I believe Jefferson’s daughter freed her.@shooter Very reasonable post. Thank you. I would ask a question. Did Thomas Jefferson love Sally Hemmings? I ask this because didn't he set her free in his will? We also don't have any info on her objecting to sleeping with him. Perhaps she loved him too. It might not just be a slave/master situation. Their relationship could transcend all that.
If he loved her ( and maybe he did), why didn’t he free her while he was alive?
I sincerely wish you would post more like this all the time.That is what I recall. So was he really an abolitionist?
it's complicated.
He was publicly a consistent opponent of slavery. Calling it a “moral depravity” and a “hideous blot,” he believed that slavery presented the greatest threat to the survival of the new American nation. Jefferson wrote that slavery was contrary to the laws of nature, which decreed that everyone had a right to personal liberty. He even called for the transatlantic slave trade to be abolished.
But he also thought that white Americans and enslaved blacks constituted "two separate nations” who could not live together peacefully in the same country once slavery was abolished. He called blacks "incapable as children" and imagined that freed slaves would or should be sent to Africa or the West Indies.
He was also influenced by slave rebellions and fears that releasing slaves piecemeal would prompt riots by those remaining in slavery.
He recognized his own inconsistencies, writing that maintaining slavery was like "holding a wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go".
So yes, quite complicated, and unjustified to just slap on label like slave rapist without considering the totality of his views AND actions.
I believe Jefferson’s daughter freed her.
If he loved her ( and maybe he did), why didn’t he free her while he was alive?
Sally was never officially freed. Jefferson freed her (and his, presumably) sons in his will.
Indeed his daughter allowed Sally to go live with her sons without ever formally emancipating her.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
@shooter Very reasonable post. Thank you. I would ask a question. Did Thomas Jefferson love Sally Hemmings? I ask this because didn't he set her free in his will? We also don't have any info on her objecting to sleeping with him. Perhaps she loved him too. It might not just be a slave/master situation. Their relationship could transcend all that.
The length of their relationship certainly indicates it was probably love going both ways. But it gets a little more problematic based on the evidence that their relationship began when she was 14 years old.
Of course sex with a 14 year old back then was likely not the big deal it is now, but it still hints at her LIKELY being taken advantage of, to some degree.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
How would I know? I’m not a kid now. I’d sincerely expect they don’t teach anything at all in public schools about a relatively insignificant Representative in Minnesota. I doubt they ever teach about unproven social media assertions from MAGA numbnuts. I sure hope not. What do you think? Really?@aloha-hoosier Do they teach in school that Ilhan Omar married her brother?
Haven't you read any good biographies of historical figures? Maybe Truman, Lincoln, Patton, Reagan, Adams, Jefferson, Clinton, Churchill, Washington and/or Grant? I've read all of these and have several more in the bookcase. Every one of them delves into their personal lives. Their personal lives offer important context for understanding their public actions. They help to understand their leadership style, morality, motivations and character. You learn a ton about how their personal lives influenced their public lives and made them the people that made them greatly influential on history. I think Jefferson's personal life was very important to know in order to understand the man.I find that a poor analogy and disagree about the relative importance of this issue.
Im willing to debate the point if you would articulate why Jefferson/ Hemings has historical significance.
Looks like there is a justification for both: Virginia law required free slaves to leave the state.I believe Jefferson’s daughter freed her.
If he loved her ( and maybe he did), why didn’t he free her while he was alive?
Sally was never officially freed. Jefferson freed her (and his, presumably) sons in his will.
Indeed his daughter allowed Sally to go live with her sons without ever formally emancipating her.
I’d argue an inability to recognize the importance of the Founders’ hypocrisy on slavery and race makes it difficult for one to understand a very important part of US history and why race still, to this day, is so important to our politics.
Now this is worth a discussion. I’d like to read your argument on this point. I think there are a myriad of factors about why race matters today. The fact that some founders owned slaves might have had some short term influence, but I think the important reasons race still matters is a product of much more recent factors than what the founders thought about it. Some of the recent factors are education. The Founders and slavery, the U.S. was founded on original sin, etc. is taught today as the root cause of race issues. I strongly disagree with that perspective. Because it is taught, it becomes reality. It’s a crowd brainwash.
