Slavery and Public History, Part 2

To follow Joe, I'm also a fan of "slow time" in posting on my presentation! Corinne posted on the first half of the book, and this is the second batch of essays.


Introduction and General Themes of the Essays
• American history has been haunted by its founding moment of hypocrisy—the founding of a nation based on independence and slavery, which is its fundamental contradiction
• The need to justify slavery in a free nation led to modern American racist theory, which incorporated scientific, social Darwinism discourse, which in turn supported the Jim Crow system of segregation
• Contemporary racism is a legacy of slavery—and slavery burdens all of American history and is incorporated into interpretations of the past
• There is a drive to forget slavery’s history in constructing contemporary American identities, but we are always going to be haunted by this constitutive contradiction


Joanne Melish “Recovering (from) Slavery: Four Struggles to Tell the Truth (Associate Prof. of History at University of Kentucky)
• Analysis of efforts to interpret slavery at the historic sites of John Brown House, Brown University, My Old Kentucky Home and the Black Regiment
• To fill in the gaps and to incorporate this history is complicated: it's one thing to have curators and historians on board, it's another thing to have the administrative, donors, “purse strings”, members and general public to accept things that challenge celebratory and progressive narratives, or also, the disenfranchised counternarratives: “interpreting the history of a particular place or event involving groups with different social identities can be tricky when the groups are invested in the language and meaning of the site as reflected in two different layers of interpretation. In such cases, acknowledging the past presents the problem of reconciling dissonant but fully developed interpretations” (104)
• Also, she argues that the reparations movement has complicated this process—acknowledgment of this history is foreclosed by fear of litigation (and accompanying financial loss)
• Melish looks at New England and the border states as particularly complicated places of slavery/history interpretation. Author was personally involved in 3 of the 4 sites. “each of these cases illuminates a different set of unintended consequences of ignoring, suppressing or attempting to contain the narratives of slavery and the complex negotiations required to reconstruct these narratives and decipher their tangled legacies of racial meaning” (105)
John Brown House
• 1786, merchant, patriot and slave trader—very wealthy through this, if not necessarily through slave trade, then through all the commercial and merchant trades tied up with transatlantic colonial/slave systems
• 1941, object/aesthetic house museum, decorative arts approach, little mention of slave trade
• October 2001, prof of anthro at RI College wrote collaborative letter challenging the whitewashing of the Brown family legacy, which resulted in a very political convening of a committee with a priori factions
• The question was whether to represent Brown as a man of his time and place, which included slavery, or as more individually culpable (his brother was an abolitionist and Quaker).This often broke into historian/anthro disciplinary lines, with huge public newspaper editorial fights. Additionally, the narrative of communities of color, the tunnels, the biggest slave owner—which he really wasn’t. they have their own “knowledges” and resist other interpretations, convinced that historians are “whitewashing”
• Still not fully resolved--ongoing negotiations about the interpretive strategies.
My Old Kentucky Home
• Containment strategy of narrowly defined appropriate spaces linked to mechanics of denial
• Kentucky as a “split” zone border state, either a slavery or confederate interpretation is presented in historic sites
• 1818, mansion of US senator John Rowan, linked to state song written by Stephen Foster. It is now a state park which contains an unacknowledged slave cemetery. In tours they were called “servants” and “faithful retainers” rather than slaves, if they were acknowledged at all
• A student docent began researching the presence of slavery at Federal Hill, and began incorporating it into his own tour script
• The assistant director of Kentucky parks reviewed it and agreed that slavery should be interpreted, but not as part of the home tour, but limited to the dining room or hall, because they were more connected to those areas of the house, and that he should “read” his group tours to get a feel for what they want to hear, and not mention slavery if it could be a problem, and to balance the interpretation with a “positive” mention of slavery.
• Script is still not implanted, or docents retrained, as of this essay
Brown University
• Sparked by Horowitz’s paid editorial in student newspaper, reparations debate and interest in the actual connections between the institution and slavery and John Brown
• Ruth Simmons, president, great great grandchild of slaves and first African American to head an Ivy League institution, appointed a committee to faciltate inquiry and academic initatives, leading the way on a national dialogue on these historical connections
• But NYT reporter connected it to Simmon’s personal interests and whether Brown would pay reparations, and focused on her biography, portraying her as advocating reparations—led to more newspaper editorial fighting, but ultimately, it was a success and Brown did fruitfully create the original atmosphere it intended
Rhode Island Regiment
• Battle of Rhode Island, first continental regiment of black soldiers, repelled 3 waves of a Hessian assault in 1778
• Designated as an African American historic site: but who were these soliders and what does it mean to call it a “black regiment”, when there were Native American and multiracial members too, but at the time they were all characterized as black?
• Issues with the site and monument plan and design—federally funded, open to public comment. Battle narrative approved. Membership narrative took over 4 years to come to a consensus.
• Native tribes objected to being grouped as “black”, because that’s how the white census listed them, but in their own traditions, they retained the matrilineal native identity. Also, they didn’t fight in the regiment, but alongside the Americans against the british as a sovereign Narragansett nation. It took 4 years to resolve.

