Jump to content

1838 Jesuit slave sale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1838 Jesuit slave sale
Date
  • June 19, 1838(1838-06-19)(first agreement)
  • November 1838 (delivery)
Location
Participants

On June 19, 1838, theMarylandProvince of theSociety of Jesusagreed to sell 272slavesto twoLouisianaplanters,Henry JohnsonandJesse Batey,for $115,000 (equivalent to approximately $3.25 million in 2023). This sale was the culmination of a contentious and long-running debate among the Maryland Jesuits over whether to keep, sell, orfreetheir slaves, and whether to focus on their ruralestatesor on their growing urbanmissions,including their schools.

In 1836, theJesuit superior general,Jan Roothaan,authorized the Marylandprovincial superiorto carry out the sale on three conditions: the slaves must be permitted to practice theirCatholicfaith, their families must not be separated, and the proceeds of the sale must be used only to supportJesuits in training.It soon became clear that Roothaan's conditions had not been fully met. The Jesuits ultimately received payment many years late and never received the full $115,000. Only 206 of the 272 slaves were actually delivered because the Jesuits permitted the elderly and those with spouses who were living nearby and not owned by Jesuits to remain in Maryland.

The sale prompted immediate outcry from fellow Jesuits. Some wrote emotional letters to Roothaan denouncing its immorality. Eventually, Roothaan removedThomas Mulledyas provincial superior for disobeying orders and promoting scandal, exiling him toNicefor several years. Despite coverage of the Maryland Jesuits' slave ownership and the 1838 sale in academic literature, news of these facts came as a surprise to the public in 2015, prompting a study ofGeorgetown University's and the Jesuits' historical relationship with slavery. Georgetown and theCollege of the Holy Crossrenamed buildings, Georgetown grantedlegacy admissions preferenceto the slaves' descendants, and theJesuit Conference of Canada and the United Statespledged to raise $100 million for them.

Background

[edit]
Further information:Jesuits in the United StatesandHistory of slavery in Maryland

Emergence of Jesuit manors

[edit]
Map centered on the Chesapeake Bay with notations of Jesuit sites
Map of Jesuit sites in Maryland from the 17th to 19th centuries

TheSociety of Jesus,whose members are known as Jesuits, established its first presence in theMid-Atlanticregion of theThirteen Coloniesalongside the first settlers of theBritish Province of Maryland,which had been founded as aCatholiccolony and refuge. Three Jesuits traveled aboardThe ArkandThe DoveonLord Baltimore's voyage to settle Maryland in 1634.[1]The Jesuits receivedland patentsfrom Lord Baltimore in 1636, were gifted land in some Catholic Marylanders'wills,and purchased some land on their own, eventually becoming substantial landowners in the colony.[2]As the sole ministers of Catholicism in Maryland at the time, the Jesuitestatesbecame the centers of Catholicism. From these estates, the Jesuits traveled the countryside on horseback, administering thesacramentsandcatechizingthe Catholiclaity.They also established schools on their lands.[3]

Much of this land was put to use asplantations,the revenue from which financed the Jesuits' ministries. While the plantations were initially worked byindentured servants,as the institution of indentured servitude began to fade away in Maryland, Africanslavesreplaced indentured servants as the primary workers on the plantations.[4]Many of these slaves were gifted to the Jesuits, while others were purchased.[5]The first record of slaves working Jesuit plantations in Maryland dates to 1711, but it is likely that there were slave laborers on the plantations agenerationbefore then. When theSociety of Jesus was suppressedworldwide byPope Clement XIVin 1773, ownership of the plantations was transferred from the Jesuits' Maryland Mission to the newly established Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen.[4][a]Several of the Jesuits' slaves unsuccessfully attempted tosue for their freedomin the courts in the 1790s.[7]

