Schools Must Teach that Thomas Jefferson Raped a Black Child

We must stop ignoring the suffering of marginalized people

A large percentage of the American public simply cannot be reasonable about the topic of racism. When you look at society, it’s stunning how many topics are considered off limits. It is frowned upon to discuss how powerful members of the Catholic church covered up and enabled appalling acts of child rape. The world has been so corrupted, that when you take a hard line on that unforgivable action, many people will insist that you’re the one being inappropriate.

The pampered privileged of our nation do not like to spend their time thinking about the terrible crimes of the past. Suburban citizens feel they are entitled to persist within the protected bubble of a sheltered delusion. The problem is that these same people have no qualms about spreading false opinions, or even launching political careers. The result is an entire social structure contorted with an irresponsible unwillingness to face the facts of history.

Slavery is child rape. That should not be considered a shocking thing to say. We should know it already. We should know that the prominent figures in our nation’s history who owned slaves are guilty of the most abhorrent crimes against humanity that can be imagined. Children sitting in classrooms deserve to know the truth about the transgressions of our past. Misplaced tolerance of these kinds of atrocities only sets the stage for the continuation of horrors too terrible to conceive.

Sally Hemings

Too often our historical texts try to gloss over the rape of child slaves by white masters. Writers will use language suggesting that this was commonplace for the time as a sort of implied justification. However, the fact that such behavior was commonplace does not make it any less evil. It’s telling, too, that these historians will often intentionally omit the ages of the slaves in question.

Sally Hemings was one of the approximately 600 slaves that Thomas Jefferson owned throughout his lifetime. Rumors of Jefferson’s involvement with her became a matter of public record during Jefferson’s presidency.

In September 1802, political journalist James T. Callender, a disaffected former ally of Jefferson, wrote in a Richmond newspaper that Jefferson had for many years “kept, as his concubine, one of his own slaves.” “Her name is Sally,” Callender continued, adding that Jefferson had “several children” by her. — Monticello.org

Hemings worked for Jefferson in Paris as a maid from 1787–1789. She was born in 1773. When she met Jefferson, he was 44. Sally Hemings was 14.

The claim is often denied

One only needs to look at the current political situation in the United States to see how often truth becomes a victim of political ambition. To this day, there are organizations that deny Jefferson was the father of Hemings’ children. However, substantial proof exists.

[I]n November 1998, the Thomas Jefferson Foundation formed a research committee consisting of nine members of the foundation staff, including four with Ph.D.s. In January 2000, the committee reported that the weight of all known evidence — from the DNA study, original documents, written and oral historical accounts, and statistical data — indicated a high probability that Thomas Jefferson was the father of Eston Hemings, and that he was likely the father of all six of Sally Hemings’s children listed in Monticello records — Harriet (born 1795; died in infancy); Beverly (born 1798); an unnamed daughter (born 1799; died in infancy); Harriet (born 1801); Madison (born 1805); and Eston (born 1808) — Monticello.org

Respect for the oppressed figures of history

In the case of Sally Hemings, there is substantial revisionist tampering. First there are organizations that deny evidence, then there are others that descend to the depths of posing the argument that Jefferson and Hemings were united in a consensual romance. However, the fundamental reality is that due to her status as a slave, Sally Hemings was not possessed of the power to give consent over what was done to her body. Any sexual interaction with a slave is rape, and must be labeled as such to underscore the fundamental violation of the institution.

There is no valid reason that our society should abstain from using the harshest language to describe the reality of slavery. The only potential consequence of softening the description is a relapse into abomination. It is incumbent upon all educated people to share the unvarnished truth and thereby demonstrate some decency for the oppressed individuals who endured unspeakable torment.

Whatever reality we are left to face with the knowledge that Jefferson was a child rapist is something we simply have to endure. It is not a valid reaction to dismiss the truth because it leaves you with an uncomfortable feeling. However the truth colors our perception of the nation and our past is our responsibility to acknowledge. If we wish to consider ourselves decent human beings, we have an obligation to accept rather than deny the experiences of the oppressed and marginalized people of our history.

Revisionist propaganda

Consider how odious it is that films such as Jefferson in Paris depict Sally Hemings as carefree and flirtatious. At the time Thandie Newton was cast to portray Hemings in this film, she was 23 years old. It’s telling that the film’s producers shied away from selecting an actress that would represent the reality of the child slave’s age and appearance.

This form of rewriting history should not be allowed to stand. If film investors are aware that audiences will reject the visual depiction of a 44 year old man forcing himself on a powerless 14 year old, then maybe they should reconsider the project. The simple fact is that it would be impossible to create an accurate dramatization of the events suitable for the family.

Our acceptance of Jefferson is part of a larger conspiracy of lazy entitlement that paves the way for further abuse by oppressive, deviant males. In the current, misrepresented context, the example of Jefferson can be used by abusers as both personal and legal justification for acts of blatant evil. There can be no place in a civilized society for any example of a mature man forcing himself on a child. This should not be a controversial statement.

People will be hostile

We still live in a world where innocent young girls are abducted and abused by vile, powerful men. Why is there any inclination to protect monsters like that? Our society needs to take every opportunity we can to send the message that all the other actions of your life will be rendered irrelevant at the discovery of certain unforgivable transgressions.

If you abuse a child in any way shape or form, or under any circumstances, you should be perceived as a villain forever. I would gladly burn every achievement of Thomas Jefferson to the ground if the action could be used to prevent the rape of just one vulnerable and innocent child. This can’t be a unique inclination.

It is a potent weapon in the fight to preserve the rights of all oppressed people to demonstrate that we are willing to topple figures of any stature no matter what reverence they have been granted in the past once certain behaviors come to light. We must dismantle any misconception that there exists a cloak of protection that can shield you from the consequences of unforgiveable behavior. There can be no escape for child rapists.

This must be taught in schools

It’s important for children to know that the individual who wrote the words “all men are created equal,” retired from his office in the evening and crawled into a hole in his home where he kept a child as prisoner that he repeatedly raped. The reality of this situation should not be softened by calling those actions a “product of the times.” There’s evidence that even Jefferson knew what he was doing was wrong because it led to an unprecedented action on his part.

Decades later, Jefferson freed all of Sally Hemings’s children — Beverly and Harriet left Monticello in the early 1820s; Madison and Eston were freed in his will and left Monticello in 1826. Jefferson did not grant freedom to any other enslaved family unit — Monticello.org

There should be no inclination to give Jefferson credit for recognizing, in the end, that he found the concept of condemning his own offspring to a life of servitude to be distasteful. Today we view the phrase “all men” instead of “all humans” as an oversight. In the context of Sally Hemings, that word choice becomes decidedly more nefarious.

A better world

As we make our way through life, we should strive, above all, to be decent human beings. That goal is incompatible with tolerance of abuse under any circumstances. Evil does not present itself as a fully-formed and functioning whole. It intrudes upon your consciousness in minute transgressions, covertly tainting your actions at the fringes of your capacity to perceive.

Without a commitment to diligent, responsible action, all people run the risk of becoming the unsuspecting enablers of deplorable abuse. As a nation, we cannot be afraid or unwilling to own the evil of our history as we continue to strive for its eradiation.

Children deserve to live in a world that does not require them to look upon portraits on our currency, or fifty foot faces carved into stone, that remind them of the torment they endure every night in the darkness of their own captivity. We must face the horrors of the past if we are to forge a better future.