Jump to content

1838 Jesuit slave sale

This is a good article. Click here for more information.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Legobot (talk | contribs) at 15:21, 26 January 2022 (Adding Good Article icon). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

1838 Jesuit slave sale
Articles of agreement for the 1838 sale
DateJune 19, 1838 (1838-06-19)
Participants

On June 19, 1838, the Maryland Province of the Society of Jesus agreed to sell 272 slaves to two Louisiana planters, Henry Johnson and Jesse Batey, for $115,000, equivalent to $3.29 million in 2023. This sale was the culmination of a contentious and long-running debate among the Maryland Jesuits over whether to keep, sell, or manumit their slaves and whether to focus on their rural estates or on their growing urban missions, including their schools.

In 1836, the Jesuit Superior General, Jan Roothaan, authorized the sale on three conditions: the slaves must be permitted to practice their Catholic faith, their families must not be separated, and the proceeds of the sale must be used only to support Jesuits in training. The Maryland provincial superior, Thomas Mulledy, carried out the sale. It soon became clear that Roothaan's conditions had not been met. About 10% of the proceeds were used to pay down Georgetown College's $30,000 of debt, the slaves' new owners eventually separated families, and the slaves' religious needs were neglected.

The Jesuits ultimately received payment many years late and never received the full $115,000. Not all 272 slaves were delivered because the Jesuits permitted the elderly and those with spouses living nearby and not owned by Jesuits to remain. The sale prompted immediate outcry from fellow Jesuits. Some wrote emotional letters to Roothaan denouncing the morality of the sale. Eventually, Roothaan removed Mulledy as provincial for disobeying orders and promoting scandal, exiling him to Nice for several years.

Despite robust 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. This prompted a study of Georgetown's and Jesuits' historical relationship with slavery. Georgetown renamed two buildings named for Mulledy and William McSherry, and the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States pledged to raise $100 million for the descendants of slaves owned by the Jesuits.

Background

Further information: Jesuits in the United States

Emergence of Jesuit manors in Maryland

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

The Society of Jesus established its first presence in the Mid-Atlantic region of the Thirteen Colonies alongside the first settlers of the British Province of Maryland. Three Jesuits traveled aboard The Ark and The Dove on the Lord Baltimore, Cecil Calvert's, voyage to settle Maryland in 1634.[1] From this early time, the Jesuits became substantial landowners in the colony, receiving land patents from the Lord Baltimore in 1636 and bequests from Catholic settlers of Maryland, as well as purchasing some land.[2] As the sole ministers of Catholicism in Maryland at the time, the Jesuit estates became the centers of Catholicism. From these estates, the Jesuits traveled the countryside on horseback, administering the sacraments and catechizing the Catholic laity. They also established schools on their lands.[3]

Much of this land was put to use as plantations, the revenue from which financed the Jesuits' ministries. While the plantations were initially worked by indentured servants, as the institution of indentured servitude began to fade away in Maryland, African slaves replaced 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 a generation before then. When the Society of Jesus was suppressed worldwide by Pope Clement XIV in 1773, ownership of the plantations was transferred from the Jesuits' Maryland Mission to the newly established Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen.[4] Several of the Jesuits' slaves unsuccessfully attempted to sue for their freedom in the courts in the 1790s.[6]

By 1824, the Jesuit plantations totaled more than 12,000 acres (4,900 hectares) in Maryland, and 1,700 acres (690 hectares) in eastern Pennsylvania.[7] These primarily consisted of the plantations of White Marsh in Prince George's County, St. Inigoes and Newtown Manor in St. Mary's County, St. Thomas Manor in Charles County, and Bohemia Manor in Cecil County.[8] The main crops grown were tobacco and corn.[9]

Due to these extensive landholdings, the Catholic superiors at the Propaganda Fide in Rome had come to view the American Jesuits negatively for living opulently like manorial lords.[7] In reality, by the early 19th century, the Jesuit plantations were in such a state of mismanagement that the Jesuit Superior General in Rome, Tadeusz Brzozowski, sent Irish Jesuit Peter Kenney to Maryland as a canonical visitor in 1820. In addition to becoming physically dilapidated, all but one of the plantations had fallen into debt.[10] 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. While Kenney found the slaves facing arbitrary discipline, a meager diet, pastoral neglect, and engaging in vice, by the 1830s, their physical and religious conditions had improved considerably.[11]

One of the Maryland Jesuits' institutions, Georgetown College, also rented slaves. While the school did own a small number of slaves over its early decades,[12] its main relationship with slavery was the leasing of slaves to work on campus,[13] a practice that continued past the 1838 slave sale.[12]

Debate over the slavery question

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, including Georgetown College.

