A volunteer finds the Holy Grail of abolitionist-era Baptist documents in Massachusetts
A closer look revealed the 5-foot-long document was a handwritten declaration titled 'A Resolution and Protest Against Slavery,' signed by 116 New England ministers in Boston and adopted March 2, 1847. Until its discovery in May at the archives in Groton, Mass., American Baptist officials worried the anti-slavery document had been lost forever after fruitless searches at Harvard and Brown universities and other locations. A copy was last seen in a 1902 history book.
'I was just amazed and excited,' Cromack, a retired teacher who volunteers at the archive, said. 'We made a find that really says something to the people of the state and the people in the country. ... It speaks of their commitment to keeping people safe and out of situations that they should not be in.'
The document offers a glimpse into an emerging debate over slavery in the 18th century in the Northeast. The document was signed 14 years before the start of the Civil War as a growing number of religious leaders were starting to speak out against slavery.
The document also shines a spotlight on a crucial moment in the history of the Baptist church.
It was signed two years after the issue of slavery prompted Southern Baptists to split from Northern Baptists and form the Southern Baptist Convention, the nation's largest Protestant denomination. The split in 1845 followed a ruling by the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society prohibiting slave owners from becoming missionaries. The Northern Baptists eventually became American Baptist Churches USA.
'It comes from such a critical era in American history, you know, right prior to the Civil War,' said the Rev. Mary Day Hamel, the executive minister of the American Baptist Churches of Massachusetts.
'It was a unique moment in history when Baptists in Massachusetts stepped up and took a strong position and stood for justice in the shaping of this country,' she said. 'That's become part of our heritage to this day, to be people who stand for justice, for American Baptists to embrace diversity.'
Deborah Bingham Van Broekhoven, the executive director emerita of the American Baptist Historical Society, said many Americans at the time, especially in the North, were 'undecided' about slavery and weren't sure how to respond or were worried about speaking out.
'They thought it was a Southern problem, and they had no business getting involved in what they saw as the states' rights,' Van Broekhoven said. 'Most Baptists, prior to this, would have refrained from this kind of protest. This is a very good example of them going out on a limb and trying to be diplomatic.'
The document shows ministers had hoped 'some reformatory movement' led by those involved in slavery would make their action 'unnecessary,' but that they felt compelled to act after they 'witnessed with painful surprise, a growing disposition to justify, extend and perpetuate their iniquitous system.'
'Under these circumstances we can no longer be silent,' the document states. 'We owe something to the oppressed as well as to the oppressor, and justice demands the fulfillment of that obligation. Truth and Humanity and Public Virtue, have claims upon us which we cannot dishonor.'
The document explains why the ministers 'disapprove and abhor the system of American slavery.'
'With such a system we can have no sympathy,' the document states. 'After a careful observation of its character and effects and making every deduction with the largest charity can require, we are constrained to regard it as an outrage upon the rights and happiness of our fellow men, for which there is no valid justification or apology.'
The Rev. Diane Badger, the administrator of the American Baptist Church of Massachusetts who oversees the archive, teamed up with the Rev. John Odams of the First Baptist Church in Boston to identify what she called the 'Holy Grail' of abolitionist-era Baptist documents. Her great-grandfather was an American Baptist minister.
Since its discovery, Badger has put all the ministers' names on a spreadsheet along with the names of the churches where they served. Among them was Nathaniel Colver, of Tremont Temple in Boston, one of the first integrated churches in the country, now known as Tremont Temple Baptist Church. Another was Baron Stow, who belonged to the state's anti-slavery society.
Badger also is working to estimate the value of the document, which is intact with no stains or damage, and is making plans to ensure it is protected. A digital copy could eventually be shared with some of Massachusetts' 230 American Baptist churches.
'It's been kind of an interesting journey and it's one that's still unfolding,' Badger said. 'The questions that always come to me, OK, I know who signed it but who didn't? I can go through my list, through my database and find who was working where on that and why didn't they sign that. So it's been very interesting to do the research.'
The Rev. Kenneth Young — whose predominantly Black Calvary Baptist Church in Haverhill, Mass., was created by freed Blacks in 1871 — called the discovery inspiring.
'I thought it was awesome that we had over a hundred signers to this, that they would project that freedom for our people is just,' Young said. 'It follows through on the line of the abolitionist movement and fighting for those who may not have had the strength to fight for themselves against a system of racism.'
