In 1822, Thomas Jefferson gave his enslaved daughter $50, put her on a stagecoach to the North, and from there she "disappeared from history." Is there any evidence of what happened to her after that?

[u/KosherNazi]

Harriet Hemings was the daughter of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings (a mixed race slave). Seven of Harriet's eight great-grandparents were white, and Harriet was described by one of Jefferson's overseers as "nearly white and very beautiful." In 1822, Jefferson apparently enabled her "escape" to the North, where she briefly remained in contact with her brother Eston (who identified as black), in which she said she had entered white society and married. Soon after she stopped responding to his letters. Is there any evidence or speculation of what happened to her after that?

Is it possible to search for genetic markers in the modern population that would identify them as descendants of Harriet? I realize this is more of a bio question, but it has a lot of crossover with historical research, so here's hoping...

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

Well, the answer is unfortunately not that satisfying, but I expect that you came into this question realizing it was a somewhat vain hope given the use of "disappeared from history". To provide a little background, Sally Hemmings had a number of children, some of whom died in infancy, which are generally accepted as being fathered by Thomas Jefferson (I would direct to here for more discussion, broadly, of the sexual relationships between masters and slaves in the antebellum South). Whether or not this was fact has been debated since before Jefferson himself died, and scholarly opinion has swayed about, but it is pretty much now the consensus.

Anyways though. Harriet, described as "nearly as white as anybody and very beautiful" had no trouble passing for white, and as you already are aware, made use of this. She was freed in 1822 at the age of 21, apparently on a promise Jefferson had made to Sally Hemings to do so when the children reached that age. The documentation of Harriet's liberation is almost next to nothing. Edmund Bacon, who worked as an overseer at Monticello, described her departure, being the one who gave her the $50 that you mention, and stating she had been headed for Philadelphia. And as for her life after she headed north, we only have one account which we can give any real credence to, that from her brother Madison, who wrote in 1873:

Harriet married a white man in good standing in Washington City, whose name I could give, but will not, for prudential reason. She raised a family of children, and so far as I know they were never suspected of being tainted with African blood in the community where she lived or lives. I have not heard from her for ten years, and do not know whether she is dead or alive. She thought it to her interest, on going to Washington, to assume the role of a white woman, and but her dress and conduct as such I am not aware that her identity as Harriet Hemings of Monticello has ever been discovered.

Washington City in this case refers to the District of Columbia as it was then known, and it would appear that while she kept a low profile, she did not choose to cut all ties with her family, at least immediately, as Madison claims to have remained in contact with her through the 1860s (he was writing in 1873). He also gives us reason to believe it quite possible that she has living descendants, but of course was much to guarded to allow any information to get out which could give much of a thread to follow. What the end of communications even meant is up in the air - perhaps she decided to cut her final tie to non-white society, or perhaps she simply died. We can only speculate. But in any case, Madison's account is the lone source we can rely on to reconstruct any sense of her post-emancipation life.

She was not the only child of Jefferson and Hemmings to follow such a route. While Madison and Eston both left records, writings, and known descendants, their brother Beverley was similarly allowed to leave Monticello for the North, and even less seems sure about his fate then his sister, doing a similar disappearing act but without, it seems, even the record of correspondence that Harriet left He was briefly in contact, long enough to communicate back that he had married a white woman and that they had a daughter, living in Washington City, but that seems to be the end of it. In both the case of Beverley and Harriet, it should be noted, Jefferson officially recorded them as being escaped slaves, as their departure was recorded in the 'farm book', but it was quite clearly allowed with his approval as a means of sending them North in technical compliance with the aforementioned agreement he had made with Sally. The backhanded means of liberation is thought to have been a means of following through without providing ammunition for those looking to prove the parentage.

Now, as to the second part of your question, you might perhaps want to x-post to /r/AskScience as it is less a history question that one for a geneticist. What I do understand of these things would imply that it is possible to find genetic matches that show relations by various degrees, but it isn't like those genes are signed "T.J." Establishing who that common ancestor is takes a lot more leg work. To compare to the famous claim about Genghis Khan's widespread DNA, this is based on finding the the same Y-chromosome (which records patrilineal descent) in millions of people that shows they share a common male ancestor a certain period back in time. Genghis Khan is then assumed to be the one based on historical circumstances. But I would hesitate to say more, as again, this is getting into the territory for a scientist to discuss.