Beginning in 1800, there were instances of the Jesuit plantation managers freeing individual slaves or permitting slaves to purchase their freedom.[6] As early as 1814, the trustees of the Corporation of Roman Catholic Clergymen discussed manumitting all their slaves and abolishing slavery on the Jesuit plantations,[9] though in 1820, they decided against universal manumission.[6] 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 debt.[14]

While Roothaan decided in 1831, based on the advice of the Maryland Mission superior, Francis Dzierozynski, that the Jesuits should maintain and improve their plantations rather than sell them, Kenney and his advisors (Thomas F. Mulledy, William McSherry, and Stephen 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.[15] Mulledy, in particular, believed the plantations were a drain on the Maryland Jesuits and urged selling both the slaves and plantations, believing that the Jesuits were only able to support either their estates or their schools in growing urban areas: Georgetown College in Washington, D.C. and St. John's College in Frederick, Maryland.[16]

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 of free blacks. The two feared because the public would not accept additional manumitted blacks, the Jesuits would be forced to sell their slaves en masse.[17]

The Maryland Jesuits, having been elevated from a mission to the status of province in 1833,[16] held their first general congregation in 1835, where they considered again what to do with their plantations.[17] The province was sharply divided, with the American-born Jesuits supporting a sale and the missionary European 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 the Deep South, where they did not want to go.[18] At the congregation, the senior Jesuits in Maryland voted six to four to proceed with a sale of the slaves,[19] and Dubuisson submitted to the Superior General a summary of the moral and financial arguments on either side of the debate.[20]

Meanwhile, in order to fund the province's operations,[21] McSherry, as the first provincial superior of the Maryland Province,[16] began selling small groups of slaves to planters in Louisiana in 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.[21]

The sale

In October 1836, Roothaan officially authorized the Maryland Jesuits to sell their slaves, so long as three conditions were satisfied: the slaves be permitted to practice their Catholic faith, their families must not be separated, and the proceeds of the sale must be used to support Jesuits in training,[22] not to pay down debts.[5] McSherry delayed selling the slaves because their market value had greatly diminished as a result of the Panic of 1837,[23] and because he was searching for a buyer that would agree to these conditions.[5] In October of that year, Mulledy succeeded McSherry, who was dying, as provincial superior.[23]

Yellow sheet of paper with handwritten list
First page of the manifest of slaves carried aboard the Katherine Jackson to Louisiana

Mulledy quickly made arrangements to carry out the sale.[23] He located two Louisiana planters who were willing to purchase the slaves: Henry Johnson, a former United States Senator and governor of Louisiana, and Jesse Batey. They were looking to buy slaves in the Upper South more cheaply than they could in the Deep South, and agreed to Mulledy's asking price of approximately $400 per person.[5] 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 $3.29 million in 2023,[24] over the course of 10 years plus 6% annual interest. In exchange, they would receive 272 slaves from the four Jesuit plantations in southern Maryland,[5][23] constituting nearly all of the slaves owned by the Maryland Jesuits.[25] Johnson and Batey were to be held jointly and severally liable and each additionally identified a responsible party as a guarantor. The slaves were also identified as collateral in the event that Johnson, Batey, and their guarantors defaulted on their payments.[26]

The articles of agreement listed each of the slaves by name to be sold.[27] It provided that 51 slaves would be sent to Alexandria, Virginia, immediately, where they were then 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 in Iberville Parish and 140 slaves would be sent to Johnson's two plantations,[26] Ascension Plantation (later known as Chatham Plantation) in Ascension Parish and another in Maringouin.[28]

Anticipating that some of the Jesuit plantation managers who opposed the sale would encourage their slaves to flee, Mulledy, along with Johnson and a sheriff, arrived at each of the plantations unannounced to gather the first 51 slaves for transport.[23] When he returned in November to gather the rest of the slaves, the plantation managers did, in fact, have their slaves flee and hide.[29] The slaves he gathered were sent on the three-week voyage aboard the Katherine Jackson,[26] which departed Alexandria on November 13 and arrived in New Orleans on 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. The Jesuits decided that the elderly would not be sold south and instead would be permitted to remain. In compliance with Roothaan's order that families not be separated, other slaves were sold locally in Maryland so that they could be near their spouses who were free or owned by non-Jesuits.[26] Johnson allowed these slaves to remain in Maryland because he intended return and attempt to purchase their spouses as well.[29]

