Thomas Jefferson was one of the most principled men of all time and
the deepest and most far-sighted thinker of all the Founding Fathers.
It seems impossible that he held onto his slaves against their will
for most of his life. It is a fact that many slaves were not actually
"slaves" at all. They were given room, board, and food and therefore
were very happy with their situation. It is my belief that Jefferson's
situation was the same. He would never force anybody to work against
his or her will. However, I have yet to find anything written about
this. Is there any documentation on this issue?

---

Clarification of Question by douglascarey-ga on 23 Jul 2003 15:11 PDT

It seems as though somebody has already missed my point. Prisoners in
a jail do NOT want to be there and would leave if they could. It is a
historical fact that many slaves did NOT want to leave their situation
because they had a place to stay, clothes, and food, which are three
things that were not that easy to come by those days, especially if
you were black. I'm not saying that all slaves were happy with their
situation, just some of them. So, if we can cut through the liberal,
politically correct muck, maybe I can get a good, historically
accurate comment or answer to my question.

---

Request for Question Clarification by tutuzdad-ga on 23 Jul 2003 17:15 PDT

I would like to research your question because I know I can provide
undisputable evidence to the contrary. However, it would require a bit
more time to complete that your price normally allows. If you would
like to adjust your price upward I'd be happy to share with you some
very pertinent points.

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

---

Request for Question Clarification by efn-ga on 23 Jul 2003 22:21 PDT

The only question in your question is "Is there any documentation on
this issue?"  Are you looking for references to print sources or are
you looking for a credible research report on how Jefferson treated
his slaves and how happy they were?

---

Clarification of Question by douglascarey-ga on 24 Jul 2003 06:07 PDT

I appreciate the objective thinking of tutuzdad. He hits it right on
the head when he says, "The question is not whether the slaves were
fed and housed even if they did not to work (he did do this with a
chosen few), the question
is whether or not Mr. Jefferson forced his slaves, as a rule, to work
against their will."  In fact, I use that term twice in my original
question. How can one overlook that? Did you even read the question,
saabster?

The operative term is "against their will". Too many people get caught
up in the evils of slavery in general to think about a few specific
cases where slaves were actually employees in a sense. It's just
ridiculous that we can't even have an intelligent conversation about
such issues anymore without hearing the liberal, emotional,
non-logical outcry. I would bet big money that you're a liberal that
believes in hate-crimes laws. It would only make sense.

As for the research, I believe I have found some good references. If
they don't work out, I will increase my list price. Thanks to all who
gave well thought out feedback rather than emotional garbage that
wasted people's time.

---

Clarification of Question by douglascarey-ga on 20 Aug 2003 10:43 PDT

nancylynn - Thanks for the links to some really good information. The
article on Jefferson was very good and just shows that there are many,
many people out there like me that are still trying to reconcile
Jefferson's words with his actions. Also, I'm a huge fan of Lew
Rockwell and will read the article on General Lee. Thanks again.

Douglascarey,

Consider the following situation:

Somebody held in a jail cell in the United States must be provided
with food and a place to sleep. It is likely that most people in jail
have no desire to be there. Do you think that most prisoners in the US
are happy with their situation?

I realize that it's not the best analogy (since slaves were not
convicted of a crime), but it's still food for thought.

/ephraim

Greetings DouglasCarey:

You may be interested in the site "The Slave Children of Thomas
Jefferson" at http://www.anusha.com/slaves.htm - there are many links
there pertaining to his slave holdings and treatment of his slaves.

Unfortunately, many persons attribute qualities to famous past
personages that they seldom deserve.  If memory serves me correctly,
Benjamin Franklin fathered 17 illegitimate children, a fact never
taught me in public school.  Heck, even Abraham Lincoln was a (*gulp*)
lawyer before he entered politics.  ;)

Best regards,
journalist-ga

This page from the University of Virginia says "the known specifics of
Jefferson's treatment of his slaves are scarce":

http://www.student.virginia.edu/~decweb/issue/1997/09/25/word/dirt.html

You might also be interested in the book "Free Some Day: The
African-American Families of Monticello," by Lucia Stanton, summarized
here:

http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ht/35.3/br_21.html

From this page, it appears that Jefferson was a relatively benevolent
slave-owner, but the slaves were still slaves, subject to being
whipped when Jefferson was away or sold if they got too uppity.