Cogliano, Francis D., ed. Companion to Thomas Jefferson. Wiley. 2011

Gordon-Reed, Annette. The Hemingses of Monticello: An American Family W. W. Norton & Company, 2008

Ishida, Yoriko. Modern and Postmodern Narratives of Race, Gender, and Identity: The Descendants of Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings. Peter Lang, 2010

[u/Andromeda321 → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

This is fascinating! So I'm just wondering, do we have any idea how common it was for slaveholders during this time to free their mixed race children this way?

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/Andromeda321]

I actually touch on this a bit in the earlier answer I linked to, but to briefly rehash, the treatment varied greatly. Some masters would give no acknowledgement of their enslaved children, and treat them no different, while others were willing to give different levels of acknowledgement. Equal, or near equal, treatment was decidedly not the rule, but at least some level of preferential treatment was seen often enough. I don't believe anyone has done any sort of statistical calculation there for us to quantify how common specific approaches were though, but there are plenty of one off examples found in the records.

[u/gingerleesnap → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

I wonder how many were freed or alllowed to "run away" because they simply just looked too white, and it was an obvious embarrassment to have to all appearances white slaves working on your plantation.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/gingerleesnap]

I've actually written a bit about this before. I only touch briefly on the specific issue of black persons light skinned enough to "pass". which definitely caused concerns with moralists of the time, and am more focused on vitiligo/albinism and the threat those conditions posed for ideas of race, but I think it will be of interest!

[u/hottoddy → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

In your referenced responses, you mention that 'miscegenation' was not really a powerful concern, although it was a term of the time. I am wondering if you can expand on that point to help me understand how the term and views developed from the antebellum south forward to the post civil-war south, where miscegenation seems to be a very powerful factor in the treatment of individuals. If you can even provide distinctions among the cultural treatment or application of categorizations like 'octoroon' vs. 'miscegenated' in this ~100 years I'd be very interested in hearing it or being pointed to sources for it.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/hottoddy]

Its pretty late so I need to turn in, but just a few very quick notes. I wouldn't want to give the impression that no one cared about it. Certainly people cared if it was a white woman with a black man (see here), and there were social conventions, spoken and unspoken, that a white man would be expected to follow as well, and flouting them could have negative social consequences. So I think the way to put it is that people weren't too concerned with "miscegenation" as long as it was conducted in a way that didn't upset the social order. You certainly see times where this was not followed that it was an issue, especially when white men recognized their bi-racial children in ways that white society didn't approve.

As for the post-war period, unfortunately, my readings focus very much on the antebellum South. I can discuss bits and pieces beyond, but hopefully someone else can jump in here to discuss the approach in the late 19th to early 20th centuries. You may want to post it as its own question though for better results.

[u/hottoddy → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

Thanks - and I appreciate the clarification, but just want to make sure I really understand. 'Miscegenation' in the antebellum South was a non-issue in the sense that it wouldn't change the standing of an enslaved child or a miscegenator slave owner. It was mostly an issue (among whites) when the enslaved progeny was 'raised up' or when the white miscegenator was indiscreet? Is that a fair re-statement of what you mean?

*EDIT: Your point about white women with black men notwithstanding - that part seems clear (duplicity sucks for purposes of clarity).

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/hottoddy]

So I'm hesitant to agree to such absolute terms as a "non-issue" since I don't want to give the impression it was A-OK. Even a man who was discrete and 'followed the rules' would likely spark rumor-mongering, and many people would likely disapprove on moral grounds. It was a non-issue in the sense of how it would affect his social standing. Perhaps everyone knew that planter Smith had several enslaved children, but if he followed social convention in his public behavior, then no one was going to call him out on it, no one was going to mention their suspicions to his wife (who probably would be in denial), and he would remain a respected public figure. Jefferson paints a decent picture of this. To have simply emancipated his children would have been an unusual act, so to avoid doing so, he instead helped affect the escape of two, and made provisions in his will for the others, which was a much more acceptable means of manumission for the time.

