News on D.C. memorial for black patriots ( Mon, 11 Mar 1996 07:10:10 EST)
The New York Times (March 11, 1996): General Motors has pledged $1.1 million to the Black Patriots Foundation, which is raising funds to build a memorial honoring the black patriots of the American Revolution.
"The monument would be built between the Washington Monument and the Lincoln Memorial. The design features two curved walls and a 90-foot bronze sculpture. One wall is devoted to a narrative describing the contributions of the many slaves and freed African-American men who elected to fight against the British for the independence of the Colonies."
Legislation authorizing the location for the monument expires in October, 1996.
John Daniel Saillant
Moderator, IEAHCNET
Visiting Assistant Professor, History
Brown University, Box N
Providence, R.I. 02912
Saillant@Brownvm.Brown.EDU
Americans who fought with the British--for their own freedom? I'm wndering whether other scholars think that a modern-day monument should do more than ratify certain simplistic myths of ethnic/racial contributions to the glorious American fight for freedom. Sure, you could argue that the American Revolution laid the seeds for the destruction of slavery, and it certainly sped the formation of free black communities in the north. But doesn't the work of Sylvia Frey and others point in the direction of a more complex approach to memorialization? (And for that matter, what's General Motors got to do with it???)
Maybe the historical profession should encourage a contest for alternative designs for a monument to blacks' struggle for freedom in America. There's no question that something of this sort belongs on the Mall in D.C. The question is what such a monument will say & how it will say it.
David Waldstreicher
Bennington College
I would like to second David Waldstreicher's comments regarding the Black Patriots' Memorial. Suppose we erect a monument that ignores the sensible decision made by so many African-American Loyalists to throw their lot in the King. Suppose we justify this monument by emphasizing that the seeds of slavery's destruction lay in revolutionary rhetoric; that would still not take into account the fact that emancipation in the British Empire preceeded the thirteenth amendment by a full generation! Perhaps a memorial to Union soldiers of the Civil War would be more appropriate. But need it even be a war memorial? For example, why not a monument to those who attended/spoke at the 1963 March on Washington?
Jim Rice
Central Washington University
On Tue, 12 Mar 1996, David Waldstreicher wrote:
> Re: the Black Patriots' Memorial: any mention of the African
> Americans who fought with the British--for their own freedom? I'm
> wndering whether other scholars think that a modern-day monument
should do
> more than ratify certain simplistic myths of ethnic/racial contributions
to
> the glorious American fight for freedom. Sure, you could argue that
the
> American Revolution laid the seeds for the destruction of slavery,
and it
> certainly sped the formation of free black communities in the north.
But
> doesn't the work of Sylvia Frey and others point in the direction of
a
> more complex approach to memorialization? (And for that matter, what's
> General Motors got to do with it???)
>
> Maybe the historical profession should encourage a contest for
> alternative designs for a monument to blacks' struggle for freedom
in
> America. There's no question that something of this sort belongs on
the
> Mall in D.C. The question is what such a monument will say & how
it will
> say it.
>
> David Waldstreicher
> Bennington College
>
Dear David:
I couldn't agree with you more. Benjamin Quarles said it first,
and best, in his classic The Negro in the American Revolution. The role of
African Americans in the Revolutionary War can best be understood, Quarles
wrote, by realizing that "their major loyalty was not to place nor a
people, but to a principle." Insofar as blacks had freedom of choice, they
were "likely to join the side that made [them] the quickest and best offer
in terms of those 'inalienable rights' of which Mr. Jefferson had spoken.
Whoever invoked the image of liberty, be he American or British, could
count on a ready response from blacks." According to Quarles' estimate,
only 5,000 blacks served in patriot forces. What about the tens of
thousands of others who gave their lives for the same principle, if not the
same cause?
The issue is immensely important, both for our understanding of the African American experience in the Revolutionary War & for our better understanding of how the African American presence continually forces a re-examination, & ultimately a re-definition, of the abstract principles which are fundamental--& unique--to this society. Sylvia Frey
Sylvia R. Frey frey@Mailhost.tcs.tulane.edu
Department of History
Tulane University Fax:(504) 862-8739
New Orleans, Louisiana 70118 Voice: (504) 862-8607
Need I say that I concur with the comments of Sylvia Frey and Jim Rice on the point about the black patriots' memorial made initially by David Waldstreicher? I shared the same reaction when I heard originally of the plan for such a monument. Like Sylvia, I've actually done research on the black loyalists (those who went to England, then Sierra Leone, were the subject of one of my first published articles), and I have long stressed in my classes and writings that in the context of the Rev. joining the British could more easily accomplish blacks' ultimate goal of escaping their own bondage than would fighting on the side of their masters.
BTW, subscribers to this list might be interested to know that several years ago an anonymous reviewer of my chapters of our textbook,*A People and a Nation*, accused me of being a racist because of my emphasis on black loyalists rather than patriots in my discussion of this issue. I suspect that a similar reaction might emerge should IEAHCnet types try to bring this interpretation to the attention of the promoters of the monument.
