John Witherspoon and Slavery

February 1, 2023

Part One: President and Patriot

For now, the John Witherspoon statue stands in its prominent place outside Firestone Library at Princeton University. I say “for now” because some students—including 300 graduate students who signed a petition initiated by graduate students and a faculty member in the Philosophy Department—are adamant that the statue should be removed. At one level the debate is about public symbols and to what degree statues and names memorializing the past must meet all the moral standards of the present. Not surprisingly, some have insisted that Witherspoon has to go, arguing that Princeton’s sixth president was a slave owner who lectured and voted against the abolition of slavery.

 Despite listening sessions for faculty, students, staff, and alumni on a proposal to remove or replace the statue, little attention has been given (at least in public) to the actual history. We need to understand why John Witherspoon has been memorialized in the first place, both as rescuer of a university that was floundering before he invigorated it during his quarter century as president and as a courageous leader of the American Revolution. And then, second, we need to understand what Witherspoon believed, and what he did, about slavery.

 In completing my PhD on John Witherspoon at the University of Leicester in 2019, I studied historical evidence that tells a more balanced, and often more positive, story than what one hears from Witherspoon’s detractors. It can fairly be stated that Witherspoon owned two slaves and did not advocate immediate emancipation. But as I explain below, drawing in part on new historical work and my own archival research, these bare facts do not tell the whole story—not the whole story about Witherspoon the president and patriot, nor the whole story about how Witherspoon related to slaves and free Blacks, what he believed about slavery, and what he hoped America, as it related to slavery, would be like in the future.

A Brief Biography

John Witherspoon was born on February 5, 1723 in the Scottish village of Gifford, 25 miles east of Edinburgh. In 1739, he defended his Latin dissertation “On the Immortality of the Mind” and graduated from the University of Edinburgh. Continuing at Edinburgh, he studied divinity, being instructed in the new Enlightenment ideas coming out of Europe and in traditional Presbyterian theology.

Witherspoon served two churches as a minister in the Scottish Kirk. His first church was in Beith, a small agricultural village in western Scotland. Witherspoon’s twelve years in Beith (1745–1757) were fruitful and eventful. In 1746, Witherspoon led a group of militia volunteers from Beith intent on fighting for King George II against the Jacobite uprising. Although Witherspoon was not engaged in any military conflict, he was captured and imprisoned for a short time in Doune Castle. In 1748, he married Elizabeth Montgomery, the daughter of Robert Montgomery of Craighouse, one of the prominent families in the parish. Together John and Elizabeth had ten children, seven of whom preceded them in death.

Witherspoon’s second pastorate was in Paisley (1757–1768), a growing manufacturing town on the outskirts of Glasgow. He was a popular preacher, and his church in Paisley had to be expanded to 1,300 seats to accommodate the growing congregation. During Witherspoon’s ministry in Scotland, he was asked to preach at important venues, he published more than a dozen books on theological topics and ecclesiastical controversies, and he was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of St. Andrews.

In 1766, representatives of the College of New Jersey (later “Princeton University”) urged the Paisley pastor to become its next president. Although Witherspoon initially declined (because of his wife’s reticence to travel across the ocean and move to America), he later changed his mind and agreed to the college’s second round of entreaties. Witherspoon and his family landed in Philadelphia on August 17, 1768. He was 45.

When Witherspoon arrived, it was not at all certain that Princeton—at that time a primitive backwater compared to Glasgow—would survive. After a string of presidents who died early in their tenures, the college was low on students, low on teachers, and low on money. As president, Witherspoon was responsible for recruiting students, disciplining them, and (sometimes) boarding them. He was also charged with raising funds, furnishing the library, doing private tutoring, and teaching regular courses on history, eloquence, divinity, and moral philosophy. Witherspoon earned the reputation as a man of great energy, a fine teacher, and a firm disciplinarian. His leadership ensured Princeton’s survival and established it as one of the most important institutions in the new country.

