Jefferson's Concubine - A Founding Father's Perk, A Given Of No Historical Importance

Marcus Aurelius, Emperor of Rome had a concubine, many in fact, some slaves some not but his favorite was Ayla from Addis Ababa brought to Rome by the Emperor's legions looking to quell the tribal uprisings and consolidate the empire's holdings in East Africa. 

Ayla was by all accounts a beautiful woman.  Pliny wrote in his Histories of 'A Nubian slave of remarkable beauty..' and other references in informal journals of the Emperor's courtiers reported the same thing - 'a dark, sylph-like creature of stunning beauty'. 

Ayla was the jewel in the Emperor's crown, for he enjoyed the company of beautiful women every night - slaves from Nubia, Egypt, Sudan, and the Levant.  He was married to Anna Galeria Faustina The Younger, a beautiful woman in her own right; but the pleasure of an Emperor so august, powerful, and respected  could not be satisfied by her alone

The concubines of the Triumvirate - Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian - were known for their seductive charm, stunning beauty, and sexual charm.  Antony, of course, was Cleopatra's lover but that did not exclude his passion for other women of the empire. 

Xerxes and Shapur, Shahs of Persia, had harems of luxuriant slaves taken during their many military campaigns.  Under Shapur I, the Persian Empire expanded far to the East, and part of the spoils of his campaign were the most sought-after women in Anatolia and Palestine. 

Peter the Great was known as a connoisseur of women, and his harem was filled with the blonde, blue eyed women of Russia that he so favored.  The Chinese Emperors of early dynasties were no different, and favored women as far west as the Uighurs and south to Vietnam. 

Women have been commodities since the first human settlements, and in countries which still practice arranged marriage still are. They are valued for their strength, health, caste, wealth and fertility and negotiations to assure the right match for eligible suitors can involve considerable assets.  English kings traded in such valuable commodities, Henry VIII being perhaps the best known, and great store was put on strategic international marriages and marital arrangements. 

Only in slaves were beauty, sexual promise, charm, and sexual experience valued.  These women had no other importance than servicing the king so they could be chosen for these non-strategic, non-procreative qualities. 

And so it was with Thomas Jefferson, American Founding Father, author of the Constitution, and third President of the United States of America.  He married well, of course; but slaves were for his pleasure.  Sally Hemmings was the most famous of his extra-marital lovers, but he had others, both casual and longer-term.  Slaves did their masters' bidding as they always had throughout history.  Slavery was by no means a recent institution and certainly not the discovery of early Americans, and slaves were by no means always African.  Roman slaves were taken from all parts of the Empire, and while an Emperor might fancy a Nubian slave, he also had his choice of any from Europe. 

A great deal has been made by the American Left of Jefferson's relationship with Hemmings, but the motivation - as in all political fancy - was not entirely clear; or what exactly was the point of the criticism?  Surely it couldn't be concubinage, a practice of the high and mighty for millennia.  It couldn't be miscegenation - sex between white and black - for that too was as old as the hills, as old as the first Greek and Roman explorations of Africa.  It couldn't have been feminism - that had to wait two hundred more years; so it must have been something about slavery, but what?

Hemmings was a privileged slave.  After all bedded by the master and treated as his unofficial queen was not something to be ignored, and Hemmings was admired by the other slaves on the plantation as having a good thing, the only seriously good thing they could have in 1803. 

'She was abused', said Ellen Brady of the Women's Feminist Caucus, despite clear indications that she was in fact treated quite well. Abuse, as Brady defined it, was a lack of agency. Slaves could do nothing but submit to the master's will even though they hated it with heart and soul. Yet even slaves could be privileged, and so was Sally Hemmings.  Although not quite consensual the relationship with Jefferson offered mutual rewards. 

Under the institution of slavery few slaves prospered.  There were those in the Upper South who learned trades and were given some commercial independence, House slaves in the plantation Lower South benefitted from congenial surroundings, good food and lodging at the manor, and lovers like Sally Hemmings had all they could want and more.  Freedom was not an issue, advantage was. 

There is no doubt that real abuse existed in the slave-owning south.  The overseers in particular, uneducated hill people recruited for their discipline of not savagery, would routinely abuse, rape, and kill slaves.  However, this barbarity was not within the wealthy, educated class of men like Jefferson or his ancient ancestors. 

The days of slavery are over, but the sexual perks of office are not; and every President with the likely exception of Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden has had his affairs.  John F Kennedy was the best well-known, sleeping with Marilyn Monroe and other lesser but no less beautiful Hollywood starlets.  Lyndon Johnson used the Secret Service as procurers, FDR had a long-term relationship with a woman not his wife, and the list goes on.  Nothing remarkable or surprising there. 

America has always been a censoriously Puritanical country and Presidents and elected officials are supposed to be monogamous, faithful, and celibate.  Leadership demands honesty, rectitude, and faith; and hose politicians who stray outside of marriage should not be trusted with the reins of power. 

When liberal American women learned of President Bill Clinton's affair with intern Monica Lewinsky, they turned against him, said they would never vote for a philanderer.  If he cheated on his wife, he could just as easily cheat on the country.

Only in America was Clinton's dalliance taken seriously. In Africa where continuous, weekly extra-marital sexual relationships are not only common but expected, men guffawed when they heard of what Clinton did and how he did a little dance around the truth.  'It all depends on what is, is', the President said.  The reaction in the American ghetto where baby mommas are the rule was the same.  The only issue was that Clinton 'did not fuck that bitch'. 

Meanwhile, to nobody's notice or concern, Vladimir Putin has his share of beautiful Russian, Caucasian, and Ukrainian women, Xi of China is known for his eclectic taste.  China is a big country with different ethnic groups throughout, and he is known of his sophisticated taste in women. 

So, there is not a lot of difference between Sally Hemmings who knew a good thing when she saw it and the many concubines of Presidents, Emperors, Kings, and Shahs.  They all lacked 'agency' but what was that in real terms. It was like a former President of China who rejected American demands for electoral reform and to encourage freedom.  'Freedom', he said, 'is freedom from poverty' and his reforms would accelerate that goal. 

President Bukele of El Salvador has felt the same.  'Freedom', he said, 'is to be free from crime, insecurity, and fear'.  The civil rights of the people not those who do them harm. 

And so it is with sexual favors, a woman's fundamental, ineradicable agency. Looked at that way, the perks and advantages of both Hemmings and Jefferson in a commercial arrangement, the Left should not be upset. 

More than that, Jefferson was perhaps the country's most influential, transformative leader - statesman, philosopher, inventor, educator, man of letters.  No one in American history has been like him.  Even if you find some obscure reason to question his 'infidelities', should his historical legacy be enough to settle your conscience?