Is Jefferson's legacy tarnished by the fact he repeatedly raped his 75% white slave girl?

I am from 18th century, explain it to me. What's rape?

benis in vagew

Yes, of course it is. Her being 75% white doesn't make it any better or worse, though. Don't know why
(I know you're trolling but I'll play along cause it's actually an interesting topic)
you bring it up.

It should be.

Are you seriously suggesting they didn't understand the concept of rape in the 18th Century?

English Common law (which is what pretty all US law is derived from) had defined rape as "the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will" for centuries.

This assumption that all our values and behaviors sprung up 10 minutes ago and that everything that happened more than a decade ago is beyond questioning in moral terms because it was "some time in the past" is pathetic.

Yes, you correctly identified that I primarily bought up the fact of her being 75% for the purposes of getting additional posters in this thread. I agree with your point.

*75% white

Was it rape in the sense that she couldn't legally refuse or in the sense that she was genuinely unwilling and he forced her to do it anyway? I'd say that distinction makes the difference.

No way, he create multiculturalism to help them integrate?

I'm an entirely fair and reasonable poster and will acknowledge that no one could ever possibly know the intimate details of their behavior towards one another, however, yes she was his property and yes he could essentially do to her what he liked with or without her consent.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that he wouldn't have respected her refusal on moral grounds even if he wasn't compelled to respect it on legal grounds. That's why it's a necessary distinction to make in order to make a moral judgement.

I do know it is a historical fact that he never freed her and therefore could use her as he liked. I do know it is a historical fact that it is well recorded that slavemasters used enslaved women as they liked sexually.

I was fair and reasonable with my last post so I hope you will do the same and acknowledge if one person is the property of another and compelled to follow their wishes then it is not actually possible for her to to freely give consent.

>It wasn't necessarily the norm to rape slave girls in the late 1700s
What do you imagine seriously? It wasn't the norm in the sense it wasn't official nor mandatory of course, but there was absolutely nothing to prevent this. You bet every female slave was raped at least once.

Rape is still rampant nowadays, and the statistics don't even count the huge amount of cases where the victim doesn't complain. Imagine back then when servant (white!) women were considered as furnitures, they NEVER complained. Now imagine the slaves...

>every female slave was raped because i said so
If you mean they were raped, like all sex involving prisoners or minors is rape (including others of their status in many situations), which is anachronistic as it gets, then sure, they were all raped. So were the men. Then, guess what, LITERALLY ALL SEX IS RAPE

You have said absolutely nothing that disagrees with anything I said. In fact you specifically agreed with me...

>It wasn't the norm in the sense it wasn't official nor mandatory of course, but there was absolutely nothing to prevent this.

Being silent on slavery is just spineless... Rape/Sexual Assault of another person comes under Autistic Assholery and Sadism. Jeff was an universal asshole transcending generations!!

>not actually possible for her to to freely give consent

so now you're trying to tell slaves who they can and cannot have sex with. Utter hypocrite, yours is a slave owner's mentality.

How do we know it wasn't consensual?

>like all sex involving prisoners or minors is rape
No I mean like "I don't care if you don't want or like it", non-consensual sexual intercourse.

>Rape
Lol
>women
>turning down the opportunity to advance their position in life simply by lying on their back
The bitch probably raped HIM!

>so now you're trying to tell slaves who they can and cannot have sex with.

I don't own any slaves, user. You mean Jefferson told his slave who she could have sex with (him) and who she could not have sex with (anyone but him), I presume.

You aren't seriously trying to introduce the concept that I personally am telling Sally Rodell what to do and have control of her using the power of my mind two centuries later, I hope.

you're suggesting slaves are incapable of consent, like children.

so basically you're saying slaves are children. by definition this is paternalistic and slave owners would agree with you.

There is no proof that he did, think for yourself. It makes for headlines, that's why it is claimed.

youtube.com/watch?v=jrw-mfkGEdo

>you're suggesting slaves are incapable of consent, like children.

Yes, I am suggesting slaves are not able to freely give consent. You sound retarded.

Do you know what a slave is?

What a truly pathetic retard you are.

of course they can give consent to sex just like any other thing, like adults.

the difference is that the slave owner is not required to take that consent into consideration, legally, since they are his or her property.

>slave ownin' man: do you want sex?
>freedwoman: no

man has to respect her lack of consent.

>slave ownin' man: do you want sex?
>slave woman: no.

man doesn't have to respect the lack of consent (provided he is the man who owns her or has the permission of the person who does).

it's not a hard concept.

I'm off to bed, I'll check back tomorrow to see if someone who isn't a ridiculous shitposter has had something interesting to say.

>I'd say that distinction makes the difference
why? We're not lawyers. When we talk about him raping a woman we're talking about the current definition which his actions fall under

>HURR

What a dope!

wow

Not that user, but you mean to say "slaves can't give consent to the people that own them but they can give consent to everyone else though".

Not only special pleading, but exclusionary and historically inaccurate.

Unless you're some moral crusader who judges the past based on the morals of today, no.

They were in love.

>Not that user

Whatever you say, sweetie.

>he thinks two people with two different posting styles who have both basically reiterated the same point in different ways are the same person.

roffle

Maybe YOU do cuck, but the rest of us still mean "forcey fun time" when we saw raoe and, not just the whore's guild vicariously withdrawing some dead thot's consent a couple of hundred years later.

>he thinks I care about his pathetic """opinion"""

>I decide who it's ok for slaves to have sex with

your position

>cuck
aww the ruse was going so well and you had to ruin it

the slave owners position

one and the same, but you cannot see how you claim them.

>slaves can "freely decide" to be raped every night by their owners

This is YOUR position.

>raped every night
see that? You're telling slaves it's impossible to consent to sex with their owners.

You guys are looking at this all wrong

>ywn have unlimited, legal rape from your quadroon slave gf

i was agreeing with you.

my point is that arguably that other guy sees slaves in the same way that the slave owner does, as chattel which cannot give consent.

this dehumanises those people, as it suggests that their lack of legal freedom equates to a lack of agency.

we may never know if that slave gave consent but she always had the choice to do so as a human being, even if jefferson was under no legal obligation to take her consent into consideration, as i pointed out before.

shite, meant to quote and not

i want to sexually assault penetrate her

What the fuck kind of job starts at 5pm

What ruse?
If you genuinely believe some dykes two hundred years removed from the event in question, have a say in whether or not some slut wanted to gobble Jefferson's knob, you are a cuck.

Bad ones.