Recoginition Sought for Harvard's Confederate Dead

Press Release from the Southern Legal Resource Center

CAMBRIDGE, MA – The country's oldest seat of higher learning, since 1636 the gold standard for academic excellence and purveyor to the nation of presidents, ambassadors, distinguished scientists and jurists, captains of industry, etc., etc., is the principal icon of the New England Puritan intellectual tradition in America. Dedicated to the Harvard dead of all wars, its Memorial Church boasts, on the wall of the south transept, 28 white marble tablets inscribed with the names of 136 Harvard men who fought and died while serving in the Union Army.


But what of the 71 Harvard graduates who died wearing the gray? Harvard's Confederate dead include Confederate general Ben Hardin Helm, who was Abraham Lincoln's half-brother-in-law; States' Rights Gist, one of the five Confederate generals killed at Franklin; and Lt. Col. Charles LeDoux Elgee, Chief of Staff to another Harvard alum, Lt. Gen. “Dick” Taylor, son of President Zachary Taylor. You won't find their or any of the 61 other Confederate names in Memorial church, or in any of the other hallowed spots scattered about the Cambridge campus.

Not that the matter hasn't been discussed. Way back in 1988, Mason Hammond, a Harvard emeritus professor, suggested placing a Confederate memorial in Memorial Hall – not Memorial Church – which, he pointed out, “is rather a Valhalla of Harvard's past than specifically a commemoration of the Union side of the Civil War.” Such a project, Hammond said, would be “a long overdue act of pietas” [Lat.: sense of duty; kindness; piety ] that would “recognize that Harvard's dead on the Confederate side gave their lives for a cause in which they selflessly believed.” (There wasn't much Confederate pietas going around Harvard in '88 and Hammond 's proposal was either ignored or vilified.)

In 1995, when Memorial Church was being renovated, the Harvard Alumni Association actually proposed a Confederate memorial and the idea was even supported by Memorial Church 's minister; however, according to a 2003 Harvard Crimson article, that idea was shot down by the Harvard Black Law Students' Association, the undergraduate Black Students' Association and the University's then-president, Neil L. Rudenstine. In 2006, multimedia artist Brian Knep put together a digital presentation he called “Deep Wounds” which involved projecting the names of Harvard's Union dead onto the floor of Memorial Hall. The website “Big Red & Shiny” reported that Knep “originally wanted to list the names of Harvard's Confederate Civil War dead,” but said the Boston Globe reported that Harvard's Office for the Arts thought that would be “too controversial.”

Now, with the War's sesquicentennial upon us and a Harvard Law alumnus in the White House, the SLRC figures it's time to revisit this situation. Accordingly we will be contacting the Minister of Memorial Church (who supported the idea of a Confederate memorial there in '95) to ask whether he would be willing to re-endorse such a project. We will copy Harvard's Board of Overseers, and when we receive their inevitable condescending reply … well, that's when the SLRC will appeal to its own loyal supporters – y'all – to add your voices to our call for the University to live up to its motto: Veritas [ Lat.: Truth ], which seems strangely at odds with Harvard's resolutely ignoring the Confederates who made up nearly a third of the institution's WBTS casualties.. Meanwhile, if you can spare it, a contribution to this effort would be greatly appreciated. We are poor and Fair Harvard's pockets are deep indeed.


Here is a link to the Southern Legal Resource Center's website:
http://slrc-csa.org/site/pr/2010/pr03-05-2010.php

Slavery in Massachusetts

THE AFRICANS OF THE SLAVE BARK "WILDFIRE,"-- HARPER'S WEEKLY, June 2, 1860

This slave ship was built in Amesbury, Massachusetts in 1852, and was sailing from the

northeastern states in the slave trade in the days just before the War Between the States.

***

A couple of days ago I stumbled upon the WikiAnswers.com website where the following question and answer appeared:

Q. Did the Massachusetts Colony use slaves?

A. No, they didn't have slaves in Massachusetts.

I was outraged by this blatant bit of misinformation being displayed by a website which most people would consider a reputable source. I will admit that Wiki Answers allows anyone to answer questions posted on their site, but they also claim to have monitors to check those answers for accuracy. It seems to me this one should have been easy to verify as false.

