Since August of 2020, a group of dedicated student researchers, under the guidance of Dr. Christopher Wilkins, associate professor and chair of the department of history at William Jewell College, has been researching the history of slavery in relationship to Jewell. The research group that the students and Wilkins created, the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project (SJMP), had its origins in an introductory history seminar last fall. This semester, Project members mainly convene during the HIS 204: Slavery, Memory, and Justice course that Wilkins teaches. They plan to conduct research for as long as it takes to bring the truth about the College’s relationship with slavery to light. This will ultimately conclude with the group publishing their research – writing a more accurate account of Jewell’s history in the hopes of creating a more inclusive college community. 

As the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project compiles and verifies their research, The Hilltop Monitor will publish their findings. This is the final installment in a series of investigations into the history of slavery at William Jewell College. 

Over the past month, The Hilltop Monitor has detailed the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project’s investigation into the founders and early trustees’ ties to slavery more broadly, and introduced their research on Dr. Jewell and Alexander Doniphan. In this final installment of the investigation, the Monitor reviews the society these figures were embedded in and where the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project endeavors to go next. 

Alexander Doniphan, James T.V. Thompson and other founders and trustees from Clay County were rooted in the society of early Liberty and Clay County. To gain a more comprehensive picture of Jewell’s founding, the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project continues to investigate Liberty and Clay County’s historical ties to slavery.

Over the course of this research, the SMJP began assembling evidence that reveals the terrible irony in the name of Liberty. Despite a name proclaiming freedom, both Liberty and Clay County broadly supported slavery and economically depended upon it. 

Founded in the 1820s, most of Clay County’s early white settlers originated from the slave states of Virginia, Kentucky and Tennessee. When they traveled westward, they brought the enslaved people they owned with them. According to census records, 10,337 people lived in Clay County by 1850. Roughly 27% of this total population, or 2,742 people, was enslaved. 

Although Missouri was a slave state, Clay County was far above the norm for Missouri in its embrace of slavery. Overall 13% of Missouri’s population was enslaved in 1850 – or 87,442 enslaved people out of a total population of 682,044. Clay County more than doubled the percentage of the enslaved compared to that of the state as a whole. 

Out of 100 total Missouri counties in 1850, only four other counties had a higher percentage of enslaved people relative to the total population than Clay County.

According to the Project, critical to understanding the role of slave labor in Clay County is acknowledging the differences between how the slave system worked in the Deep South relative to Missouri. Geography and climate made the large-scale plantations of the Deep South ill-suited for Missouri. Slavery in Missouri tended to be more diversified and smaller in scale. 

Few Missouri slave owners owned more than twenty enslaved people. For many slaveholding farmers with smaller operations, the slaveholders worked in the fields alongside the people they enslaved. Sometimes these slaveholders supplemented their income by renting out enslaved people to perform domestic labor and construction. 

However, as scholars of slavery note, a difference in the organizational structure of slavery does not mean it was any less central to the economic system of Missouri and Clay County. By the end of the 1850s, Missouri was one of the largest hemp-producing states in the nation, and Clay County was among the foremost hemp-producing counties in the state. Since the cultivation of hemp demanded backbreaking labor, slaveholders almost always assigned this task to enslaved people.  

The wealth the citizens of Clay County received from this forced labor would be pivotal to their ability to persuade the Baptists to locate their college in Liberty, as recounted in the first installment in this series. 

As part of its research, the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project interrogated one of the common justifications used to excuse slaveholders – that they were products of their time and did not have significant access to opposing viewpoints. 

The researchers on the SMJP uncovered evidence to the contrary of this argument. 

At the state level, hostility by a large majority of white Missourians towards abolitionist arguments clearly illustrated their awareness of these arguments. The General Assembly approved an act in 1837 that prohibited the promulgation of abolitionist doctrines. Violators of the law faced two years in state prison and a potential maximum $1,000 fine. Repeat offenders faced sharply escalating sentences: 20 years in prison for a second offense, and a life sentence for a third offense. One of western Missouri’s most prominent citizens, Clay County’s Alexander Doniphan, advocated publicly for the bill’s passage.

