Richmond University Cancels Douglas Southall Freeman

by Phil Leigh

The University of Richmond is “canceling” one of its most distinguished graduates, Douglas Southall Freeman (1886 – 1953). Specifically, they are dropping his name from Mitchell-Freeman Hall.

After leaving Richmond University to earn a PhD at Johns Hopkins, Freeman returned to Virginia’s capital where he joined the Richmond Times-Dispatch in 1909 and, in 1915, at the age of 29 became editor of the Richmond News Leader—a position he held for 34 years. During those years he wrote a four-volume biography of Robert E. Lee, a four-volume study of General Lee’s Lieutenants, and finished two volumes of a seven-volume biography of George Washington. He completed four more volumes of the Washington biography after retirement whereas two of his associates finished the seventh volume after his death. The Lee and Washington bios won Pulitzer Prizes and Lee’s Lieutenants put Freeman into a close circle of military friends including Generals George Marshall and Dwight Eisenhower.

If there ever can be a last word on Lee, Washington, and the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, Freeman’s work has it. His work ethic was legendary. He kept a schedule that allowed him to accomplish a great deal in his two full-time careers as a journalist and historian. He rose at three every morning to drive to his office. Twice daily he walked to a radio station where he gave news broadcasts and analysis. After the second broadcast, he would drive home for lunch and a short nap before working another five or six hours on his current historical project. There could hardly be a better role model of success through self-discipline.

Nonetheless, the University of Richmond is throwing him under the bus because he “was in favor of racial segregation, the eugenics movement, and the poll tax and opposed interracial marriage.” No elaboration on the accusations is readily available from the school or the “Naming Principles Commission” it is hiding behind.

Nonetheless, concerning opposition to interracial marriage it may be said that the vast majority of Americans—white and black—disapproved of it during his lifetime. As late as 1968—fifteen years after his death—75% of whites and 73% of blacks disapproved of interracial marriage. Moreover, his newspaper editorials took a moderate stance on race relations and opposed the political machine of Senator Harry F. Byrd who was one of the South’s most vocal proponents of racial segregation from the 1940s to 1960s.

As for the poll tax, some sources have falsely reported that it applied only to blacks. In truth, it applied to any citizen wanting to vote, white or black. If it was a discriminatory burden, it was a burden segregated by economic class, not race, at a time when many Virginia whites were poor. Moreover, voters were often able to get a political party to pay the $1.50 fee for them if they would pledge to vote for the paying party’s candidate.

As for Freeman’s support of eugenics, I cannot categorically deny it because I can find little information about it. Nonetheless, among the supporters during Freeman’s lifetime were President Theodore Roosevelt, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., Helen Keller, and Alexander Graham Bell. Additionally, few American eugenics supporters took it to the extremes of California. Beginning under the leadership of Attorney General Ulysses Webb who was in office from 1902 to 1937 the doctrine led the state to sterilize thousands of its citizens. The last occurred the year before the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

This column has been republished with permission from Civil War Chat.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

36 responses to “Richmond University Cancels Douglas Southall Freeman”

  1. Eric the half a troll Avatar
    Eric the half a troll

    Dropping a dead person’s name from a building is not “canceling”. A Conservative judge attempting to scuttle the careers of students because they dared to exercise their 1st amendment rights, that is “canceling”… thought you might like to know.

    1. DJRippert Avatar
      DJRippert

      Yes, dropping a dead person’s name from a building is canceling that person. In fact, it’s a cowardly way of canceling since the person is no longer around to defend himself or herself. Typical of modern day liberal cowardice, the cancellation was apparently done by an anonymous committee at UR.

      While it’s certainly UR’s prerogative to name its buildings what it wants, I would think that a more transparent approach with student, faculty and alumni input would be more befitting an institution of higher learning.

      1. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
        Dick Hall-Sizemore

        It was hardly done by the an “anonymous” committee. The recommendations were made by this committee, set out on the UR website: https://president.richmond.edu/university/naming-principles/commission/index.html

        The actual changes were adopted by the university’s board of trustees. https://president.richmond.edu/university/naming-principles/messages.html#march-28-2022-board-of-trustees-adopts-naming-principles-recommendations-removes-names-of-six-campus-buildings

        1. DJRippert Avatar
          DJRippert

          From the article …

          No elaboration on the accusations is readily available from the school or the “Naming Principles Commission” it is hiding behind.

      2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
        Eric the half a troll

        “Cancel culture or call-out culture is a contemporary phrase used to refer to a form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles – whether it be online, on social media, or in person. Those subject to this ostracism are said to have been “cancelled”.”

        What the Conservative judge did to those law students… he “cancelled” them… taking a dead person’s honorific name off a building…? Nope

      3. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        T.C. Williams?

      4. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        The building was named for Freeman long after his death also.

    2. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Ohhh, Mr. Leigh, Virginia did plenty of involuntary sterilizations. I have no idea about Freeman’s opinions on the matter, and agree supporters were common at the time:

      https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/VA/VA.html#:~:text=On%20March%2020%2C%201924%20(the,219%2C%20Racial%20Integrity%20Act).