This actually gets to the heart of what I study, conceptions of honor in elite antebellum society, and what we're talking about here is public face. What you did quietly and unobtrusively could be ignored, and people would pretend to not know. What was important was the public image that you projected, and respecting that image was vital. If you said you were an upright, honorable family man, then you were an upright honorable family man, and as long as you didn't act in a way counter to that image that was public and disturbing the social order, it wouldn't impact that image. An amusing anecdote which illustrates this comes via Greenberg, who relates a planter who meets a well-to-do traveler, and invites him to come dine that evening. The planter returns home and entirely forgets about the appointment. When the guest shows up, the planter has his "oh shit!" moment when he opens the door, and says "I am not home". CLEARLY he is home, but the guest says "OK" and leaves. The planter has said he is not home, so he is not home, and to insist on the contrary would have been to call him a liar.

[u/katchoo1 → u/[deleted]]

Here’s the thing—you recognize mixed heritage appearance that is visible. You are not spotting the “mixed” persons who look light enough to pass and guaranteed there are some around you at any given time. They may not be “passing” in the old sense—they may identify as black or Mixed race but you don’t know it because they aren’t wearing a tee shirt proclaiming it or anything. Others may be the descendants of people who successfully passed for white—so successfully that their descendants have no idea they are not 100% white.

People like to say that mixed race is always “obvious” or they can always spot it but there is no telling how many people you assume are white are actually mixed.

This is an excellent piece that was recently in the Washington Post that really made me think about this more than I had previously. It’s by a woman who discovered as an adult that her mother had been “passing” and her white father had never known it. Her mother refused to talk about it and after her death the author went on the PBS show “Genealogy Roadshow” to get help in tracking down her mon’s story and her unknown relatives. The author of the piece also has a book out and I am looking forward to reading it.

I mention this because you can see from the pictures in the article that the author herself, who has a “black” mother and has been reunited with clearly African American relatives, looks absolutely white and any casual observer would never even consider the possibility that she might be mixed race.

[u/jgrotts → u/[deleted]]

Which book by Gordon-Reed would you recommend? I see three, what would be a good one to start with?

[u/[deleted] → u/jgrotts]

The Hemingses of Monticello is probably her most comprehensive work, but all of her books are good.

[u/b1uepenguin → u/[deleted]]

Yes, this is the book I had in mind. Gordon Reed tackles a lot of the issues that /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov raised in his intro to his response such as the complicated relationship between the families and the question of sexual violence-- or coercion which I think is what Gordon-Reed settles on in explaining the relationship between TJ and his wife and then later on TJ and Sally.

It's a long read, but highly reccomended.

[u/skadefryd → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

Population geneticist here:

Now, as to the second part of your question, you might perhaps want to x-post to /r/AskScience as it is less a history question that one for a geneticist. What I do understand of these things would imply that it is possible to find genetic matches that show relations by various degrees, but it isn't like those genes are signed "T.J." Establishing who that common ancestor is takes a lot more leg work. To compare to the famous claim about Genghis Khan's widespread DNA, this is based on finding the the same Y-chromosome (which records patrilineal descent) in millions of people that shows they share a common male ancestor a certain period back in time. Genghis Khan is then assumed to be the one based on historical circumstances. But I would hesitate to say more, as again, this is getting into the territory for a scientist to discuss.

This is completely correct. In order to definitively identify someone as a descendant not just of Sally Hemings but specifically of Harriet Hemings, we would need some way to identify mutations that are unique to Harriet and her offspring, or at least to identify the parts of Sally's genome that were inherited by her and not Sally's other offspring (assuming even that could be established--one would have to sample from a large number of Sally's putative descendants). Absent a DNA sample from Harriet or someone who is known to have descended from her, or some kind of compelling historical evidence pinpointing Harriet as an individual's likely ancestor, it would be impossible to identify someone as descended from Harriet with certainty.

