugs me. Like Mira says, she was his propety.
Yes, but the only truly relevant question is, ‘could she say NO?’
Of course. I just wanted to say that some (probably white) people see things form his POV only… I don’t know if he was cruel to her or if he bought her presents; it’s irrelevant for this discussion.
Once again, the fact he might not beat her up or had sex with her with a knife under her throat doesn’t make it romantic.
By “of course”, I meant: “of course it’s the only relevant question”, not “of course she could say no”.
Marriage in colonial times depended on the region and your class. For instance, if you came from a wealthy family, you may have married earlier than the average age, because your family could afford to marry you off and provide a dowry. These marriages were for enhancing and maintaining the family`s wealth and position in society. If you were in ‘service’ you may not have married(your employers discouraged it), or, if you did, you did so later, when you could afford it, or some man offered` you his hand. The average age for marriage was therefore in your early twenties if you were female. The males may have been several years older. I am not concerned with that however. I am concerned with the extreme age differences between Jefferson and Hemming, and the fact that this young girl could not say no, without dire consequences. So in effect, she was coerced into this relationship either wittingly or unwittingly.
Sorry, but I don’ hearken to that old argument , `It was the times`. The age difference was to great. You should read about prostitution in Victorian England with underage prostitutes for example, some as young as ten years old, to see the public reception it garnered. The average age of marriage was not 14 for a girl. If a girl did marry at 15 or 16, the groom was only 4 or 5 years older then her on average. Marrying or living in concubinage with a man 30 to 40 years older than you was not the norm, nor was it common. People as a rule in the lower classes got married when they could afford to, unless they were wealthy. Men could legally beat their wives and had complete sovereignty over them back then. it wasn’t right then nor is it now. People will still make the argument, ìt was the times`.
All in all, women had it bad back then, whatever their class or station in life. It was not the times. It was just another patriarchal mode of control over females and any other group that they wished to subjugate. Sexually abusing girls and women was their way of doing this. Jefferson is the epitome of this. If abusing 14 year old girls was common, why did he keep his relationship with Hemming a secretÉ There were many other well-known `gentlemen who kept black mistresses either openly or at least everyone knew they had one. Now this was the norm. But good ol Jeff swore up and down that he had no relations with Hemming. His white daughter and her children also did the same thing. Why, because they knew that men who were 30 to 40 years older than a 14 year old girl had no business doing so, as well as the fact that she was a slave. If anything, the fact that she was a slave would have been the lesser of the two evils and would have been seen as par for the course as everyone knew someone who was molesting their slaves and having children by them.
Herneith,
So, basically, you say that the age difference played a significant role in his shame? That he didn’t want to openly admit the relationship because of the age difference?
Also, not all times and places are the same, but unfortunately, teenage brides and old grooms were usual thing all around the world (ancient Greece, for example, the cradle of European civilization).
Not to mention the middle ages. So, Europe does have its history of it.
Granted, colonial times were later and not Europe, but there were always cases of really young women who had to marry really old men… It wasn’t seen as a norm, perhaps, or even the best thing, but it was happening, for various reasons. If you were “damaged”, for example, you couldn’t expect to marry a wealthy young man. You had to take whoever wanted you (a widower, for example).
So I have a hard time believing the age difference was something Jefferson, or anybody in his days, would worry. If that was, indeed, the case, then his story is different than what I always assumed it to be: a classic example of a master taking a young slave woman.
Now, I don’t know: whether other masters open about their “relationships” with slave girls? Or was that something that nobody talked about? How old were the slave girls that masters usually picked for their mistresses/for rape?
I am sorry, I just have a hard time believing the age difference was such a big deal (in this case at least).
For what it’s worth, Jefferson never commented on the possibility of a relationship with Hemings. He stayed silent, which seems an admission in and of itself.
Keep in mind that Sally was probably his late wife’s half sister–which adds all kinds of weird family dynamics into the situation. Creepy all around.
The reason it was kept secret was because Jefferson was President. I’m sure his wife and daughters were going to be silent, just like you have politicians wives do the “stand by your man” thing today. His campaign became very nasty and as a result his affair with Hemings came to light.
Quite often the wife had the money in the family so often the master and slave mistress relationship was kept quite.
@ Hathor his wife was dead. his daughters had no say so.
I was told a story by a classmate, that her great grandmother who was white had bought her husband as a slave so that they could live together. The woman’s wealth and property were pass down to her children. I don’t know how she passed her children off. Perhaps isolation was the key.
Ames,
In some instances slavery was a family affair, especially where there were no large plantations. Alex Haley did a TV miniseries, Queen about his grandmother which was a half sister to the master’s daughter, she acted as a surrogate sister, servant and living doll, until her father died and his wife then took revenge against her.
E.
It was just a guess. The link I provided just noted how the story got out.
I thought black men really do prefer white women over their own…
There can be no consensual relationships between a master and a slave. P
eople are so quick to say that Jefferson and Hemmings were in “love” (without realizing that she was likely still a teenager when he started molesting her), but when a teacher has sex with an adolescent student people want to get up in arms.
If people are quick to condemn teacher pedophiles who get involved with underage students who hold unequal power in a teacher-student relationship, then why are they quick to justify Jefferson’s relationships with Sally given the serious inequality of their power relationship (she was not only underage, but she was considered his property and had no rights)?
Like I said, there can be no consensual relationships between a master and a slave, especially when the slave is born into and raised in a society that dehumanizes her, deprives her of rights and hardly even considers her human. And when she has no legal recourse if her master does rape her.