Mary Beth Norton
M.D. Alger Professor of American History
Cornell University
325 McGraw Hall
Ithaca, N.Y. 14853-4601
(607) 255-7542 or 4367 // Fax: 255-0469
e-mail: mbn1@cornell.edu
The discussion about the Black Patriots' Monument has been most interesting to me, especially since one of the subjects I am currently studying in my dissertation is the creation of Revolutionary War monuments between 1776 and 1825.
It seems to me that this attempt to memorialize African American soldiers of the Revolutionary War is true to the long tradition of various groups using the memory of the war to enhance their own political identity, status, power in American society, etc.. The monument is really more about the struggle of those who want to construct it to have "their" heritage included in the national memory (as represented on the Mall in Washington) than it is about whether more African Americans fought for the Patriots or the Whigs.
The figure of the Revolutionary War hero is still a very powerful one in our culture today, just as it was immediately after the War itself. You can view its importance in a negative way in the use of the "minuteman" by the modern "militia" movements. It is no coincidence that these groups revere April 19, the anniversary of the battles of Lexington and Concord.
Those who are trying to construct the monument to African American soldiers are drawing on the legitimate experiences of those who fought in the war to argue for the importance and inclusion of African Americans in the nation.
All this being said, it is even more important for scholars to bring the variety of Black experiences during the War to public notice. Our purposes are not the same as memorialists.
Sarah Purcell
Brown University
Friends --
I am surprised to read so many comments that include that old "gem" viz.,
the American Revolution held the seeds of freedom in America, as
part of the axiomatic reason one would support such a memorial. Do not
misunderstand me. I, too, support such a memorial but I would hardly cite
the "seeds of freedom in America" as some sort of comfortable (and
comforting) fact. The War for Independence did not rid the colonies of
slavery and it is abundantly clear that slavery became increasingly fixed,
further institutionalized after the war. The language of liberty that has
been frequently invoked by historians and non-historians alike to
underscore how America was indeed a unique project can not be applied to most groups
who were an integral part of the building of America; the absence of a king
does not liberty make. I will refrain from belaboring the point.
This is not, admittedly, the core of the discussion about the black patriots memorial, but as historians it should be incumbent upon us to be more aware than most of the kind of historical statements we employ.
T.K. Hunter
Columbia University
Email: tkh4@columbia.edu
Jim Rice said yesterday on this topic "emancipation in the British Empire preceeded the thirteenth amendment by a full generation!"
From the distant view of the Scots Highland county of Glengarry in Eastern Ontario (Canada) we have a minor historical note to share with the List.
Our area was hewn *sui generis* from the primaeval forests of Upper Canada in 1784 by United Empire Loyalist refugees from Sir William Johnson's estates in the Mohawk River Valley of New York province. The second concession of our Lancaster Township was a that time configured like the keys of a piano wherein the loyalist 100-acre land grants were given to all soldiers of Sir John Johnson's Kings Royal Regiment of New York -- irrespective of colour. The small history of this handful of Black Loyalists of 1784 is one of the studies of our local historical society.
Assuredly, small potatoes compared to the urban black loyalists of costal New York and New Jersey who arrived en masse to Nova Scotia -- many who went on to the colony of Sierra Leone and others who stayed in Halifax where they remain a distinctly Canadian community.
David G Anderson <anderson@glen-net.ca
Glengarry Historical Society - 1784
Williamstown, Ontario, Canada K0C 2J0
There has been other controversy about this memorial. (Washington Post article by Megan Rosenfeld, January 27, 1993, pp. D1 and D4: "Divided Over a Dream: A Monumental Battle/Will the Black Patriots Memorial Die In the War Between Its Proponents?") This lengthy feature article is about a power struggle over running the process of seeing the memorial to completion.
Sarah Purcell's thoughts on this memorial, in a message on March 13, closely reflect the views of Maurice Barboza. Barboza, an African American, was the person who first conceived of this monument in 1985 and was virtually a one man force to pursuing Congressional approval. The article indicates that he wanted to rectify the small number (only 4) of monuments to African Americans in a city in which they are a majority of the population. Barboza's interest is also linked to his having a white ancestor who fought in the Revolution. Barboza seems to have seized on the notion of blacks fighting ultimately for their own freedom by fighting the British. Apparently, he did some research into the numbers of blacks who fought and the article has a passing reference to loyalists. There is no indication in the article that he was interested in advancing the loyalist idea as part of this memorial or a separate one.
A few days ago someone asked what the General Motors connection is. According to the Post article, it seems that Barboza's aunt knew the wife of GM's lobbyist in Washington. This woman was instrumental in helping put a board together to look into fundraising and that's when the power struggle began.
Jenny Heaps
National Archives and Records Administration
College Park, MD
Ms. Hunter's response to two recent comments on this list misses the point. If I correctly recall David Waldstreicher's initial message, he was saying that even if we accept that "old 'gem'" we should still question the appropriatness of the proposed D.C. memorial in its current form. When seconding that motion, I undermined even David's highly qualified statement by pointing out that Loyalism was a more sensible choicefor many mainland slaves, and further that Afro-Caribbeans were emancipated long before those in the U.S. This hardly amounts to a ringing endorsement of the "seeds of freedom" thesis.