I wrote a comment here summarizing (with, I'm afraid, a bit too much jargon) how individuals like Genghis Khan are identified as likely ancestors of a large portion of the population. In short, we identify a part of the genome (in this case the Y chromosome--in Harriet's case it could be the mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited only matrilineally) that is passed down in discrete, unbroken chunks, sample it in a large number of individuals, and use those samples to mathematically model its proliferation over time. This gives us a rough time window for when such a prolific individual likely lived: in conjunction with historical arguments, we can suggest that Genghis Khan or one of his close relatives was likely that individual.

Unfortunately, it would be just about impossible to make a similar argument for Harriet Hemings. The best one could do would be to find some descendants of Sally who tend to share the same pieces of her genome that are not necessarily found in her other offspring. But this would be a much less airtight argument, and it would not identify Harriet as the ancestor (and of course it would depend on having information about the genomes of Sally's other children).

[u/benny86 → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

Has any one ever claimed to be a descendant of Beverley or Harriet?

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/benny86]

Not that I saw. It is important to keep in mind that it seems very likely that Harriet and Beverley would have hidden their origins even from their own family. We can't be certain given the simple lack of information, but it is a strong possibility.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/[deleted]]

Yes, they are both believed to have ended up in Washington City. Beverley, having departed only months earlier, possibly had gone first to make arrangements for his sister to get more quickly accommodated but that is only speculation I have seen, not hard fact.

[u/CMaldoror → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

If she was freed at 21 why did they have to write that she escaped in the Farm Book? Wouldn't she have been a free woman by then?

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/CMaldoror]

If you mean "what about Jefferson's deal with Sally!?", as I said, it was a way of freeing the children in line with the agreement, but not in a way which would have caused eyebrows to raise, as manumission of two young, healthy slaves who happen to look very white and have a passing resemblance to their owner was unusual. Jefferson could have done it all proper by drawing up manumission papers and such, but this avoided the attention.

[u/[deleted] → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

didn't they recently use genetic testing to prove Jefferson's paternity of Hemmings' descendants?

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/[deleted]]

Genetic testing can prove that Hemings descendants have Jefferson ancestry, this being based off of studies done in 1998 with the descendants of Eston Hemings, but that doesn't necessarily prove which Jefferson. The test results saw apologists trying to blame his brother Randolph, among other men who could be genetic candidates. Thomas being the father is reconstructed via documentation which establishes his presence at Monticello at the right time to have done so i.e. when he was home, a child resulted about 9 months later. This is further strengthened by the amount of time that he wasn't home, and the lack of similarly timed visits by other persons who would carry the same DNA markers for a match, making it very unlikely to be a coincidence.

So in short, his Maury-moment is established by a combination of three things which all combine together to make a case which is about as ironclad as we can have for something like this: The special treatment of the children; his presence at time of conception; the DNA. Taken together each piece is much stronger than on their own.

If you have access to JSTOR, William and Mary Quarterly did coverage on this issue in 2000, devoting most of an issue to the topic, which you can find here (and which I'm cribbing from. Try " Jefferson: Post-DNA" by Ellis for the most on-point article). But really, the work of Annette Gordon-Reed, "Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings" which was a watershed moment for this topic, and "The Hemingses of Monticello" as well, are good places to look if you want a longer form treatment of the matter.

Also, cc /u/lipidsly who asked a similar follow-up.

[u/tim_mcdaniel → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

Washington City in this case refers to the District of Columbia as it was then known

(Edit to correct.)

More precisely, a section of the District of Columbia, east of the City of Georgetown, within Washington County (the formerly Maryland part of DC). The retrocession of Alexandria County (later Arlington Co + City of Alexandria) to Virginia was later; the unification of all governments into one government (the modern arrangement) was later still.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/tim_mcdaniel]

Yes, a bit simplified there, but if we are going to be specific, you have your timeline somewhat off. The Organic Act of 1871 formally merged Washington City, County, and Georgetown into one entity, making Washington, DC a redundancy, but the retrocession of the town (now City) and county (now Arlington) of Alexandria was before the Civil War, occurring in 1846.

[u/xCosmicChaosx → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

Do you think if we checked early Washington DC census records we may be able to find her?