--efn

What amazes me when someone asks whether slaves weren't actually
rather happy to be slaves, particularly if the person who owned them
was a man of Thomas Jefferson's character and intellect. Duh!  Tell me
would you be willing to be owned body and soul by another person.
Reduced to the condition that you are considered on a par with the
other chattel (cows, goats, horses). Your life may be taken at anytime
and you can be sold at anytime. Your children can be sold and you have
nothing to say about it. Your wife can be forced to service any white
man at anytime. You are demonized as being a worthless savage without
intellect.  Thomas Jefferson was a landowner who lived in Virginia, a
state that fought to retain slavery and he owned slaves. There are
myriad documents that provide the proof. Mr. Jefferson and his fellow
slave owners needed slaves to maintain their quality of life and to
build the economic stability of the south.

You asked this incredibly dense question about whether some of the
slaves were happy. If you live in hell long enough, you may get used
to the heat, that does not mean that you enjoy it, only that you have
no choice but to be destroyed or to survive. Do you know that there
used to be Sunday afternoon get togethers where white families
including young children would attend a lynching and after the poor
soul was castrated, hanged or burned to death, people in the audience
would cut off fingers and ears as souvenirs.  That photos of the
lynchings were often made into postcards and mailed across the
country. But these people really had no problem with being slaves?
were some of them really happy you asked?

The hyprocrisy is even worse. Slaveowners who treated slaves as
animals or spoke of their barbarism, did not hesitate to take enslaved
women to bed and thus created thousands of children whom they then
sold into slavery. Does anyone understand that these men sold their
own children. Stop and understand this. These men sold their children
into slavery. Children who would not have existed had these men not
forced themselves upon enslaved women. How barbaric is it to send your
own child into a life of degradation without a thought. Not unlike our
very own Strom Thurmond, the reformed segregationist who it has been
discovered has a daughter whose mother has been identified as a black
women. media.
Slaves when and where possible sought to survive the inhumane
treatement they faced on a daily basis. Did they laugh and smile? Did
they like members of the families that owned them? Were they forced by
the realities of their lives to find a way to survive? That is a
resounding yes!

Sally the enslaved woman who bore Thomas Jefferson five or so
children, was the half sister of Jefferson's beloved wife(who died).
She was the daughter of Jefferson's father in law and a slave woman.
Sally was a fair skinned 'mulatto'
who looked white. There are a zillion stories like that. 

You are off the point, when you wished to argue the issue of the
"happy slave".

The question is not "dense" at all. In fact douglascarey-ga has made
it abundantly clear that he/she is willing to stipulate that essense
of slavery is in fact an unfortunate situation that no one should have
to suffer. His/her term "happy", as has been explained to my
undertsanding is relative and relates to situations deemed to be the
lesser of many evils. The term "better off" as a slave of Thomas
Jefferson rather than a slave to a drunken, sadistic slave owner of
some other plantation would probably be more comparable to what
douglascarey-ga is trying to say, if I interpret the question and
subsequent clarification correctly. No doubt some slaves had happy
moments during their lives - at times - considering how happy one in
slavery could possibly be. Were they happier than other slaves when
their conditions were better than those of other slaves? Certainly.
Were they happy to be slaves? Absolutley not!

Having said that, as I mentioned, I (like many researchers here - and
saabster-ga is not one by the way) would be willing to approach the
question objectively and factually foregoing the "liberal, politically
correct muck" if the price was more in tune with the amount of
research required to provide a quality answer.

Regards;
tutuzdad-ga

While I understand what Douglascarey is asking, the original way he
phrased his question was like this:

(emphasis mine)
"They were given room, board, and food and ***THEREFORE*** were very
happy with their situation."

