Questions Over Preservation Plague Hillside Avenue Cemetery

The property on Hillside Avenue in Bedminster dates back to 1801, and new evidence has shown that there is a slave cemetery on the site—but the committee is treading lightly as it works to determine what exactly should be done to mark that land.

Discussions over how to preserve the historical aspect of the slave cemetery on Hillside Avenue, site of the former municipal building, have continued for several weeks now, and residents are pushing for some kind of preservation of the site.

The property, according to records, was purchased by the township in 1935. The Bedminster municipal building was located on the property until 2004, and it was demolished in 2011.

Since then, the property has remained vacant.

Thomas Buckingham, president of the Somerset County Historical Society, is expected to come before the committee at its June 17 meeting to discuss the history of the property as they continue to discuss what should be done.

“We are hoping he can come out with a presentation and tell the story as best as the historical society can do because it’s a story that needs to be heard,” Mayor Steve Parker said at Monday’s committee meeting.

In a letter to the township from February, Buckingham said that research found an 1801 deed for the property, showing an indenture for the sale of one-tenth of an acre from Aaron Melick to three African American men. The deed, Buckingham wrote, stated that the property was to be used as a burying ground for "Black people in the neighborhood."

This transaction, which cost $3 Buckingham wrote, is significant in that it is one of the earlest known transactions in New Jersey where slaves were allowed to acquire land following the Revolutionary War.

At previous meetings, the committee has entertained discussions of putting a sign on the property to mark the cemetery because of its historical significance.

But residents expressed concerns at Monday's meeting about both the 1935 transfer, and attempts by a previous Bedminster administration to sell the property.

“It seems questionable the transaction that happened in 1935 when the township bought the property,” said resident, and Democratic candidate for committee, Basil Scaperdas. “The person who sold it didn’t own the Negro burial ground. There wasn’t proper due diligence to determine if the township had the legal ability to buy it. That needs to be investigated.”

Buckingham said in the letter that, in 1935, the township purchased the property from the estate of James B. Dow, which had also previously claimed that one-tenth acre of property used as the cemetery—although, Buckingham said, the piece of property is still occupied by descendants of the original owners and is being used as a burying ground.

Scaperdas said the township needs to ensure that this property is labeled a historical site so it can never be purchased by a developer.

“The township bought the property in 1935 and proceeded to desecrate a burial ground,” he said. “That is a dark part in Bedminster’s history.”

But Jay Kohn, with the NAACP Morris County Branch, questioned how the township could have considered selling it again, and how the township came to actually own it.

“You’re claiming ownership,” he said. “There is a concern because of attempts to profit off the property by a previous administration. One piece of the tract was for sale and it included the cemetery at that time.”

“There is concern it will not be protected,” he added.

Parker said the ownership was taken care of in the 1930s, and a previous administration had looked into selling the property.

Township administrator Judy Sullivan said the property was put out for bid, but they did not receive any, and township attorney John Bellardo added that there was still a concern that it would need to be preserved.

Committeeman Bernie Pane said there was disclosure to potential bidders that there was possibly a cemetery on the property, but, at the time, they did not have research to know if the area was definitively a burial site.

“It was anecdotal at best, and they took a precaution of designating an area that they thought might be the plot,” he said. “With potential buyers of the property, part of their reluctance was because it wasn’t definitive what was there. No one wanted to purchase it with that cloud over it.”

Now, Pane said, it has come to the township’s attention that there is indeed a burial site, and that’s why the township is proceeding cautiously.

But Kohn said that all of the property should be preserved.

“I’ve heard talk that people are trying to figure out where the graves are buried,” he said. “All of it should be preserved, not some of it.”

Committeeman Lawrence Jacobs said that finding out exactly where the cemetery is on the property is part of why they have requested the county commission president attend a meeting.

“One of the reasons we have requested the county historic commission come out is to find out more details, where the property begins and where it ends,” he said. “That’s what the committee is trying to do right now.”

Kohn said he finds it deplorable that the township would not be preserving the entire property already.

“I am concerned there was a desire to sell the property and make money,” he said. “I’m concerned that the property’s not going to be protected.”

“You’re telling me no one ever knew it was a graveyard?” he asked.

Pane said the situation is not a conspiracy on the part of the township, but they are trying to get to the bottom of this 66-by-66 property to determine where the cemetery is on the land, and how they can best preserve it.

“I can say in clear terms that no one was sure there was a cemetery,” he said. “This is a recent phenomenon.”

Further discussion will be held at 7 p.m. June 17 in the municipal building on Miller Lane.