And as for teenage brides being the norm at the time, when an older man is paired with a much younger woman, there is automatically a power difference in the relationship even if the man and girl are of the same social standing. Not only is the man considered a more valuable societal asset, but wisdom, education, wealth and power tend to increase with age until senility, decrepitness and uselessness set in during senior years.
“Back then one of the excuses used in England for the slave trade was that black women had sex with apes, proving that were not fully human. And even today White Americans still tend to think of monkeys when they think of blacks (but not when they think of whites). It is part of how they dehumanize blacks in their heads”
That’s interesting. In the part of India I come from a slang used for white people is “lal bandar” – pink monkey, because their faces look like the pinkish/tawny faces of the rhesus monkeys we have there, as well as the monkeys having light colored eyes.
@Indian Gyal, LOL we learn something new everyday.
@Indian Gyal
Hahaha!
@indian gyal:
and some chinese call us pink devils
If Good Ole Thomas was 40 and this girl was 14-15, I think everybody understud that this is not a norm even in those days. Royals, blue bloods could and did have teen wives and married them, but in those marriages it was always about something else too: propety, politics, alliances etc. Not that I am saying that is was okay.
But this girl was a slave. She was poor. She was black. It was only because Thomas J wanted her, lusted for her, this thing came to be. He did not marry her, he did not make it know that he was in love with this girl etcetcetc. He wanted this teenager into his bed. Thats it.
What are we to think about this? The age difference was big. It was an older man with a teenager. It was not a 20 yr old gold digger with a 60 yr old millionaire. It was not older rock star with a 18 yr old fan. This was a man, 40 yrs old, who owned this nice looking teenage slave girl and took her into his bed.
This can not be right, or was not right even by that time, so they tried to keep it silent. Other slave masters went about quite openly sleeping with their slaves, sometimes they got some comments about it and that was it, but Ole Thomas tried to keep it a secret. Why??
He knew what he had done and it was not nice. It was not normal even back then.
Gata
“I thought black men really do prefer white women over their own”[?]
————————————————————————
hmmm? Interesting; but given the gigantic social, physical ‘class’ and ”master’/slave status, how was this determined?
I really wouldn’t know about black men preferences, but what I find interesting here is the fact black women are referred as “their own”.
Call me crazy, but I don’t see people of opposite genders, but of the same racial, ethnic or any other group, to somehow “belong” to each other.
aiych,
The teacher/student relationship is not the same with this one. Indeed, there were teachers who married their students; my aunt, for example, did so. Granted, she wasn’t 14 when they met, but still.
You correctly pointed at the huge power difference between an older man and a young woman, even if they are of the same social status. It was a point, in a way: men were supposed to be more powerful than women. Marrying a boy your age was not seen as prestigious as marrying someone older (not 30 years older, but 10 years older), who is successful and who can provide for you. You can see traces of this left even today.
Men, more or less, legally owned their own wives. There was no much love or respect between spouses in that time, an women were frequently abused.
All in all, huge power difference was a norm.
Now, take that to another level, to slavery, where people didn’t have any rights or weren’t even considered people. This power imbalance is so huge that I don’t understand how can somebody see anything romantic about it. Once again, I can’t claim that none of the masters, absolutely noone cared about a slave girl; statistically speaking, that probably happened somewhere… But to claim this without any evidence, just for the sake of it, because you can’t accept that Jefferson was racist, a master who abused his slave girl, who owned other human beings…
Sam,
He knew what he had done and it was not nice. It was not normal even back then.
I don’t know… It seems really strange to me that the age difference would be what he was ashamed the most. A slave boy, perhaps, that might have been a problem (not sure about the exact time- I am not sure when homosexuality became taboo, around their time, I think). But the age difference? I am not convinced that it was the case.
@mira: I think it was the combination: the age difference was so huge that it alone could have caused some talkin at least, but all aspects taken together: a teenage black slave girl.
I think it says something that he wanted to hide this thing. That pegs the question: Why?
I have no idea. I don’t know much about the American history. All I know Jefferson was an American president. What we’ve learned in school was mainly about the declaration of independence and those things in XVIII century… Very little after that (I don’t remember if we ever talked about the American civil war, for example). The chapters about American independence went with those about French revolution, which we treated as more important.
So all in all, I don’t know why Jefferson was quiet on this matter. But he was a politician, after all, and they lie all the time. It’s what they do.
Why is it so difficult to imagine that a prominent slave master would not want it to be known he slept with his slaves? if society thought of it the same as having sex with sheep.
@hathor; a good point. And the fact that this was also very young slave just increased his shame.
At the time Hemings was NOT seen as a helpless, innocent party. In the white press she was called “African Venus” and a “slut as common as the pavement”.
From what I have read the scandal at the time was not that he took advantage of her but that he was degrading himself by having sex with a black woman. More like what Hathor is saying. Many whites regarded it as disgusting and shameful. See Jefferson’s very own remarks in the post above. People often do things they regard as wrong, especially when it comes to sex.
His short bio reads like that of a physically and mentally sickly pedophile. A racist who was living by double moral standards. Much like the contemporaries of our times who reminisce of those old days.
Actually unbelievable who is able to become the president of a whole country.
Jefferson was not just some creepy middle-aged white man taking advantage of teenaged black girls. Nor was he some redneck at a bar running his mouth. He was one of the top minds in the country and, as a Founding Father, one of the men who helped shape the country into what it is.
From what I have read the scandal at the time was not that he took advantage of her but that he was degrading himself by having sex with a black woman. More like what Hathor is saying. Many whites regarded it as disgusting and shameful.