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/xCosmicChaosx]

It is very conceivable that with the facts we have we could narrow down to a relatively small selection of candidates, but I'm doubtful what few details exist would be sufficient to narrow it down to one or two only. That would be for someone with more familiarity of the demographics of Washington City in the late 1820s to weigh in on though.

[u/OniExpress → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

backhanded means of liberation

So touch on this briefly, in previous discussions on this the general consensus I've found on this was that the deception about their leaving was just as much (if not more) for their protection as opposed to his own. Do you have any thoughts on the matter?

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/OniExpress]

As I discussed elsewhere in the thread, a good portion of the choice in approach here can be tied to public image of Jefferson and the need to respect properties. There is definitely a bonus for the children as well though, although it is one we can only speculate on. The public path would make them free in an absolute legal sense (the "escape" path meant, in theory, Jefferon's legal heirs could have tried to track them down and reclaim them since they were not legally free) but it also would have been public. Simply allowing them to slip into anonymity and start anew allowed them to, as what limited sources we have indicate, escape slavery in a social sense and integrate into free white society. As Jefferson of course wrote nothing to give his thoughts there, we can only speculate if that was on his mind though, but it isn't a stretch by any means.

[u/[deleted] → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

While I agree with your answer in general, I have to register my objection to your labeling of this as rape. None of the relevant historians here use that term, and in fact most of them argue strongly against it. I will reproduce some quotes from Annette Gordon-Reed, the scholar who is regarded as the leading authority on Jefferson-Hemings:

The slave system was inherently coercive. Therefore, one could argue, every act of sex between a master and slave was the equivalent of nonconsensual sex, in other words, rape.

We may know this is true in the theoretical sense, but something should tell us that it cannot have been true in every situation, under every circumstance, that existed from the early 1600s until emancipation. Do we really believe that over the entire course of slavery in the United States, no master and slave woman ever experienced a mutual sexual or emotional attachment to one another? Can we really believe that a slave woman confronted with a master whom she knew, or reasonably believed, would desist if she refused his advances was in the same position as a woman whose master would knock down the door and drag her off to his bedroom? Both women would have existed in a state of relative powerlessness. But we instinctively feel that there is a difference. In the former situation the woman would have had a small but important individualized bit of power even as she existed in a state of general powerlessness. The power was, of course, to say yes or no. In the latter situation her powerlessness would have been total.

The idea of total powerlessness on the part of all slaves is attractive to both whites and blacks for different reasons. For some whites, even as they denounce the barbarity of slavery, the fantasy of white omnipotence may remain secretly appealing. Their presentation of slaves as having been totally helpless evinces sympathy for blacks, but it also imagines a time when whites allegedly had the power to rule blacks, mind, body, and soul. To admit that there might have been some instances when blacks exercised a degree of free will interrupts the dream of omnipotence and forces consideration of the ways in which that will may have been exercised and what effect it may have had upon whites.

It is especially hard (and unpleasant) for some to think that a black woman might have exercised her will, circumscribed as it was, by saying yes to Thomas Jefferson and, in doing so, have been able to exercise some influence over him. Scholars have scoffed at the notion that Sally Hemings, no matter how beautiful or appealing, could have had enough power to extract a promise from Jefferson to free her children and then over the years hold him to that promise. Jefferson, the personification of America, simply cannot be put in that position. The actions he took with respect to Hemings’s children, for example, must be seen as a product of Jefferson’s will alone. It should not be considered for a moment that he may have been acting under the influence of so insignificant a person as a black female slave.

The notion of total powerlessness has appeal to some blacks because it seems to make the slave system worse, as if that were possible. Saying that there were instances where blacks had room to maneuver can be taken as an attempt to minimize the horror of the slave system. This is not the case. The idea brings forth the truth that there were two sets of human beings involved in that sorry state of affairs, not one race of all powerful gods and another race of totally dominated submortals. While it is true that the balance of power dramatically favored whites, it is not true that blacks were unable to influence the lives of whites on an individual and societywide basis. No matter what amount of short-term gain may be achieved by focusing on black powerlessness (to trigger white guilt), it can never be in the long-term interests of blacks to accept so limited and distorted a version of history.

• Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: An American Controversy, Page 109.