Though no prominent Missouri politician supported the immediate abolition of slavery during the Antebellum period, not all were favorably disposed towards the institution on moral grounds. In the early 1850s, the legendary Senator Thomas Hart Benton – one of Missouri’s most powerful politicians for three decades – criticized slavery. Although he was himself a slaveholder, Benton castigated slavery as an incurable evil. 

Given Benton’s prominence, his moral condemnation received wide coverage across the state. Benton’s public opposition stands in contrast to Dr. Jewell, who is similarly often portrayed as a slaveholder with antislavery sentiments. However, there is no evidence that Jewell ever publicly spoke out against slavery. 

In Clay County, two revealing incidents from the 1840s and 1850s demonstrate that citizens had exposure to alternative views. 

According to T.J. Stiles’s Jesse James: Last Rebel of the Civil War, in the 1840s, two evangelists identified only by their last names Chandler and Love dared to criticize slaveholders in Liberty. Jane Gill, the sister of early Jewell trustee Waltus Watkins,  described Clay Countians as sufficiently “enraged” against this anti-slavery preaching that they “threatened” Love “so that he could not preach there.” Swiftly after this threat, Chandler and Love “fled to a northern state.” 

Clay Countians’ feelings towards abolitionism hardened as the decade progressed. At a public meeting in Liberty concerning the Compromise of 1850, prominent figures and Jewell founders – including Doniphan, James T.V. Thompson and E.M. Samuel – all angrily denounced abolitionists. 

Finally, if there could be any doubt about Clay County’s awareness of abolitionist arguments and pro-slavery tilt, the conflict that became known as Bleeding Kansas silences it.

In 1854, after the Kansas-Nebraska Act determined that the slaveholding status of Kansas would be decided by popular sovereignty, Clay County slaveholders became concerned that a free Kansas would be a disaster for their economic interests and inspire the people they enslaved to attempt more frequent escapes. To prevent that outcome, Clay Countians played a significant role in broader Missourian efforts to ensure Kansas would enter the Union as a slave state. 

Clay Countians, led in part by Doniphan, organized a Pro-Slavery Aid Association dedicated to this outcome. Clay Countians formed part of the wave of Missourians who flooded across the border during voting for the territorial legislature, committing egregious voter fraud in the process. 

At times, the Clay Countians went beyond aid and voter fraud into violence. In December 1855, 100 pro-slavery men from Clay County seized weapons – including a cannon – from the Federal arsenal in Liberty, helped equip a large pro-slavery military force with those weapons and then rode into Kansas to besiege the free-state stronghold of Lawrence. This ‘Wakarusa War’ ended in a negotiated peace arranged by the territorial governor, and Clay Countians returned home, having contributed to efforts to make Kansas a slave state. 

If their actions left any ambiguity regarding the dominant view of white Clay Countians towards slavery, the citizens explicitly articulated their opinion in 1855. Following a mob attack on the Industrial Luminary, an anti-slavery newspaper, by citizens of neighboring Platte County, Clay Countians met to endorse the mob’s actions. At this meeting, an endorsed resolution went so far as to call those holding anti-slavery views traitors that needed to be punished. 

This initial research gathered by the SMJP paints a more complicated narrative regarding the citizens of Clay County than is often presented. It also reveals that William Jewell College was constituted in an environment characterized by staunchly pro-slavery sentiments, even beyond the founders and early trustees. 

For Wilkins and the student researchers of the SMJP, there remains considerably more research to uncover and assemble on the founders and early trustees, faculty and students, and Liberty and Clay County. The parts covered in this investigation only begin to scratch the surface of their ambitions. 

And they don’t plan to stop anytime soon. 

Over the past academic year, the SMJP researchers have invested time into learning best practices from how other colleges and universities have explored their historical ties to slavery. 

One of the best resources established for collaborative knowledge-and-technique sharing is the Universities Studying Slavery consortium established as part of the University of Virginia’s investigation into its historical ties to slavery. Over 70 colleges and universities have joined the consortium. Currently, William Jewell College is not one of them. 