Lois Horton “Avoiding History: Thomas Jefferson, Sally Hemings and the Uncomfortable Public Conversation on Slavery” (Prof. of Historry at George Mason University)
• Explores the public reaction to DNA findings on Jefferson/Hemings relationship, which is still disputed by those unable to reconcile the contradiction. It did help visitors come to terms with Jefferson as a slaveholder, however.
• In the mid 1980s, slaves were referred to as “servants”, mostly absent from tour interpretations at Monticello, focused on Jefferson actively doing things like “building the house” or “experimenting with crops”
• By the mid 1990s, things had changed. Additional tour added for Mulberry row, where the slave artisans lived and worked
• In 1998, DNA testing of the descendents conclusively proved that Jefferson was the father of Sally’s second son, but the study committee was split, with one faction holding onto the claim that Jefferson’s nephew was the father
• Author interviewed visitors about their reactions to the presentations of slavery at Monticello, and Jefferson’s slaveholding—trends by age, excusing Jefferson as a man of his time and they created sympathetic narratives to reconcile the hypocrisy of Jefferson the great man and the slaveholder, Jefferson and Sally as consenting adults, star-crossed lovers, the half-sister of his dead wife

Marie Tyler-McGraw “Southern Comfort Levels: Race, Heritage Tourism and the Civil War in Richmond” (Independent scholar working as consultant for public history projects, historian at NPS)
• City of Richmond deals with the racially charged history of the old capital of the confederacy, now a site of historic tourism, which complicates its municipal landscape and political debates. It is a postindustrial city, strongly depending on historic and heritage tourism and looking for a middle way of positioning itself so it doesn’t alienate either side
• Because it was the capital of the confederacy, for many years it portrayed the “lost cause”—benign view of slavery, states rights, ruthlessness of military reconstruction. 1890s, the design of urban space of commemoration also staked racial boundaries
• Black citizens constructed and preserved an alternative version, through parades, protests, oral traditions, counterinterpretations, celebration of emancipation day to resist the dominant narrative
• During the riverfront urban redevelopment project in the mid 90s, the Richmond National Battlefield Park Center became part of this project with new and expanded exhibitions and interpretations. Also, by 90s, black mayor, city council—the city turned to heritage tourism, but it was heritage dominated by the lost cause narrative. Tried to find a middle ground that incorporated back history, but not to erase the lost cause landscape
• A process of remapping the historical landscape—segregated memorial spaces--came to a head over Richmond native Arthur Ashe statue and where to place it—on Monument Ave. where all the confederate heros were, but it is also most prestigious place in the city. The Robert E Lee panel was taken down from the canal walk, which caused another controversy—because black citizens were tired of encountering Lee in every part of the city, and southern heritage groups protetsted the “historical revisionists”. The Lincoln statue as a figure of reconciliation in the NPS was protested by southern heritage groups—virulent protest from groups outside Richmond
• Because heritage tourism is essentially commercial, it needs at least the appearance of racial harmony to be successful, but difficult in a place like Richmond where the spaces and narratives overlap and contradict each other. Author advocates strategies of commemoration that consider all the perceptions of symbols, and uphold the primacy of the community as stakeholders and the informed and discerning “first tourists”. Historical sites as forums not temples.

Dwight T. Pitcaithley “’A Cosmic Threat’: The National Park Service Addresses the Causes of the American Civil War” (author was chief historian of NPS, now adjunct Prof at New Mexico State University)
• NPS deals with issues of race at historic sites—interpreting the history of slavery at civil war battlefield parks. Lots of letter-writing controversy and opposition to slavery as a cause of the civil war
• In the centennial commemoration of the civil war, middle of the civil right movement, lost cause narrative was dominant---no connection to the civil rights movement as a legacy of slavery and the war
• New social history—80s and 90s changed scholarship, and early 90s, congress started legislating more comprehensive interpretations of NPS civil war sites, which were previously descriptively narrated battles, rather than addressing causes, contexts or consequences
• 1998, a fundamental change to the NPS interpretive strategy, provoked many funny-angry letters and responses, generated from heritagepac and sons of confederates, which viewed the change as a “cosmic threat” to military battle interpretations, and the mention of slavery is south-bashing propaganda, politically correct ideology
• Honor, bravery, nobility of veterans and battlefields came out of a specific historical moment post-civil war, “remembering the war only through the lens of personal valor and honor perpetuated the lost cause interpretation of the war by separating cause from action and consequence” (178) “many historical events are accepted as acts of faith, and the popular memory of them cannot be dislodged by subsequent scholarship” (179) Ignoring the connection between slavery and secession allows “the popular memory of these and other events in the nations’ past to support social as well as political agendas and become powerful vehicles for constructing personal as well as national identities” (180) Also, northern popular memory of the war conflates the beginning and the end of the war—the south has the great alibi and the north has the treasury of virtue
• There is a distance between professional historians and nonacademic historians—don’t work together, and author encourages new forums to collaborate. The outcome of the change in interpretation has been positive, and most responses to it are positive