In the 1770s, Witherspoon turned his attention increasingly to political matters, with John Adams once referring to Princeton’s president as “an animated son of liberty.” On May 17, 1776, Witherspoon preached one of the most significant sermons in American history, a message based on Psalm 76:10 entitled The Dominion of Providence Over the Passions of Men. As partly an exploration of the colonies’ right to revolt, the sermon is widely regarded as helping to prepare the way for the decisive move for independence later that summer. In July, Witherspoon etched his name in history as the only clergyman to sign the Declaration of Independence.

In the ensuing years, Witherspoon marshalled all of his energies and all the men and resources of Princeton to support the revolution. Witherspoon was so tied to the patriot cause that the Whig politician Horace Walpole famously remarked, “Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson!” Likewise, in a 1779 letter, Adam Ferguson wrote to Alexander Caryle (both classmates of Witherspoon’s at Edinburgh): “We have 1200 miles of Territory in Length occupied by about 3,000,000 People of which there are about 1,500,000 with Johnny Witherspoons at their head against us.”

Witherspoon’s support for independence did not come without significant cost. During the war, the college was shut down, students were dispersed, and Witherspoon had to flee Princeton for fear of British troops. Presbyterian ministers were particularly hated by the British for their outspoken defense of the revolution. At the Second Battle of Trenton, John Rosbrugh—a graduate of Princeton, an ordained Presbyterian minister, and the first ever casualty among U.S. chaplains—was killed by Hessian troops under command of a British officer when they mistook Rosbrugh for Witherspoon. When Witherspoon returned to the college after the Battle of Princeton, the president found that buildings had suffered extensive damage, library books had been used for kindling, and many of his personal belongings had been confiscated or destroyed. “Old Weatherspoon has not escaped their fury,” a congressman wrote to Thomas Jefferson. Most painfully, Witherspoon’s son, James, was killed on October 4, 1777 at the Battle of Germantown.

It is hard to overstate Witherspoon’s influence as one of our most quintessential, if often forgotten, founders. He was well respected and often sought out for advice by the likes of George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and Benjamin Franklin. James Madison stayed on an extra year at Princeton to sit under Witherspoon’s personal instruction. Besides the Declaration, Witherspoon also signed the Articles of Confederation, helped New Jersey ratify the Constitution, served in the state legislature, and participated in 126 committees during his six years in the Continental Congress. At various points, he served on the committee of finances, the committee to confer with George Washington on the military crisis and the procurement of supplies, the secret committee charged with executing the war effort, and on the all-important Board of War.  Having learned French at a young age, Witherspoon also translated for French dignitaries visiting America. Furthermore, he personally taught a generation of educators, legislators, and statesmen in the new republic. A list of his Princeton students includes twelve members of the Continental Congress, five delegates to the Constitutional Convention, one U.S. president (James Madison), one vice president (Aaron Burr), forty-nine representatives, twenty-eight senators, three Supreme Court justices, eight district judges, one secretary of state, three attorneys general, and two foreign ministers.

In the last decade of his life, Witherspoon turned over many of his duties at Princeton to his son-in-law, Samuel Stanhope Smith. Witherspoon continued to preach almost every Sunday to the congregation at Princeton, until his eyesight began to fail. After losing his first wife in 1789, Witherspoon married Anne Dill, a much younger widow, in 1791. They had two daughters together before Witherspoon died at his country home, Tusculum, on November 15, 1794, having served as Princeton’s president for more than a quarter century.

Witherspoon and Slavery

It is often said that Witherpoon’s relationship to slavery was complicated. And I suppose that’s true in so far as most human beings are complicated, especially as they relate to the contested moral issues of their age. At the same time, Witherspoon’s views on slavery were fairly straightforward: he believed that bringing people into slavery was wrong (except as a punishment for crimes), that abolition should be sought after and prayed for, that slaves and Black people should be treated with decency and dignity, that immediate abolition (on a personal and national scale) would likely do more harm than good, and that slavery would soon disappear in America. In all these views, and in his personal practice, Witherspoon was typical of many educated men in Britain and in America, and more enlightened than several of our most famous founders.

The Case of James Montgomery

In spring of 1756, Robert Shedden of Scottish town Beith was caught up in a now-famous case involving a runaway slave known as James Montgomery. Years earlier Shedden had purchased Montgomery (who came to Scotland under the name Shanker) from Captain Joseph Hawkins in Virginia. After giving Montgomery an apprenticeship in Beith, Shedden was determined to sell his slave back to Hawkins, for the original sale price of £56 plus 1,000 pounds of tobacco (in light of Montgomery’s apprenticeship). When Montgomery refused to go, Shedden forcibly brought him to the Port of Glasgow. Montgomery escaped but was soon captured in Edinburgh and imprisoned. Robert Gray, Procurator Fiscal of the Ballie Court of Edinburgh, took up the case in defense of Montgomery, arguing, in part, that Shedden’s so-called slave “was instructed in the Christian Religion and was publicly Baptized in the presence of the Congregation in the parish Church of Beith and named James Montgomery Shedden, as is instructed by a certificate under the hand of John Witherspoon minister of the said parish.” Sadly, Montgomery died in prison before the case could be heard before the Court of Session.

Given the nature of a court case, there are two ways to view Witherspoon’s public act of baptism. Robert Shedden insisted that Witherspoon and the elders of the church informed Montgomery that even as a Christian he would still have the duty to obey his master. We have no record of Witherspoon accepting or denying this claim. On the other hand, Montgomery’s legal counsel emphasized that as a baptized member of the church in Beith, Montgomery could no longer be a slave, because such bondage was inconsistent with his freedom in Christ. Given the fact that Witherspoon baptized Montgomery the day before he was to be taken to Glasgow, and that Witherspoon sent him off with a certificate verifying his good Christian conduct, it seems probable that Witherspoon knew he was helping Montgomery make his case for freedom. As Alexander Murdoch of the University of Edinburgh has pointed out, “Nothing in the certificate of baptism claimed its possessor was a free man, but Witherspoon’s support was important.”

Although the Princeton and Slavery Project—which grew from a small undergraduate research seminar in 2013 into the launch of an impressive website in 2017, utilizing the work of 50 authors and 15 research assistants—cites William Harrison Taylor’s important article “Faith and Slavery in the Presbyterian Diaspora” several times, the Project website paints a more negative picture of Witherspoon than Taylor does. The Project’s website suggests that Witherspoon only meant to free Montgomery from sin and had no interest in his physical freedom. Taylor, on the other hand, observes that “the court also heard that Witherspoon had given [Montgomery] a ‘certificate of Christian conduct,’ indicating an expectation that he might go free, and effectively providing him with a means of achieving this.” At the very least, it is significant that Witherspoon was willing to instruct and baptize a slave in a dispute with one of his own church members. In fact, some have speculated that the surname “Montgomery” was given to the enslaved man after the maiden name of Witherspoon’s wife Elizabeth. This would be another indication of the closeness of Witherspoon’s relationship to the enslaved man he baptized and welcomed into membership in his church.

Private Instruction

As president, Witherspoon taught free Black men and gained the reputation for Princeton as a place where Black men could receive personal instruction. In 1774, Bristol Yamma and John Quamime—African born slaves who had purchased their freedom a year earlier—matriculated to Princeton to be special students of the president. They were not enrolled for degrees, but they had private lessons with Witherspoon.

Years later, John Chavis—a Revolutionary War veteran, property owner, and free Black man—sought out Witherspoon for similar instruction. In 1792, as an older “non-traditional” student, Chavis was admitted to Princeton using scholarship money from the Leslie Fund. In order to be admitted to Princeton, a student had to be tested in English grammar, orthography, punctuation, composition, geography, United States history, Latin grammar, Greek grammar, and mathematics. Chavis was well educated and a quick learner. While at Princeton, he received private tutoring from Witherspoon. In 1793 or 1794 Chavis left Princeton (likely because of Witherspoon’s illness and death) and later finished his academic studies at Liberty Hall Academy (now Washington and Lee University) and was licensed to preach by the Lexington Presbytery in Virginia.

As a member of congress, Witherspoon also sought funding for American Indian students to receive instruction at Princeton.

Views on Slavery

Witherspoon did not often speak explicitly to the issue of slavery, but when he did, his views were similar to other leading men of the founding generation: forced slavery is wrong; slavery will soon die out in America; immediate abolition is, therefore, neither wise nor necessary. In his Lectures on Moral Philosophy—composed soon after arriving in America, but published only posthumously from student notes—Witherspoon argued that while men may become slaves by their consent or as a punishment, “it is certainly unlawful to make inroads upon others, unprovoked, and take away their liberty by no better right than superior power.” Later, Witherspoon insisted: “Some have pleaded for making slaves of the barbarous nations, that they are actually brought into a more eligible state, and have more of the comforts of life, than they would have in their own country. This argument may alleviate, but does not justify the practice. It cannot be called a more eligible state, if less agreeable to themselves.” In conclusion, Witherspoon allowed that it was not necessary to free men already in a state of slavery because this would “make them free to their own ruin.” Still, “it is very doubtful whether any original cause of servitude can be defended, but as legal punishment for the commission of crimes.”

To be sure, Witherspoon was not a radical abolitionist. In his Description of the State of New Jersey, he maintained that slaves were well fed and well clothed. He did not view the plight of the enslaved with urgency. And yet, he was glad to see that the Dutch “use their slaves and other servants with great humanity, often not scrupling white and black to eat together.”

It is sometimes said that Witherspoon taught and voted against abolition, but this is only true if we equate abolition with immediate emancipation. When Witherspoon, in 1790, chaired the committee considering the possibility of abolition in New Jersey, he did not vote against abolition. He argued that sufficient laws against slavery were already in place and that slavery would soon die out.

Here is how Varnum Lansing Collins—Witherspoon’s most comprehensive biographer, even though his two-volume work President Witherspoon came out almost one hundred years ago—puts it:

As chairman of the [abolition] committee Dr. Witherspoon reported that the law already in force forbade the importation of slaves except actual servants of immigrants from other States, or of transient residents; that the exportation of slaves was likewise forbidden; that the law as it stood encouraged voluntary manumission of slaves; and that by it, moreover, slaves were protected from violence. He then offered the suggestions that New Jersey might enact a law that all slaves born after its passage should become free at a certain age, as for example 28; but in his opinion “from the state of society in America, the privileges of the press, and the progress of the idea of universal liberty,” there was little reason to believe that there would be any slaves at all in America twenty-eight years from that time.

We can question the judgment of men like Witherspoon, but we should deal fairly with the reasons for their actions. Collins concludes that Witherspoon’s opinions were “laudable but over-sanguine.”

Perhaps the best representation of Witherspoon’s views on slavery comes from his involvement not in politics but in the church. A 1787 resolution from the Synod of New York and Philadelphia—a Synod at which Witherspoon took the lead in proposing a new form of government and discipline—approved of “the general principles in favor of universal liberty that prevail in America; and the interest which many of the states have taken in promoting the abolition of slavery.” Although the Synod did not urge disciplining or separating from slaveholding churchmen and did not advocate for immediate abolition, it did encourage educating slaves, giving them a share of property, and teaching them to be self-sufficient so that they might be productive freemen someday. Moreover, the Synod went on to “recommend it to all the people under their care to use the most prudent measures, consistent with the interest and the state of civil society, in the parts where they live, to procure, eventually, the final abolition of slavery in America” (emphasis in original). This statement—if not written by Witherspoon himself—certainly would not have passed without his support.

Two Slaves

Given that Witherspoon baptized a runaway slave, taught free Blacks, and favored (eventual) abolition, what do we make of the fact that Witherspoon was himself a slaveowner?

It appears that Witherspoon first acquired slaves after moving to his country home (“Tusculum”) in 1779. Tax records from 1780 for the Western Precinct of Somerset Country show that out of more than 60 slaves in the precinct, Witherspoon owned one, no doubt to help farm his 500-acre estate, the largest acreage listed in that edition of the tax ratables. Beginning with the 1784 records, Witherspoon owned two slaves. While we might wonder about the consistency of writing against slavery while later owning slaves, Witherspoon likely reasoned, as he explained in his Lectures on Moral Philosophy, that releasing those already in slavery “would make them free to their own ruin.” In his last will and testament (written in 1793 and executed upon his death in 1794), the final line lists at £200: “2 Slaves supposed to be worth until they are 28 years of age.”