Instead of complaining about the wrong answer, I simply posted the correct information, which I'm happy to say, is the one the folks at Wiki have allowed to stand. My answer, and now the Wiki Answer, is below:


Yes, slavery was practiced in all of the original American colonies.

Actually, Massachusetts was the first slave-holding colony in New England, even predating the settlement of the Massachusetts Bay Colony in 1629. Samuel Maverick, apparently New England's first slaveholder, arrived in Massachusetts in 1624 and brought with him two negro slaves.

Massachusetts also became the first American colony to give official recognition of chattel slavery as a legal institution in 1641, with the "Body of Liberties." Not until 142 years later, in 1783, was slavery finally ruled illegal in Massachusetts based on the states new constitution. However, slavery did not stop immediately even then. continuing in parts of the state until the end of the 18th century. Thus, slavery was a legal institution in Massachusetts for 142 years, and was actually a practice, first in the colony and later in the state of Massachusetts, for a total of about 170 years.

The erroneous answer on Wiki just goes to illustrate the need for blogs such as Confederate Digest. Ignorance of history is rampant thoughout America, and ignorance of the South is especially epidemic in the North. I've been in the beautiful state of Massachusetts many times, have visited every county in the state, and have met many of the people. There are lots of wonderful folks in Massachusetts, but some of them seem to have a self-righteous attitude that is condescending toward all things Southern. After all, they think, the South had slaves but not Massachusetts. A little education would show then how very wrong - or ignorant - they really are. There is no justification for such haughty arrogance.

Maybe I should have also pointed out that Massachusetts, along with New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and other northeastern states, became wealthy from the slave trade. Every American slave ship which ever sailed came from a from a northern shore, was owned by northern interests, and flew the American flag. No slave ship every sailed under the Confederate flag nor from a Confederate port. In fact, the Confederate Constitution prohibited the slave trade. But that should be the subject of another post.

When Did the States Abolish Slavery?

Click Map to Enlarge

In 1860, on the eve of the War Between the States, every state and territory in the United States, like virtually place on earth, had a history of slavery. This map shows the dates in which slavery was abolished in the northern states. These states established laws to gradually end slavery over a period of many decades, and with compensation paid to former slaver owners. So gradual was the process that some of the northern states still had remnant slave populations even up to and during the War Between the States.

I find it very interesting that places such as Minnesota did not officially end slavery until just a couple of years before they raised an army to invade, vanquish and plunder the Confederate States of America. This simply makes no sense if one believes that the war was fought over slavery, which of course it was not. It was a War to Prevent Southern Independence, motivated by greed and lust for power and empire.

The dates above show that slavery in America first ended in the New England States, however, one should also consider that Massachusetts became the first colony to legalize slavery in 1641, and Connecticut became the second colony to make the practice legal in 1650. New York and New Jersey joined the ranks of slave colonies in 1864. By contrast, a Georgia law prohibited slavery until it was repealed in 1749, which means that for more than a century slavery was legal in Massachusetts but not in Georgia. Slavery was legal in Connecticut for 190 years, compared to about 116 years in Georgia.

While visiting Boston recently I took a tour of the African American National Historic Site. The young black tour guide spoke gushingly of the way the virtuous Bostonians had led the way in crusading against slavery, never hinting that Slavery was legal in Boston for 140 years, and practiced there for even longer. She implied that it was only the evil Southerners who owned slaves. Her self righteousness was totally unjustified. Her ignorance of history, as a National Park Guide, was inexcusable.

Virtually everyone in America today agrees with Robert E. Lee who wrote, years before his native state of Virginia seceded from the Union, "Slavery as an institution is a moral and political evil." To speak of the evil of slavery as only a southern problem shows, at best, a gross ignorance of American history. At worst, it reveals a hypocritical agenda to vilify and slander the South. Could that agenda be motivated by a desire to justify an unnecessary war which killed more than 620,000 Americans and destroyed countless southern towns, cities, homes and farms?