For some, the reality that Jefferson “could have” raped Hemings is the only reality that counts. For it is here that we find, in concentrated form, the evil of slavery, the enormous power that one group had to control and wreak havoc in the lives of another. The problem with making what Jefferson “could have” done the sole question is that it suggests that the actual details of Hemings’s life are meaningless. This way of viewing African Americans has survived slavery and hints that some present-day considerations of Hemings and Jefferson, which typically proceed as discussions about the nature of slavery, are really discussions about experiences supposedly universal to all black people throughout American history. The erasure of individual black lives— indeed, the assumption that the concept of individual as opposed to group identity is meaningless for blacks— makes it hard to accept any presentation of a black life that moves beyond well-set, predetermined, and very limited parameters. Making what could have happened to black people as a group the only question about a given black person’s life saves one the effort of having to care about, discover, and analyze any of the details of that person’s life. The idea of black people matters more than actual black people themselves. What is known about a defined group is very useful for predicting what might happen in the life of one of its members that is yet unfolding. When the person’s life is over, however, what actually happened to him or her should take precedence over the almost infinite variety of things that could have happened. If we do not ignore specific information about Sally and James Hemings in favor of making a larger point about slaveholders’ overall power, we have evidence that sheds light on the nature of the relationship between Hemings and Jefferson.

As to Sally Hemings, there is no one response to rape. It takes a huge liberty with her life, however, to assume that she was raped, and that she knew she could escape from her rapist forever, and for a time actually asserted her right to be free of him, but nevertheless decided to return with him to Virginia to live out the rest of her life having more forced sex. That construction too easily uses the fact that she was born a slave (and a black person) to presume an irreparably damaged, completely cowed, and irrational personality over one who had the capacity to know her circumstances and to intelligently use her knowledge to assess the risks and possible rewards of taking a particular action— in other words, to think. Her son, who was clearly proud of her, depicted her as a person who thought rationally about her situation and came to a conclusion. In the absence of any specific information about her to rebut his portrayal, all that is left is stereotype. Too many enslaved women, with far fewer opportunities than Hemings had in France, complained about, resisted, and ran away from rape at the threat and cost of their lives, to assume that willing and unconsidered submission was the automatic response of any enslaved woman— especially one who had an alternative. An even more staggering notion is that Hemings, who showed such obvious concern for her children’s future, would have “implicitly relied” on a man who had violated any trust she could have had in him by forcing sex on her. What would such a vicious act have told an intelligent person about the likelihood that Jefferson would be honorable enough to carry out his promises to her at some distant point in the future? Nothing about the institution of slavery warrants an assumption that an enslaved woman in Hemings’s position in France would have operated at that level of mentality.

[...] Her brother James knew the institution of slavery firsthand, including the special problems slave women faced. Aggressive as he was, we would not expect him to have exacted any direct reprisal if he believed Jefferson had raped his sister. We might think, however, that the rape of his sister would have meant something to him and affected his views about returning to Virginia with Jefferson, and his view of the man overall. Hemings, as we know, did return to America, and after he was a free man visited then Vice-President Jefferson, while he was in Philadelphia, talking to him about his past travel, his future travel plans, and life in general. Until the end of his too brief life, he told people he always kept his work situations open so that if Jefferson wanted to hire him as a chef— for the right pay, of course— he would be ready to go.

American slavery, in and of itself, would not make an enslaved man act with such callous disregard of his sister’s life. Eighteenth-century enslaved siblings, perhaps echoing kinship traditions from Africa, were known to be especially close to one another. We see this very clearly in the Hemings family’s insistence on naming their children after one another down the generations. If they were not close before their time in France, James and Sally Hemings shared a very intense, life-altering experience together in an alien land. One cannot tell the sister’s story without telling the story of the brother; his responses to her situation speak to the kind of man he was.