Yes, it makes the most sense. (Why he tried to keep it a secret). Also, if Hamings was called a slut and what not, I doubt anybody saw her as a child. Whether they saw her as human is also questionable.
Victoria said:
“How did he think that the people he denied an education would be on their A-game in the Euclid department?”
King said:
“Hey, the people who we won’t allow to read books are not becoming philosophers!!!!!”
Abagond says:
He compares the white slaves of Rome to the black slaves of America. He says that the white slaves of Rome had it worse. For example, they could be tortured to give testimony in court. Many were not allowed to have sex and have families.. Etc. But he overlooks the fact that most black slaves were not allowed to get an education – while Roman slaves were often prized for their education! That shows a level of wilful self-deception on his part.
In later years people sent him books proving that blacks were just as intelligent as whites. He kept saying he WANTED to believe they were – and yet he never did.
Many white people are STILL making pretty much the same argument, saying blacks are less intelligent while overlooking the bad schools many of them go to.
Pedophilia only pertains to having sex with prepubescent children. There is another word for adults who prefer to have sex with underage teens; just can’t remember it.
I say this because often people misuse the language in order to put more emphasis on the immorality of some motive or action.
A person personal life or beliefs do not always inform their intellect. Jefferson needed to justify slavery in one context, because he led a leisurely life and was in debt most of the time; slavery allowed his lifestyle.
The slavery in antiquity was different. If nothing else, it was different in a way they often enslaved the most educated people and used them as teachers (many prominent Greek philosophers were slaves, at least at one point in their lives).
Also, you were often allowed to buy your freedom, or you were not enslaved for life in many cases.
I don’t want to argue that the slavery in antiquity was a walk in the park or that it was somehow better or more humane than the transatlantic slavery (it’s disrespectful to do that: oppression Olympics is never a good thing). But so many things were different to compare it with the situation black slaves had to face.
Olufemi.
Actually unbelievable who is able to become the president of a whole country.
Slavery was legal when the US was founded, many of the representatives of the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention were slave owners. There wasn’t too much of a debate in the convention about slavery and the compromise was the ending of slave importation not the end of slavery and slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment.
The first president George Washington owned slaves. There was an excavation of the The Presidents House in Philadelphia in which the finding about the slaves lives are now part of the exhibition of the partial reconstruction of the house.
http://www.nps.gov/inde/historyculture/history-of-the-presidents-house-site.htm
Hathor:
Thanks for the link on the President’s House. I have been thinking of doing a post on it.
People often confuse love with romance/lust. It is said that he prostituted her as well that is why the lineage of her other children, also fathered by white men is sketchy. Also he never emancipated her. The fact that Hemmings was the half sister of Jefferson’s late wife shows a tradition of rape and subjugation of black women, well lets be frank little girls some as young as age 12 by a dominate diseased culture. (A deliberate attack on african families and corruption of bloodline)
The system of White supremacy and the pathology it breeds cannot be expressed into words. The fact that Disney made this into a love story illustrates how sick this culture remains and how the perception of the past continues to shape the psyche of today.
You don’t love your slave since by law of nature you wouldnt keep them captive. You may love what they produce for your economic gain. Couldnt imagine what Ms Hemmings, her mother, grandmother went thru. People placed into this slave system to create a permanent underclass…i digress. Thanks for the info!
@Hathor:
If I recall, the word is ephebophilia.
@hathor; pubophilia? something like that.
The conditions in Rome for slaves was some of what draw of the luck. If you were the emperors secretary slave you were in some cases the second most powerful person in the whole Empire. BUT if you were a rowing slave in war ship, your life expectancy was at most three years. And of course, if you ended in on a arena of a circus as a show piece, you life was over in less than one hour.
Not a single slave in USA had any possibility to rise anywhere near the top of the society like some did in Rome. Slaves were more likened as toilers, domestic animals to be used as a labour or at most as domestic help. That was it. Or, like Ole Thomas did here, to be used as sexual toys.
Regarding the mud slinging against the poor girl, just look around how they still handle the rape victims in courts. “She was dressed in this or that way, she had drinks, she was dancing this or that way, she was talking to him, she was “well known” “etc.
Of course the papers and people at the time thoughed miss Hemings as slut as common as pavement and more understandingly “African Venus”. Now who could resist the African Venus, eh? Or she was such a slut that of course she seduced the poor old man, right? wink wink…
Hathor
The terms are Hebephilia(interest in 11-14 yr olds) and Ephebophilia(ages 15-19)
Thanks leigh204 and Y
Herneith
What I find the most disturbing, is that he started pumping this girl when she was 14 or 15 years old and he was in his late thirties or forties.
*chic noir turns down the volume of the Jerry Springer show to say to Herneith*
Sally Hemmings was also the half- sister of Thomas Jerfferson’s wife.
Barbara Chase Ribound wrote a pretty good take on the Sally Hemmings/Thomas Jefferson saga.
SMH. I am disappoint for POC who share this surname, such as George and Louise (Weezy).
Yes, the thing with Roman (and not just Roman… whole antiquity slavery) was that the conditions varied to a great extend. Most of the slaves were tortured, etc, so don’t get an impression that every second one was a powerful person… But a small number of them were. There were also highly educated individuals sold into slavery, because ancient peoples used slaves for all sorts of things and not just manual/hard work.
Sam,
Regarding the mud slinging against the poor girl, just look around how they still handle the rape victims in courts. “She was dressed in this or that way, she had drinks, she was dancing this or that way, she was talking to him, she was “well known” “etc.
Right. I hope I’m not getting way off topic here, but it’s really, really important to understand rape myths. Some of those are still widespread, like the one you mentioned above.
