This is in response to Robert Wickberg’s letter of March 9 regarding William Brattle, in which he states: “Col. William Brattle, for whom Brattleboro is named, was not a ‘Southern colonial colonel’ …There is, however, no connection between William Brattle and slavery. Unlike many of the country’s founding fathers, as he was Massachusetts-born and raised, he would not have owned any.”
While Mr. Wickberg may be correct that William Brattle was not a “Southern colonial colonel,” he was indeed connected to slavery, as were many prominent New Englanders.
In 2007, a 36-page report (“Harvard and Slavery, Seeking a Forgotten History” by Sven Beckert, Katherine Stevens and the students of the Harvard and Slavery Research Seminar) noted that several past professors and presidents of Harvard as well as First Church of Cambridge Minister William Brattle (father of Major-General William Brattle) were slave owners.
The Wikipedia article Mr. Wickberg sites goes on to say: “In 1727, at the age of 21, Brattle, as the sole heir of both of his father and Brattle’s uncle Thomas, inherited their estates, which made him one of the wealthiest men in all of Massachusetts.”
It would be no stretch to imagine that the estates included slaves, since further on in the article is: “Brattle was also a slaveholder, being recorded in church records as owning two enslaved women, Philicia and Zillah, in 1731 and 1738 respectively.”
The mere fact that he (or anyone) was “Massachusetts-born and raised” in no way precludes him from being a slave owner.
Andrew Tetreault
Brookfield
