.jpg)
If you're new To TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or go check out the Best of TOCWOC - A Civil War Blog. Thanks for visiting!
There have been quite a few mentions of the Gettysburg Visitor Center over the past few weeks in the Civil War blogosphere, and some of this has spilled over into the question of what type of interpretation should be seen at our Civil War battlefield visitor centers.
John Hennessy, National Park Service Chief Historian at the Fredericksburg & Spotsylvania Military Park, recently made some comments over at Civil War Memory on the ongoing debate about battlefield interpretation. John stressed that “Every word, every twitch of our muscles ought to help visitors understand what happened, why it happened, and why it mattered (and matters).” He believes battles should be placed into context, but that specific aspects should be viewed through the lens of the battlefield in question. I can’t say I disagree with anything John said. He makes a lot of valid points.
What troubles me, however, is the growing trend to want to do too many other things at battlefields, prominent among these a desire to highlight slavery, rather than interpreting the actual battle itself. Too many battlefields really don’t lend themselves well to the non-military aspects of the war. Recent blog entries on the subject by Eric Wittenberg at Rantings of a Civil War Historian and Paul Taylor at With Sword and Pen are concerned with this growing trend as well. The basic views are these:
- John believes all aspects of the Civil War should be taught at all battlefields.
- Paul believes some aspects of the Civil War should be taught at various battlefields, but that all aspects of the Civil War do not belong on every battlefield.
- Eric believes battlefields should stick to the military aspects of the war and leave other aspects to more appropriate venues such as the forthcoming U.S. National Slavery Museum in Fredericksburg, Virginia.
While I can see that John and Eric’s views are mutually exclusive, John’s comments and Paul’s ideas from his blog entry are not necessarily so.
At this point you are probably wondering where I stand on this issue and you more than likely think I agree 100% with Eric on this subject. You would be wrong. To me, there can and should be a place for non-military aspects of the war in the interpretation of some, *but not all*, battlefields. For instance, battlefields where the war started and ended, specifically Fort Sumter and Appomattox in the East, are good places to look at the causes of the war and place an emphasis on this aspect. Battlefields which saw USCT units participate such as New Market Heights, the Crater, Fort Wagner, and Olustee, to name a few, are perfect places to highlight African-American contributions to the Union war effort and atrocities committed against these soldiers. Battlefields such as Antietam, which played such a crucial role in Lincoln’s release of the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, should include interpretation which highlights the cruelties of slavery and its large role in starting the war. And Gettysburg should obviously have a portion of the Visitor Center space dedicated to the Gettysburg Address, a much more logical subject of interpretation than say, slavery. How many slaves were freed at Gettysburg? How many people in the surrounding area owned slaves? How many had even seen slavery close up? With all of this said, I think at almost every battlefield the military aspects of the battle in question should be the primary method of interpretation. In some cases, especially at places like Fort Sumter and Appomattox, the military history of the battle should share the primary slot with the causes of the war and all other aspects of the conflict.
So tell me readers. What is your opinion? Are you with John Hennessy? Eric Wittenberg? Paul Taylor? Me? Or are do you fall somewhere else on the spectrum? As I see it, there are different degrees of focus. It’s never all or nothing.
Dimitri had it right months ago. The NPS is ignoring its best customers, the people with an unending desire to learn more about the war their entire lives. Instead, they cater to the one time visitor and ironically, the new and increased focus on slavery does little to “educate” people who forget everything other than the horrendously simplified and incorrect “Meade beat Lee and the Civil War was pretty much won for the North”, if they even remember that much.
Let me throw out several hypothetical questions. Should the new U.S. National Slavery Museum in Fredericksburg devote exhibit space to Civil War battlefields? Should the primary exhibit at the U.S. National Slavery Museum be on Civil War battlefields? Should EVERY museum or site in the United States which deals with slavery or slaves contain exhibits on the Civil War? Should a place such as Lincoln’s Cottage north of Washington, D.C. have exhibits on battlefields? Should a museum dedicated to the home front include detailed tactical discussions of battles? If not, why not? These are in some ways similar to the one going on now.