I'm also confused by Thea's perception that the "seeds of freedom" thesis amounted to an "axiomatic reason" for supporting the memorial. David mentioned that thesis as a possible counterargument to his own, but then rejected it. Others followed suit. I don't recall anyone on this list expressing their approval of the monument in its current form, except for Ms. Hunter ("I, too, support such a memorial").
Finally, is the "seeds of freedom thesis" really so patently absurd as Ms. Hunter would have us believe? No one suggested that the Revolution ended slavery, and no one advanced a comprehensive argument for American exceptionalism. But certainly women and African-Americans found it very useful to draw upon the language of liberty and apply it to their own experiences. Frederick Douglass, for example, used the Declaration of Independence to skewer the hypocrites who preached liberty but permitted slavery to exist--and this in a Fourth of July speech. The "Declaration of Sentiments" adopted at the Seneca Falls convention borrowed even more directly from that document. Clearly at least some oppressed peoples found the seeds of freedom in revolutionary rhetoric. It's possible for a historian to believe this and, at the same time, see the Constitution as a ringing endorsement of slavery, because people like Douglass and the women of Seneca Falls were perfectly capable of seeing the radical, if latent, implications of the revolutionary language of liberty.
I fully agree that we as historians should be aware of the kinds of historical statments we employ. We should also take care to read each others' words carefully enough to distinguish between a minor qualification and a major substantive point.
Perhaps we could turn this thread in a more positive direction. Mary Beth Norton quite sensibly pointed out the potential consequences of taking a public stance against the proposed monument. Could we talk about what has & hasn't worked for those of us who try to adequately address the loyalists and the disaffected within the confines of a survey course? How does one historicize a myth--of British tyranny and American solidarity--that students have imbibed from birth? How does one accomplish this in a class that can devote at most ten hours to the revolutionary era?
Cheers,
Jim Rice
Central Washington University
On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Thea K Hunter wrote:
> Friends --
> I am surprised to read so many comments that include that old "gem"
viz.,
> the American Revolution held the seeds of freedom in America, as
> part of the axiomatic reason one would support such a memorial. Do
not
> misunderstand me. I, too, support such a memorial but I would hardly
cite
> the "seeds of freedom in America" as some sort of comfortable
(and
> comforting) fact. The War for Independence did not rid the colonies
of
> slavery and it is abundantly clear that slavery became increasingly
fixed,
> further institutionalized after the war. The language of liberty that
has
> been frequently invoked by historians and non-historians alike to
underscore
> how America was indeed a unique project can not be applied to most
groups
> who were an integral part of the building of America; the absence of a
king
> does not liberty make. I will refrain from belaboring the point.
>
> This is not, admittedly, the core of the discussion about the
black
> patriots memorial, but as historians it should be incumbent upon us
to be
> more aware than most of the kind of historical statements we
employ.
>
> T.K. Hunter
> Columbia University
> Email: tkh4@columbia.edu
>
Friends--
Mr. Rice appears to misunderstand my comment. I was not responding point
by point to the two most recent postings to which he refers, rather to a
general tenor from earlier postings. If he would care to reproduce the
entire file of comments we could review them but I am sure we both have
more pressing matters to attend to.
Mr. Rice's responses are framed to suggest two things: that my brief comment advanced a detailed "thesis" and that I supported the memorial as is. Surely the brevity of my comment precluded advancing a detailed ideological platform nor was it my intention to do so. If my comment was initially unclear, I trust that it is no longer. I do not support the memorial in it's current form, though it seems an assumption is being made that I do. Rather, I support the introduction of a memorial that acknowledges the vital black presence throughout the history of America. It is a presence that is only recently being acknowledged and explored in all of its rich dimensions.
There are two basic strands of discussion in these D.C. memorial postings: the ideological and the physical. Included in the former is not only the question of loyalists and patriots but the question of liberty so ably described by various people in their postings. My comments did not address the physical aspects of the memorial. Instead, I suggested that as historians a certain mindfulness is in order concerning the use of familiar historical statements that often go unquestioned.
Finally, it should be noted that my brief posting made no assertion of centrality. Perhaps Mr. Rice might reread his words and mine on that point and, as he suggests, turn this discussion in a more positive direction.
> On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, Jim Rice, Central Washington University
wrote:
> [snipet]
> I fully agree that we as historians should be aware of the kinds
of
> historical statments we employ. We should also take care to read
each
> others' words carefully enough to distinguish between a minor
qualification
> and a major substantive point.
>
> On Fri, 15 Mar 1996, Thea K Hunter wrote:
> [snipet]
> > This is not, admittedly, the core of the discussion about the
black
> > patriots memorial, but as historians it should be incumbent upon us to
be
> > more aware than most of the kind of historical statements we employ.
T.K. Hunter
Columbia University
Email: tkh4@columbia.edu