By 1824, the Jesuit plantations totaled more than 12,000 acres (4,900 hectares) in theState of Maryland,and 1,700 acres (690 hectares) in easternPennsylvania.[8]These consisted primarily of the plantations ofWhite MarshinPrince George's County,St. InigoesandNewtown ManorinSt. Mary's County,St. Thomas ManorinCharles County,andBohemia ManorinCecil County.[9]The main crops grown weretobaccoandcorn.[10]

Due to these extensive landholdings, thePropaganda FideinRomehad come to view the American Jesuits negatively, believing they lived lavishly likemanorial lords.[8]In reality, by the early 19th century, the Jesuit plantations were in such a state of mismanagement that in 1820, theJesuit Superior Generalin Rome,Tadeusz Brzozowski,sent Irish JesuitPeter Kenneyas acanonical visitorto review the operations of the Maryland Mission. In addition to becoming physically dilapidated, all but one of the plantations had fallen into debt.[11]On some plantations, the majority of slaves did not work because they were too young or old. The condition of slaves on the plantations varied over time, as did the condition of the Jesuits living with them. Kenney found the slaves facing arbitrary discipline, a meager diet, pastoral neglect, and engaging invice.By the 1830s, however, their material and religious conditions had improved considerably.[12]

One of the Maryland Jesuits' institutions,Georgetown College(later known as Georgetown University), also rented slaves. While the school did own a small number of slaves over its early decades,[13]its main relationship with slavery was the leasing of slaves to work on campus,[14]a practice that continued past the 1838 slave sale.[13]

Debate over the slavery question

[edit]
Etching of Georgetown University campus in the mid-19th century
The Jesuits arguing in favor of a sale wanted to focus on their urban missions, includingGeorgetown College.

Beginning in 1800, there were instances of the Jesuit plantation managers freeing individual slaves or permitting slaves to purchase their freedom.[7]As early as 1814, the trustees of the Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen discussedmanumittingall their slaves and abolishing slavery on the Jesuit plantations,[10]though in 1820, they decided against universal manumission.[7]In 1830, the new Superior General,Jan Roothaan,returned Kenney to the United States, specifically to address the question of whether the Jesuits should divest themselves of their rural plantations altogether, which by this time had almost completely paid down their debts.[15]

While Roothaan decided in 1831, based on the advice of the Maryland Missionsuperior,Francis Dzierozynski,that the Jesuits should maintain and improve their plantations rather than sell them, Kenney and his advisors (Thomas Mulledy,William McSherry,andStephen Dubuisson) wrote to Roothaan in 1832 about the growing public opposition to slavery in the United States, and strongly urged Roothaan to allow the Jesuits to gradually free their slaves.[16]Mulledy in particular felt that the plantations were a drain on the Maryland Jesuits; he urged selling the plantations as well as the slaves, believing the Jesuits were only able to support either their estates or their schools in growing urban areas: Georgetown College inWashington, D.C.,andSt. John's CollegeinFrederick, Maryland.[17]

Mulledy and McSherry became increasingly vocal in their opposition to Jesuit slave ownership. While they continued to support gradual emancipation, they believed that this option was becoming increasingly untenable, as the Maryland public's concern grew about the expanding number offree blacks.The two feared that because the public would not accept additional manumitted blacks, the Jesuits would be forced to sell their slavesen masse.[18]

The Maryland Jesuits, having been elevated from amissionto the status of aprovincein 1833,[17]held their firstprovincial congregationin 1835, where they considered again what to do with their plantations.[18]The province was sharply divided, with the American-born Jesuits supporting a sale and themissionaryEuropean Jesuits opposing on the basis that it was immoral both to sell their patrimonial lands and to materially and morally harm the slaves by selling them into theDeep South,where they did not want to go.[19]At the congregation, the senior Jesuits in Maryland voted six to four to proceed with a sale of the slaves,[20]and Dubuisson submitted to the Superior General a summary of the moral and financial arguments on either side of the debate.[21]

Meanwhile, in order to fund the province's operations,[22]McSherry, as the firstprovincial superiorof the Maryland Province,[17]began selling small groups of slaves to planters inLouisianain 1835, arguing that it was not possible to sell the slaves to local planters and that the buyers had assured him that they would not mistreat the slaves and would permit them to practice their Catholic faith.[22]