Aftermath

Scandal and reproach

Black and white portrait of Thomas Mulledy
Thomas F. Mulledy was 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.[30] There was outcry from numerous Maryland Jesuits over the immorality of the sale, many of whom wrote graphic, emotional accounts of the sale to Roothaan.[31][30] Benedict Fenwick, the Bishop 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 and Virginia declined as a result of the sale. Other Jesuits voiced their anger to the Archbishop of Baltimore, Samuel Eccleston, who conveyed this to Roothaan.[30] During the controversy, Mulledy fell into alcoholism.[32]

Soon after the sale, Rooathaan decided that Mulledy should removed as provincial superior.[33] Roothaan was particularly concerned with the fact that, contrary to his order, it became clear that families had been separated as a result of the sale.[30] In the years after the sale, it also became clear that most of the slaves were not permitted to carry on their Catholic faith, living on plantations far removed from any Catholic church or priest.[34] While McSherry initially persuaded Rooathaan to forego removing Mulledy,[33] 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.[31] 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.[33]

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.[33] As censure for the scandal,[35] Roothaan ordered Mulledy to remain in Europe,[31] and Mulledy lived in exile in Nice until being allowed to return to the United States in 1843.[35]

Financial outcome

Contrary to Roothaan's order, the initial $25,000 was not used to provide for the training of Jesuits. Of the sum, $8,000 was used to satisfy a financial obligation due to the Archbishop of Baltimore,[23] as previously determined by Pope Pius VII following a long-running and contentious dispute between a previous archbishop, Ambrose Maréchal, and the Maryland Jesuits.[36] The remaining $17,000, equivalent to approximately $490,000 in 2023,[24] was used to offset Georgetown College's $30,000 of debt that had accrued during the construction of buildings during Mulledy's prior presidency of the college. However, the remaining $90,000 did go to funding Jesuit formation.[23]

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 10 years initially allowed, and continued to do so until just before the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862, during the Civil War.[37] The Jesuits never received the total $115,000 that was owed under the agreement.[38]

Subsequent fate of the slaves

Before the abolition of slavery in the United States in 1865, the slaves sold by the Jesuits would change ownership several times. Following Batey's death, his West Oak plantation and the slaves living there were sold in January 1853 to Tennessee politician Washington Barrow and Barrow's son, John S. Barrow, a resident of Baton Rouge, Louisiana.[39][40] In 1856, Washington Barrow sold the slaves he purchased from Batey to William Patrick and Joseph B. Woolfolk of Iberville Parish.[41] Patrick and Woolfolk's slaves were then sold in July 1859 to Emily Sparks, the widow of Austin Woolfolk.[42]

Due to financial difficulties, Johnson sold half of all his property, including the slaves he 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 of the slaves sold by Mulledy to Johnson were owned by Thompson.[43]

Legacy

Historiography

While the 1838 slave sale gave rise to scandal at the time, the event largely faded out of the public awareness over time. However, the history of the sale and the Jesuits' slave ownership was never secret.[44] It is one of the most well documented slave sales of its era.[45] There was periodic and sometimes extensive coverage of both the sale and the Jesuits' slave ownership in various literature. Articles in the Woodstock Letters, an internal Jesuit publication that later became accessible to the public, routinely addressed both of these 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.[44] In 1977, the Maryland Province named Georgetown's Lauinger Library as the custodian of its historic archives, which were made available to the public through the Georgetown University Library, Saint Louis University Library, and Maryland State Library.[46]

In 1981, historian Robert Emmett Curran presented at academic conferences a comprehensive research into the Maryland Jesuits' participation in slavery, and published this research in 1983.[46] Curran also published Georgetown University's official, bicentennial history in 1993, in which he wrote about the university's and Jesuits' relationship with slavery.[47] 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.[46]

Return to public awareness

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, due to new attention paid to two buildings on Georgetown University's campus named after Thomas Mulledy and William McSherry. 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 in 2003. After the Jesuits departed the buildings, Ryan and Mulledy Halls lay vacant, while Gervase Hall was put to other use.[48] In 2014, renovation began on Ryan and Mulledy Halls to convert them into a student residence.[49]

With work complete, in August 2015, university president John J. DeGioia sent 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.[50] Despite the decades of scholarship on the subject, this revelation came as a surprise to many Georgetown University members,[44][51] and some criticized the retention of Mulledy's name on the building.[52] An undergraduate student also brought this to public attention in several articles published by the school newspaper, The Hoya, about the university's relationship with slavery and the slave sale between 2014 and 2015.[53]

Photograph of McSherry Hall partially covered in ivy
Anne Marie Becraft Hall, formerly McSherry Hall