Casey writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
14 hours ago
- Time Magazine
History Shows Why Birthright Citizenship is so Important
On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump's first day back in the White House, he issued Executive Order 14160 'Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship.' The directive attempted to nullify birthright citizenship, as enshrined by the Fourteenth Amendment for over 150 years, and restore an older understanding of U.S. citizenship not seen since before the Civil War. The framers of the Amendment worried about such an effort. They consciously chose to go through the rigors of the amendment process—instead of just passing a law—precisely to prevent future Congresses from repealing principles like birthright citizenship and to avoid future Supreme Courts from improperly interpreting them. They wanted to permanently ensure that American law would be more inclusive by extending U.S. citizenship—and the federal protections that came with it—to African Americans. The goal was to protect Black Americans against state discrimination after the abolition of slavery. Section One of the Amendment accordingly stated 'All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.' Trump's order aims to eliminate this guarantee of citizenship for people born in the U.S. whose mothers were 'unlawfully present' or when the mother's presence in the U.S. was 'lawful but temporary.' While multiple legal challenges wind their way through the federal judiciary, the Supreme Court ruled on June 27 that a nationwide injunction halting implementation of the Executive Order was inappropriate. Then, last week, a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump's order and allowed a class-action suit on behalf of children and parents impacted by Trump's order to proceed. The history, however, is unambiguous: birthright citizenship was a necessary solution to the most fundamental question in U.S. history—who is included in the political community. It aimed to do away with longstanding limitations on many Americans' ability to move about, to live where they wanted, and to be free. Read More: What to Know About Trump's Order on Birthright Citizenship and the Legal Battle Around It Before the passage of the Reconstruction Amendments, African Americans suffered much discrimination due to the lack of clarity of their legal citizenship status. The Naturalization Act of 1790 had defined eligibility for U.S. citizenship as limited to 'free white persons.' Thus, European migrants easily and quickly became U.S. citizens and gained access to the attendant rights, privileges, and protections that came with it. By contrast, before the Civil War, enslaved Black Americans were regarded by law as property and without rights. This legal situation left an open question—did free African Americans have citizenship? During the antebellum period, slave and free states alike were obsessed with policing the mobility and settlement of free Black Americans. After the Revolutionary War, states passed many laws to minimize the size of any free Black populations in their jurisdictions. Free Blacks faced a patchwork of restrictionist laws dictating which states and towns they could legally go to and live in. Slave states went even further. They passed laws banning free Black people from even entering their borders, and exile laws requiring formerly enslaved persons to leave the state by a deadline or risk being re-enslaved. Between 1793 and 1820, Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky, South Carolina, and Georgia all passed laws banning Black migration into their states—even for people born in the U.S. Especially in the eight coastal slave states, legislators claimed such laws were necessary to protect their states from the 'threat' of enslaved insurrection. They argued that free Black Americans, including sailors working on foreign and domestic ships, would intermix with enslaved people and increase the odds of such revolts. Slave states weren't alone in taking such actions. During this time, free states in the upper Midwest that bordered slave states passed laws creating legal disabilities and burdensome bureaucratic hurdles for free Black people who wanted to stay within their borders. These laws didn't apply to white Americans or even white immigrants. In many towns, new arrivals would have to register at the county clerk's office and bring proof of how they became free. Other towns required letters from white witnesses attesting to a person's good moral character in order to stay or required exorbitantly high fees for free Blacks wanting to live there. States claimed that they were defending themselves against an influx of indigent people who would drain their public coffers and disrupt the public peace. In reality, the laws were more about upholding slavery, preventing Black labor competition⎯and in many cases, simply racism. Although there is little evidence that the laws restricting the mobility of African Americans and their ability to live where they chose were widely enforced, the laws enabled racial profiling and harassment. To be sure, some European migrants also faced discrimination in housing and employment. Yet, white migrants were not required by law to carry passes legalizing their interstate travel or settlement. In a time before digital technology, African Americans' identities had to be carefully preserved and portable. An African American's freedom and presence in parts of the U.S. was as fragile as the pieces of paper that they were legally required to carry and which could be lost, damaged, stolen—or disbelieved by whites. Free African Americans also worried about being able to stay in the U.S. and not be involuntarily removed to countries in Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America. Such fears were not unmerited. The American Colonization Society (ACS), founded in 1819, reached its zenith of support by the 1850s. Working with the federal and state governments, the group spearheaded efforts to remove free African Americans from the U.S. The ACS was motivated by the discriminatory belief that free African Americans could not be politically incorporated into the nation. What worried Black Americans was whether these colonization programs would be voluntary. Read More: Birthright Citizenship Has Been Challenged Before After the Civil War ended, the framers of the three Reconstruction amendments, especially the 14th Amendment, were conscious of these earlier laws as they worked to make the Constitution more inclusive. They sought to remove all doubt that free Black Americans—including those who had been enslaved—had full citizenship rights, and would not face such laws giving them subordinate status. African Americans advocated for such protections to ensure that they would never involuntarily have to leave the only country they had known. The framers of the 14th Amendment chose plain language, and only made three exceptions to the ironclad guarantee of birthright citizenship: children born to foreign diplomats in the U.S., children born in U.S. territory occupied by enemy soldiers, and Native Americans. The exclusion of Indigenous people was out of deference to their citizenship in their own Native nations. The protections afforded by the 14th Amendment wiped away African Americans' fears of colonization programs, as well as rendering state laws restricting interstate mobility and settlement unconstitutional. In 1898, in the landmark case of U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the birthright citizenship guarantee, clarifying that even if one's parents were legally ineligible for U.S. citizenship, a child born on U.S. soil was a citizen. The overriding goal of the framers of the birthright citizenship clause (and the Reconstruction Amendments generally) was to include African Americans who had been left out of the U.S. polity⎯to form a more perfect union. Although the U.S. certainly still has gradations of belonging, the Fourteenth Amendment's birthright citizenship clause's broad inclusivity is well-established and indisputable, and it should be a point of national pride, which represents Americans' commitment to a multi-racial democracy. That requires strongly rejecting any attempt reinstate the exclusion and discrimination which spurred its creation. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz chair in constitutional rights at CUNY Brooklyn College. Her forthcoming book The Origins of American Citizenship and Migration—African Americans, Native Americans, and Immigrants will be out from Oxford University Press in the spring of 2026. Made by History takes readers beyond the headlines with articles written and edited by professional historians. Learn more about Made by History at TIME here. Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect the views of TIME editors.