The sale

[edit]

In October 1836, Roothaan officially authorized the Maryland Jesuits to sell their slaves, so long as three conditions were satisfied: the slaves were to be permitted to practice their Catholic faith, their families were not to be separated, and the proceeds of the sale had to be used to supportJesuits in training,[23]rather than to pay down debts.[5]McSherry delayed selling the slaves because theirmarket valuehad greatly diminished as a result of thePanic of 1837,[24]and because he was searching for a buyer who would agree to these conditions.[5]In October of that year, Mulledy succeeded McSherry, who was dying, as provincial superior.[24]

Mulledy quickly made arrangements to carry out the sale.[24]He located two Louisiana planters who were willing to purchase the slaves:Henry Johnson,a formerUnited States Senatorandgovernor of Louisiana,andJesse Batey.They were looking to buy slaves in theUpper Southmore cheaply than they could in the Deep South, and agreed to Mulledy's asking price of approximately $400 per person.[5]

Page number one
Page number two
Page number three
Page number four
Page number five
Page number six
Page number seven
Page number eight
Articles of agreement for the 1838 sale

Terms of the agreement

[edit]

On June 19, 1838, Mulledy, Johnson, and Batey signed articles of agreement formalizing the sale. Johnson and Batey agreed to pay $115,000,[5]equivalent to $3.25 million in 2023,[25]over the course of ten years plus six percent annual interest. In exchange, they would receive 272 slaves from the four Jesuit plantations insouthern Maryland,[5][24]constituting nearly all of the slaves owned by the Maryland Jesuits.[26]Johnson and Batey were to be heldjointly and severally liableand each additionally identified a responsible party as aguarantor.The slaves were also identified ascollateralin the event that Johnson, Batey, and their guarantorsdefaultedon their payments.[27]

Yellow sheet of paper with handwritten list
First page of themanifestof slaves carried aboard theKatherine Jacksonto Louisiana

The articles of agreement listed each of the slaves being sold by name. More than half were younger than 20, and nearly a third were not yet 10 years old.[27]The agreement provided that 51 slaves would be sent to the port ofAlexandria, Virginia,in order to be shipped to Louisiana. Upon receipt of these 51, Johnson and Batey were to pay the first $25,000. The first payment on the remaining $90,000 would become due after five years. The remainder of the slaves were accounted for in three subsequent bills of sale executed in November 1838, which specified that 64 would go to Batey's plantation named West Oak inIberville Parishand 140 slaves would be sent to Johnson's two plantations,[27]Ascension Plantation (later known as Chatham Plantation) inAscension Parishand another inMaringouinin Iberville Parish.[28]

Delivery of the slaves

[edit]

Anticipating that some of the Jesuit plantation managers who opposed the sale would encourage their slaves to flee, Mulledy, along with Johnson and asheriff,arrived at each of the plantations unannounced to gather the first 51 slaves for transport.[24]When Mulledy returned in November to gather the rest of the slaves, the plantation managers had their slaves flee and hide.[29]The slaves Mulledy gathered were sent on the three-week voyage aboard theKatherine Jackson,[27]which departed Alexandria on November 13 and arrived inNew Orleanson December 6.[28]Most of the slaves who fled returned to their plantations, and Mulledy made a third visit later that month, where he gathered some of the remaining slaves for transport.[29]

Not all of the 272 slaves intended to be sold to Louisiana met that fate.[30]In total, only 206 are known to have been transported to Louisiana. Several substitutions were made to the initial list of those to be sold, and 91 of those initially listed remained in Maryland.[31][b]There are several reasons many slaves were left behind. The Jesuits decided that the elderly would not be sold south and instead would be permitted to remain in Maryland. Other slaves were sold locally in Maryland so that they would not be separated from their spouses who were either free or owned by non-Jesuits, in compliance with Roothaan's order.[27]Johnson allowed these slaves to remain in Maryland because he intended to return and try to buy their spouses as well.[29]Some of the initial 272 slaves who were not delivered to Johnson were replaced with substitutes.[32]An unknown number of slaves may also haverun awayand escaped transportation.[33]

Aftermath

[edit]

Scandal and reproach

[edit]
Black and white portrait of Thomas Mulledy
Thomas F. Mulledywas rebuked by many of his fellow Jesuits following the sale.

