Your Cart is Empty
We are writing to you on behalf of Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) to bring to your attention important new information relating to the petition to remove the statue of John Witherspoon from its prominent place on the plaza near Firestone Library and the Chapel. PFS is a Princeton alumni organization devoted to promoting free speech, academic freedom, and viewpoint diversity at Princeton. Thousands of Princeton alumni, as well as many students, faculty, and university staff, follow PFS on our website.
PFS believes that this new information, particularly that obtained from tax records pertaining to Witherspoon’s ownership of slaves, changes the narrative of the debate on removal of the statue and challenges the basic assertions in the petition. In addition, the listening sessions took place without participants being aware of the true history of Witherspoon. Furthermore, this new information shows the history of Witherspoon on the University’s Princeton and Slavery Project website to be both incomplete and misleading.
The narrative about Witherspoon that was presented by the petitioners may be summarized as: Yes, he was important to Princeton, and he signed the Declaration of Independence and participated in other actions relating to the founding of our country; but he also owned slaves and opposed the immediate emancipation of slaves in New Jersey. Even before the new revelations, this framing of the issue was misleading. First it understates the importance of Witherspoon to Princeton. He is arguably the most important figure in Princeton’s history and may well have saved the University from failure. Second it understates Witherspoon’s role in the founding of our country. He was involved at great personal risk. If the American Revolution had failed -- and it almost did several times -- he likely would have been hung. He not only signed the Declaration of Independence (the only member of the clergy to do so), he also signed the Articles of Confederation, served actively in the Continental Congress, and was central to New Jersey’s ratifying the Constitution, which was considered a critical event at the time, when ratification was far from certain.
With respect to slavery, it had already been established that Witherspoon had baptized a runaway slave in Scotland and tutored two former slaves at Princeton. Furthermore, it was already clear from the historical record that he (like many others) believed that slavery was rapidly dying out in the United States. That proved incorrect, in large part because the cotton gin and other new technology hugely increased the yield of raw cotton and thus the demand for slave labor to pick it, with the number of slave states rising from six in 1790 to 15 in 1860. Witherspoon also believed it important that freed slaves not be put out into society without being provided with the educational and economic tools they would need to succeed. This latter point is developed more fully in a January 26, ‘23 article containing significant new information about Witherspoon by Kevin DeYoung, an expert on his life. It is also noteworthy, as DeYoung points out, that Witherspoon was a leading figure in the Presbyterian Church organization that in 1787 issued a statement calling for “eventually, the final abolition of slavery in America.” (Emphasis in the original.)
The most important new information in this DeYoung article is newly uncovered tax information from the New Jersey State Archives. While the Archives contain gaps, what they show is that Witherspoon owned one slave in 1780 and two in 1784, 1785, and 1786. 1787 is missing. However, from 1788 until Witherspoon’s death in 1794, he is shown as owning zero slaves, and his wife the next year is shown as owning zero slaves. It therefore seems likely that, in some fashion, Witherspoon had moved to “emancipate” his slaves. This puts an entirely different light on the assertion about his slave ownership that is the basis of the petition.
As the DeYoung article lays out, this thesis that Witherspoon in some fashion had moved to “emancipate” his slaves is supported by the fact that there is also listed in the tax records for the years 1792, 1793, and 1794 another Witherspoon, designated as a Negro, and listed as owning cattle and as a householder. Given that at the time a freed slave almost always shared the last name of the landowner, it is likely that this was one of the slaves that had been listed on the tax rolls until 1786. These tax records may well mean that Witherspoon gave his slaves a share of his estate in preparation for their full legal emancipation and therefore no longer counted them as slaves. This conclusion is supported by the philosophy on slavery in Witherspoon’s own writings and by the 1787 statement on slavery of the Presbyterian Church in which he participated.
We do not know, and may never know, exactly what happened after 1786. As the DeYoung article points out, there are uncertainties in the record, and there is language in the appraisal of his estate relating to two slaves. What is clear is that with this new discovery in the New Jersey tax records the simplistic narrative in the petition to remove the statue is now highly questionable and should not be the basis for a decision by the naming committee. It is now incumbent on the University to do further research before making any decision.
The Witherspoon statue controversy directly tests Princeton’s stated commitment to academic freedom, intellectual diversity and open debate in the pursuit of truth. Without a full airing of historical evidence and perspectives on the life and legacy of John Witherspoon, Princeton’s leadership will acquiesce to the pall of orthodoxy that currently undermines the quality and vitality of academic life at Princeton.
Stuart Taylor, Jr ‘70 -- President, Princetonians for Free Speech
Edward L. Yingling ’70 -- Secretary, Princetonians for Free Speech
Todd Rulon-Miller ’73 -- Treasurer, Princetonians for Free Speech
Leslie Spencer ’79 -- Member of the Executive Committee, Princetonians for Free Speech
August 19, 2025
By Tal Fortgang ‘17
Columbia University’s recent settlement with the Trump administration represents a long-awaited watershed moment in the ongoing battle between the federal government and American universities. Its arrival is enormously symbolic within the ongoing saga and is a sign of things to come. How would the federal government treat free speech and academic freedom concerns? Was it looking to avoid going to court, or would it welcome the opportunity to litigate formally? And how much would each side be willing to compromise on its deeply entrenched positions?
A settlement – better described as a deal, not merely because dealmaking is the President’s preferred framework for governance but because the feds did not actually sue Columbia -- was always the most likely outcome of the showdown. It is not inherently inappropriate as a resolution to legitimate civil rights concerns, though the administration probably could have achieved its objectives more sustainably had it followed the procedure set out in civil rights law. Nevertheless, a deal has been struck, and assessing it is more complex than simply deeming it good or bad by virtue of its existing – though many certainly wish each side had simply declined to negotiate with the other.
Digging into the deal – and attending to its silences -- reveals a combination of promising reforms, distractions, and even some failures. Most critically, the agreement’s silence on admissions and hiring practices suggests that the underlying issues that precipitated this crisis will likely resurface, creating a cycle of federal intervention that will relegate this episode to a footnote.
Sena Chang
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: Antisemitic graffiti of a gray swastika was found on the wall of a graduate student apartment building inside the Lakeside housing complex in mid-July. The graffiti was removed immediately following multiple reports, with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) opening an investigation into the incident and increasing foot patrols in the area in response, according to University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill.
Construction was underway inside Lakeside at the time of the incident, and the University has not yet determined whether the graffiti was the work of a student or contractor. No suspects have been named.
Isabel Vincent and Benjamin Weinthal
New York Post
Excerpt: A controversial Princeton professor with strong ties to the Iranian regime has quietly stepped down from the Ivy League school, following a campaign from dissidents to remove him.
Seyed Hossein Mousavian, a Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist, retired from his position after 15 years as the head of the school’s Program on Science and Global Security on June 1, according to an announcement listing retiring employees on Princeton’s website. The professor is controversial for being heavily involved in Iran’s chemical and nuclear programs beginning in 2004, long before the country was known to have been building up its nuclear arsenal, according to German journalist Bruno Schirra.
