Submitted by bostonglobe t3_120jp6t in boston
anurodhp t1_jdj5k1r wrote
Reply to comment by [deleted] in Black leaders are developing Nubian Square. Can they revitalize the economic heart of Black Boston? by bostonglobe
There is literally no proof of any connection between Dudley and slavery. The Nubians however did keep slaves.
This has been beat to death. If you have any proof please post it
defenestron t1_jdjc0c6 wrote
>There is literally no proof of any connection between Dudley and slavery.
The 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties would like a word:
>Passage 91: "There shall never be any bond slaverie, villinage or Captivitie amongst us unles it be lawfull Captives taken in just warres, and such strangers as willingly selle themselves or are sold to us. And these shall have all the liberties and Christian usages which the law of god established in Israel concerning such persons doeth morally require. This exempts none from servitude who shall be Judged thereto by Authoritie."
As Mass.gov itself states:
>The first committee for the laws comprised of Governor John Haynes, Deputy-Governor Richard Bellingham, John Winthrop, and Thomas Dudley was formed to "frame a body of grounds of laws, in resemblance to a Magna Carta" (as recorded in John Winthrop's journal)
The National Park Service also provides more context to the decision to legalize slavery at this time in history.
Disclosure: I lived in Roxbury at the time and voted both times against renaming Dudley Square after a store (Nubian Notion) that hasn't existed in my lifetime. I felt and feel quite strongly this was a wasted opportunity to celebrate a deserving Boston figure of which there are many.
anurodhp t1_jdk0m6e wrote
A lot of people have tried to find a connection and there isn’t any . See globe article seek last paragraph.
“ I’ve really searched, and I’ve found no evidence that Dudley ever owned slaves,” Rushing said.
What is known is that Governor Dudley signed the Body of Liberties, a legal code presented to him by the General Court in 1641, which is used as evidence that Dudley sanctioned slavery in the fledgling colony.
However, Rushing said, the laws that he signed actually prohibited slavery, allowing for only a few exceptions, including keeping prisoners of war in bondage.
defenestron t1_jdk1bzh wrote
Did you even read your source?
> “I’ve really searched, and I’ve found no evidence that Dudley ever owned slaves,” Rushing said.
It is almost certain Dudley himself never owned slaves. However you argued that he had no connection to slavery. That claim is false and not supported by your article. You wrote:
> There is literally no proof of any connection between Dudley and slavery
The connection between Dudley and slavery is a matter of historical record echoed The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the National Park Service and several other references I provided.
I think you’ve confused or mis-stated your argument. But thanks for the downvote. 🤷♂️
Edit: Holy stealth edit, Batman. You’re not arguing in good faith and completely changed your argument after actually deciding to read your own evidence. 🤟
anurodhp t1_jdkbkb6 wrote
Did you read the last paragraph where he signed laws opposing slavery? There is no historical record that he supported it. Your links do not say anything about Dudley just about the period in time. Did you even bother reading your own sources? Search for Dudley in the nps link.
I’m willing to be convinced but there is literally nothing just historical record that he supported it and direct records that he opposed slavery
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments