Slavery and Rape

Gordon-Reed challenges the reader to think thoughtfully and critically about the relationship between Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings.  She harshly rebukes the argument of many scholars that any sexual “encounter” between a slave owner, and an enslaved woman was necessarily rape.  Such a stance, accordingly to Gordon-Reed, is based on a sort of subliminal racism because it endeavors to lump together the personal narratives of individual slaves into a single personality and history –describing the lives of slaves in terms of social history rather than biography, thereby robbing them of their humanity.  Many of those whom disagree with Gordon-Reed center their argument around the power dynamics that existed within the institution of slavery – the slave owner held all the leverage; physically, emotionally, legally,  and thus any “consent” that was given should be considered null and void because any such decision was unduly influenced by the disparity of power between slave and master.  

On the other hand, Gordon-Reed contends that such a statement is to assign slaves the status of children forever, and to destroy their dignity and individuality.  She seems to hold, that Jefferson and Hemings’ relationship, and the sex it involved (or which it was arguably based upon), was consensual – pointing to the fact that Hemings would have never agreed to return to Virginia with Jefferson from Paris if he was raping her.  Additionally, she argues that James, as an autonomous and strong-willed man would never have agreed to continue to be enslaved to Jefferson had he thought that she was being raped by him.  

I believe that Gordon-Reed makes a very valid point – insofar that we often think of the narrative of slavery, rather than the narratives of slaves and so I would agree that when examining the lives of individual slaves biography, rather than social history should be the goal.  However, I think her arguments surrounding the relationship between rape and slavery are misguided.  Yes, slaves should be seen as individual people, each with their own personality and experiences – yet I believe it is still possible to argue that any sex between owner and slave was by definition rape.  One would not claim that a captured solider is somehow a child, devoid of intelligence, humanity, and agency yet we would say that any actions, claims, or confessions of a POW cannot be viewed as “consent” or seen outsider of the environment in which they were made.  Of course, this is not to say that slavery and capture on the battlefield are the same situation, rather it is to show that one can still value the individual while recognizing the environment that they make decision in.  

But perhaps this really boils down to a question of what is rape? For later on in the book, Gordon-Reed says “distortion of human feelings is not the same as the total destruction of them.” Does that mean that “consent” can be given despite the “distortion of human feelings”?