Almost immediately, the sale, which was one of the largest slave sales in the history of the United States,[28]became a scandal among American Catholics.[34]Many Maryland Jesuits were outraged by the sale, which they considered to be immoral, and many of them wrote graphic, emotional accounts of the sale to Roothaan.[35][34]Benedict Fenwick,a Jesuit and theBishop of Boston,privately lamented the fate of the slaves and considered the sale an extreme measure. Dubuisson described how the public reputation of the Jesuits in Washington andVirginiadeclined as a result of the sale. Other Jesuits voiced their anger to theArchbishop of Baltimore,Samuel Eccleston,who conveyed this to Roothaan.[34]During the controversy, Mulledy fell intoalcoholism.[36]

Soon after the sale, Roothaan decided that Mulledy should be removed as provincial superior.[37]Roothaan was particularly concerned because it had become clear that, contrary to his order, families had been separated by the slaves' new owners.[34]In the years after the sale, it also became clear that most of the slaves were not permitted to carry on their Catholic faith because they were living on plantations far removed from any Catholic church orpriest.[38]While McSherry initially persuaded Roothaan to forgo removing Mulledy,[37]in August 1839, Roothaan resolved that Mulledy must be removed to quell the ongoing scandal. He demanded that Mulledy travel to Rome to answer the charges of disobeying orders and promoting scandal.[35]He ordered McSherry to inform Mulledy that he had been removed as provincial superior, and that if Mulledy refused to step down, he would be dismissed from the Society of Jesus.[37]

Before Roothaan's order reached Mulledy, Mulledy had already accepted the advice of McSherry and Eccleston in June 1839 to resign and go to Rome to defend himself before Roothaan.[37]As censure for the scandal,[39]Roothaan ordered Mulledy to remain in Europe,[35]and Mulledy lived in exile in theSavoyardcity ofNiceuntil 1843.[39]

Financial outcome

[edit]

While Roothaan ordered that the proceeds of the sale be used to provide for the training of Jesuits, the initial $25,000 was not used for that purpose. Of the sum, $8,000 was used to satisfy a financial obligation that,[23]following a long-running and contentious dispute,Pope Pius VIIhad previously determined the Maryland Jesuits owed to ArchbishopAmbrose Maréchalof Baltimore and his successors.[40]The remaining $17,000, equivalent to approximately $480,000 in 2023,[25]was used to offset part of Georgetown College's $30,000 of debt that had accrued during the construction of buildings during Mulledy's priorpresidency of the college.However, the remainder of the money received did go to funding Jesuit formation.[24]

Johnson was unable to pay according to the schedule of the agreement. As a result, he had to sell his property in the 1840s and renegotiate the terms of his payment. He was allowed to continue paying well beyond the ten years initially allowed, and continued to do so until just before theEmancipation Proclamationin 1862, during theCivil War.[41]The Jesuits never received the total $115,000 that was owed under the agreement.[42]

Photograph of man standing outdoors with two girls
Frank Campbell (top) was sold by the Jesuits[43]

Subsequent fate of the slaves

[edit]

Before theabolition of slavery in the United Statesin 1865, many slaves sold by the Jesuits changed ownership several times. Following Batey's death, his West Oak plantation and the slaves living there were sold in January 1853 toTennesseepoliticianWashington Barrowand Barrow's son, John S. Barrow, a resident ofBaton Rouge, Louisiana.[44][45]In 1856, Washington Barrow sold the slaves he purchased from Batey to William Patrick and Joseph B. Woolfolk of Iberville Parish.[46]Patrick and Woolfolk's slaves were then sold in July 1859 to Emily Sparks, the widow ofAustin Woolfolk.[47]Due to financial difficulties, Johnson sold half his property, including some of the slaves he had purchased in 1838, to Philip Barton Key in 1844. Key then transferred this property to John R. Thompson. In 1851, Thompson purchased the second half of Johnson's property, so that by the beginning of the Civil War, all the slaves sold by Mulledy to Johnson were owned by Thompson.[48]