This summer, Wilkins will guide more than a dozen student interns as they contribute to this research by fanning out throughout Missouri to visit county historical societies and archives, as well as continue online research. Several alumni with backgrounds in historical research have also volunteered to join the Project’s work.

Wilkins will continue this research over the next several years, including while on sabbatical this fall. He also plans to offer his HIS 204: Slavery, Memory, and Justice class every spring semester.  

One of the original student researchers, junior political science and history major Hayley Michael, will continue this research through her honors project. Michael will be focusing on Jewell students, faculty and staff between the Antebellum and Reconstruction periods and their ties to slavery. She will defend her honors project in the spring of 2022. 

“In my decade at Jewell, I have never worked with a more dedicated, passionate, idealistic, and impressive group of students,” said Wilkins. 

Wilkins emphasized that the crucial importance of students trained in rigorous historical inquiry is the animating force in this research and generating positive cultural change at Jewell. 

“Since last August, I have focused on helping to create and guide the independent Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project, and recently declined to serve on the administration-created Racial Reconciliation Commission, for two reasons,” said Wilkins. “The first is how the nature of who is doing the work influences whose voices are being heard on how to address this history. The SMJP is student-centered, community-based, and advised by faculty specializing in historical research.  We have done a tremendous amount of work over the past academic year, will collectively decide on when we believe our research is ready to be published and how it should be presented, and work together to advocate for policies that we believe in.”

Wilkins continued to speak on the timeline of the research.

“The second is the timeline of the SMJP’s work: to truly recover the history of slavery’s influence on Jewell will take time, and I expect the research and writing of the 100+ page report on slavery and Jewell will take until mid-2023,” said Wilkins. “That amount of time will be necessary to identify the names of as many of the enslaved people held in bondage by the founders and early trustees as possible, describe the conditions of those enslaved peoples’ lives and investigate the actions of the Jewell community during the Civil War era.”

Wilkins closed the interview by expressing his belief that there is a moral imperative to use our knowledge of slavery’s influence on Jewell’s history to help build a more inclusive college community in the future – a belief that serves as the foundation for all the work done by the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project.

Connor Morehouse, senior data science and math major, began his career at William Jewell College as a physics and math major.  He began as a pitcher on the Jewell baseball team but quickly changed to catcher – a position he did before he came to college.  

Morehouse has been playing baseball since he was 6-years-old, mostly as a catcher. For him, baseball has not just acted as a sport in his life. 

“Baseball is incredibly important because it’s foundational on aspects like scheduling, it also provides an opportunity to learn about yourself and grow in a significantly safer environment than you would in the real world,” said Morehouse.

That growth continued when Morehouse came to Jewell – not only as an athlete but as a student and person. Morehouse credits the baseball team and the relationships he’s made with those on the team for helping him throughout his journey.

“Unsurprisingly, it’s a tight-knit group of people and anytime you have that it can be incredibly fun,” Morehouse said. “The amount of support and time you spent with people and the relationships that you build are incredibly valuable. That’s by far my favorite part.”

It was the chance to play baseball while also gaining a high-caliber academic education that originally drew Morehouse to the College. Beyond those aspects of his time here, Morehouse appreciates Jewell for how it has helped him become a well-rounded person. He says he’s been able to explore more parts of his personality and interests at Jewell than he would have elsewhere. 

“My favorite part of Jewell has definitely been it’s been an environment that allowed me to evolve and pushed me to do things that I probably wouldn’t have done otherwise,” said Morehouse. “The ability, opportunity and the facilitating of me evolving as a person is what I appreciate most.”

After graduation, Morehouse plans to pursue a master’s in data science and statistics. He has two more years of eligibility to play baseball and wants to use that to continue the sport as he pursues his post-grad degree. 