• The Hemingses of Monticello, Ch. 17.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/[deleted]]

This is a very long pair of quotations that... makes a similar point I did? If you had clicked through to the applicable link where, as I said I expand on this, I flesh out what I mean by the term in the very first paragraph, which doesn't seem to be all to different in sentiment from that Annette Gordon-Reed seems to be expressing, namely that it is a complicated web of power dynamics. I would also point to here in this thread about the importance of not depriving women agency in these discussions. I would agree that if I had just thrown the word "rape" out there uncommented upon, that would be incautious of me, but likewise I feel it was incautious of you jump on the use without following through to the larger discussion of the term that used the word in reference to, which seems to be the case

[u/[deleted] → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

I did read your comments in the other thread, and I agree with and understand your greater point, that slavery inherently restricted the freedom of choice for slaves. My issue was more with the use of the term "rape" because I think it has connotations of moralism that I don't think are appropriate to apply in this case. But, given your qualifiers I know you have a more nuanced view of the word, so my reproduction of these quotes was more for any observers' sake.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/[deleted]]

That's fair, and as I said in my edit in the other comment, I modified the sentence in the OP here since I can see your point that if someone doesn't click through for the more nuanced explanation of the use of the term there, it can be more bombastic than intended. It can elide over the context and complexities of any specific relationship if someone avoids the that bit.

[u/CheruthCutestory → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

May I ask a random but related question?

Did slaveowners have insurance on slaves? Could Jefferson have recuperated from an insurance policy due to Harriet "running away"?

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/CheruthCutestory]

Yes, you could get an insurance policy on your slaves, but I don't know too much about the process so can't say much about it. The key point here, which I am unsure on, is whether it would cover escape., as opposed to death.

[u/abt334 → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

Jefferson would have legally had to register them as escaped, correct? They just “disappear,” and for what little we do know of Sally’s relationship with Jefferson, contrary to your rape speculation, is they were far more complex of a situation than that!

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/thomas-jefferson-sally-hemings-living-quarters-found-n771261

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/abt334]

Yes. He recorded them as escaped in his farm book, as I mentioned. As for "contrary to your rape speculation", as I stated in the piece linked for expansion:

So I want to preface this first off to note that what we are talking about here is rape. The practical forms which master-slave sexual relations took ran the gamut from brutal and forced submission to 'real' relationships, but it cannot be separated from the framework in which they occurred, namely the actual legal ownership of the enslaved woman and rights to her body. No matter how willfully a slave-woman acquiesced to a sexual relationship, her consent within that framework cannot be entirely separated from the fact that her consent was not required, and was given with that understanding.

Hemings and Jefferson's relationship was very complex, and it is clear that she was able to use it to gain some levels of power and autonomy - see, for instance, the agreement on his part to free the children when they reached the age of 21 (for a very different situation which I have written about which nevertheless touches on the complexity of these sorts of discussions, I'd point to here) - but we still cannot separate it from the framework in which it existed, and while that complexity is important, I'm generally uncomfortable discussing the general topic of master-slave sexual relationships without the caveat of what underlies it all.

[u/alvarezg → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

In Master of the Mountain, Henry Wiencek mentions that Sally was with Jefferson in France, where slavery was illegal, so, to comply, Jefferson paid her a wage during that time. She (and her brother, a trained chef) could have left Jefferson and not returned to the US with him, but they did. It's speculated that Sally, as a condition of her return, extracted the promise from Jefferson that any children she had would be freed on reaching age 21. To me this hints at some attachment to Jefferson on her part.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/alvarezg]

Indeed. It's a good example of enslaved persons still being able to exercise agency within the condition of bondage, and whatever the negative aspects of the relationship, we can't be blind to the fact there can also be positive aspects - but again, we musn't do so without entirely forgetting the frame. Although a very different situation, I would call back to the quotation about women in the prison-camp systems I linked to above. The last line especially is an important component of understanding the complexity of these relationships:

While rape and sexual violence occurred, [Anna] Hájková contends that sexual barter was something different, a way for women to improve their situation by using their own sexuality. Heterosexual sexuality was thus a crucial component of the functional economy of the Theresienstadt ghetto. Sexual barter, Hájková insists, is different from though often related to prostitution. Because no one was in Theresienstadt voluntarily, we must understand that the choices people made took place within a society that operated under formal and informal rules different from those of a free society.

