tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post5292053901892990362..comments2024-03-28T04:26:30.557-05:00Comments on Boston 1775: The Mixed Meaning of Richard StocktonUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-81888143329639494162023-06-23T16:33:43.993-05:002023-06-23T16:33:43.993-05:00Jefferson was too important historically to be “re...Jefferson was too important historically to be “removed from all history books.” History books are records and analyses of what happened in the past, not just what happened in the past that we don’t consider vile. J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-10145322246154958662023-06-23T09:51:55.699-05:002023-06-23T09:51:55.699-05:00Thomas Jefferson should be removed from all histor...Thomas Jefferson should be removed from all history books as he is a vile man. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-87326125193732370152017-09-11T12:09:43.800-05:002017-09-11T12:09:43.800-05:00The earliest sources on Stockton's confinement...The earliest sources on Stockton's confinement were of course contemporaneous with it or slightly after. His son-in-law, Benjamin Rush, wrote most sympathetically while some fellow delegates, such as Elbridge Gerry, were more critical. Officially, the Congress and Gen. Washington wrote of him being unjustly penned up with common soldiers, but obviously there was some whispering about his behavior. <br /><br />At Stockton's death in 1781, there was a funeral sermon published with this widow’s poems. That pamphlet didn't even mention his captivity, much less blame it for his death. As late as 1820 a newspaper publishing capsule biographies of all the Founders didn't mention Stockton's imprisonment or his subsequent retirement from politics.<br /><br />Only with the publication of <i>Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence</i> in the 1820s did Stockton's detention become a central part of his story. That was also the first narrative to describe him being beaten or starved, as opposed to exposed to cold in a jail with no window glass. And that narrative makes clear that Stockton descendants, some of whom were prominent in New Jersey politics, were among its sources. <br /><br />From then the narrative of Stockton's suffering became more exaggerated. That's why I date the genesis of that legend to that decade, fifty years after the Revolution. <br /><br />Richard Stockton's rehabilitation in American political memory no doubt benefited from his widow's friendship with George Washington. However, I don't see direct statements by her leading to the new story. I view her as an independent actor, especially after her husband's death. Their son, also named RIchard and a powerful politician, seems to have been more involved in revising his father's story. He may have been guided by tales he heard from his mother, of course. J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-61815535591919291342017-09-11T11:05:11.523-05:002017-09-11T11:05:11.523-05:00A very interesting post.
Good point at the end of...A very interesting post.<br /><br />Good point at the end of your comment about being able to name one's enslaved ancestors and how one would feel being confronted by the bust of a slave owner on a daily basis. Moreover, when so many claim connections to Richard Stockton and other signers, think what a privilege this is when so many cannot follow their ancestry back because their forebears were enslaved.<br /><br />The more research that is done into the issue of Stockton's loyalty to the revolution or to the King, it becomes increasingly evident that the fabrications created to explain and justify his actions bear little or no relation to the truth. I am curious, though, why you locate the genesis of these stories in the 1820s. I would be interested to see the references to this, but would also wonder why the communications between Annis Stockton (who was deeply invested in keeping her husband's reputation strong), and George Washington (who was similarly invested in not having it appear that there were doubts in the minds of some of the signers) would not have been considered part of this process of rehabilitation. Moreover, Benjamin Rush seems also to have made some contributions in an attempt to justify his father-in-law's transgression.Robhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03692184678253141752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-70747536813282440822017-08-30T20:36:06.005-05:002017-08-30T20:36:06.005-05:00I think there’s a simple response to the argument ...I think there’s a simple response to the argument that removing art linked to Richard Stockton, Isaac Royall, or Robert E. Lee would or should lead to removing art linked to George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. The latter two men contributed a great deal more to America than the first three. Therefore, we as a society might decide that their contributions to our republic outweigh their exploitation of other people. <br /><br />In contrast, Richard Stockton’s most visible contribution was to be one of 56 men who signed the Declaration, plus some work for the Continental Congress in 1776. That’s much less than drafting the document, much less serving as a state governor, a diplomat, and in the three highest offices of the federal government as Jefferson did. Isaac Royall gave some of his money (gained from slave labor) to Harvard but did little else of note. Take away Robert E. Lee’s work on behalf of the Confederacy, and there’s really nothing that would justify so many statues.<br /><br />All that said, if there’s one public place where it might make sense to have a bust of Richard Stockton, it might be at this university. He was an active supporter of Princeton College, the state’s only institute of higher learning in his lifetime. But I might not feel so comfortable seeing his face or name if I could name my enslaved ancestors. J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-28102666.post-11674519163084671682017-08-30T06:47:29.701-05:002017-08-30T06:47:29.701-05:00I particularly like your "mythbusting" p...I particularly like your "mythbusting" posts. This one made me think -- it's something of a double standard. We (as a society) remove a bust of a signer of the Declaration of Independence because he owned slaves. I think we can all agree that owning other people is an evil act. But are we prepared to remove all the images of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson from our public buildings and currency? I don't advocate for it. But it seems to me that this is putting a bandage on an old scar. It's superficial. And insincere.Credo2065https://www.blogger.com/profile/00314454569000640500noreply@blogger.com