Woke Montpelier Blows Off Questions About Anti-American Tilt and Finances - Again
October 2023
We put these questions to Montpelier recently and never received a response. Which is not surprising, since others did not receive responses when asking the questions the first time. Montpelier, one of the most important historic sites in America, is not in good hands. Its current leaders are poor stewards of our heritage, intent as they are on trashing it.
To the Montpelier Board:
Below please find a number of questions that need answering about your administration of Montpelier.
Some of the questions will look familiar. You have failed to answer them in the past. Fail to answer them now and we will call you out and publicly shame you. You are custodians of one of the nation’s most important historic sites. Act like it.
The first questions were directed by a journalist to Jay Clemens, chair of the board of the National Trust, which owns Montpelier:
2. At the most basic level, do you support “structural parity” for putative descendants of historic sites, and is it the Trust’s position that mere ancestry makes someone adept at serving on a foundation board or overseeing a site for historical preservation and education?
3. If the answer to the questions in (2) is “yes,” then is The Trust aware that 26 actual, provable descendants of the most well-known Madison slave sent two letters to the board fiercely objecting to the so-called Montpelier Descendants Committee’s self-appointed role as representative of the descendant community? Does The Trust support the MDC — which originally claimed authority on the basis of a sole, snap election, and which represents people who are not actually descendants of enslaved people at Montpelier and in some cases are merely “those who feel connected to the work the institution is doing, whether or not they know of a genealogical connection” — against the actual descendants?
7. Is the Trust okay with having employees openly hostile to Madison? Is it supportive of its chief archaeologist reportedly describing himself as a “termite eating out the foundation” from within? Is it aware that he repeatedly promoted on social media articles that called Montpelier board members racists? Is it aware that at a Harvard forum his antipathy to Madison was so open that he called Madison an “oppressor” and made the patently exaggerated claim that by the 1920s, Madison was “using Montpelier as a breeding plantation to sell, uh, invest in human bodies and sell them to the South through the transcontinental slave trade?”
8. Does the Trust support the downgrading of the Center for the Constitution, including a lesser title and absurdly low salary for its chief educational director? Does it support the interim president’s desire to downgrade Madison’s name on the Montpelier logo? Does it support the interim president disbanding the committee that ran the perennially successful Dolley Madison luncheon and announcing that “we plan to completely rebrand [the event] with a new name, logo, and purpose?” Does it support the interim president publicly saying that she does not even want Montpelier to be known primarily for its Center for the Constitution?
The next questions come from Reps. Bob Good (R-VA) and Eli Crane (R-AZ), as described here:
It seems federal funds have been used to create exhibits such as the “sole exhibit focused on the Constitution” which perpetuates the notion that it’s a “pro-slavery document.” AND “The only exhibit for children aims to teach them about race and slavery and includes a children’s book with graphic images and ‘imaginative exercise’ for whites and blacks that encourages children to imagine themselves as the aggressor and to examine their own capacity for evil....”
Good and Crane are seeking answers about the lack of exhibits concentrated on Madison’s achievements, the lack of exhibits explaining the importance of the Constitution, and the “restricted funds used for operating expenses: “Concerningly, exhibits such as the ones mentioned above seem to have been developed with the help of federal funds.”
The congressmen said: “We urge you to focus on the true life and history of James Madison, rather than succumbing to dishonest, ‘woke,’ and radical anti-American prejudices. We look forward to your prompt response."
The final set of concerns was put to Montpelier’s board earlier this year by grass roots supporters and descendants. Will the board:
2.d. TMF will refocus on its core mission, to preserve and educate the public about the life of James Madison and his contributions as the author of the Constitution, while telling the whole history, neither diminishing nor competing with the central mandate to tell Madison’s story. TMF will also diligently work to restore the Center for the Constitution as premier authority on the Constitution, especially by resuming sponsorship of “WE THE PEOPLE”.
4. TMF should with haste redefine Montpelier Descendants to include members of the James Madison family and actual blood related documented enslaved community descendants, and that all others be defined as “friends of the Montpelier Descendant Community”. This redefinition will end the inherent unfair nature of allowing “interested parties” to dominate and represent descendants which has silenced individuals with vested legal interest, but differing opinions from the MDC.
We look forward to your responses.