Another popular one is that a rape needs to be physically violent to be a rape, meaning, if a person doesn’t have scars, wounds, etc. (s)he wasn’t raped. Wrong. Each victim has a full right to do whatever (s)he thinks it’s best to ensure survival. If you believe the best thing is to be calm and don’t fight, so be it. Sexual integrity is an important thing, but life is more important.
In case of people who are being raped over and over again (like slaves), ensuring continuous survival was a priority.
As for the rapists, I repeat, a rape doesn’t have to include a knife or a punch in the face to be the rape. I am not quite sure if men in general ever cared about females and their physical well being when it comes to sex (not to mention female pleasure), not even if said females were those they respected the most (their wives and mothers of their legitimate children). It gets even more absurd discussing this with a slave girl. Still, I bet Jefferson thought he was gentle and fair and good with Hamings and perhaps he wasn’t physically violent towards her; so what? It doesn’t change the fact it was rape. She couldn’t say no.
A slave can’t give her consent if she is not considered fully human to even posses said ability (to give her consent).
SAM But I know, that if some forty year old geezer would go out with my daughter now (she is fifteen), that guy would have very limited life expectancy indeed.
*Sam pulls out Weed Wackers and gets to sharping*
Hathor the compromise was the ending of slave importation not the end of slavery and slaves be counted as 3/5 of a person for apportionment.
This was to give balance in legislature representation.
Mira But so many things were different to compare it with the situation black slaves had to face.
Yes, even comparing slaves in America to blk slaves in Arabia. Very different systems.
Mira What I dislike about this story is the fact some people want to romanticize it, which was really disrespectful to say the least.
Yes Mira, I agree.
There are all kinds of strange couples, and there’s also Stockholm syndrome that maybe worked in some cases
I believe Sally had Stockholm syndrome, otherwise she would’ve left Jefferson while they were in Paris. IIRC, she did leave him for a short while and stayed with a group of nuns but she went back to him.
chic noir,
In a sense the Jefferson house hold may have been a substitute for family. She probably was her sister’s slave, then moved with her when her sister married Jefferson. The house would be all she would have known. If she was isolated in France, how would she know, what to do, if she left. I’m certain she wouldn’t have found a sympathetic black. The convent may have prepared for her to work as a servant or if they thought she a wayward girl, kept her in the convent to do penance. The spartan lifestyle might have been too severe.
There are a lot of Irish women who know that convents can be like prisons.
Sally Hemings didn’t stay fourteen forever, the relationship lasted at least to her mid-twenties to have had five of his children. I do believe at a certain point she would have had a choice to say no, slave or not. If she said no, didn’t mean that she had the threat of death, it may just have meant being beaten and sent to the fields, to lose status. There were other options, escape or death on your own terms.
I didn’t expect heroic acts from the slaves, but I do think they had options, even though not with the best of outcomes. The idea of freedom wasn’t some alien idea. Many slaves fought with the British a few years before hoping to gain their freedom. The Fugitive Slave Act was not in effect, so the slave was more safe from being tracked down than years later.
“Jefferson was not just some creepy middle-aged white man taking advantage of teenaged black girls. Nor was he some redneck at a bar running his mouth. He was one of the top minds in the country and, as a Founding Father, one of the men who helped shape the country into what it is.”
Abagond, why does it have to be either/or?
Yes he was a top mind and a Founding Father who shaped the country. And he was also a SLAVE OWNER. Someone who engaged in the evil slave trade. A middle aged man who did in fact take advantage of a very young girl.
People are multi-faceted.
If he did today what he did then he would be jailed for statutory rape, even if the relationship was consensual, which is highly debatable.
Did an owned slave have any say in the matter at all?
And we really can’t blame it “on the times” either because their were plenty of people who opposed slavery back then too on ethical and spiritual grounds.
Anyway you look at this, it just ain’t right.
Indian Gyal:
I was unclear: I think he was creepy AND a top mind AND a Founding Father – but NOT some redneck.
You mean, he should have known better?
But Abagond, there are so many intelligent, educated, talented people who are pathetic human beings. Even those that create beautiful work of art or come up with important scientific discoveries. Even those who otherwise did good stuff for humanity, even them.
I do think it should be talked about.
But is it surprising? No, not at all.
Also, the fact he (or anybody else) was a slave owner doesn’t automatically change the fact he (or anybody else) was an intelligent person, or even a person who did many good stuff.
Some people see this as a paradox, but it’s actually how things are. Many, many famous people (politicians, historical persons, artists, scientists) who did some great work and created and invented beautiful stuff have a bad side.
But, should we admire those people? And what “admiring those people” even mean? Is it possible to separate their work from their character? (I try my best to do this for, say, actors I like), but what about the people, like Jefferson, whose character is one of the essential things to admire (or hate) about him? (I mean, it’s impossible to separate his work from his character… And if you realize he was a bad person, what do you do?)
Mira,
I think if you don’t wallow in idolatry, myths or live in a black/white(not race) world you have the ability to admire what is right, the work and achievement without elevating that person to sainthood.
I also do not like those who challenge me to disown America, because of its corrupt intervention in the world, as if this would be the only immoral place on earth. In some instances the argument is about the founders ethics, if they are bad, therefore the government formed must be too.
If we could not function unless we were in a perfect state, there would be no life.
@ Hathor
I think most people would be surprised at how much immorality is often necessary, (in the current system of geopolitics) even to accomplish that which they perceive to be a good end. The devil is always in the details of compromise.
Jefferson, like most people, was a mix of good and evil. But in Jefferson’s case his mix of good and evil helped to shape the country, a country founded on the profound contradiction that “all men are created equal” AND that whites are “more equal” than others, as Orwell would say.