The reference to 28 years of age may be a hint that Witherspoon and his wife intended to manumit their two slaves, perhaps even in the near future. Recall Witherspoon’s suggestion that New Jersey enact a law that “all slaves born after its passage should become free at a certain age, as for example 28.” No doubt, this suggestion was modeled after Pennsylvania’s famous 1780 “Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery”—the first act abolishing slavery ever adopted by a democratic people. The Act decreed that children born into slavery (after the adoption of the Act) would be set free upon reaching 28 years of age. Perhaps there is another explanation for noting “until 28 years of age” in Witherspoon’s will, but one plausible explanation is that Witherspoon did not mean for the two slaves to remain in slavery past 28 years old.


The purpose of this article is not to excuse John Witherspoon from statements, judgments, or actions with which we would disagree. He led an impressive and influential life, but not a flawless one. And yet, if the measure for memorializing men and women from the past is perfection, we won’t be left with many heroes. No doubt, all of us wish to be judged as whole persons, by the totality of our words, deeds, relationships, and affections. Should anyone care to learn about us in the future, we can only hope that they will try to understand us on our own terms, in our own context, and not evaluate our life’s work based on blindspots that seem clear to them, however hidden they were to us. If Witherspoon’s contributions to Princeton and to the United States are, in the main, worth remembering and celebrating, and if his mistakes were actually fairly enlightened for his age, then perhaps we are better served tearing down our own prejudice toward people in the past instead of tearing down statues.

Part Two: A Fuller Measure of Witherspoon on Slavery

As of the online publication of this essay, Princeton University is still deciding what to do with Witherspoon. The Council of the Princeton University Committee on Naming is forming its recommendation in response to the petition initiated in May 2022 to remove from its place of honor in Firestone Library Plaza between East Pyne Hall and the Chapel the statue of John Witherspoon (1723 – 1794), Princeton’s sixth president who led the (then) College of New Jersey from 1768 until his death 26 years later. This statue, commissioned by the Princeton University Board of Trustees, was dedicated in 2001. The initiators of the petition have cited as reasons for the statue’s removal their beliefs that Witherspoon “participated actively in the enslavement of human beings, and used his scholarly gifts to defend the practice.” One opponent to the proposed removal of Witherspoon’s statue submitted that the petitioners have “a tragic misunderstanding. . . of the full measure of Witherspoon on slavery.” In this present essay, I present new evidence on the duration and nature of Witherspoon’s ownership of slaves. I also briefly note Witherspoon’s connections to other evangelical Christians active in the abolition movement. By reviewing these facts—some of them not mentioned before in any of the secondary literature—I hope to present a fuller measure of Witherspoon on slavery.

In December 2022, I wrote an article opposing removal of the Witherspoon statue. Among the salient aspects of Witherspoon this piece explored were his outstanding service to Princeton, his courageous participation with the founders of our nation as a signer of the Declaration of Independence, his foundational leadership in the Presbyterian church, and, yes, the sad fact that he had owned slaves. This article generated a fair amount of attention, much of it negative. For many people, any defense of Witherspoon is tantamount to defending slavery itself. Of course, that was not the purpose of my article. We all wish slavery had not been present at the American founding, and we all lament that so many great men from that era could not see their own moral inconsistencies (or in some cases, egregious hypocrisies).

At the same time, it behooves us as critical thinkers, and simply as fellow human beings, to try to understand people from the past in their own context and on their own terms. In Witherspoon’s case, this doesn’t mean we justify slavery, but it does mean we must not accept the quick (and misleading) summary that says nothing more than “Witherspoon owned slaves and voted against abolition.” As I showed in my previous article, Witherspoon baptized a runaway slave in Scotland, taught free Blacks at Princeton, believed no man had the right to take away the liberty of another based on a superior power, and longed for the final abolition of slavery in America. As chairman of the New Jersey committee considering abolition, Witherspoon did not oppose abolition. Rather, he believed that laws were already in place to ensure the decent treatment of slaves and to encourage voluntary manumission, and that slavery would soon die out in America. He was, of course, wrong in this last conclusion, but most colonial leaders shared the same assumption. They did not know Eli Whitney’s cotton gin (invented in 1793) would revolutionize the cotton industry and vastly increase the demand for slave labor in the South.