Certain areas of the Civil War blogosphere would have you believe that slavery, along with its eventual eradication as a result of the conflict, are the only important reasons to study the war. Paul Taylor points out race as the elephant in the room and gets to the real heart of the matter in another recent post at With Sword and Pen. This argument isn’t really about the need to view the Civil War through multiple lenses. It’s about the desire of some to force feed the Emancipation Cause on the general public just like the Lost Cause view of the war was force fed on the same public in the past. Neither is the right way to go. While the study of the Civil War’s advancement of race relations (and the subsequent setbacks of Reconstruction) is a needed and worthwhile endeavor, it is most certainly NOT the only reason to study the conflict. To do so, and to tell the public to do so, would be as wrongheaded and misguided as the Lost Cause view of the Civil War that was foisted on the unknowing masses for the better part of the last 150 years. Unfortunately, some people with a public platform are intent on just such misguided action.
Did you enjoy this blog entry? Subscribe to TOCWOC’s RSS feed today!
Related posts:
@bschulte
10 responses so far ↓
1 Mark // Oct 8, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Outstanding post on a fascinating subject. I agree with your take for the most part; another question is that of geography. Many travelers to Civil War sites (such as myself, living in California) come from some distance to visit a few locations, so it would be important to ensure as comprehensive an exposure as possible. That said, I agree that it should be in context to the battle, monument, etc being exhibited.
While the idea of picking appropriate sites to place information on slavery and emancipation is one I agree with, I would also support all sites having some sort of NPS-standardized reference list, so if a patron, especially one who may not be able to visit multiple sites in one trip, wants to learn more about any issue, the information is at their fingertips.
The key point here is dissemination of information to as many people as possible, and battlefield and museum visitors are a huge part of this, as these folks are clearly interested. There is an implicit responsibility to promote learning, so I feel that the opportunity to educate should be seized.
2 Stephen Graham // Oct 9, 2008 at 12:02 am
Brett,
I fall someplace between Hennessy and Taylor on the subject. Any battlefield interpretation should place that particular battle within the larger context of the war. One part of that context is why the war occurred. It needn’t be a dominant feature at every battlefield, but it should rate the equivalent of a paragraph. One consideration is that each battlefield should presume that at least some visitors will be almost completely unfamiliar with the Civil War and some basic information should be provided to orient them.
With regard to mentions of the Civil War in those sites devoted to slavery, your analogy is flawed. The National Slavery Museum should discuss the war as it is important to the overall subject. Since it is in Fredericksburg, mention of the battles would be appropriate, with perhaps a suggestion of visiting the appropriate NPS facility for more information. But many sites will have no direct connection to the Civil War and thus it would be inappropriate to mention it. Understanding the details of Civil War battles is less important to understanding slavery than the reverse.
I think you’re incorrect as to your comments about the “best customers”. While actual visitor data would be interesting to examine, I expect that the one-time visitors constitute a far greater proportion of the revenue and visitor stream than the buffs do. So the exhibits should be tailored to the one-time visitors, rather than the buffs.
3 Doug Nielsen // Oct 9, 2008 at 10:33 pm
A fantastic question that I’ve actually thought of many times. I have family in Penn and Conn and every cival war exhibit we see highlights slavery. To be completely honest, I believe it is a guilt issue. To constuct a Cival War Museum and dedicate it towards some theme of slavery offers the donor, congressman, etc. forgiveness for past American sins. We are always hearing and learning about our “haunted past” of slavery where it seems France, England and others are off the hook of their imperialism/colonialism.
I also believe the exhibits should be tailored to the “I just drove from Colo to see this and will never be back” visitor. If this means concentrating on slavery than so be it. However, just as exciting is the stories of anti-slavery citizens and their sacrifices towards the cause of ending the act, white and black.
It’s the same idea as WWII? We focus on the mass killings of Jews even though there we many other ethnic groups slaughtered.
We focus on the Vietnam War and leave out the massacres of Cambodia and Laos. Etc. etc. etc.