Since August of 2020, a group of dedicated student researchers, under the guidance of Dr. Christopher Wilkins, associate professor and chair of the department of history at William Jewell College, has been researching the history of slavery in relationship to Jewell. The research group that the students and Wilkins created, the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project, had its origins in an introductory history seminar last fall. This semester, Project members mainly convene during the HIS 204: Slavery, Memory, and Justice course that Wilkins teaches. They plan to conduct research for as long as it takes to bring the truth about the College’s relationship with slavery to light. This will ultimately conclude with the group publishing their research – writing a more accurate account of Jewell’s history in the hopes of creating a more inclusive college community. 

As the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project compiles and verifies their research, The Hilltop Monitor will publish their findings. This is the third in a series of investigations into the history of slavery at William Jewell College. 

Dr. William Jewell was deeply committed to higher education and used his influence in civic and political affairs to assist with and lead several educational initiatives. Jewell was a member of the Board of Trustees for Columbia Female Academy, the first school for women west of the Mississippi River. He personally donated $1,800 and assisted with the grassroots fundraising for the location of the University of Missouri in Boone County.

In 1849, William Jewell donated $10,000 worth of land towards founding the first all men’s Baptist institution west of the Mississippi River, further demonstrating his dedication to the pursuit of knowledge. In recognition of Jewell’s gift, Missouri Baptists named the college in his honor. The details of the college founding are covered in greater depth in the first two installments of this investigation.

Jewell’s dedication to higher education, philanthropic ideals, and work as a physician and legislator is well-recorded and commended in a variety of different and easily accessible historical sources. These historical accounts, however, only briefly mention Jewell as a slaveholder – if at all. The accounts that do mention his ties with slavery often discuss it in a way that minimizes the significance of his slaveholding by focusing on the eventual manumission of most of the enslaved people he owned.  

In “Jewell is her name: a history of William Jewell College,” written by Hubert Inman Hester in 1967, there are two brief references to Jewell owning enslaved people. Rather than focusing on the economic benefits Jewell derived as a slaveholder, Hester elects to focus on Jewell’s decision to manumit all of the enslaved people he owned by the time of his death. Hester praises this as evidence of Jewell’s “interest in people.” 

In similar fashion, the most recent history of the College – “Cardinal Is Her Color: One Hundred and Fifty Years of Achievement at William Jewell College,” published in 1999 by William Jewell College – mentions that Jewell freed all the enslaved people he owned upon his death.

In a 2015 Hilltop Monitor article, “Who Was William Jewell,” a student writer continues this narrative and incorrectly describes Jewell as an abolitionist. The article, written with information found in the Charles F. Curry Library archives, notes that though Jewell initially owned enslaved people, he emancipated four of them in 1846 and granted freedom to two in his will.  

These accounts of Jewell as a slaveholder make Jewell seem like a gentle man whose slaveholding was benign and even good. The research done by the Slavery, Memory and Justice Project has discovered that: 

• Jewell owned more enslaved people than the College sources have indicated.
• Jewell did not unequivocally free all the enslaved people he owned.
• Jewell’s actual record regarding slavery is more complicated than current narratives portray, and claims that Dr. Jewell was anti-slavery must be reevaluated. 

The Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project researchers, using Federal census records, determined that Jewell owned 13 enslaved people in 1830, six enslaved people in 1840, and five enslaved people in 1850.

Christian Santiago, sophomore history and political science major, has done significant research in the past year. While visiting the Boone County archives, Santiago uncovered a history of Jewell that is not currently reflected in the accounts of the College and its namesake. 

In his research, Santiago found that Jewell manumitted the enslaved people he owned in his will – except for one: Ellen. Rather than freeing her, Jewell provided that Ellen would remain enslaved, first under the ownership of his sister, and then under the control of his grandson after he reached the age of 21. Jewell did include a provision that Ellen would be freed if his grandson died before turning 21, but any children she had would remain enslaved. 

Glancing around the campus, Jewell’s legacy is ubiquitous. From signs to buildings to student sweatshirts, Jewell’s name has been immortalized. There is no recognition, however, for the individuals owned by Jewell who were an integral part of the financial impact that Jewell had on the school. These enslaved individuals were silenced and, until recently, their names were unknown. 

