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
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
Harvard in ‘violent violation' of Civil Rights Act, Trump administration alleges
The Trump administration says Harvard University is in 'violent violation' of the Civil Rights Act due to inaction to protect Jewish students, threatening more cuts to federal funding. The federal Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism sent a letter to Harvard on Monday declaring the conclusion of a Title VI investigation found the school failed to combat antisemitism on campus. In its examples, the government listed a majority of Jewish students reporting negative bias on campus and a quarter feeling unsafe, Jewish students who were assaulted and campus demonstrations that violated university policies, among other problems. 'Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government. Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges, and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again,' the letter states. A spokesperson for the university said in a statement that 'Harvard has taken substantive, proactive steps to address the root causes of antisemitism in its community. 'In responding to the government's investigation, Harvard not only shared its comprehensive and retrospective Antisemitism and Anti-Israeli Bias Report but also outlined the ways that it has strengthened policies, disciplined those who violate them, encouraged civil discourse, and promoted open, respectful dialogue,' the spokesperson said. 'Harvard is far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government's findings,' they added. The letter is the latest salvo in the war between Harvard and the Trump administration after the university refused to cave to demands such as eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion programs. That rejection has led to two lawsuits between the two sides: one over almost $3 billion in paused federal funds, and the other fighting Trump's directive to take away Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students. President Trump posted on social media earlier this month that a deal could soon emerge between Harvard and his administration, but no details or mention of an agreement have been spoken of since. Updated at 11:14 a.m. EDT Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
15 hours ago
- Yahoo
MAGA Blast French Over Lady Liberty Shame Mural
Donald Trump supporters are freaking out after a towering mural of Lady Liberty covering her face in shame was unveiled in France. The painting, located in the northern city of Roubaix, is titled 'The Statue of Liberty's Silent Protest.' Dutch artist Judith de Leeuw spent six days creating the mural showcasing a stinging twist on the iconic monument France gifted to the U.S. after the Civil War to commemorate the nations' alliance. De Leeuw told Storyful that the mural reflects the 'shame' she feels over Trump's hardline immigration policies, which have resulted in thousands of migrants being deported. 'Roubaix has a large migrant population, and many of them live in extremely difficult circumstances. The values that the statue once stood for—freedom, hope, the right to be yourself—have been lost for many,' de Leeuw said. She noted that unveiling the piece on July 4, as Americans celebrate Independence Day, was a 'meaningful coincidence.' However, a number of MAGA figures have shown disdain for the mural after images and videos of it were widely shared on social media. 'This disgusts me. If any country ought to be kissing our ass, it's France,' Tennessee Rep. Tim Burchett posted on X. 'My Uncle Roy fought and died and is buried there for their freedom.' Libs of TikTok, the often hateful account run by Chaya Raichik, wrote: 'New mural in France depicts Lady Liberty covering her face in shame. The artist says it's because of our immigration policies. It's not shameful to deport criminal illegal aliens and secure our border! This artist has a sad case of TDS [Trump Derangement Syndrome].' One pro-Trump account called the artwork 'disgusting.' 'There are American families that lost loved ones fighting for France. A lot of American warriors are buried there, trying to help save France. Which is why they gifted us Lady Liberty. The media is just as bad posting this kind of TRASH on July 4th,' it added. Another 'America First' account slammed the mural as 'blatant disrespect towards America.' De Leeuw, however, said locals in Roubaix have embraced the piece and its pro-immigration message. On Instagram, she wrote that the Statue of Liberty was gifted to the U.S. to 'honor the right to freedom for all.' 'But today, that freedom feels out of reach. Not for everyone. Not for migrants. Not for those pushed to the margins, silenced, or unseen,' she wrote. 'I painted her covering her eyes because the weight of the world has become too heavy to witness. What was once a shining symbol of liberty now carries the sorrow of lost meaning.'


Forbes
a day ago
- Forbes
These 26 Rich Private Colleges Just Got A Tax Cut From Republicans
S trange things happen when details of a massive tax and budget bill, like the one President Donald Trump signed yesterday, are tweaked behind closed doors. Among them: A couple dozen of the nation's wealthiest small private colleges will be getting a tax cut next year, even as bigger rich universities, including Princeton, MIT, Yale and Harvard, will be slammed with higher taxes. It all began as an effort by House Republicans to dramatically raise the excise tax imposed on the earnings of college endowments, and particularly the endowments of wealthy 'woke' schools like Harvard University that they (and President Donald Trump) have targeted. But as it turns out, while Harvard's tax bill will likely more than double, some smaller schools with famously left-leaning student bodies (e.g. Swarthmore College and Amherst College) are getting tax relief. That's because schools with fewer than 3,000 full-time equivalent tuition-paying students will be exempt from the revamped endowment tax beginning next year. It currently applies to private schools with more than 500 full-time equivalent tuition-paying students and endowments worth more than $500,000 per student. Using the latest available federal data from fiscal year 2023, Forbes identified at least 26 wealthy colleges that are likely subject to the endowment tax now, but will be exempt next year based on their size. Along with top liberal arts schools like Williams College, Wellesley College, Amherst and Swarthmore, the list includes the California Institute of Technology, a STEM powerhouse, and the Julliard School, the New York city institution known for its music, dance and drama training. Grinnell College in Iowa, which enrolled 1,790 students in 2023, will save around $2.4 million in tax each year as a result of the change, President Anne Harris said in an email to Forbes . Here's what