Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sally Hemmings herself is an excellent topic. Most people don't know that she was actually half sister to Jefferson's wife. They just assume she was black, and actually that is only half right.
She died free.
Perhaps Wordsmith could put an informative article together....
Actually - not that it matters morally or ethically - Sally was one quarter black, as her mother (Betty Hemings) was half-white.
Sally was only fourteen when she accompanied Jefferson's younger daughter Mary ("Polly"), who was then nine years old, to Paris, where he and his older daughter Martha ("Patsy", then aged about fifteen) were already living. She was described by Abigail Adams (with whom Sally and Polly stayed for two weeks in London prior to traveling on to France) as being very child-like at this time, and in need of supervision herself, but good-natured.
Sally remained in Paris for two years, working as a lady's maid for the two girls and possible attending school with them (she is said to have learned French during her time in France), then returned to Monticello with the Jeffersons and their other enslaved servants. Her first child, who died shortly after birth, is said to have been born a year or two after her return to Virginia, when Sally would have been seventeen or eighteen.
It's a complex story, and a very sad one in many ways.
In 1994, I was present for a mock trial of Thomas Jefferson. It was held at the NY Bar, and presided over by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
From what I recalled, "Jeff" was indicted on two counts of "hypocrisy".
1. Preached life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but owned slaves! (more on this!)
2. Preached small government, but bought big, large Louisiana Territory!
Attorney for the Government: Professor Charles Ogletree
Attorney for the defendant: then-Solicitor General Drew Days
(note the switch-up)
Each side gave opening statements, put two experts, apiece, on the stand and gave closings. The audience was the jury (looks like it was about 300 peeps). Verdict: by show of hands, the jury overwhelmingly acquitted Jefferson on both counts. I, myself, did not vote.
From observing the vote, it appeared that there was an obvious age difference among voting, with older audience members voting for acquittal, and younger folk voting for conviction.
Oh, yeah, on Count 1.....the Hemmings revelations didn't come out until a couple of years later! Whether that would've changed the "verdict" that day, I don't know!
In 1994, I was present for a mock trial of Thomas Jefferson. It was held at the NY Bar, and presided over by Chief Justice Rehnquist.
From what I recalled, "Jeff" was indicted on two counts of "hypocrisy".
1. Preached life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but owned slaves! (more on this!)
2. Preached small government, but bought big, large Louisiana Territory!
Attorney for the Government: Professor Charles Ogletree
Attorney for the defendant: then-Solicitor General Drew Days
(note the switch-up)
Each side gave opening statements, put two experts, apiece, on the stand and gave closings. The audience was the jury (looks like it was about 300 peeps). Verdict: by show of hands, the jury overwhelmingly acquitted Jefferson on both counts. I, myself, did not vote.
From observing the vote, it appeared that there was an obvious age difference among voting, with older audience members voting for acquittal, and younger folk voting for conviction.
Oh, yeah, on Count 1.....the Hemmings revelations didn't come out until a couple of years later! Whether that would've changed the "verdict" that day, I don't know!
This was also shown on CSPAN, some time later!
Interesting. Was this using the mindset of the time or imposing one from a couple of centuries later?
In my US history class in High School we had debates each week on an issue defining the time we were covering. The thing was, you could not look on from the twentyth centuray but had to argue as one would have and with the reasoning one would IN the time. It was move illuminating to look into the mindset of those who lived then. And I wouldn't feel so superior now either since time passes and things change and others from our future may have a very different take on our choices than we do. What matters in a time is how the person's thinking process fit into their own time.
Would we condem a doctor who treated disease by blaming 'bad air' when that was what was believed at the time? If it was the norm then it would put them solidly in the group of those who were conventional, even if today we know its a false idea.
In my US history class in High School we had debates each week on an issue defining the time we were covering.
Sounds like fun. Wish we'd done that!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.