New Evidence on Witherspoon’s Slave Ownership

But I don’t need to repeat the facts and arguments from my previous article. What I want to do next in this article is present new information about evidence of Witherspoon’s slaveholding—information I’ve not seen mentioned in any of the secondary literature or included on the Princeton and Slavery Project website. There are two direct pieces of evidence showing that Witherspoon owned slaves: (1) the New Jersey tax ratables, and (2) the listing of his possessions at the end of his life. Each one merits careful examination. Let’s start with the first piece of evidence.

Tax Ratables

The New Jersey State Archives holds the tax ratables for colonial New Jersey. These are, as the name suggests, records about property and other goods and the taxes levied on these possessions. At the end of 2022, I asked the State Archives if they could send me the relevant tax ratables for the Western Precinct of Somerset County (where Witherspoon’s country estate, Tusculum, was located). At that time, they hadn’t finished scanning all the documents, so I was only able to see enough of the ratables to confirm that the first record of Witherspoon owning a slave shows up in 1780 and that by 1784 he had two slaves. Within the past week, the excellent archivists in Trenton finished scanning the rest of the relevant documents and sent them to me. Here’s what they show: In 1785 and 1786, Witherspoon had two slaves. There is no record for 1787. But there are records for 1788, 1789, 1790, 1791, 1792, 1793, and 1794 (when Witherspoon died). In each year they list Witherspoon as owning zero slaves. After Witherspoon’s death, his wife Ann is mentioned in the tax ratables. No slaves are mentioned in her possession either.

Here is a simplified table of information drawn from the tax ratables (gaps in the sequence indicate no extant records for that year):

NameDateAcres of arable landSlaves
John WitherspoonMay 17805001
John Witherspoon17845002
John WitherspoonJuly 17855782
John WitherspoonAugust 17865562
John WitherspoonSeptember 17885560
John WitherspoonAugust 17895460
John WitherspoonFebruary 17905460
John WitherspoonSeptember 17915560
John WitherspoonSeptember 17925460
John WitherspoonSeptember 17935460
John WitherspoonSeptember 17945460
Ann WitherspoonSeptember 17954940
Ann WitherspoonSeptember 17962110
Ann WitherspoonSeptember 17972110

As we can see, Witherspoon did not own slaves—at least as the county assessor counted things—for most of the years he lived at Tusculum. (He moved from the college proper to Tusculum a mile away in 1779.). We don’t know how he acquired a slave in 1780. Did he purchase the enslaved person? Had the enslaved person already been working the property? Was the enslaved person assigned to him by the college? Nor do we know what changed in 1788 (or 1787). Were the two slaves sent elsewhere? Did they die? Were they emancipated? These are questions that probably cannot be answered. What we do know is that according to these records Witherspoon owned one and then two slaves over the course of seven years.

There is another fascinating discovery in the tax ratables. In 1792, 1793, and 1794 there is listed for the first time another Witherspoon (spelled “Weatherspoon” as John’s name also was), with the designation N (1792), then Ne (1793), then Neg (1794)—Neg being the designation for Negro. The persons marked “Neg” always shared a last name with a landowner and were likely servants or slaves who had been recently freed, or slaves who had been given property on their way to full emancipation. This African-American Witherspoon—the first name is spelled differently each year, but it is something like Forton—owned cattle and was listed as a householder.

