A Slavery Altar in the Temple of Liberty: The Politics of Daniel Webster’s Monument in Antebellum Boston
Presentation Type
Oral Presentation
Category
Social Sciences/Humanities
Abstract/Artist Statement
Over the past decade, public monuments have become an increasingly controversial subject in American political culture. This debate has focused primarily on Confederate monuments built after the U.S. Civil War and statues of other individuals with historical ties to slavery. Advocates for removal claim these monuments honor unworthy figures. Their adversaries worry that removing them is revisionist. Historical scholarship offers insights into the politics of public memory in the United States. They describe commemoration as a realm of conflict between competing groups who weaponize the past to shape their contemporary politics. However, these macro-studies have dedicated little attention to the construction of monuments themselves. The purpose of this project is to view monuments not solely as physical markers of the past, but also as complex historical documents. This study analyzes a unique statue raised in Boston, Massachusetts shortly before the U.S. Civil War. The monument immortalized American statesman Daniel Webster. Webster was not an enslaver, but his support for the Fugitive Slave Law during the Compromise of 1850 forever scarred his legacy. When Massachusetts erected a monument of him in 1859, Boston abolitionists moved swiftly to remove it. This study indicates that the monument’s opponents were less concerned with the statue’s existence and more concerned with specific factors such as its location. The abolitionists argued that by placing a bronze monument on state property, the government was sanctioning Webster’s conservative position on slavery. Not only does this study provide an earlier example of our contemporary debate on monuments. It also investigates the politics of memory in a new light. It suggests that every step of the commemorative process – committees, funding, and statue placement – involves its own realm of politics and contestation.
Mentor Name
Kyle G. Volk
Personal Statement
It is with great enthusiasm that I submit my presentation for the Best of GradCon Award. When I started researching Daniel Webster’s monument three years ago, I did not foresee how it would dominate my dissertation and drive my academic journey. I have traveled to the Massachusetts Historical Society, the first historical society in the United States. I read original manuscripts inside the Boston Athenaeum, among the oldest private libraries in the country. I even explored Dartmouth College’s records in the New Hampshire countryside. This project has provided me with opportunities to conduct original research and gain a deeper appreciation for the humanities. My study speaks not only to the U.S. Civil War scholarship, but also to our present moment. It is during episodes of intense political polarization and sectional animosity that Daniel Webster’s principles are worth investigating. I became curious how Americans made sense of Webster’s values in the past, such as his dedication to compromise, moderation, and national unity. The conflict surrounding Webster’s statue in the 1850s made me wonder how American society has wrestled with its controversial past with slavery. To what extent did society expect moral perfection from their representatives? Through their battle over Webster’s monuments and his memory, Americans were projecting their conflicting world views. Although the story is almost two centuries old, I hope that it will resonate with people today as society continues to debate the past and navigate the present political crisis.
A Slavery Altar in the Temple of Liberty: The Politics of Daniel Webster’s Monument in Antebellum Boston
UC 332
Over the past decade, public monuments have become an increasingly controversial subject in American political culture. This debate has focused primarily on Confederate monuments built after the U.S. Civil War and statues of other individuals with historical ties to slavery. Advocates for removal claim these monuments honor unworthy figures. Their adversaries worry that removing them is revisionist. Historical scholarship offers insights into the politics of public memory in the United States. They describe commemoration as a realm of conflict between competing groups who weaponize the past to shape their contemporary politics. However, these macro-studies have dedicated little attention to the construction of monuments themselves. The purpose of this project is to view monuments not solely as physical markers of the past, but also as complex historical documents. This study analyzes a unique statue raised in Boston, Massachusetts shortly before the U.S. Civil War. The monument immortalized American statesman Daniel Webster. Webster was not an enslaver, but his support for the Fugitive Slave Law during the Compromise of 1850 forever scarred his legacy. When Massachusetts erected a monument of him in 1859, Boston abolitionists moved swiftly to remove it. This study indicates that the monument’s opponents were less concerned with the statue’s existence and more concerned with specific factors such as its location. The abolitionists argued that by placing a bronze monument on state property, the government was sanctioning Webster’s conservative position on slavery. Not only does this study provide an earlier example of our contemporary debate on monuments. It also investigates the politics of memory in a new light. It suggests that every step of the commemorative process – committees, funding, and statue placement – involves its own realm of politics and contestation.