Legacy

[edit]

Historiography

[edit]

While the 1838 slave sale gave rise to scandal at the time, the event eventually faded out of public awareness. However, the history of the sale and the Jesuits' slave ownership was never secret.[49]It is one of the most well-documented slave sales of its era.[50]There was periodic and sometimes extensive coverage of both the sale and the Jesuits' slave ownership in various literature. Articles in theWoodstock Letters,an internal Jesuit publication that later became accessible to the public, routinely addressed both subjects during the course of its existence from 1872 to 1969. The 1970s saw an increase in public scholarship on the Maryland Jesuits' slave ownership.[49]In 1977, the Maryland Province named Georgetown'sLauinger Libraryas the custodian of its historic archives, which were made available to the public through theGeorgetown University Library,Saint Louis UniversityLibrary, andMaryland State Library.[51]

In 1981, historian Robert Emmett Curran presented comprehensive research into the Maryland Jesuits' participation in slavery at academic conferences, and published this research in 1983.[51]Curran also published Georgetown University's official bicentennial history in 1993, in which he wrote about the university's and the Jesuits' relationship with slavery.[52]Other historians covered the subject in literature published between the 1980s and 2000s. In 1996, the Jesuit Plantation Project was established by historians at Georgetown, which made available to the public, via the internet, digitized versions of much of the Maryland Jesuits' archives, including the articles of agreement for the 1838 sale.[51]

Return to public awareness

[edit]
Black and white photograph of Mulledy Hall
Mulledy Hall, now Isaac Hawkins Hall, at Georgetown in 1898

The 1838 slave sale returned to the public's awareness in the mid-2010s. In 2013, Georgetown began planning to renovate the adjacent Ryan, Mulledy, and Gervase Halls, which together served as the university's Jesuit residence until the opening of a new residence, Wolfington Hall, in 2003.[53]After the Jesuits vacated the buildings, Ryan and Mulledy Halls lay vacant, while Gervase Hall was put to other use.[54]In 2014, renovation began on Ryan and Mulledy Halls to convert them into a student residence.[55]

With work complete, in August 2015, university presidentJohn DeGioiasent an open letter to the university announcing the opening of the new student residence, which also related Mulledy's role in the 1838 slave sale after stepping down as president of the university.[56]Despite the decades of scholarship on the subject, this revelation came as a surprise to many Georgetown University members,[49][57]and some criticized the retention of Mulledy's name on the building.[58]Between 2014 and 2015, several articles in the school newspaper,The Hoya,also brought the university's relationship with slavery and the slave sale to public attention.[59]

Photograph of McSherry Hall partially covered in ivy
Anne Marie Becraft Hall, known until 2015 as McSherry Hall

Renaming halls

[edit]

In September 2015, DeGioia convened a Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation to study the slave sale and recommend how to treat it in the present day.[60]In November of that year, following a student-led protest and sit-in,[38]the working group recommended that the university temporarily rename Mulledy Hall (which opened during Mulledy's presidency in 1833)[61]to Freedom Hall, and McSherry Hall (which opened in 1792 and housed a meditation center)[62]to Remembrance Hall. On November 14, 2015, DeGioia announced that he and theuniversity's board of directorsaccepted the working group's recommendation, and would rename the buildings accordingly. This coincided with a protest by a group of students against keeping Mulledy's and McSherry's names on the buildings the day before.[58][63]In 2016,The New York Timespublished an article that brought the history of the Jesuits' and university's relationship with slavery to national attention.[64][38]

TheCollege of the Holy CrossinMassachusetts,of which Mulledy was the first president from 1843 to 1848, also began to reconsider the name of one of its buildings in 2015.[65]Mulledy Hall, a student dormitory that opened in 1966,[66]was renamed as Brooks–Mulledy Hall in 2016, adding the name of a later president,John E. Brooks,who worked toracially integratethe college.[67]In 2020, the college removed Mulledy's name.[66]

On April 18, 2017, DeGioia, along with the provincial superior of the Maryland Province, and the president of theJesuit Conference of Canada and the United States,held aliturgyin which they formally apologized on behalf of their respective institutions for their participation in slavery.[68]The university also gave permanent names to the two buildings. Freedom Hall became Isaac Hawkins Hall, after the first slave listed on the articles of agreement for the 1838 sale. Remembrance Hall becameAnne Marie BecraftHall, after a free black woman who founded a school for black girls in theGeorgetownneighborhood and later joined theOblate Sisters of Providence.[69]

Additional developments

[edit]

Georgetown University also extended to descendants of slaves who the Jesuits owned or whose labor benefitted the university the same preferentiallegacy statusinuniversity admissiongiven to children ofGeorgetown alumni.This admissions preference has been described by historianCraig Steven Wilderas the most significant measure recently taken by a university to account for its historical relationship with slavery.[70]Several groups of descendants have been created, which have lobbied Georgetown University and the Society of Jesus forreparations,and groups have disagreed with the form that their desired reparations should take.[71]

In 2019, undergraduate students at Georgetown voted in a non-bindingreferendumto impose a symbolic reparations fee of $27.20 per student.[72]The university instead decided to raise $400,000 per year in voluntary donations for the benefit of descendants.[73]In 2021, the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States pledged to raise $100million for a newly created Descendants Truth and Reconciliation Foundation, which would aim to ultimately raise $1billion, with the purpose of working for the benefit of descendants of all slaves owned by the Jesuits.[73][71]Georgetown also made a $1million donation to the foundation and a $400,000 donation to create a charitable fund to pay for healthcare and education in Maringouin, Louisiana.[71]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^The Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen was created in 1792 to preserve the property of thesuppressed Jesuit order.The suppressed Jesuits did not want their property to be seized by the state, by thePropaganda Fide(which, since 1776, hadecclesiastical jurisdictionover the United States as a mission church), or by theArchbishop of Baltimore(whom thePropaganda Fidehad ordered to take possession of all Jesuit property). The Jesuits hoped the Society of Jesus would eventually be restored and the corporation's property transferred to the Jesuit superior in America. Even after the Jesuits were restored in the United States and worldwide, the Corporation continued to exist and even expanded for some time, causing friction among those who renewed their Jesuit vows and those who did not.[6]
  2. ^The number of slaves transported to Louisiana (206) and the number left in Maryland (91) add up to 297, not 272, because some of the 272 slaves initially identified to be sold were substituted with replacements.[31]

References

[edit]

