Share This Article
I am writing in response to Diana Warren’s opinion piece of July 25, 2024 [link]. It was valuable by laying out the history of the Tercentenary Marker issue in Sudbury. I participated in two of the events and I have a different viewpoint. While I serve as Town Historian, I want to be very clear that this is my personal opinion.
In addition, the September 20 edition, the Sudbury Weekly had a story: Historical Commission Revisits Tercentenary Markers [link]. They seem ready to recommend removing the markers.
Are we addressing the specific signs in Sudbury or the Tercentenary signs in general? If we are addressing the signs in Sudbury because they are inaccurate, offensive or outdated, could we be specific? If we take them down, do we replace them? If we are addressing the Tercentenary signs statewide, would it be better to work at the state level?
There is a practical issue of the ownership of the markers. They are owned by the Commonwealth and maintained by MassDOT as ordered by law. What is the understanding between MassDOT and the Town of Concord, which has removed the signs in their town?
Certainly the state seal on the signs is very problematic. Last fall, Sudbury voted to encourage the state to change the seal. The effort to replace the seal got a major boost at the sate level with budget amendment to complete the work. Removing the signs until that is fixed is one approach.
The Tercentenary Marker program was designed to celebrate the Puritans and the founding of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This is clear by this marker text: “Settled 1638 by a company of Puritans who arrived in the ship “Confidence” and were attracted by the meadows on the Musketaquid River. Named after Sudbury in Suffolk.” [Link] The Colony turned out to be a catastrophe for the Indigenous population. At the same time, the radical egalitarianism of the Puritans was a tap root for American democracy. Granted, to be an equal and to vote, one had to be a landowning male and a member of the church. That was still a profound step. Many residents are proud that Sudbury has one of the oldest traditions of Open Town Meetings in the country. Historical narratives are never black and white.
Rev. Marjorie Matty of First Parish, one of the signatories of the Sudbury Clery Association, asked me, as a parishioner interested in history, to review the draft letter. The letter proposes that we should see the Indigenous coalition as the defenders in the Sudbury Fight during King Philip’s war. My addition was to add “in a broad context” as in the King Philip’s war was fought to defend a way of life. However, the marker that states “the settlers by their brave defense saved the town when King Philip and his Indian warriors attacked Sudbury in April, 1676”, which is essentially true, except that saving the town is a bit of an over statement. The town was mostly destroyed.
The letter asks that the Sudbury Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Commission consider exploring and opening a conversation about public markers in Sudbury and their depiction of First Peoples. I strongly agree with that sentiment. We should know that the Nipmuc still live among us. We should understand their culture and the harmony with the land. My belief is the markers in Sudbury are essentially true and the language is not objectively offensive or harmful. The Clergy also stated that the markers were without context, which can be remedied.
The next event in Sudbury was the 2023 Athina Education-sponsored event – “The Signs Are All Around Us: A Community Forum on History, Memory, and Roadside Markers”. As Town Historian, I was invited to be on the panel. To be clear, it is not the role of the Town Historian to have opinions, so, I spoke as a resident amateur historian, as I do here. In my opening remarks [Link], I stated my opinion that the markers were factually accurate and we needed to add context to bring more of the competing narratives to the foreground.
The forum quickly pivoted to be about the Tercentenary Markers in general and the text on the markers in Sudbury ceased to be an issue. Diana quotes Nipmuc citizen Andre Strongbearheart Gaines, Jr.: “Every time we go by these (Tercentenary) signs … our heart hurts, and we think about what happened to us.” The sign Andre used as an example is next to the Nipmuc reservation [Link] states: “These four and one-half acres have never belonged to the white man, having been set aside in 1728 as an Indian Reservation by the forty proprietors who purchased the Praying Indian town of Hassanamesit.” The Nipmuc were stewards of millions of acres before the English arrived. That example of the hurtful nature of the markers makes a good case to take down all of the Tercentenary markers, as do many other markers. The state seal is another good reason to take down all of the markers. Prior to the forum, I had never really looked at it and seen how offensive it is. The local participants of the forum gathered well over 100 valid signatures needed for a special town meeting petition in the fall of 2023, which passed nearly unanimously.
If the Town, as represented by the Select Board, removes the signs, we will be making a very strong statement. If we do make that statement, I hope the Select Board writes a well articulated version of why we are making the statement.
If we take the markers down, what do we replace them with? The Sudbury Fight was an important event in our history. The signs need context, but I do not see the language on the Sudbury markers as heinous. The markers are a toehold into our history, which is not always pretty. The ongoing discussions are bringing bits and pieces of history to our attention, which is always a good thing. Providing context for the statements in the markers, the story of the Indigenous population before contact with the English, and the different narratives through time is an opportunity that we should not give up…