      (Virginia) thus appeared to have continued such sterilizations longer than any other state….

      The Lee biography and Lee’s Lieutenants remain on my bookshelf and deserved the accolades they won. I also have David Johnson’s biography of Freeman (personalized note from my friend the author.) But the school can name the buildings anything it wants.

      1. Lefty665 Avatar
        Lefty665

        In the late ’70s when Virginia started deinstitutionalizing it discharged people from its mental hospitals and referred them to the local programs I was working with.

        An astonishing percentage had “appendectomies”. Many also had small sunken spots in their skulls where they had been operated on to cure them of “headaches”.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Amateur phrenologists…

        2. James McCarthy Avatar
          James McCarthy

          Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) upheld mass vaccinations. VA’s 1924 sterilization act came to being based upon pseudo-science of eugenics and race inferiority theories. The sterilization act was a companion to the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. Residuals of both remained in the state Code until the mid to late 1970s.

      2. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Those involuntary sterilizations legal framework was rooted in Jacobson v Mass (which following our recent pandemic was further expanded).

  2. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
    James Wyatt Whitehead

    A 114 page U of R hit piece from January 2021 laid the groundwork for this name change. Cloaked in the name of “Inclusive History Project”.
    https://equity.richmond.edu/inclusive-history/freeman/report/Douglas-Southall-Freeman-Final-Report-20210216.pdf

  3. So Freeman was an early supporter of Planned Parenthood? Who knew!

    1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
      James Wyatt Whitehead

      So was Martin Luther King Jr. 1966 Margaret Sanger Award winner from Planned Parenthood.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        Don’t forget W.E.B Dubois.

        1. James Wyatt Whitehead Avatar
          James Wyatt Whitehead

          Add Helen Keller.

  4. James McCarthy Avatar
    James McCarthy

    Sure, racial bias is acceptable so long as some apologist can assert that items such as the poll tax were facially neutral. Except, for this statement by a state leader in producing the 1901 VA constitution that instituted the poll tax and literacy teats:

    Carter Glass, proudly described the purpose of the new document:
    Discrimination! Why that is precisely what we propose; that exactly is what this Convention was elected for – to discriminate with a view to the elimination of every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.

    The “facially neutral” argument is hollow. If cancel culture existed, the 1901 constitution is a fine example.

  5. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    This whole idea of “canceling” culture is absurd. This is not the Soviet Union in which history books are written to eliminate the mention of people who are no longer in favor. Freeman’s books will still be available to anyone who wishes to read them. In fact, I have some on my book shelves.

    The University of Richmond has decided that it will not honor him by continuing to have a building named after him. That is not canceling; that is deciding who it will honor.

    You complain, “No elaboration on the accusations is readily available from the schoolor the “Naming Principles Commission” it is hiding behind.” You did not look very hard. Here is a 24-page report explaining the recommendation to drop Freeman’s name from the building. https://equity.richmond.edu/inclusive-history/freeman/report/Douglas-Southall-Freeman-Report-Summary-20210216.pdf

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      His views on eugenics and the 1924 sterilization law are reported there.

    2. Matt Adams Avatar
      Matt Adams

      “This whole idea of “canceling” culture is absurd. This is not the Soviet Union in which history books are written to eliminate the mention of people who are no longer in favor. Freeman’s books will still be available to anyone who wishes to read them. In fact, I have some on my book shelves.”

      This is called “presentism”, these individuals were lauded in their time for their achievements, but because they were not sterling individuals (simply adhering to the status quo of the day) those achievements were thrust aside.

      1. William Chambliss Avatar
        William Chambliss

        Freeman contributed, likely mightily, to the “status quo of the day.” He doesn’t get a pass for being both wrong and loud.

        1. Matt Adams Avatar
          Matt Adams

          So you’re okay with practicing Presentism to strip all of their achievements. Got it, so when future comes to pass you’re okay with the same being done to you.

    3. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      They really don’t want to know in the first place.

      They want to believe what they want to believe and anyone who contradicts it with facts is “cancelling”.

  6. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    I pulled Judge Johnson’s Freeman biography off the shelf and do not find “eugenics” or “sterilization” in the index. Doesn’t mean he didn’t editorialize about them, or David didn’t bring it up, given the prominence of the topic. And as noted, links provided by others add those details.

    Again, up to the school. This business of judging people of the past on today’s standards is a slippery one. Without question, every opinion he held that offends people today was a commonly-held opinion, and if you strip everybody out, not many are left. And how does it actually improve our lives or the lives of others today? Oh, look, the oppressors have paused to engage in a little pretense before returning to oppression? 🙂 Fixes nothing. Changes nothing. Recruiting, supporting and graduating minority students at that bastion of privilege, that should be the measure.