Renaming halls

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.[54] In November of that year, the working group recommended that the university temporarily rename Mulledy Hall (which opened during Mulledy's presidency in 1833)[55] to Freedom Hall and McSherry Hall (which opened in 1792 and housed a meditation center)[56] to Remembrance Hall. On November 14, 2015, DeGioia announced that he and the university's board of directors accepted the working group's recommendation, and would rename the buildings accordingly. This coincided with a protest by a group of students the day before.[52][57] In 2016, The New York Times published an article that brought the history of the Jesuits' and university's relationship with slavery came to national attention.[58][34]

The College of the Holy Cross in Massachusetts, of which Mulledy was the first president from 1843 to 1848, also began to reconsider the name of one of its buildings in 2015.[59] Mulledy Hall, a student dormitory that opened in 1966,[60] was renamed as Brooks–Mulledy Hall in 2016, adding the name of a later president, John E. Brooks, who worked to racially integrate the college.[61] In 2020, the college removed Mulledy's name altogether.[60]

On April 18, 2017, the DeGioia, along with the provincial superior of the Maryland Province, and the president of the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States, held a liturgy in which they formally apologized on behalf of their respective institutions institutions for their participation in slavery.[62] 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 became Anne Marie Becraft Hall, after a free black woman who founded a school for black girls in the Georgetown neighborhood and later joined the Oblate Sisters of Providence.[63]

Additional developments

Georgetown University also extended to descendants of slaves that the Jesuits owned or whose labor benefitted the university the same preferential legacy status in university admission that is given to children of Georgetown alumni. This admissions preference has been described by historian Craig Steven Wilder as the most significant measure taken by a university to account for its historical relationship with slavery.[64]

In 2019, undergraduate students at Georgetown voted in a non-binding referendum to impose a symbolic reparations fee of $27.20 per student.[65] The university leadership instead decided to raise $400,000 per year in voluntary donations to benefit the descendants of Jesuit slaves. Meanwhile, the Jesuit Conference of Canada and the United States pledged in 2021 to raise $100 million for the same purpose.[66]

