Yes. Even if she liked it or went along (not saying there’s any evidence she did), the power imbalance makes it so. The age difference doubly so. Whatever she got out of it, she was still a slave, as were her children.
More interesting is the case of her brother, who while in revolutionary France was technically no longer a slave, could have stayed behind, but still went home with Jefferson when they left.
Based purely on the genetic evidence, it would be equally possible for the father of Hemmings’ children to have been any of Thomas Jefferson’s male-line relatives (i.e., those who, absent any other non-paternity incidents, would bear the Jefferson name).
But we have a lot more than just the genetic evidence, and when you put it all together, there’s really not any reasonable doubt. Yes, Thomas Jefferson was the father.
Indeed, it’s hard to find anyone at all who was formally accused in the 1950s, by Congress or a court, of espionage or of belonging to the Communist Party specifically, who wasn’t later shown, by their own admission or declassified evidence, to be guilty of exactly what they were accused of. It was to the benefit of certain political factions to mix up the idea that “communist spying didn’t exist” or there was a “witch hunt,” or the meretriciously absurd notion that there is a free speech right to belong to a foreign government-directed conspiracy to overthrow the elected U.S. government, with what might be termed the valid objections to the Red Scare period (concerns about the process used in the McCarthy hearings, the more generalized tendency to question any dissent as communist, or the persecution of homosexuals).
There is certainly an influential faction of left-wing historians for whom the existence or threat of communism, or the validity of the government investigating it, was once able to be dismissed as “bullshit history,” and for many of them, the fact that it clearly “turned out to be true” post-1990 hasn’t seemed to change their accounting of the factual or moral value of things at all.
Can you please provide a cite for the “very long uninhabited stretches” ?
I have been reading Native American History and it seems like during Columbus’ visit - there were almost same number of Native Americans in the Americas as there were Europeans in Europe.
Cite : 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus - Charles C. Mann - Google Books
• In 1491 there were probably more people living in the Americas than in Europe.
• Certain cities–such as Tenochtitlán, the Aztec capital–were far greater in population than any contemporary European city. Furthermore, Tenochtitlán, unlike any capital in Europe at that time, had running water, beautiful botanical gardens, and immaculately clean streets…
…
• Native Americans transformed their land so completely that Europeans arrived in a hemisphere already massively “landscaped” by human beings. (bolding mine)
Although, given her status, Hemmings had a lot of agency. She was seemingly an incredible woman - she managed to out negotiate Thomas Jefferson and got what she wanted - her children’s freedom and her own (relative) comfort (Sally apparently never did any hard work once her relationship with Jefferson started - she did embroidery and other “fine” work.)
I’m not making excuses for Jefferson, but I think Sally was not “just a victim of a powerful man.”
Uhm…@GreenWyvern was discussing Phoenicians supposedly circumnavigating Africa.
Apologies - should have read through the whole thread.
The question of just how large the indigenous population was at first European contact with the Americas is an open one (as it feeds into the question of just how many people died as a result of Spanish colonization, it’s a controversial and emotional issue as well). Mann presents a case, others think differently. What we do know for sure is that extremely large areas of what is now the U.S. were still covered in virgin forest and that indigenous Americans did not develop the technology of smelting and refining iron and copper prior to contact. Africa had developed ironworking by the time of the age of exploration, as well as a large enough population that large areas of wood fuel or potential agricultural land were very unlikely to be left undisturbed.
This is the perpetual debate over relationships - where honest consent changes to “might as well lie back and enjoy it because you have no choice” or to outright trauma. It’s why relationships between bosses, senior officers, employers, or teachers with their subordinates are considered at best inappropriate and generally are forbidden with varying consequences. Hemmings might have been smart enough to get some benefits and realize what she could get away with and what lines she could not cross, but she was still a slave and Jefferson could do anything, even up to death, with little or no consequences. The entire relationship proceeded with that thought in the background of every act.
A post was merged into an existing topic: Grundig Posts
“The past is a foreign country. They do things differently there.”
L.P. Hartley
I’m skeptical that there would be sections of the African coast which were both uninhabited, and suitable for growing crops. Humans will expand everywhere, given the opportunity. A land has to be awfully darned inhospitable before we won’t settle it.
This is not my area of expertise, but Mann specifically addresses this myth of “virgin forests”. :
cite : https://catholicclimatemovement.global/summary-highlights-from-1491-and-1493-by-charles-mann/
Indeed, IIRC from Guns Germs and Steel that Diamond’s thesis was that a large area of Africa was not as agriculturally civilized as the Mediteranean was because the traditional Euro-Mesopotamian crops did not grow in that climate.
I also thought that barnacles, wood worms, etc. meant that the life cycle of any boat was limited unless it had a tar or copper cladding on the hull?
As someone who was raped by my boss and underwent severe sexual harassment, I get that. And as someone with that experience, I would rather not be portrayed as a mere victim, but as a person who saw my boss disgraced and fired. Therefore, granting Hemmings what I would like others to grant me, Sally Hemmings seems to have had a lot of agency, given that Jefferson could simply rape her with impunity and beat her or kill her if she refused, that she made a bargain that turned out well for her and her children, is something.
Mann has a position, others have another. A lot of its is back-reasoning of the form “since we need to reach a number X for the natives killed by the Spanish, that must mean there were Y people, and therefore they couldn’t have left more than Z area undisturbed.”
There is also a middle-ground theory which basically states that all the observations of unbroken forest on the East Coast came from the 1650-1700 period when English settlement really got going, at which point lands that were once populated or actively cultivated by humans to have certain types of plant life had already been reclaimed by wild growth because diseases introduced from 1500 on had ravaged the indigenous population for several generations.
I certainly cant dispute that there are other view points.
But a lot of it is not “X Y Z back reasoning”, but a scientific analysis of the CO2 levels in the earth’s atmosphere.
Here is the research quoted : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379118307261
And here is an excerpt from the conclusion : “We conclude that the Great Dying of the Indigenous Peoples of the Americas led to the abandonment of enough cleared land in the Americas that the resulting terrestrial carbon uptake had a detectable impact on both atmospheric CO2 and global surface air temperatures in the two centuries prior to the Industrial Revolution.”
Whereas, the general theory is that climate change and perhaps social issues contributed to the failure of the high population mound-builder civilization in the Mississippi valley area, well before the white man arrived.
Similarly the Anasazi in the southwest experienced a failure due to most likely climate change drought and resulting(?) warfare somewhere around 1300AD.
Exactly what was here and who caused what to disappear is open to debate and we’ll probably never know. But like European and Mesopotamian history - and everywhere else - the Americas were not a static society of sparsely populated regions that BS History originally taught us.
I agree that they were both probably guilty, definitely Julius, and had they played their cards better they could have escaped the electric chair, but I think there remains some serious doubt about Ethel. Just like today when we start offering deals to criminals, the one who doesn’t take the deal gets the brunt of the punishment—and the one who is innocent is most likely to be the one to keep saying that he is innocent.
She at least knew what her husband was doing but whether she assisted him or participated in any way? There is a whole bunch of doubt about that.
Unfortunately I can’t as I stopped watching him quite a while ago so it’s a bit hazy in my memory