Washington Post
17 hours ago
- Washington Post
Here's what triggered the latest deadly sectarian clashes in Syria, and why it matters
BEIRUT — Clashes between Bedouin tribes, government forces and members of a minority sect in Syria have left dozens dead and once again raised fears of a breakdown in the country's fragile postwar order. The country is deeply divided as it tries to emerge from decades of dictatorship and nearly 14 years of civil war.
Associated Press
17 hours ago
- Associated Press
Here's what triggered the latest deadly sectarian clashes in Syria, and why it matters
BEIRUT (AP) — Clashes between Bedouin tribes, government forces and members of a minority sect in Syria have left dozens dead and once again raised fears of a breakdown in the country's fragile postwar order. The country is deeply divided as it tries to emerge from decades of dictatorship and nearly 14 years of civil war. Clashes have on several occasions broken out between forces loyal to the government and Druze fighters since the fall of President Bashar Assad in early December in a lightning rebel offensive led by Sunni Islamist insurgent groups, but Monday's fighting threatened to escalate into a larger conflict. Here are the main reasons the clashes expanded in recent days and background on the two sides: The Druze and Syria's new government The Druze religious sec t is a minority group that began as a 10th-century offshoot of Ismailism, a branch of Shiite Islam. More than half the roughly 1 million Druze worldwide live in Syria. Most of the other Druze live in Lebanon and Israel, including in the Golan Heights, which Israel captured from Syria in the 1967 Mideast War and annexed in 1981. In Syria, they largely live in the southern Sweida province and some suburbs of Damascus, mainly in Jaramana and Ashrafiyat Sahnaya to the south. The transitional government has promised to include minorities, including the Druze, but the new 23-member government in Syria announced in late March only has one Druze member, Minister of Agriculture Amjad Badr. Under the Assad family's tight rule, religious freedom was guaranteed as the country then boasted about its secular and Arab nationalist system. The Druze have been divided over how to deal with their issues with the new status quo in the country. Many Druze support a dialogue with the government while others want a more confrontational approach. What lies behind the tension between the two sides Syria's religious and ethnic communities are worried about their place in Syria's new system that is mostly run by Islamists, including some who have links to extremist groups. The country's new President Ahmad al-Sharaa himself is a former militant who once was a member of al-Qaida. Although al-Sharaa had said that the right of ethnic and religious minorities will be protected, there have been several rounds of sectarian killings since Assad's fall. The Assad family rule that was dominated by members of the Alawite sect had oppressed much of the country's Sunni majority while giving minorities some powers. During Syria's 14-year conflict, the Druze had their own militias, in part to defend against Muslim fundamentalist militants who consider them heretics. Members of the Islamic State group in 2018 attacked the Druze in Sweida province, killing more than 200 people and taking more than two dozen hostage. Clashes began after checkpoint robbery The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a U.K.-based war monitor, said the clashes started after members of a Bedouin tribe in Sweida province set up a checkpoint where they attacked and robbed a Druze man, leading to tit-for-tat attacks and kidnappings between the tribes and Druze armed groups. Government security forces deployed to the area to restore order, but were seen as taking the side of the Bedouin tribes against Druze factions. Israel, which has periodically intervened or threatened to intervene in support of the Druze in Syria, said it struck military tanks in southern Syria Monday. In Israel, the Druze are seen as a loyal minority and often serve in the military. Israel does not want Islamist militants near the country's northern border. Since Assad's fall, Israeli forces have seized control of a buffer zone in Syria near the border with the Israeli-annexed Golan and have carried out hundreds of airstrikes on military sites. While many Druze in Syria have said they do not want Israel to intervene on their behalf, factions from the Druze minority have also been suspicious of the new authorities in Damascus. Concerns that sectarian violence could rise The clashes raise fears of another spiral of sectarian violence. In March, an ambush on government security forces by fighters loyal to Assad triggered days of sectarian and revenge attacks. Hundreds of civilians were killed, most of them members of the minority Alawite sect that Assad belongs to. A commission was formed to investigate the attacks but has not made its findings public. There have also been rising tensions between authorities in Damascus and Kurdish-led authorities controlling the country's northeast. Despite having reached an agreement in March to merge their forces, the two sides have since come to an impasse and the deal has not been implemented. The ongoing instability threatens to derail Syria's fragile recovery after more than a decade of war that devastated its infrastructure and displaced half the prewar population of 23 million. In 2017, the United Nations estimated that rebuilding Syria would cost about $250 billion. Since Assad was overthrown, some experts say that number could be as high as $400 billion.