See also

References

Citations

  1. ^ Curran 2012, p. 2
  2. ^ Curran 2012, pp. 31–32
  3. ^ Curran 2012, p. 3
  4. ^ a b Curran 2012, p. 32
  5. ^ a b c d e f Rothman 2017, p. 18
  6. ^ a b c Curran 2012, p. 39
  7. ^ a b Curran 2012, p. 31
  8. ^ Jacobe, Stephanie A. T. (February 2, 2021). "Where were the Jesuit plantations in Maryland?". Catholic Standard. Archived from the original on November 20, 2021. Retrieved November 20, 2021.
  9. ^ a b Curran 2012, p. 38
  10. ^ Curran 2012, p. 34
  11. ^ Curran 2012, pp. 35–36
  12. ^ a b Mendoza 2020, p. 57
  13. ^ Mendoza 2020, p. 64
  14. ^ Curran 2012, p. 40
  15. ^ Curran 2012, p. 41
  16. ^ a b c Curran 2012, p. 42
  17. ^ a b Curran 2012, p. 43
  18. ^ Curran 2012, pp. 43–45
  19. ^ Judge 1959, p. 397
  20. ^ Judge 1959, pp. 395–397
  21. ^ a b Curran 2012, p. 46
  22. ^ Curran 2012, p. 46–47
  23. ^ a b c d e f g Curran 2012, p. 47
  24. ^ a b 1634–1699: McCusker, J. J. (1997). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States: Addenda et Corrigenda (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1700–1799: McCusker, J. J. (1992). How Much Is That in Real Money? A Historical Price Index for Use as a Deflator of Money Values in the Economy of the United States (PDF). American Antiquarian Society. 1800–present: Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. "Consumer Price Index (estimate) 1800–". Retrieved February 29, 2024.
  25. ^ Rothman 2020, p. 8
  26. ^ a b c d Rothman 2017, p. 21
  27. ^ Rothman 2017, p. 19
  28. ^ a b c "The Fate and Legacy of the GU272". AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society. Archived from the original on June 21, 2021. Retrieved November 21, 2021.
  29. ^ a b c Curran 2012, p. 48
  30. ^ a b c d Curran 2012, p. 49
  31. ^ a b c Kuzniewski 1999, p. 29
  32. ^ Kuzniewski 1999, p. 40
  33. ^ a b c d Curran 2012, p. 50
  34. ^ a b Swarns, Rachel L. (April 16, 2016). "272 Slaves Were Sold to Save Georgetown. What Does It Owe Their Descendants?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 18, 2021. Retrieved November 22, 2021.
  35. ^ a b "Holy Cross: 1843–1899". College of the Holy Cross. Archived from the original on December 2, 2018. Retrieved December 2, 2018.
  36. ^ Curran 2012, pp. 17–20
  37. ^ Rothman 2017, p. 22
  38. ^ What We Know: Report to the President of The College of The Holy Cross 2016, p. 24
  39. ^ "Historical Timeline: Events Affecting the GU272 from the 1838 Sale to the Present". AmericanAncestors.org. New England Historic Genealogical Society. Archived from the original on November 21, 2021. Retrieved November 21, 2021.
  40. ^ "Bill of Sale from the Heirs of Jesse Batey to Washington Barrow, January 18, 1853". Georgetown Slavery Archive. Archived from the original on July 14, 2020. Retrieved November 21, 2021.
  41. ^ "Bill of Sale for Land and People from Washington Barrow to William Patrick and Joseph B. Woolfolk, February 4, 1856". Georgetown Slavery Archive. Archived from the original on March 24, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2021.
  42. ^ "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. Archived from the original on March 24, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2021.
  43. ^ "Henry Johnson's Sales of Enslaved Persons, 1844–1851". Georgetown Slavery Archive. Archived from the original on December 2, 2018. Retrieved November 21, 2021.
  44. ^ a b c Report of the Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation 2016, p. 11
  45. ^ Foley 2017, p. 130
  46. ^ a b c Report of the Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation 2016, p. 12
  47. ^ Curran 1993, pp. 119–121
  48. ^ "University Requests Change in Use for Ryan Hall and Mulledy Hall". Georgetown University. October 1, 2013. Archived from the original on April 10, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2021.
  49. ^ "Renovation of Former Jesuit Residence Beginning May 19". Georgetown University. April 21, 2014. Archived from the original on November 24, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2021.
  50. ^ DeGioia, John J. (August 24, 2015). "A Message Regarding Mulledy Hall". Georgetown University. Archived from the original on November 24, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2021.
  51. ^ Quallen, Matthew (September 11, 2015). "Slavery's Remnants, Buried and Overlooked". The Hoya. Archived from the original on February 26, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2021.
  52. ^ a b Shaver, Katherine (November 15, 2015). "Georgetown University to rename two buildings that reflect school's ties to slavery". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on November 24, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2021.
  53. ^ Report of the Working Group on Slavery, Memory, and Reconciliation 2016, p. 13
  54. ^ DeGioia, John J. (September 24, 2015). "Announcing the Working Group on Slavery, Memory & Reconciliation". Georgetown University. Archived from the original on February 18, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2021.
  55. ^ "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. Archived from the original on February 19, 2021. Retrieved November 28, 2021.
  56. ^ O'Neill & Smith 2020, p. 26
  57. ^ Hung, Toby; Puri, Ashwin (November 17, 2015). "Heeding Demands, University Renames Buildings". The Hoya. Archived from the original on August 22, 2021. Retrieved November 24, 2021.
  58. ^ Rothman 2020, p. 3
  59. ^ What We Know: Report to the President of The College of The Holy Cross 2016, pp. 1, 20
  60. ^ a b "Mulledy Name To Be Removed From Brooks–Mulledy Hall". College of the Holy Cross. September 30, 2020. Archived from the original on October 1, 2020. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  61. ^ Boroughs, Philip L. (June 16, 2016). "President's Response to Report of the Mulledy/Healy Legacy Committee". College of the Holy Cross. Archived from the original on June 17, 2016. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  62. ^ Duster, Chandelis R.; Kwak, Bethia (April 19, 2017). "Georgetown Apologizes, Renames Halls After Slaves". NBC News. Archived from the original on November 12, 2020. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  63. ^ "Georgetown Apologizes for 1838 Sale of More Than 270 Enslaved, Dedicates Buildings". Georgetown University. April 18, 2017. Archived from the original on November 3, 2021. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  64. ^ Swarns, Rachel L. (September 1, 2016). "Georgetown University Plans Steps to Atone for Slave Past". The New York Times. Archived from the original on October 1, 2021. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  65. ^ Hassan, Adeel (April 12, 2019). "Georgetown Students Agree to Create Reparations Fund". The New York Times. Archived from the original on July 26, 2021. Retrieved November 27, 2021.
  66. ^ Swarns, Rachel L. (March 15, 2021). "Catholic Order Pledges $100 Million to Atone for Slave Labor and Sales". The New York Times. Archived from the original on November 21, 2021. Retrieved November 27, 2021.

Sources

Further reading

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=1838_Jesuit_slave_sale&oldid=1068083768"