Bruce Levine “In Search of a Usable Past: Neo-Confederates and Black Confederates” (Prof of History at UC, Santa Cruz)
• Neo-confederate claims of voluntary black military support for the confederacy, as an attempt to vindicate the confederate cause, disconnecting it from the issue of slavery and linking it to independence and states rights, so neo-confederates can honor their ancestors and not account for slavery.
• 1970s movement to memorialize loyal black confederates, promoted by SCV, claims vary between 10k and 100k, which is huge. Confederate army was integrated, bolsters claim that the southern cause was for all southerners, black and white, and that the cause was not about supporting slavery. Also came out of the civil rights movement, which changed the terms of acceptable public discourse—and repositions the south/north relation. Civil war reenactors actively recruit black members to support this claim
• Certain books are central to this claim, advocating that slavery was benign, a positive institution, happy and free from want and violence—as opposed to the status of free blacks in the north. Equates inner city violence with slavery—under slavery, the black family was stronger, did not have the violence or crime, that southerners were already working towards abolition, reinforces the northern brutality of reconstruction and force led to Jim Crow laws and segregation
• This revisionism serves a current political agenda—striking against “liberal leftist multicultural agenda that threatens to undo the south and all of America”
• Black participators in this neo-confederate agenda receive a lot of publicity—Walter Williams of George Mason who believes that by destroying the states right to secession, it opened the door to the “unconstrained, despotic, arrogant federal government” of today. Other black endorsers hope that it will improve race relations with white neighbors—Edward C. Smith of American University
• Of course blacks contributed to the confederate war effort—they were the foundation of the economy and a huge proportion of the labor force. Also the dynamics of the identification process with the dominant white culture produced free blacks who were loyal to the confederacy—kept alive by the cult of the “loyal slave” who was bonded to the master through affection, respect and mutual accord, rather than as owned property, and the actual numbers of slaves who fought is very small
• Author takes down the claims of these neo-confederate books—what is being represented as free was actually coerced, even by free blacks, officially the confederacy did not allow black soldiers because they deserted, and it would undermine the racial inferiority ideology. He quotes the actual speeches/communications of Jefferson Davis as he offered black slaves freedom if they fought, only 1 month before the war ended
• However, most black-confederate devotees will never change their minds because they refuse to—and author’s goal is not to counter them, but to warn other people about their false claims and give access to the real facts of history

Edward Linenthal: “Epilogue: Reflections” (Prof of History at Indiana University)
• Reflects and broadens into general discussion of society’s effort and need to memorialize the past---how does a nation deal with its historical sites of shame?
• Using Robert Lowell’s line “the monument sticks like a fishbone in the city’s throat”, Linenthal says that slavery is America’s fishbone
• Notes language of erasure in all these essays ”marginalizing, suppressing, concealing, masking". Slavery is erased through denial, transformation into benign narratives and our need for redemptive stories. But also, for some African Americans, they erase it because it is a site of shame and disempowerment
• Also language of restoration: excavation, uncovering, remapping, reconstructing
• Talks about how places speak: “The conviction is that somehow places speak, and places where extreme events were carried out (or began) speak even more importantly ---more problematically, that our memories of such events will be as powerful, as enduringly constructive, as the destructive event itself” (222)
• Memorialization and remembrance is a moral engagement, and reconciliation is being able to confront the violence and shame of our history. Ends with a process of historical transcendence, according to Linenthal.

Questions and Themes
• There is a tendency to separate out morality and war—examples like Paul Tibbet (pilot of the Enola Gay) and the war re-enactors. They make a large distinction between the actual military events and their causes, consequences, and ethics.
• Sheds another light on Jenny Thompson’s contention that re-enacting is about men and masculinity and their current positions, rather than historical drive. Both supports and refutes that. Mentions of reenactors, SCV are very involved in these issues of defining the causes/erasures. However, this whitewashing revisionism is made from a very current right wing political position.
• Interesting to think of postcolonial work alongside this—that the debates over slavery, the civil war are not about slavery, but about the south constructing a version of itself against the north and the mirror of the institution of slavery. 2 operations of othering going on.
• Language co-option: in large part, these are succeeding because they have used the language of oppression, of so-called diversity and political correctness, access to the public sphere. Linenthal’s attention to the language used in these essays as framing 2 spheres of historical movement points towards this, too—an awareness of language in these debates and how the position of “victim” and the “oppressed” shifts according to the currency being used.
• If we are left with Linenthal’s idea of a historical transcendence through this fleshing out history, where does that leave current analysis of policies, institutions, debates such as immigration, affirmative action, poverty? Is historical engagment and memorialization an activist act? Or does it displace current politics onto history? If interpretations of history and construction of memorial sites also acts of identity formation, then what does this mean for “authenticity” or “historically accurate presentations of fact?”