    1. James McCarthy Avatar
      James McCarthy

      A once “commonly held opinion” that is morally repugnant such as eugenics does not justify its existence or acceptance, even at the earlier time. Dylan’s lyrics “how many years can some people exist before they’re allowed to be free” resonates in this discussion. The General Assembly could not at the last session agree on language for a referendum to rescind the state’s same sex marriage ban passed in 2005. The poll tax and ban on interracial marriage persisted until the 1960s. Is there ever an appropriate moment to move away from preserving and conserving? Change is uncomfortable but not necessarily traumatic or culture cancelling.

      1. Matt Adams Avatar
        Matt Adams

        “A once “commonly held opinion” that is morally repugnant such as eugenics does not justify its existence or acceptance, even at the earlier time.”

        Exercise Presentism much? It’s pretty intellectually dishonest to view someone through todays standards when they existed prior to them.

        You also might to want to read up on who was for eugenics before you lash out at them.

    2. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      You’re not judging them for the past as much as you are asking, what that name means to modern day black students. Do we send black kids to schools named for segregationists?

  7. David Wojick Avatar
    David Wojick

    Eliminating history is a lot more fun than learning it, plus it gets easier with less to know.

    Fast forward:
    “Mommy, who was Robert E. Lee?”
    “Hush Dear, don’t say that name.
    But down in the basement I have hidden a book about him.
    You can read it if you never tell anyone.
    It was banned.”

    I have actually experienced this forced disappearance from history in a small way. For ten years I was Senior Consultant for Innovation at the US Energy Department’s Office of Scientific and Technical Information. OSTI publishes the DOE research reports that flow from billions of annual research dollars. I took them into Web 2.0, working directly for the Director. We made a lot of changes and built a lot of stuff.

    When the Director retired his replacement had been the head of operations so we were natural enemies. His job had been to keep the trains running on time, while mine was to rebuild the railroad, as it were. One thing I had done was start up the OSTI blog, so the new Director immediately had all of my articles taken down, even those I co-authored. He also disappeared my fairly extensive research results from the OSTI website. I was completely cancelled.

    Ignoring history is not the path of progress.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar
      LarrytheG

      removing memorials to segregationists and the like is not “removing” history. If it was, you’d not even be able to read about them, right?

      bogus.

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        You know, Larry, I bet if I go to various public libraries looking for the Lee biography or Lee’s Lieutenants, I might find they had been removed. I know for a fact a used bookseller told me there was no market for them, because if he displayed them on the shelves woke customers yelled at him. His Civil War section was mighty thin. So no, it is not just the statues. But you are an apologist for the barbarians and cancellers so will not see the obvious.

        1. LarrytheG Avatar
          LarrytheG

          “No market” is not “erasing history” by a long shot. I’m not an “apologist”, I just think the truth
          is important and Conservatives these days don’t seem to care what the truth is or is not but rather what they want to believe. Memorials and names on buildings are NOT “history”. They are memorials to the person for which they are named. You can take everyone of them down and you can still find the “history” with a simple GOOGLE search and lots and lots of “paper” still in libraries and archives. The whole issue is one of hyperbole and idiocy, IMHO. We remove memorials to segregationists and the like because we have a society of white and black, and we do not put memorials in public places of those that engaged in hate and harm to an entire race of people and whose descendants now use those public spaces.

          We say we are beyond that – but the reality is that, clearly, more than a few are not and still support memorializing those who enslaved and supported an American apartheid even in public spaces where descendants of slaves and victims of Jim Crow use. Those who continue to defend this are the ‘apologists’ IMHO.

    2. Eric the half a troll Avatar
      Eric the half a troll

      Actually, it is the segregationist statues that are designed to ignore history. Removing them is simply a way of correcting the record.

      Really, your argument is that we should keep segregationist statues to preserve the history of the klan. Quite silly.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar
        LarrytheG

        Indeed. It’s the ultimate in “revisionist history”. How we paper over the actual history, then on top of that memorialize the very people who engaged in hate and harm towards those of a different race.

        It’s plain and simple, white supremacy, and way past time to call it out for what it really is.

  8. William Chambliss Avatar
    William Chambliss

    Mr. Leigh, you appear to be against the decision to change the name of this building. Does that mean you, like Freeman, are a supporter of eugenics, the poll tax, bans on interracial marriage, etc? Or, that you too are against these things, but that Freeman ought to be judged against the mores of his times?

    Or do you think Freeman merits honoring solely for his legendary work ethic? See this:

    https://residencelife.richmond.edu/housing/upperclass/mitchell-freeman-hall.html

    “We will recount the history of both Freeman and Mitchell at Mitchell-Freeman Hall, documenting Freeman’s achievements and dedication to the University, while also openly recognizing his racist beliefs and advocacy for segregation and eugenics. That is part of telling the full and true story. In addition, we will shine a spotlight on how Mitchell did not allow Freeman’s mistaken assertions about African Americans and segregation to go unchecked — and how he embodied personally the kind of intellectual and professional achievement that Freeman believed impossible for Black people. This juxtaposition provides a more accurate representation of Freeman and the realities of his time, as well as evidence that there were always critical voices and obvious facts that challenged and contradicted Freeman’s positions.”

    There are usually at least two sides to most stories.

Leave a Reply