While there are still more names to track down, the Slavery, Memory, and Justice project has identified the names of seven of the individuals held in slavery by Jewell. 

Ellen, Emanuel, Henry, Mandy, Phillis, Ralph and Stephen. 

Jewell was also the president of the Missouri Colonization Society – a branch of the African Colonization Society.

In an article from the Missouri Historical Review titled “Persistency of Colonization” by Donnie D. Bellamy, the racist roots of the American Colonization Society are revealed. This group wanted to remove free Black people from the United States and resettle them in Africa. 

While this group has been referenced as an anti-slavery organization, Bellamy’s article explains that some members of the American Colonization Society saw the organization as pro-slavery, as the removal of free Black people from the country would strengthen slavery. Many African Americans were highly critical of the organization due to the nearly all-white composition of its leadership, the support it garnered from some slaveholders and its denial of free African Americans’ right to stay in the country they played such an integral role in building. 

Jewell’s history is a complex one. His dedication to education and the community is clear and is worth recognition. His eventual emancipation of most of the enslaved people he owned is also significant. 

However, as Santiago explains, this does not erase his status as a man who benefited from the institution of slavery for decades. 

“Even if you choose to view his actions with his slave Ellen or his involvement with the African Colonization Society as some sort of justifiable paternalism, the fact remains that he was aware of abolitionist and other anti-slavery narratives of his time but still actively played into our chattel slavery system,” said Santiago. 

The narrative that the College has of Jewell is incomplete. Jewell’s status as a slaveholder and the complexity of his actions regarding slavery have not been accurately reflected in our history. This abridged history of Jewell is what the Slavery, Memory and Justice Project is dedicated to addressing. 

Santiago addresses the urgency of continuing this research. 

“As members of this community, we inherit the namesake of William Jewell as our own and must choose whether to reject it, ignore it or do something meaningful about it,” said Santiago. “I choose to believe that significant progress can only be made through this final option. Especially as an institution that prides itself on an emphasis on critical thought and inquiry, it would be ignorant of us to subscribe to certain symbols and the legacy of certain individuals if we could not rationalize why we do so. ” 

Jewell and his legacy are intrinsically tied to the school – in more than just a name. As Santiago explains, our legacy is bound to Jewell’s. If we claim to uphold the mission of our school, Jewell’s past with slavery needs to be confronted. 

Since August of 2020, a group of dedicated student researchers, under the guidance of Dr. Christopher Wilkins, associate professor and chair of the history department at William Jewell College, has been researching the history of slavery in relation to Jewell. The research group that the students and Wilkins created – the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project – had its origins in an introductory history seminar held last fall. This semester, project members primarily convene during the HIS 204: Slavery, Memory, and Justice course that Wilkins teaches.

The project plans to conduct research for as long as it takes to bring the truth about the College’s relationship with slavery to light. This will ultimately conclude with the group publishing their research – writing a more accurate account of Jewell’s history in the hopes of creating a more inclusive college community. 

As the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project compiles and verifies their research, The Hilltop Monitor will publish their findings. This is the second in a series of investigations into the history of slavery at William Jewell College. 

Alexander Doniphan, one of the most influential Clay Countians, played a key role in the founding of William Jewell College. While Doniphan is not as well known as Dr. William Jewell, his contributions to the College are unmatched.

In 1849, Baptist leaders met in Boone County to discuss the location of a new Baptist college in Missouri. Doniphan’s famed oratorical skills and $7,000 – the equivalent of over $240,000 today – he helped raise from the citizens of Clay County secured Liberty as the College’s new home and helped ensure that the new institution would be named after Jewell. Thus, William Jewell College was born. 

Doniphan is also celebrated for his bravery in defense of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In 1838, Missouri Governor Lilburn Boggs issued the Mormon Extermination Order. Missouri Militia Major General Samuel Lucas captured Latter-day prophet Joseph Smith and other church leaders and sentenced them to public execution for treason, a sentence Lucas ordered Doniphan to carry out. Doniphan refused the order.