The presence of a Black man with the surname Witherspoon is an important discovery. We don’t know if Forton was a new slave bought in 1792 because John Witherspoon went blind in both eyes in 1791 and needed new assistance. Or it might be that a new slave (or two) came to John upon his marriage to Ann in 1791, were given a household of their own, and worked for the Witherspoons until John’s death in 1794. Ann Witherspoon’s first husband came from a slaveholding family in York County, Pennsylvania. Perhaps the man Forton (and his wife?) came with Ann and that’s why the two slaves counted at the time of Witherspoon’s death include the curious reference to “until they are 28 years of age,” twenty-eight being the age at which those born into slavery were to set free under Pennsylvania law. Or it could be that in 1787 or 1788 Witherspoon gave his two slaves their own portion of the estate, such that the assessor no longer counted them as slaves in his possession. Perhaps Somerset County only began to designate “Negroes” in the tax ratables beginning in 1792. After 1794, presumably when the widow Ann would have needed help the most, there is no mention of the “Negro” Witherspoon, suggesting that he was free to go where he pleased.

Last Will and Testament

This still leaves us with the fact that two slaves are listed among Witherspoon’s assets at the time of his death. The slaves are nowhere mentioned in Witherspoon’s last will and testament. The will—drawn up on September 15, 1794 and modified on November 11—only stipulates who is to receive portions of his settled estate.  No specific possessions are enumerated until after Witherspoon’s death when, on November 28, two appraisers list his possessions and provide a value for every item. This is where two slaves are mentioned.

We can’t be sure how to reconcile the appraisers’ mentioning of two slaves at the time of Witherspoon’s death with the listing of no slaves according to the tax ratables of the same year. There must have been some arrangement which rendered the status of the “Negro” Witherspoon ambiguous. The most likely explanation is that Witherspoon gave his slaves—either in 1787/1788 or upon receiving two slaves through his second marriage—a share of his estate that they might be prepared, in due course, to live in full freedom on their own. We know from Witherspoon’s Lectures on Moral Philosophy and from his work on the New Jersey committee mentioned earlier that Witherspoon was in favor of abolition, but that he also believed that moving too quickly could be dangerous for society and “make [slaves] free to their own ruin.” He was, in other words, a consistent proponent of gradual abolition.

How should we put all these pieces together? My best guess is that two slaves (husband and wife?) came with Ann Dill in her marriage to John Witherspoon, that they were considered Witherspoon’s assets by the assessors executing his will, but that the slaves were, in another sense, free persons and were listed as such in the tax record. The reference to “28 years of age” in Witherspoon’s will gives credence to the suggestion that the slaves would be free from all obligations at 28 years old (at the latest) in keeping with the 1780 Pennsylvania statute. If two Black persons came as a part of Ann’s property, it seems they were treated as free Negroes in their own household, but also had some sort of agreement (willingly or unwillingly we don’t know) to remain as servants so long as John was alive and needed assistance. In 1795, Ann had 494 acres in her possession, but this went down to 211 acres the following year, so she did not continue to maintain their estate on the same scale.

Witherspoon and the Presbyterian Church’s Statement on Slavery

The best example of Witherspoon’s thought on slavery and how to end it probably comes from the statement made by the Synod of New York and Philadelphia (i.e., the Presbyterian church) in 1787 and later reiterated in 1794. We should not forget just how revered Witherspoon was among his fellow Presbyterians. He was appointed to almost every important committee in the early years of the national Presbyterian church. He drew up many of the church’s foundational documents and was given the honor of preaching the opening sermon at the first General Assembly in 1789. At that first Assembly, there were 188 ministers present, 97 of whom were from Princeton, 52 of those being Witherspoon’s former pupils. Given his stature as senior statesman and as the personal mentor for over a quarter of the commissioners, the statement on slavery in 1787 undoubtedly reflected Witherspoon’s own beliefs and may have been drafted by him.

Here, in full, is the statement on slavery adopted by the Presbyterian church in 1787:

The Synod of New-York and Philadelphia do highly approve of the general principles, in favor of universal liberty, that prevail in America; and the interest which many of the states have taken in promoting the abolition of slavery. Yet, inasmuch as men introduced into a servile state, to a participation of all the privileges of civil society, without a proper education, and without previous habits of industry, may be, in many respects dangerous to the community. Therefore, they earnestly recommend it to all the members belonging to their communion, to give those persons, who are at present held in servitude, such good education as may prepare them for the better enjoyment of freedom.