“I also do not like those who challenge me to disown America, because of its corrupt intervention in the world, as if this would be the only immoral place on earth. In some instances the argument is about the founders ethics, if they are bad, therefore the government formed must be too.
If we could not function unless we were in a perfect state, there would be no life.”
Excellent points Hathor!
I globe-trot a lot and some “foreigners” blame me personally for whatever my (US) government does, even though I’ve never voted for a single one of them.
Yes, there’s a lot wrong with the United States. And a lot right, too.
I globe-trot a lot and some “foreigners” blame me personally for whatever my (US) government does, even though I’ve never voted for a single one of them.
Um, well… But that’s how it goes, I guess. My people were satanized (and suffered military intervention) for something most of us opposed. I spent my early teens fighting against Milosevic and I know so many others who did, and yet, we all received NATO bombs and heavy satanization in media to the point of discrimination (that is still not over today).
So… yeah.
(I’m not saying it’s fair… Honestly, it’s not your (personal) fault if your government or president do bad things and I certainly won’t hate you because of it. Especially if you do your best to stop it).
Thomas Jefferson reminds me of Strom Thurmond. I wonder how he rationalized his actions to himself. I guess we humans are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites at heart.
Wow, you guys are really laying into Jefferson here.
I wonder is there anything out there which tells her side of that “relationship”.
The best one I’ve seen is The Hemingses of Monticello. There’s a good review of it here: American Unions.
I too am appalled by the romanticizing of this relationship.
I’m not. The Bible also has stories of men taking slaves as concubines (which is what she was, not a mere mistress), and those are also romanticized. And — let’s be honest here — being TJ’s concubine put her at the very top of the female food chain, in that day. I’m not saying that I think his behavior was justified (he shouldn’t have been owning slaves, in the first place), but calling him a rapist or making him out to be a pervert, is a bit of a stretch. I’m don’t know how she felt about the situation, but I do know that she had it better than 75% of women in America of all races, and she probably knew that as well.
Their relationship started in Paris (where she was free, was learning a trade, and had plenty of opportunity to leave his household), but she agreed to go home to America with him afterward. That wasn’t Stockholm Syndrome; that was a young girl getting played by someone who was infamous for being a player. She was apparently pregnant before she went back to America, so the deed had already been done and she was just trying to make the best of it.
The reason it was such a scandal was not because he had sex with a black woman (which was relatively common), but that he was treating her as if she was his wife and refused to publicly distance himself from her. There had been a slew of such scandals recently, and white women were starting to write hysterical articles about white wives being sent to the guest room while a black slave takes up residence in the master’s bed. If he had just been sneaking down to the slave quarters at night, nobody would have cared. But this woman clearly had some sort of hold over him, a hold they found unnatural and quite horrifying. Besides, it was a juicy sex story, which makes for good gossip.
But really it was a political ploy to discredit him right before an election, as a man who would fall in love with a “mere slut” or foolishly allow himself to be seduced by an “African Venus”. He kept quiet until the election was won, and then everyone lost interest in the story.
It was only because Thomas J wanted her, lusted for her, this thing came to be. He did not marry her, he did not make it know that he was in love with this girl etcetcetc.
He couldn’t marry her, and if he had freed her she would have had to leave the house. He freed Sally’s brother on the return from Paris (part of the deal they had struck to lure him back to Monticello as a trained French chef), but a free woman would not have been allowed to stay. He did educate and eventually free all of his children with her, as well as some of her siblings.
His close friend and mentor, George Wythe, publicly acknowledged his own concubine and child (through his unusual generosity in his life and in his will), and was promptly poisoned by his nephew for it. Thomas Bell (another close friend of Jefferson’s) took Mary (Sally’s sister) as a concubine and they lived relatively openly together. But Jefferson’s political career could have been completely derailed by owning up to the relationship, so he kept mum.
I think things were quite complicated back then, and it is easy to oversimplify in hindsight.
@ Alte
“The Bible also has stories of men taking slaves as concubines (which is what she was, not a mere mistress), and those are also romanticized.
An interesting observation. Which of the stories of men taking slaves was romanticized, and where?
I’m certainly not a Bible expert, but I can only think of Abraham and Hagar. You may no of some others?
Thanks Alte, for providing a much need perspective on things here.
King, if I’m not mistaken, King Solomon had numerous concubines.
O.
When and where were they romanticized?
Not in the Bible, but in folklore and novels they are sometimes romanticized.
Abraham, Solomon, David, Jacob, Lamech, Nahor and others had concubines. If they married a woman of the same class she was a wife, if she was of a lower class (usually a slave) then she was a concubine. Her status prevented the marriage from being formalized, just as with Jefferson and many other couples throughout history. Charlemagne had a concubine named Himiltrude.
Sally’s own son insisted that his mother was not a mistress, but a concubine. He made the distinction because concubines have a higher status, as a form of lower-ranked wife. We know she had concubine status because after Jefferson’s death, his daughter made sure she was well-cared for and honored her father’s wishes that all of her children should be freed. They wouldn’t have done that for someone he was treating like a mere sex object.
Most women didn’t marry for love back then, so saying, “We don’t know how she felt about him” is sort of a moot-point and an inappropriate modernism. Many women married much older men they didn’t love. The moral question was actually whether he loved her, provided for her, and treated her well. Obviously, he did. That’s more than even many white women had at the time (there were white women in the countryside around her who starved or froze to death, who would have gladly changed places with her), so it is no surprise that her family has always been quite proud of their association with Jefferson, as the relationship was not seen as shameful among black people. That we view it as shameful today is based upon our changing sexual mores. I’m sure they would hardly consider us paragons of virtue, either.
