In the October 16 issue of Town Topics readers were presented with the decision of the Princeton University Trustees regarding the fate of the John Witherspoon statue on Firestone Plaza [“Despite Controversy, Witherspoon Statue Will Stay at University,” page 1]. After two years of “debate and deliberations,” the Trustees decided the statue should remain. The question Princeton Trustees had to wrestle with was whether to honor Witherspoon’s legacy in light of the fact that he was a slave owner and advocate against abolition.

One of the main arguments forwarded by Witherspoon’s apologists during those two years of deliberations was that Witherspoon was “more enlightened” than many others of his time, as he provided educational opportunities for some “free Blacks” and made some semblance of arguments for eventual abolition. They also lauded Witherspoon’s advocacy for the humane treatment of the enslaved.

The fact of the matter is that Witherspoon owned and trafficked in human beings for his own benefit. Witherspoon did this even though he lived in both Scotland and Princeton during periods when advocacy for emancipation was spreading among the educated classes and clergy, to which Witherspoon both belonged.

Witherspoon owned and trafficked in human beings by choice. He was aware of strong arguments against slavery; he was aware of the humanity of those he enslaved, and he still chose to do it. And not only did he choose to enslave others, in 1790, while serving as chair of the New Jersey Committee considering abolition, he advocated against immediate emancipation. Witherspoon argued for “eventual abolition,” which he believed would manifest from already existing New Jersey laws regulating slavery. Unfortunately, for thousands of those enslaved in New Jersey, freedom would not come until 1866, a year after the Civil War ended, and later than for any other slaves living in Northern states.

Witherspoon’s defenders do quite a job in bringing “context” to his views and his behavior. But the fact of the matter is that Witherspoon should have known better than to enslave others. He had the intellect, the spiritual understanding, and was in the company of others who deftly made arguments for emancipation. When given the power and opportunity to further those arguments, Witherspoon demurred, and slavery continued in New Jersey for more than a half century.

For me, in the Trustees’ decision, I feel a troubling déjà vu. We witnessed this “context” dance play out when the University considered how to appropriately “honor” the legacy of Woodrow Wilson. It took the tragic horror of George Floyd’s murder to properly bring that legacy into focus and for the University to do the right thing. Must we endure another unspeakable injustice for University trustees to ultimately understand that legacies marred by the denigration or enslavement of humans should not be honored with statues but be relegated to the history books where they belong?

Frank (Dean) Smith
Maclean Street