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^Curran 2012,p. 2
  2. ^Curran 2012,pp. 31–32
  3. ^Curran 2012,p. 3
  4. ^abCurran 2012,p. 32
  5. ^abcdefRothman 2017,p. 18
  6. ^Curran 2012,pp. 15–16
  7. ^abcCurran 2012,p. 39
  8. ^abCurran 2012,p. 31
  9. ^Jacobe, Stephanie A. T. (February 2, 2021)."Where were the Jesuit plantations in Maryland?".Catholic Standard.Archivedfrom the original on November 20, 2021.RetrievedNovember 20,2021.
  10. ^abCurran 2012,p. 38
  11. ^Curran 2012,p. 34
  12. ^Curran 2012,pp. 35–36
  13. ^abMendoza 2020,p. 57
  14. ^Mendoza 2020,p. 64
  15. ^Curran 2012,p. 40
  16. ^Curran 2012,p. 41
  17. ^abcCurran 2012,p. 42
  18. ^abCurran 2012,p. 43
  19. ^Curran 2012,pp. 43–45
  20. ^Judge 1959,p. 397
  21. ^Judge 1959,pp. 395–397
  22. ^abCurran 2012,p. 46
  23. ^abCurran 2012,pp. 46–47
  24. ^abcdefCurran 2012,p. 47
  25. ^abJohnston, Louis; Williamson, Samuel H. (2023)."What Was the U.S. GDP Then?".MeasuringWorth.RetrievedNovember 30,2023.United StatesGross Domestic Product deflatorfigures follow theMeasuringWorthseries.
  26. ^Rothman 2020,p. 8
  27. ^abcdeRothman 2017,p. 21
  28. ^abc"The Fate and Legacy of the GU272".AmericanAncestors.org.New England Historic Genealogical Society.Archived fromthe originalon June 21, 2021.RetrievedNovember 21,2021.
  29. ^abcCurran 2012,p. 48
  30. ^McCoy, Terrence (April 28, 2018)."They thought Georgetown University's missing slaves were 'lost.' The truth was closer to home than anyone knew".The Washington Post.Archivedfrom the original on November 24, 2020.RetrievedJanuary 23,2022.
  31. ^abThe Lost Jesuit Slaves of Maryland 2018,p. 9
  32. ^The Lost Jesuit Slaves of Maryland 2018,p. 8
  33. ^The Lost Jesuit Slaves of Maryland 2018,pp. 10, 53–55
  34. ^abcdCurran 2012,p. 49
  35. ^abcKuzniewski 1999,p. 29
  36. ^Kuzniewski 1999,p. 40
  37. ^abcdCurran 2012,p. 50
  38. ^abcSwarns, Rachel L.(April 16, 2016)."272 Slaves Were Sold to Save Georgetown. What Does It Owe Their Descendants?".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on November 18, 2021.RetrievedNovember 22,2021.
  39. ^ab"Holy Cross: 1843–1899".College of the Holy Cross.Archivedfrom the original on December 2, 2018.RetrievedDecember 2,2018.
  40. ^Curran 2012,pp. 17–20
  41. ^Rothman 2017,p. 22
  42. ^What We Know: Report to the President of The College of The Holy Cross 2016,p. 24
  43. ^Mauro, Ellen (April 7, 2018)."Students of history".Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.Archivedfrom the original on November 19, 2022.RetrievedJune 18,2023.
  44. ^"Historical Timeline: Events Affecting the GU272 from the 1838 Sale to the Present".AmericanAncestors.org.New England Historic Genealogical Society.Archivedfrom the original on March 23, 2022.RetrievedMarch 23,2022.
  45. ^"Bill of Sale from the Heirs of Jesse Batey to Washington Barrow, January 18, 1853".Georgetown Slavery Archive.Archivedfrom the original on July 14, 2020.RetrievedNovember 21,2021.
  46. ^"Bill of Sale for Land and People from Washington Barrow to William Patrick and Joseph B. Woolfolk, February 4, 1856".Georgetown Slavery Archive.February 4, 1856.Archivedfrom the original on March 24, 2018.RetrievedNovember 21,2021.
  47. ^"Bill of Sale for Land and 138 People from William Patrick and Joseph Woolfolk to Emily Sparks, Widow of Austin Woolfolk, July 16, 1859".Georgetown Slavery Archive.July 16, 1859.Archivedfrom the original on March 24, 2018.RetrievedNovember 21,2021.
  48. ^"Henry Johnson's Sales of Enslaved Persons, 1844–1851".Georgetown Slavery Archive.Archivedfrom the original on December 2, 2018.RetrievedNovember 21,2021.
  49. ^abcReport of the Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation 2016,p. 11
  50. ^Foley 2017,p. 130
  51. ^abcReport of the Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation 2016,p. 12