Insinuations that she was meaningless to him, and that he had “passed her around” was a cruel slander his white relatives threw at her after he had died, to quell the rumors of their relationship.
According to the Wikipedia:
In 1789, Sally Hemings returned to the United States with Jefferson. His wife had died seven years before and he was still only 46 years old. As evidenced by Jefferson’s father-in-law, it was common in Virginia society for widowers to take enslaved women as concubines. That Jefferson also would do so was not unusual for the time, On September 1, 1802 the Richmond Recorder newspaper reported that Jefferson “for many years has kept, as his concubine, one of his own slaves. Her name is Sally. The name of her eldest son is Tom…”
Although there had been rumors of a sexual relationship between Jefferson and a slave before 1802, the article that had been published had spread the story widely. It was used in contrivance by Jefferson’s Federalist opposition and was published repeated number of times in many newspapers throughout the end of Jefferson’s presidency.
“Abraham, Solomon, David, Jacob, Lamech, Nahor and others had concubines”
- Abraham had 1 concubine
- Solomon was a concubine sex machine to all the chicks. (evidently) 1 Kings 11:3,” Solomon loved many women” … 700 wives and 300 concubines!
…Kind of hard to romanticize that.
-Who was Jacob’s concubine?
Lamech had two wives:
Genesis 4:19-20:
Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Adah bore Jabal; he was the ancestor of those who live in tents and have livestock.
Did he also have additional concubines?
Nahor, had a concubine named Reumah, whom I was unaware of, but I wasn’t really sure who Nahor was anyway.
-So, where did you say you read of these being romanticized in literature?
-Also, in many cases, there is not much information given on many of these women beyond a name. How are you determining that they were slave concubines?
LOL. You are certainly determined!
Bilhah and Zilpah were Jacob’s concubines, and their relationship is depicted in numerous novels including The Red Tent (good book, by the way). What about The Handmaid’s Tale? There is a long tradition of Biblical fiction that builds upon concubine stories. Even the story of Dinah’s rape is retold as a tragic romance.
Genesis 25:1 notes that Abraham had an additional concubine name Keturah.
We know that these women were slaves because they were given to their husbands by the wives, which is something that a wife couldn’t do with a free servant (who would be under the jurisdiction of her own men). Women gave their slaves as concubines because the children of a woman’s slave were legally the wife’s children. (Hence the deal with Hagar.) A wife’s status depended in part on how many children she could produce for her husband, so if she had many slaves to give as concubines, then she could “make” more children and raise her own status.
These women are also all described as “handmaidens” which was a title for a high-ranking female slave. Female servants who weren’t slaves were rare, as most women were married off at a young age. For a female slave, the best way to “move up” in society was to become a concubine.
Sorry, I was wrong about Lamech. I am confusing him with someone else, but can’t remember who. There were many polygamists in the OT. But Jefferson wasn’t actually a polygamist, as he only had one wife at a time.
LOL. You are certainly determined!
No, I was just interested in what you said. You have the information and I don’t – why not get it from you? It beats me having to look it all up on my own.
Genesis 25:1 notes that Abraham had an additional concubine name Keturah.
You see, I didn't know about Keturah!
We know that these women were slaves because they were given to their husbands by the wives
I find no record of this in most of the cases. Solomon’s 300 concubines are not even named, much less are the details of their introduction to Solomon recorded. I doubt if we know anything about the conditions of how 95% of the concubines mentioned in the Bible became concubines.
I’ve never read The Red Tent, but I gave it once as a gift. I always thought that The Handmaid’s Tale was kind of a dystopian novel, more like science fiction. Does it really deal with any of the Biblical concubines as romanticized figures?
From the Wikipedia on The Handmaid’s Tale:
“Handmaids” are fertile women whose social function is to bear children for the Wives. They dress in a red habit that completely conceals their shape, including red shoes and red gloves. The only exception to the “all red rule” is the white wings they wear around their head that prevent them from seeing or being seen except when standing directly in front of them. Handmaids are produced by re-educating fertile women who have broken the gender and social laws. Owing to the need for fertile Handmaids, Gilead gradually increased the number of gender-crimes. The Republic of Gilead justifies the nature of the handmaids through the biblical stories of Jacob taking his two wives’ handmaids, Bilhah and Zilpah, to bed to bear him children, when the wives could not (Gen. 30:1-3), and Abraham doing the same with his wife’s handmaid, Hagar (Gen. 16:1-6).
I find no record of this in most of the cases.
Go back and read the Biblical passages concerning the women I mentioned. They are mostly listed as being the handmaid of their mistress, and in the case of Israel and Abraham, the surrogacy is specifically described in the stories.
I’m not some sort of Biblical scholar, or anything. I was just trying to emphasize that Sally was a concubine, not a rape victim. At least according to the mores of her time, and perhaps according to Sally herself.
Furthermore, there were real slave rape victims, and I’m sure they would be floored at being compared to Sally Hemmings, who was one of the most spoiled, doted-on, and privileged women in the entire USA (from a family full of spoiled black people), at the time. The white women were scandalized, after all, because they were jealous of her. Who wouldn’t have wanted to be loved by the President and live at Monticello? Why should it be some stupid, slutty negra? She must have seduced him with her magical African voodoo, or something.
We should keep things within their historical context.
Maybe I am misunderstanding what you’re saying.
Are you using a definition from a modern piece of science fiction The Handmaid’s Tale and imposing that definition upon the antique Biblical terminology (which is another word in archaic Hebrew?)