Sincerely,
--Potomac Tea Party
October 2023
We put these questions to Montpelier recently and never received a response. Which is not surprising, since others did not receive responses when asking the questions the first time. Montpelier, one of the most important historic sites in America, is not in good hands. Its current leaders are poor stewards of our heritage, intent as they are on trashing it.
To the Montpelier Board:
Below please find a number of questions that need answering about your administration of Montpelier.
Some of the questions will look familiar. You have failed to answer them in the past. Fail to answer them now and we will call you out and publicly shame you. You are custodians of one of the nation’s most important historic sites. Act like it.
The first questions were directed by a journalist to Jay Clemens, chair of the board of the National Trust, which owns Montpelier:
2. At the most basic level, do you support “structural parity” for putative descendants of historic sites, and is it the Trust’s position that mere ancestry makes someone adept at serving on a foundation board or overseeing a site for historical preservation and education?
3. If the answer to the questions in (2) is “yes,” then is The Trust aware that 26 actual, provable descendants of the most well-known Madison slave sent two letters to the board fiercely objecting to the so-called Montpelier Descendants Committee’s self-appointed role as representative of the descendant community? Does The Trust support the MDC — which originally claimed authority on the basis of a sole, snap election, and which represents people who are not actually descendants of enslaved people at Montpelier and in some cases are merely “those who feel connected to the work the institution is doing, whether or not they know of a genealogical connection” — against the actual descendants?
7. Is the Trust okay with having employees openly hostile to Madison? Is it supportive of its chief archaeologist reportedly describing himself as a “termite eating out the foundation” from within? Is it aware that he repeatedly promoted on social media articles that called Montpelier board members racists? Is it aware that at a Harvard forum his antipathy to Madison was so open that he called Madison an “oppressor” and made the patently exaggerated claim that by the 1920s, Madison was “using Montpelier as a breeding plantation to sell, uh, invest in human bodies and sell them to the South through the transcontinental slave trade?”
8. Does the Trust support the downgrading of the Center for the Constitution, including a lesser title and absurdly low salary for its chief educational director? Does it support the interim president’s desire to downgrade Madison’s name on the Montpelier logo? Does it support the interim president disbanding the committee that ran the perennially successful Dolley Madison luncheon and announcing that “we plan to completely rebrand [the event] with a new name, logo, and purpose?” Does it support the interim president publicly saying that she does not even want Montpelier to be known primarily for its Center for the Constitution?
The next questions come from Reps. Bob Good (R-VA) and Eli Crane (R-AZ), as described here:
It seems federal funds have been used to create exhibits such as the “sole exhibit focused on the Constitution” which perpetuates the notion that it’s a “pro-slavery document.” AND “The only exhibit for children aims to teach them about race and slavery and includes a children’s book with graphic images and ‘imaginative exercise’ for whites and blacks that encourages children to imagine themselves as the aggressor and to examine their own capacity for evil....”
Good and Crane are seeking answers about the lack of exhibits concentrated on Madison’s achievements, the lack of exhibits explaining the importance of the Constitution, and the “restricted funds used for operating expenses: “Concerningly, exhibits such as the ones mentioned above seem to have been developed with the help of federal funds.”
The congressmen said: “We urge you to focus on the true life and history of James Madison, rather than succumbing to dishonest, ‘woke,’ and radical anti-American prejudices. We look forward to your prompt response."
The final set of concerns was put to Montpelier’s board earlier this year by grass roots supporters and descendants. Will the board:
2.d. TMF will refocus on its core mission, to preserve and educate the public about the life of James Madison and his contributions as the author of the Constitution, while telling the whole history, neither diminishing nor competing with the central mandate to tell Madison’s story. TMF will also diligently work to restore the Center for the Constitution as premier authority on the Constitution, especially by resuming sponsorship of “WE THE PEOPLE”.
4. TMF should with haste redefine Montpelier Descendants to include members of the James Madison family and actual blood related documented enslaved community descendants, and that all others be defined as “friends of the Montpelier Descendant Community”. This redefinition will end the inherent unfair nature of allowing “interested parties” to dominate and represent descendants which has silenced individuals with vested legal interest, but differing opinions from the MDC.
We look forward to your responses.
Sincerely,
--Potomac Tea Party