  52. ^Curran 1993,pp. 119–121
  53. ^Eagan, Owen (March 3, 2015)."Reviving History With New Academy".The Hoya.Archivedfrom the original on August 4, 2024.RetrievedAugust 4,2024.
  54. ^"University Requests Change in Use for Ryan Hall and Mulledy Hall".Georgetown University.October 1, 2013.Archivedfrom the original on April 10, 2021.RetrievedNovember 24,2021.
  55. ^"Renovation of Former Jesuit Residence Beginning May 19".Georgetown University.April 21, 2014.Archivedfrom the original on November 24, 2021.RetrievedNovember 24,2021.
  56. ^DeGioia, John J.(August 24, 2015)."A Message Regarding Mulledy Hall".Georgetown University.Archivedfrom the original on November 24, 2021.RetrievedNovember 24,2021.
  57. ^Quallen, Matthew (September 11, 2015)."Slavery's Remnants, Buried and Overlooked".The Hoya.Archivedfrom the original on February 26, 2021.RetrievedNovember 24,2021.
  58. ^abShaver, Katherine (November 15, 2015)."Georgetown University to rename two buildings that reflect school's ties to slavery".The Washington Post.Archivedfrom the original on November 24, 2021.RetrievedNovember 24,2021.
  59. ^Report of the Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation 2016,p. 13
  60. ^DeGioia, John J.(September 24, 2015)."Announcing the Working Group on Slavery, Memory & Reconciliation".Georgetown University.Archivedfrom the original on February 18, 2021.RetrievedNovember 24,2021.
  61. ^"Concrete Expressions of Georgetown's Jesuit Heritage: A Photographic Sampler of Campus Buildings and the Jesuits for Whom They are Named From the University Archives".Georgetown University Library.January 15, 2004.Archivedfrom the original on February 19, 2021.RetrievedNovember 28,2021.
  62. ^O'Neill & Smith 2020,p. 26
  63. ^Hung, Toby; Puri, Ashwin (November 17, 2015)."Heeding Demands, University Renames Buildings".The Hoya.Archivedfrom the original on August 22, 2021.RetrievedNovember 24,2021.
  64. ^Rothman 2020,p. 3
  65. ^What We Know: Report to the President of The College of The Holy Cross 2016,pp. 1, 20
  66. ^ab"Mulledy Name To Be Removed From Brooks–Mulledy Hall".College of the Holy Cross.September 30, 2020.Archivedfrom the original on October 1, 2020.RetrievedNovember 27,2021.
  67. ^Boroughs, Philip L.(June 16, 2016)."President's Response to Report of the Mulledy/Healy Legacy Committee".College of the Holy Cross.Archivedfrom the original on June 17, 2016.RetrievedNovember 27,2021.
  68. ^Duster, Chandelis R.; Kwak, Bethia (April 19, 2017)."Georgetown Apologizes, Renames Halls After Slaves".NBC News.Archivedfrom the original on November 12, 2020.RetrievedNovember 27,2021.
  69. ^"Georgetown Apologizes for 1838 Sale of More Than 270 Enslaved, Dedicates Buildings".Georgetown University.April 18, 2017.Archivedfrom the original on November 3, 2021.RetrievedNovember 27,2021.
  70. ^Swarns, Rachel L.(September 1, 2016)."Georgetown University Plans Steps to Atone for Slave Past".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on October 1, 2021.RetrievedNovember 27,2021.
  71. ^abcHawkins, Lee; Belkin, Douglas (March 25, 2022)."For Georgetown, Jesuits and Slavery Descendants, Bid for Racial Healing Sours Over Reparations".The Wall Street Journal.Archivedfrom the original on March 25, 2022.RetrievedMarch 26,2022.
  72. ^Hassan, Adeel (April 12, 2019)."Georgetown Students Agree to Create Reparations Fund".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on July 26, 2021.RetrievedNovember 27,2021.
  73. ^abSwarns, Rachel L.(March 15, 2021)."Catholic Order Pledges $100 Million to Atone for Slave Labor and Sales".The New York Times.Archivedfrom the original on November 21, 2021.RetrievedNovember 27,2021.

Sources

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1838_Jesuit_slave_sale&oldid=1238558543"