happened. As passed by the House in late May, the One Big Beautiful Bill (its Trumpian name) increased the current 1.4% excise tax on college endowments' investment earnings to as high as 21% for the richest institutions—those with endowments worth more than $2 million a student. (While these schools are all non-profits and traditionally tax exempt, the 1.4% tax on investment earnings was introduced by Trump's big 2017 tax bill. According to Internal Revenue Service data, 56 schools paid a total of $381 million in endowment tax in calendar 2023.) Along with raising the rate, the House voted to exempt from the tax both religiously-affiliated schools (think the University of Notre Dame) and those that don't take federal student financial aid. (The religious exemption was structured in a way that Harvard, founded by the Puritans to train ministers, wouldn't qualify.) The House also sought to penalize schools like Columbia University, with heavy international student enrollments, by excluding students who aren't U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents from the per capita calculations. Then the bill went to the Senate, where the Finance Committee settled on more modest–albeit still stiff–rate hikes. Schools with endowments of $500,000 to $750,000 per capita would still pay at a 1.4% rate, while those with endowments above $750,000 and up to $2 million would pay 4%. Those with endowments worth more than $2 million per student would pay an 8% tax on their earnings, not the 21% passed by the House. Enter Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough, who makes decisions on the Senate's Byrd rule, which requires parts of a budget reconciliation bill like this one to have a primary purpose related to the budget—not other types of policy. The Byrd rule was put in place because reconciliation isn't subject to filibuster. 'You can't get into a lot of prescriptive activity' in a budget reconciliation bill, explains Dean Zerbe, a national managing director for Alliantgroup, who worked on college endowment issues back when he was tax counsel for Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa). 'Like, 'you've got to hop on one foot,' or 'you've got to make tuition affordable,' or 'you've got to do better in terms of admission.'' The Parliamentarian ruled that those three House provisions—exempting religious-affiliated schools, exempting schools that don't take federal aid, and excluding foreign students from the per capita calculation—didn't pass the Byrd test. At that point, Republican senators settled on the 3,000-student threshold in large part to specifically exempt one school from the tax: Hillsdale College, an ultra-conservative, Christian liberal arts college in Hillsdale, Michigan and a GOP darling. It enrolled 1,794 students in 2023, had an endowment worth $584,000 per-student, and notably accepts no federal money, including student aid. (So both the religious exemption and the one for schools taking no federal student aid would have presumably shielded Hillsdale from the endowment tax—before the Parliamentarian gave them the thumbs down.) There was also a broader group of small schools pushing for the exemption, notes Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education. 'They made an argument that I think got some positive reception among Republican senators of saying that essentially, while their endowments may be big relative to the fact that they have small student bodies … their endowments weren't big.' A school like Amherst, he adds, 'might have a big endowment for a small school, but they don't have a big endowment relative to the Ivies and the more heavily resourced [universities].' House Republicans, under intense pressure to meet Trump's July 4th deadline, ended up accepting the final Senate product in full. That meant exempting the smaller schools, including the 'woke' ones, while levying a rate of up to 8% on the endowments of bigger schools. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation estimates colleges will now pay an extra $761 million in tax over 10 years, compared to the extra $6.7 billion they would have paid under the House version with its higher 21% rate and broader reach. Based on data from 2023, Forbes estimates that at least 11 universities will have their endowment earnings taxed at an 8% or 4% rate in 2026, while five will continue to pay the 1.4% rate. Three schools—Princeton University, Yale University, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—will likely be required to pay an 8% excise tax on their endowment earnings. Another eight, including Harvard, Stanford University, Dartmouth College and Vanderbilt University, will likely pay a 4% tax. The remaining five schools—Emory University, Duke University, Washington University in St Louis, the University of Pennsylvania, and Brown University—would pay the same 1.4% endowment tax rate they're paying now, based on fiscal 2023 numbers. One school that will likely pay 4% is the University of Notre Dame, a Catholic-affiliated school which would have been exempt from the tax were it not for the Byrd rule. 'We are deeply disappointed by the removal of language protecting religious institutions of higher education from the endowment tax before passage of the final bill,' Notre Dame wrote in a statement to Forbes . 'Any expansion of the endowment tax threatens to undermine the ability of a broad range of faith-based institutions to serve their religious purpose. We are proud to have stood with a coalition of these institutions against that threat, and we are encouraged by the strong support for a religious exemption received from both chambers.' Fansmith, for his part, won't call the exemption of the small schools a win. 'We think the tax is a bad idea and it's bad policy, and no schools should be paying it. But, by the standard that fewer schools are paying, it's better, but it's still not good,' he says. 'It's not really about revenue,' adds Fansmith. 'It's really about punishing these schools that right now a segment of the Republican party doesn't like.' The schools make the argument that it's students who are being punished, since around half of endowment spending pays for student scholarships. Meanwhile, Zerbe warns the now exempt schools shouldn't take that status for granted. 'Once revenue raisers are in play and out there, they come back again and again,' he says. 'It would be a disaster for [colleges] to think somehow this was a win for them. This was a billion dollar hit on them and there's more to come later.' More from Forbes Forbes Here's What The Senate Budget And Tax Bill Means For Colleges By Emma Whitford Forbes Trump's Foreign Student Crackdown Puts These 16 Struggling Colleges At Risk By Emma Whitford Forbes Trump's Visa Ban Is Barring New Foreign Doctors From Entering U.S. By Emma Whitford Forbes What The One Big Beautiful Bill Act Will Mean For You And Your Business By Kelly Phillips Erb