“It is cold-blooded murder. I will not obey your order… If you execute these men, I will hold you responsible before an earthly tribunal, so help me God,” Doniphan said.

People have viewed Doniphan’s saving of Smith and others as evidence of his willingness to stand up against popular belief and his dedication to the rule of law. The church recently renamed a local ward in Liberty after him to show their respect and appreciation. 

Doniphan’s military leadership in the Mexican-American War has also been praised. He led his men on one of the longest marches in U.S. military history, winning key battles over much larger Mexican forces, and played a crucial role in the U.S. victory over Mexico. One source wrote, “None of the other campaigns — Zachary Taylor’s, Winfield Scott’s, or John C. Fremont’s — accomplished as much with such a small force or with as little difficulty.” 

In the 1850s, Doniphan’s success as a defense attorney, businessman, philanthropist and member of the State Legislature continued to make him a widely respected figure in Missouri life.

Narratives focusing on Doniphan and the Civil War emphasize his support for the Union and opposition to Missouri’s potential secession. Doniphan organized Union rallies in Clay County and advocated for keeping Missouri in the Union.

He served as a delegate to the 1861 Peace Conference in Washington, D.C., which sought a compromise to keep the Union together. When secessionist Missouri Governor Claiborne Jackson sought to convince Doniphan to serve as a Brigadier General in Missouri’s Confederate forces, Doniphan declined. Most Clay County citizens supported the Confederacy, so Doniphan, as a Unionist, had to stand firm against the majority opinion, which contributed to his reputation for bravery. 

While the preceding information is accurate, one of the most disturbing and important aspects of Doniphan’s history – his connection to slavery – has received very little attention. That is, until now. 

The research carried out by the Slavery, Memory, and Justice Project shows that slavery was not a minor element of Doniphan’s life; it was among the most central. From his earliest years until the abolition of slavery, Doniphan owned enslaved people and benefited from their labor. He used the wealth he acquired from them to give money to William Jewell College. Although he earned much of his fortune from his legal work and business investments, Doniphan greatly profited from the labor of enslaved people.

Federal census records show that Doniphan owned three enslaved people in 1840. Other sources demonstrate that he owned at least two enslaved people in the late 1840s. In 1850, he likely owned more than two enslaved people, as demonstrated by his farm’s production of 11 tons of hemp. The crop was cultivated almost exclusively by enslaved people, proving once again the economic benefits Doniphan reaped from forced labor. In 1860, census records again showed that the number of enslaved people he owned increased to five, indicating his strong commitment to the institution of slavery. 

In addition to his economic stake in slavery, Doniphan’s political commitment to defending slavery was profound. In 1837, while serving in the state legislature, Doniphan supported a bill making it a crime to publicly advocate for abolition, punishable by imprisonment in the state penitentiary. 

The bill as originally written would have punished violators with imprisonment in county jail, but Doniphan amended it to be the state penitentiary to further dissuade abolitionists from undermining slavery in Missouri. Doniphan also supported making Kansas a slave state – he served as a director of and donated money to the Clay County Pro-Slavery Society. 

When Doniphan was a candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1854, he was viewed, according to a later account from Missouri Congressman James C. Rollins, as not only pro-slavery, but as someone whose dedicated defense of slavery had made him the “favorite” candidate for the “strongest pro-slavery district in Missouri.”

In 1861, Doniphan supported the Crittenden Compromise, an amendment that would have permanently enshrined slavery in the U.S. Constitution in exchange for ending Southern secession. In 1863, Doniphan only reluctantly endorsed the gradual emancipation of Missouri’s slaves because he feared Missouri Republicans’ plans for the immediate abolition of slavery. In July 1863, Doniphan told an audience in Clay County that even though he now supported gradual emancipation, he would always be pro-slavery “in his feelings and sentiments.” 

Doniphan’s ties to slavery are exemplified through the economic benefits gained from his ownership of enslaved people and the legislation he supported to protect and expand the institution of slavery. Doniphan was deeply pro-slavery, which is important to note when honoring his legacy with statues, street names, societies, and awards.