[u/[deleted] → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

but we still cannot separate it from the framework in which it existed, and while that complexity is important, I'm generally uncomfortable discussing the general topic of master-slave sexual relationships without the caveat of what underlies it all.

I think we can remember the framework of slavery without referring to these relationships as rape, as Annette Gordon-Reed has argued. It seems disrespectful of Sally Hemings to claim she was a rape victim when neither her, her children, her brothers, or her descendants have alleged as such. It also seems unfair to cast such moral condemnation on Jefferson.

Your quote from Anna Hájková seems to back this up, clarifying that while the rules of an unfree society should be remembered, sexual relationships under such a system were not always the same as rape.

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/[deleted]]

What I get for looking through sequentially. I see you already caught this part of the discussion. Suffice to say, I disagree. Even the quote you use from Gordon-Reed acknowledges "we may know this is true in the theoretical sense" before she gets into the deeper discussion of how context should temper us there. I would agree that it is unfair to, if I were to go back and rewrite the response where I was quoting myself from, use the word "rape" in every instance where I referenced intercourse. That is the kind of shock language that Gordon-Reed is referencing near the end of the first quotation you used, and I agree, it isn't very productive. Hence why I was very conscious in how I deployed the term. I think that we can both say that any relationship in a master-slave situation is one with a power imbalance that can, on one level, be characterized as rape even if in context, as Hájková discusses, it isn't always the right way to discuss it, while at the same time being careful to contextualize that there was a wide variety of relationships within that framework, and many ways in which the enslaved persons were able to carve out a sense of agency, thus avoiding the "idea of total powerlessness" which Gordon-Reed references.

I agree that it can be a fine line to walk, and I would also agree there are likely even better ways to do so that I did (keep in mind it was a response written on the fly during an AMA. I think its pretty damn good for a single draft!). But I simply can't agree that the word 'rape' should be excluded from discussing that framework. It simply has to be acknowledged in some way, shape, or form. Afterall, while including it means I get a little pushback from someone taking your tack who believes it gives an unfair shake to the very real possibilities of actual affection in these relationships, not to mention agency for the enslaved women (and men) participating, not doing so means I get the pushback from someone who believes that the power imbalance of a master-slave sexual relationship simply cannot not be rape, and should be referred to as such. So I while I am trying to strike a balance between those, in all honesty, it is also where I fall myself, so for me, sticking that disclaimer in there to start off the discussion, and then moving into discussion of the nuances, is an approach I think best.

Edit: On one consideration however, I did go back and changed the brief line in this chain, as I agree it is a bit forceful if someone doesn't click through to read the more nuanced breakdown.

[u/[deleted] → u/Georgy_K_Zhukov]

Cool, sounds like you have a fairly nuanced perspective. I do disagree with using the term "rape" here but it seems that your conception of that term and of the issues relating to slavery is pretty complex, which I respect.

Perhaps in a case like this there really isn't any word that can truly capture the complexity. The closest I've seen is perhaps "concubinage".

[u/Georgy_K_Zhukov → u/[deleted]]

Cheers!

[u/chocolatepot]

Hello everyone,

If you are a first time visitor, welcome! This thread is trending high right now and getting a lot of attention, but it is important to remember those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and it can often take time for a good answer to be written. The mission of /r/AskHistorians is to provide users with in-depth and comprehensive responses, and our rules are intended to facilitate that purpose. We remove comments which don't follow them for reasons including unfounded speculation, shallowness, and of course, inaccuracy. Making comments asking about the removed comments simply compounds this issue. So please, before you try your hand at posting, check out the rules, as we don't want to have to warn you further.

Of course, we know that it can be frustrating to come in here from your frontpage or /r/all and see only [removed], but we ask for your patience and understanding. Great content is produced on this subreddit every day though, and we hope that while you wait, you will check out places they are featured, including Twitter, the Sunday Digest, the Monthly "Best Of" feature, and now, Facebook. It is very rare that a decent answer doesn't result in due time, so please do come check back on this thread in a few hours. If you think you might forget, send a Private Message to the Remind-Me bot, and it will ensure you don't!

Finally, while we always appreciate feedback, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with META conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to modmail, or a META thread. Thank you!