And they, moreover, recommend, that matters, wherever they find servants disposed to make a proper improvement of the privilege, would give them some share of property to being with; or grant them sufficient time, and sufficient means, of procuring, by industry, their own liberty, at a moderate rate: that they may thereby be brought into society, with those habits of industry, that may render them useful citizens.

And, finally, they recommend it to all the people under their care, to use the most prudent measures, consistent with the interest and the state of civil society, in parts where they live, to procure, eventually, the final abolition of slavery in America. (Emphasis in original)

This long statement may give us the fullest and clearest explanation of Witherspoon’s views on slavery and abolition. He did not think men should be forced into slavery, but once already enslaved, he did not think immediate emancipation would be good for society or good for most slaves. He believed slaves should be educated and treated humanely. He favored abolition, but gradually and eventually. Toward that end, Witherspoon encouraged masters to give slaves a share of property, thus allowing them to be better prepared for freedom. It seems that Witherspoon likely practiced what he preached by making “Forton Weatherspoon” a householder of his own and giving him the opportunity to be fully emancipated, which he appears to have been shortly after Witherspoon’s death.

Witherspoon, John Newton, and William Wilberforce

Many Americans know of John Newton (1725 – 1807), or if they don’t know of Newton directly, they’ve heard his famous hymn “Amazing Grace” (1773). What many may not know is that Newton was, before his conversion to Christianity, a participant in the Atlantic Slave Trade, first serving on a slave ship in 1745 and continuing work on slave ships and investing in the slave trade for many years. Although Newton was “awakened” to God and his sin in 1748, he wrote in 1764 that he was not “a believer in the full sense of the word, till a considerable time afterwards.” In 1764, Newton began service as an Anglican clergyman. He moved to a church in London in 1780, eventually becoming one of the leading evangelical ministers of his day. In 1787, Newton published his Thoughts upon the African Slave -Trade (1787), in which he confessed his own complicity in the slave trade and called for its abolition.

Newton was one of the most important influences in the life of William Wilberforce (1759 – 1833), the acclaimed British leader who committed his life to the abolition of the slave trade. Following an evangelical conversion in 1785, the young Member of Parliament doubted that he should remain in politics. Wilberforce sought out Newton for counsel, who urged him to continue and “serve God where he was.”

While it would be too much to claim that Witherspoon was a pivotal in the lives of Newton and Wilberforce, it is worth noting that the three evangelicals were connected at various points. In 1791, the College of New Jersey, under Witherspoon’s leadership conferred an honorary degree upon Newton. No doubt, the school sensed a spiritual connection with Newton, but the degree also suggests implicit support for Newton’s role in opposing the slave trade. Both Newton and Wilberforce commended Witherspoon’s theological writings, especially his Treatise on Regeneration (1764). Newton said it was the best book he had read on the subject, while Wilberforce, for his part, recommended the book often, gave it away to friends, and penned a complimentary essay in 1823 for a new edition of the work. If Witherspoon had been seen as a friend of slavery and an enemy of abolition in his own time, it is unlikely that Newton and Wilberforce would have thought of him so highly and praised his work so unreservedly.


In all of this, we can still wish that Witherspoon had moved more quickly to free slaves in his own life or made the case for final abolition with more urgency. Indeed, New Jersey would become the last northern state to abolish slavery, doing so only in 1866, a year after the Civil War ended. But considering the totality of his teaching and his personal example on the issue of slavery, we ought to question any assessment that makes Witherspoon out to be someone deeply enmeshed in slavery throughout his life or in favor of the indefinite perpetuation of slavery. There is little doubt that Witherspoon was more enlightened on the issue of slavery than many of his generation, and less personally complicit in the evils of slavery than men like Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Franklin, and many of our country’s most celebrated founders.

Witherspoon was respected in his day as a great theologian, an exemplary college president, and an “animated son of liberty” whose leadership and sacrifice did much to advance the cause of the American Revolution and to establish the governing principles of the new republic. Even on the issue of slavery—though compromised by our standards—he showed himself to be moving in the right direction and called others to the same. With eyes wide open to his faults, Witherspoon’s legacy deserves to be commemorated—by the Scottish, by Americans, by Presbyterians, and, yes, by Princetonians too.

This content was originally published on

You might also like