Because the term “handmaid” is, of course, not defined based on the works of Margaret Atwood. Almost any dictionary defines it very similarly to the definition below:
Hand·maid [hand-meyd] Show IPA–noun
1. something that is necessarily subservient or subordinate to another: Ceremony is but the handmaid of worship.
2. a female servant or attendant.
There may have been cases where “handmaids” or “servants” did serve as surrogate mothers (particularly if the wife was unable to conceive) but I assume that you’re not making the point that all handmaids were surrogate mothers, by definition.
Alte said:
“Sally Hemings, who was one of the most spoiled, doted-on, and privileged women in the entire USA (from a family full of spoiled black people), at the time. ….
We should keep things within their historical context.”
Sally Hemings was a SLAVE. One that Jefferson never freed.
@alte; you are truly funny guy, but ups, you slip your real idea out in to open right here:
” …one of the most spoiled, doted-on, and privileged women in the entire USA (from a family full of spoiled black people)…”
So, it is about thoise damn n*****s again!
They were just so effin spoiled back then, even if they were slaves weren’t they? And now this! Don’t those negroes know they place, eh, alte???
“family full of spoiled black people”!!!
And bible? Man, you gotta be kidding!
Bible is just a book. Nothing else. You tell me that since you read from that book that slave women were actually very lucky and loving towards their masters, who treated them like lovers all the time, that was the reality in USA 1780′s??
Oh, man, you are funny, dude!
Alte, I understand what you’re saying about Sally Hemings, but you have to realize that a boss who pressures and harasses his secretary into having sex with him, is not all that much better than a rapist.
And just because the secretary is then favored at work, does not mean that she is being “spoiled.” After all, she is still a person being coerced and pressured into something that she might not otherwise engage in. It is certainly worse to be violently raped, but you wouldn’t say that the secretary was “privileged.”
For most wrongs we can think of an even greater wrong, but that doesn’t negate the wrongness of original offense.
I have never read the book, I just know that it was integrated into the story. I was just trying to think of such books.
I’m not generalizing about handmaids, just pointing out that many of the women named were handmaids who became concubines. I am no way romanticizing these types of relationships. Rather, I’m being very practical about it.
I’m just pointing out that such relationships were considered legitimate at the time, and that women in such relationships would never have been considered “rape victims”. That struck me as particularly preposterous. People thought differently about things back then. Not necessarily better, but differently.
Alte, I understand what you’re saying about Sally Hemings, but you have to realize that a boss who pressures and harasses his secretary into having sex with him, is not all that much better than a rapist.
Perhaps not, depending upon the circumstances, but being “not much better than a rapist” is still not a rapist. Rape is a word that gets stretched past incredulity lately.
Sally Hemings was a SLAVE. One that Jefferson never freed.
YOU DON’T HAVE TO YELL, Abagond. I’m not deaf or an idiot, I’m just disagreeing with you. I am allowed to disagree with you, aren’t I? Especially if I am making a logical case for my argument.
I know that she was a slave, but she was living as a free woman when they started their affair, and she could have refused to return with him. That was a commonplace occurrence at that time (many American slaves refused to leave Paris after stays there), and she had the means and opportunity to leave him. Her brother was working as a chef and even considered staying there. She could have stayed on with him. That she didn’t, implies that she made a choice to go with him. I don’t know the exact circumstances of her choice, but neither do any of you.
We also don’t know why he didn’t free her. We don’t even know if she wanted to be free. Quadroons were often raised in preparation for concubinage, sort of like in New Orleans. She might not have expected anything else, known anything else, wanted anything else, and might have been glad to have hooked such a large fish. You are all assuming that she would have been comparing her fate to the wealthy white women, but not all women were wealthy or white.
She was a slave, but she probably didn’t think of herself as “just a slave”. She was a Hemmings. This meant something back then because of their family ties with man very powerful people, and the members of her family were not treated like “just slaves”. They were a notoriously privileged group, a sort of black aristocracy, and most of them ended up free and/or relatively well-off.
Sam, you are way off about me. But I won’t bother to respond to your insolent tone.
where is the sense in his reasoning other than uplifting whites. if you have a women on a pedastole, embracing their beauty what men wouldn’t like her or prefer her to the dirty poor women dressed in rags. all they had was music they didn’t have any lesson. how can a man that a slave be romantic with a female slave, when they both don’t got no freedom.i’ll be brave too i want my freedom. They where living like animals, uneducated, did he expect their oppressed culture to produce a bunch of rocket scientist.
lol history
and we have a low IQ
We should never underestimate the power of manipulation. To this day, there have always been countless cases of mental abuse to those regarded as “dependants”. There have always been predators and prey, where often even both sides deluded themselves into believing that the manipulative actions were benign.
Then there is the shame factor. Most manipulated and their manipulators keep the ugly details on the down low. Unless every single conversation and action between the two are known in all details, one must assume that the person in the power position committed some sort of abuse, especially when that person holds another human being as his property.
Otherwise, “Gaslighting” comes to mind.
There is no reason to not assume that psychological manipulation has existed for many centuries in all its subtleties. Only the terminology is relatively modern.
Alte said:
“YOU DON’T HAVE TO YELL, Abagond. I’m not deaf or an idiot, I’m just disagreeing with you. I am allowed to disagree with you, aren’t I? Especially if I am making a logical case for my argument.”
