Boyd R. Harris, University of Mississippi
Proposal Type: Structured Conversation
Seeking: Additional Presenters, Specific Expertise, General Feedback and Interest
Abstract: John Coski stated in 2002 that the significance of the National Park Service’s plan of reinterpretation to include the issue of slavery at Civil War battlefields “extends well beyond the national park service and battlefield parks for that matter.” That reinterpretation, codified by a provision in the Department of Interior appropriations bill in 1999, urged the National Park Service to “encourage Civil War battle sites to recognize and include in all of their public displays and multi-media educational presentations the unique role that the institution of slavery played in causing the Civil War and its role, if any, at the individual battle sites.” That legislation resulted in an overhaul at many NPS Civil War battlefields and sparked a public debate over the purpose, role, and interpretational programs at these sites.
The ramifications of that legislation and those debates had an impact on the sesquicentennial commemorative programs during the past few years at all NPS Civil War battlefields. As Coski mentioned, however, the significance of that legislation spread beyond simply that of NPS Civil War battlefields. My particular research is on the consequences of the interpretational shift at state historic sites, specifically Civil War battlefields. Challenging traditional interpretations at state historic sites presents many difficulties similar to the struggle experienced a national sites. Individual state legislatures, much like Congress, determine the funding, operation, and selection of each site. The difference is in the purpose. Many of these sites present a focused interpretation of their subject in the context of the state’s history and not necessarily within the context of national history. In particular, southern Civil War sites often conveyed a traditional Lost Cause interpretation. My own research at Olustee Battlefield Historic State Park in Florida highlights a distinction made by a vocal minority of the public that the site should only commemorate the Confederate defense of Florida against an invading Federal army. Heritage organizations and private citizens coalesced around this interpretation during several interactions with the Florida Park Service during 2013-2014, resulting in the agency indefinitely postponing a monument to United States Colored Troops at the site.
I propose a structured conversation session on the topic of Civil War state/local historic sites and the challenge of incorporating newer interpretations without the momentum of sweeping legislation, as seen on the federal level during the early 2000s. Starting with the controversy at Olustee in 2013-2014 over the placement of a USCT monument, the session could examine the unique challenges faced by state historic sites when incorporating a different interpretation. As the sesquicentennial ends, this could be a good opportunity for an assessment on how historic sites below the federal level addressed or are addressing the shift away from traditional, mostly Lost Cause, interpretation of the war.
Seeking: The general consensus on the national level is that the older interpretations of the Civil War, particularly the ones that avoid any mention of race or slavery, are no longer valid. The NPS, in particular, challenged the older interpretations through a thorough re-evaluation of its publications, exhibits, and programs during the 2000s. A large part of this session will be to discover how well that re-evaluation impacted state/local historic sites, particularly during the sesquicentennial. Other topics could include the challenges facing particular sites, brainstorming on ways to improve older interpretations, and the role of the public in shaping interpretation.
I am looking for feedback on the session as well as participants, particularly those working or researching on the state level. The session is particularly focused on Civil War sites, although it may benefit from other eras that deal with slavery or African American history. Any feedback would be greatly appreciated.
If you have a direct offer of assistance, sensitive criticism, or wish to share contact information for other people the proposer should reach out to, please get in contact directly: Boyd R. Harris,brharri2[at]olemiss.edu
If you have general ideas or feedback to share please feel free to use the comments feature below.
All feedback, and offers of assistance, should be submitted by July 3, 2015.
Related Topics: Civic Engagement, Memory, Museums/Exhibits
This is a well-conceived panel. You might want to consider reaching out to John Cimprich at Thomas More College, who’s done a lot of work on the public memory of Fort Pillow (which is a state park) and/or a staff member at Bennett Place (also a state park). Another question to consider in the framing of the session might be to compare/contrast the degree to which staff at state parks and NPS sites is professionalized. I have a hunch that the differences might not be as significant as expected.
I really like the concept for this panel, I especially like that you are de-centering the conversation away from the national park service and instead looking at state historic cites which I think do not get as much attention in the field of public history. I would be very interested to see a panelist about the recent emphasis on bringing American Indian history into Civil War history, see Boyd Cothron and Ari Kelman’s work.