4 Doug Nielsen // Oct 9, 2008 at 10:34 pm
I can’t even spell civil war correctly. I apologize, one year old twins screaming in the background.
5 martybrvt // Oct 10, 2008 at 11:18 am
I have to side with Eric on this. I think that most neophytes already have the perception that slavery caused the Civil War. While not untrue this is a gross oversimplification. As you suggest, slavery should certainly be a subject at Sumter, Harper’s Ferry, museums, but not necessarily battlefields.
In John Hennessy’s wonderful “Return to Bull Run” he does not preface the work with a discourse on causes of the war or the morality of slavery. He explains how the armies got there, what the leaders were trying to accomplish, then sets up and describes the battle. I think battlefields should present in the same manner.
6 Stephen Graham // Oct 10, 2008 at 11:22 pm
How many people reading Return to Bull Run are unlikely to have read some introductory Civil War history beforehand?
7 The Civil War in the classroom // Oct 11, 2008 at 11:53 pm
[...] XHTML ← Are Slavery and Emancipation the ONLY Things Worth Studying from the American Civil War? [...]
8 marty hancock // Oct 13, 2008 at 2:58 pm
Stephen,
Exactly. No use in preaching to the choir. I respectfully submit that most battlefield visitors are informed also. I would hope that the ones who aren’t would be moved enough by the events, the bravery, and the sacrifice displayed in these battles to seek more info on their own.
9 Stephen Graham // Oct 13, 2008 at 11:38 pm
As I indicated originally, I expect that the average battlefield visitor has a moderate awareness that the Civil War occurred, i.e., they aren’t at the same level as someone reading Return to Bull Run.
10 Bobby Edwards // Mar 25, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Very interesting topic, but I can’t understand the necessity of including slavery as an ingredient in interperting the battle. And, more importantly most of the battlefields here in Virginia are excluded from an adequate NPS Interpertation anyway. It’s up to the individual to do due diligence in doing his own battlefield research using all of the possible resources: Official Records, Maps, Book Articles, Magazine Articles, Old Letters, and Regimental Histories. That’s where the Study of the Battle Begins. It’s important to collect material from both sides in the understanding of what happened in the battle.
Over 90% of the Battlefields are Simply fields, woods, and terrain that no longer resemble the actual field of battle, when troops engaged in a life and death struggle. Historians write articles from a variety of sources, and when they paint the picture of action and engagements on a field with their Maps, Charts, and Diagrams, there may be much missing, especially if the original reports are flawed.
I would find it a bit insidious to see pamphlets on Southern Slavery or Northern Slavery, when visiting a Battlefield. Perhaps the Stories or Movies [Gangs of New York] about the Draft Riots in New York following the Gettsyburg could be appropriate at Gettysburg (as a Post Script), but I just can’t see interjecting an Issue that doesn’t relate to the Battlefield. Remember, Men Fought, Bled, Died, Cried, and Felt Pain on the Battlefield. They were not thinking of Political Issues, They were Thinking of Killing Others, of Protecting their Friends, and Of Surviving the Battle. Perhaps, Lawrence Chamberlin expressed it best, when asked why his Soldier Fought. It was Simple – “They Fought for Each Other”.
The Naked Display of Political Correctness on the Battlefield is the Reframing of History. As a Vietnam Veteran Seeing War on a Close Up and Personal Basis, My Brothers Have a Lot of Respect for those they Fought – The Enemy. There’s a Lesson to be Learned There. You will never find me Pushing any “Slavery Message Buttons” at Seven Pines, Ellerson’s Mill, Beaver Dam Creek, Gaines Mill, Savage Station, Glendale, Malvern Hill, Bermuda Hundred, Petersburg, Reams Station, Charles City Rd, Peebles Farm, Jones Farm, Davis Farm, Beef Steak Raid, Burgess Mill, Hatcher’s Run, Five Forks, Dinwiddie Court House, or any Other Battlefield in Richmond or Petersburg.
Leave a Comment