I was not yelling. I was just emphasizing the word. Of course you are allowed to disagree with me.
and i’m sorry, sally hemings was one of the most spoiled woman in the usa is a overly exaggerated.
she had certain privileges compared to another slave. but in our reality, where education has given us a better understanding . she was a uneducated slave woman that didn’t know better an she didn’t have a choice it was a life she had to live. so i for one in this day and age comparing the privilleges i have i wouldn’t considered her privileged. whether or not hemings made her his lover, she was still a slave women,doing her slave duties.
also the master making his slaves, lover, mistress,etc. was a common practice. if those women had the choice in the way they live their life alot of them wouldn’t live that way. maybe this situation got more attention, because thomas jefferson was a political hypocrite.
my mistake its whether or not thomas jefferson made her his lover. continue from there.
Ape or not. That sure as hell didn’t and still don’t stop the white man from gettin his hard on. Ya feel me? lol
And yet many consider him one of the greatest if not the greatest president.
Father of American Gynecology Experiments on Slave Women
http://www.nathanielturner.com/jmarionsims.htm
@ Abagond
Indian Gyal is right, you really should consider doing a post on J. Marion Sims, given the current controversy regarding his legacy.
http://www.nathanielturner.com/jmarionsims.htm
Has anyone seen the movie about Sallie Hemmings with Thandie Newton? In the movie the romance is ALL her idea. In fact she LITERALLY jumped into his bed giggling and laughing. I was young when I saw that movie and I was mad ass hell. Black women back then would have been taught to be more wary around WM. Especially since her grandmother was raped during the middle passage by a sea captain, and her mother was the mistress of Thomas Jefferson’s wife’s father. Making Sally in essence, Thomas Jefferson’s sister-in-law. (Sally was a wedding present given to the new couple after their marriage although some say she was part of an inheritance).
They basically made Jefferson look naive even boyish and immature when she jumped in his bed while they were in Paris. At one point in the movie Sallie’s brother informed her that they were free in Paris and that they should leave. Sally began to cry and say she didn’t want to leave because Massa was so good to them and they wouldn’t know how to make it on their own. That part MIGHT have happened,but her seduction of him, I’m not buyin it.
Although, I do think he would have a good reason to want sex with her. It is said that he truly loved his first wife that died, Martha, and Sally, being her sister; bore a great resemblance to the late Mrs. Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson simply used his power to take advantage of the situation and use his slave sexually. But instead, in the movie he was depicted as pure of heart and Sally Hemings was portayed as a jezebel in training.
Thomas Jefferson was such a bigot, i can’t believe he put Black women on the level with orangutan and he was f_cking a half black woman (who in all likelihood inherited her European blood from a white man sleeping with/raping another black woman) then of course he automatically assumes all black men prefer white women (black on white rape fantasy that some white men love so much)
I am getting so sick of people putting out the stereotype that all black men want white women above black women…do you know how insulting and racist that is…Steve Sailer uses the same argument
why do people seem to worship this man? He didn’t do anything positive for Black people.
[...] The Women of The Bible « Graham Global Ministries1Biblical Baby Names | Always Marsha1Black people according to Thomas Jefferson « Abagond [...]
Although this is a super old post, I found the arguments/ comments about the nature of Jefferson’s relationship with Hemmings to be extremely humorous because previous posters failed to take into account that Jefferson is likely to have had Asperger’s, his mentality during the period is not likely to have been common. Additionally, his motives for doing certain things may not have always entirely made sense.
SIR,
–– I have received the favor of your letter of August 17th, and with it the volume you were so kind as to send me on the “Literature of Negroes.” Be assured that no person living wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a complete refutation of the doubts I have myself entertained and expressed on the grade of understanding allotted to them by nature, and to find that in this respect they are on a par with ourselves. My doubts were the result of personal observation on the limited sphere of my own State, where the opportunities for the development of their genius were not favorable, and those of exercising it still less so. I expressed them therefore with great hesitation; but whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the person or property of others. On this subject they are gaining daily in the opinions of nations, and hopeful advances are making towards their re-establishment on an equal footing with the other colors of the human family. I pray you therefore to accept my thanks for the many instances you have enabled me to observe of respectable intelligence in that race of men, which cannot fail to have effect in hastening the day of their relief; and to be assured of the sentiments of high and just esteem and consideration which I tender to yourself with all sincerity.
Th. Jefferson
@ King,
You have to understand that there was a different ideology at that time. People considered slaves objects so knowledge, skill, and other human elements were irrelevant.
As much as he helped found and form a nation, this isn’t a character flaw as much as it is a blemish on society because a lot of people thought this way. You can’t blame one man for the way many people think because in the end, it is the individual who has to make a choice on what to believe and what not to.
Though it is hypocritical to talk about black people that way while simultaneously having a sexual relationship with a black woman is more strange than actually having a slave to do work. It is creepy that someone would own someone just for sex. Understandable, yet, wrong, why someone would want to own another human for work.
Like I said, this is more telling about the ideology present within society at the time. Given that human thought hasn’t changed much, the ideas have, but not the way we create or think about the ideas, who knows what the future will hold and how we will evolve to become better as a society.
One of the reasons America is a great country or maybe was (depends on who you ask nowadays), is we were able to transition from that to our current society, which equality stretches across all boundaries better than any other country on the planet.
Interesting.
By the 1780s, hadn’t there already been 180 years of intermingling and mixture? It had been going on for 6-8 generations already. Basically, it was too late already by then.
Could it be because they were not allowed to get married and form families in the usual sense? If you or your partner could be torn from you at a moment’s notice, or snatched away to breed with someone else?
Obtacles perhaps, hence the need for “We Shall Overcome”.
@ Mira
Jefferson’s wife was actually Sally Hemmings’ half sister, so many people think that he fell for her because she looked just like his late wife.