He's taking it as a foregone conclusion that somebody who receives
room and board must be happy with their lot in life. I see no
difference between this and anybody else who receives room and board
for any other reason. It's an A -> B type of statement (A implies B).
If an individual has food and a bed, they must be happy. Therefore, it
would apply equally to somebody in a prison.

Disregarding, for a moment, my comment about prisons, douglascarey's
thesis could definitely be proven if somebody can uncover evidence
that his slaves were housed and fed regardless of whether or not they
performed work for Jefferson (and assuming that slaves who did not
perform service for other masters received nothing in return).

/ephraim

Not so - read again.

The question is not whether the slaves were fed and housed even if
they did not to work (he did do this with a chosen few), the question
is whether or not Mr. Jefferson forced his slaves, as a rule, to work
against their will. These are two entirely different concepts. I can
dispute the notion that he "did not" force them to work against their
will. He did...and I can provide proof.

tutuzdad-ga

Give me a break, no matter how you slice it or dice it, some of you
guys are still looking for the "happy slave". And others of you are
content to provide the intelligent, unemotional, logical response that
will equivocate the horrors these people had to endure. The rant on
liberals is such a tired response, I can hardly believe that
'intelligent people' still pull it out for us tired old liberals.

Amusing diatribe: for some a happy slave is oxymoronic and white folks
should hang their heads in shame over the sins of our fore-fathers.
For others, happy slavedom is quite believable.  In return for food,
clothing, shelter, decent treatment, etc., being a slave was not that
bad, particularly considering the available alternatives.  Sadly,
depending on your political beliefs, you can find abundant written
history to support what ever position you chose.

In the non-political Jefferson historical literature,  he is regarded
as paternalistic slave owner, believing that most slaves were better
off under the care and guidance of a benevolent white master.  In
contrast, George Washington opposed slavery in principal and freed his
slaves on his death.

First, I do think that even being a well-housed and well-fed slave
was, by its nature, abhorrent. Even slaves who got along well with
masters and mistresses, and who were treated very decently, still very
much craved freedom. It follows that you can enjoy being a farm worker
or a housekeeper, and basically like your employer, but you wouldn't
enjoy your work if 1): you weren't getting paid, and 2): far more
importantly, if you were legally and literally chained to the person
you work for.

That said, I do understand the question. I wasn't able to find
anything definitive about how Jefferson treated his slaves; if he
forced them to work against their will. The best link I came up with,
"Jefferson's Dirt":
http://www.student.virginia.edu/~decweb/issue/1997/09/25/word/dirt.html

is about an archaeological dig at Monticello, which prompted the
author of this article to muse about Jefferson's treatment of his
slaves. The only thing that's certain is that Monticello's slave
quarters were unusually spacious.

But the author, Joe Maloney, notes: "Nevertheless, in spite of all
this archaeological conjecture, the known specifics of Jefferson's
treatment of his slaves are scarce, and we are no closer to
reconciling his beliefs with his actions. Jefferson's ideology on the
subject of slavery are clear; his first effort as a member of the
House of Burgesses was a failed attempt to pass a law providing for
the emancipation of all slaves in Virginia. Later he successfully
passed a bill blocking the importation of slaves to the state."

Re: goeggel-ga's comment about George Washington: Washington did
indeed change his mind about slavery; that is, he decided it was
wrong, and, as I understand it, he freed *his* slaves upon his death.
He did not, however, free his wife Martha's slaves. (Martha was a
strong proponent of slavery.) The descendants of Martha Washington's
slaves were freed by Robert E. Lee (future commander of the
Confederate Army of Northern VA) when he married Martha's great-great
granddaughter, Mary Custis. Yes, the man who fought for the honor of
Virginia was utterly opposed to slavery.
See:
"George Washington's Papers":
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/slavery/inside.html

"Remembering Robert E. Lee":
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig/jarvis10.html

Sorry I couldn't find a definitive answer for you, but I hope the link
I gave you assists you in your research.

Regards,
nancylynn-ga

Quote from poster, "It is a fact that many slaves were not actually
"slaves" at all."

That remark is patently ridiculous and narrow minded, regardless of
the fact that your question stems around the treatment of slaves,
rather than the definition of slavery.