Jefferson’s particular hypocrisy didn’t end at slavery—his stated desire for a very limited federal government and powers evaporated when he became Prez.
This is likewise an interesting topic worth exploring. Are you thinking Louisiana Purchase? Barbary Coast? What?
- Strict constructionism: Before his presidency, Jefferson was a vocal proponent of a strict interpretation of the Constitution, arguing that the federal government could only exercise powers explicitly listed in the document.
- Ignoring the Constitution: The Constitution does not explicitly grant the president the authority to acquire foreign territory. Jefferson himself admitted this in a letter, writing that "the constitution has made no provision for our holding foreign territory".
- Pragmatism over principles: While he expressed internal conflict, Jefferson ultimately put aside his constitutional concerns to seize the opportunity to double the size of the country. He later argued that it was acceptable for leaders to risk their principles for a great achievement.
- Opposition to the bank: As Secretary of State, Jefferson had argued against the bank, asserting that it was an unconstitutional expansion of federal power not granted by the Constitution.
- Using the bank: He later used the very institution he had once reviled to secure the funds for the Louisiana Purchase, putting his political rivalry with Alexander Hamilton and his principles aside for the sake of the popular land deal.
- Limited government advocate:Throughout his career, Jefferson argued for a federal government with limited authority that would not interfere with trade.
- Massive expansion of power: As president, he used the Embargo Act to seize unprecedented control over foreign and interstate trade. This massive expansion of executive power was directly contrary to his earlier stance.
The fate of North America did not depend on Jefferson’s owning slaves or having sex with his own.
Agree. I took your hypocrisy accusation to mean his position change during the debate about the Declaration of Independence, not about his sex life with a slave.
Looks like there is a justification for both: Virginia law required free slaves to leave the state.
That explains it totally. Free her, then I have to send her away. So, he could keep her a slave but treat her like she wasn't. But I don't know to what extent he did that (special treatment), since that would make his affair more out in the open. I wonder if his wife was fine with the whole thing.
"You can't make someone listen to reason if they aren't willing to think"-- Ray Bradbury, Fahrenheit 451
Nope, I am good with the notion of needing to sacrifice his principle to cobble together a coalition to fight for independence. I'm not good with the notion that he thought slavery the worst thing to ever have been visited on humanity and then owning 600+ slaves himself and never freeing the large majority of them, while having a long term sexual relationship with one under his ownership.The fate of North America did not depend on Jefferson’s owning slaves or having sex with his own.
Agree. I took your hypocrisy accusation to mean his position change during the debate about the Declaration of Independence, not about his sex life with a slave.
He reportedly didn't take up with Hemmings (1787-88) until after his wife died (1782).Looks like there is a justification for both: Virginia law required free slaves to leave the state.
That explains it totally. Free her, then I have to send her away. So, he could keep her a slave but treat her like she wasn't. But I don't know to what extent he did that (special treatment), since that would make his affair more out in the open. I wonder if his wife was fine with the whole thing.
The Jefferson/Hemmings “relationship” is a historical nothingburger. It’s part of the leftist objective of diminishing important people and their accomplishments. .
Lmao
Or the objective to see the truth and an accurate account of history. All men, even the founders, are far from perfect.
No one is taking away their achievements by acknowledging they weren't perfect angels.
I think the “warts and all” approach to US history for the reasons I said is crap. The warts are nothingbergers. When almost all southern ag owners, and many in the north, owned slaves, the fact that some founders also owned some is irrelevant to our history. So yeah, if I were to teach history, I’d teach about the Missouri compromise, Dredd, Scott, Andrew Jackson, and Calhoon. That is much more instructive about the issue.
So mark you down for teaching lies and propaganda is preferred
Or the objective to see the truth and an accurate account of history. All men, even the founders, are far from perfect.
No one is taking away their achievements by acknowledging they weren’t perfect angels.
History is about events that create and develop history. Jefferson sleeping with a slave has no impact on history. The fact that historical figures weren’t perfect angles doesn’t mean anything either. The historians who think sex life affects the Declaration of Independence are weak irrelevant thinkers.
Latest Post: Iran War Has Started Our newest member: Kieran Dunn Recent Posts Unread Posts
