Paul R. Taylor on Museum Exhibits at Civil War Battlefields

Eric

I’ll preface my comment with the statement that Gettysburg doesn’t hold quite the emotional attachment that it does for many students and historians of the War, so I think I can be at least a bit unbiased (maybe!). I’m a Western Theatre guy; maybe I’d feel more strongly (one way or another) if this controversy were occurring at Vicksburg or Chickamauga or Shiloh. I’ve toured the Gettysburg battlefield many times and always enjoy going there. It’s just not the center of my Civil War universe. Still, the fact that it’s the Visitor Center at Gettysburg is going to be a lightning rod for strong feelings.

I agree totally with your opinion on proper and relevant interpretation at battlefield parks, although I also respect and understand the opposing point of view. There are other venues for the interpretation of the causes of the War and events leading up to it. I haven’t had the pleasure of touring as many Revolutionary War sites as I’d like, but I certainly don’t see the pressure to interpret all of the causes and events leading up to the American Revolution at specific battlefields. For example, I don’t remember exhibits interpreting the entire American colonial experience and the break with Great Britain when I visited Cowpens. The visitor center at Cowpens interpreted…………………….Cowpens, plus the importance of the War in the South and how Cowpens fit within that context.

Obviously, slavery is still a controversial issue even today. I agree with you that visitors to a battlefield come there to experience the battlefield, and understanding the causes of the war could be good motivation for them to visit Tredegar or Harrisburg (or others). I understand the point of view that, since battlefields draw large numbers of visitors (with at least some interest in the War), those same battlefield museums can be used to interpret a wider scale. I see that, to a point, but still think that it’s not necessarily the best place to do so.

Maybe it’s time for a National Museum of American Slavery that would interpret all facets of the subject, including causing a civil war. Again, just food for thought, I suppose.

Eric

I forgot about the one in Fredericksburg.

It all comes down to time and place, and those museums are much better places to interpret these topics than battlefields are.

A.P.

IMO, it’s a whole lot like going to the library to check out a book on a specific subject and being told I couldn’t possibly understand or appreciate the book unless I was familiar with the history of printing.

I agree with Eric that there are museums that lend themselves to this type of interpretation and ,also like Eric, I don’t happen to think Gettysburg is the proper place. A more fitting site, IMO, especially when it comes to addressing slavery, would be Antietam for obvious reasons.

Regards,
Teej

There are a number of battlefields or monuments connected with the Civil War where discussion of causes and slavery seems entirely appropriate. Surely Ft Sumter needs an explanation as to why the war came and the underlying causes of secession. Vicksburg also seems a natural place to discuss the matter, particularly due to the role of blacks in the campaign (Milliken’s Bend in particular) and as the post-siege Union garrison.

But, as with Kevin, I think that any site needs some consideration of the war as a whole. The battle occurred as part of a larger event. Why are the armies present and what do they think they’re fighting about is always an appropriate question.

You might also argue that Gettysburg has a higher burden to explain the entire war as it may be the only exposure many people get to the war. I’d rank this as a fairly minor consideration, though.

FYI: Today’s “Winchester Star” (9/25) has a story in it about a new “expanded” visitor center being built over at Cedar Creek Battlefield.
http://www.winchesterstar.com/showarticle_new.php?sID=6&foldername=20080925&file=Cedar%20Creek_article.html

Richard and Eric, — The problem with your referencing of the Congressional mandate as the turning point of battlefield interpretation is that it obscures the long history within the NPS of how to approach these issues. NPS were debating the question of slavery and race at the Crater going back decades. I’ve found references going back as far as the 1930s. This notion that somehow Jesse Jackson forced NPS officials down the road of broadening their focus simply fails to do justice to the history of the parks themselves. Changes have been in the works for some time now.

Are we really suggesting that by giving visitors a better understanding of how the battles filtered through the halls of Congress and the home front that the NPS is somehow doing a disservice to the men who fought and the people who continue to visit?

I’m not quite sure what the fuss is about, especially to people who obviously know much about the subject and have seen many artifacts at various places. It almost sounds to me that many critics want the visitor centers to cater to very knowledgeable people on the subject and let those who know very little to take it upon themselves to get context somewhere else.
However, the NPS Visitor Centers at all parks (historic and natural) are to orient the general public to the site and provide information on what to see. They are not necessarily geared for someone who knows a lot about the subject before arriving.
At historic sites the site must be put into its historic context, otherwise how does a general visitor know why this happened?.
If I’ve been to the battlefield before, rarely, do I return to visitor centers when I go back because I do not need the orientation. I’ve already read about the battle and seen the visitor center before. I’ve seen rifles and uniforms and bullets at countless museums and yes visitor centers. I now concentrate on the field itself, because I have much of the general knowledge given at the visitor centers. But there are many who visit battlefields for the first time and need the orientation. That’s what these places are for. Maybe the NPS should call them Orientation Centers to better let everyone know what the purpose is.

It may be a copout, but…as long as they preserve the battlefields, it doesn’t bother me how they interpret them. You can always count on the military buffs to want to do the guided walks & staff rides, the social/political/economical scholars to do their own thing, and the general public to take whatever its offered. To each his own.

What bothers me more is nonsense like the following, where the preservation of historic ground is considered conditional based on how that ground is interpreted. That’s the sort of “value system” that makes me hopping mad.
http://bullyforbragg.blogspot.com/2008/04/point-of-preservation.html

The Gettysburg Visitor’s Center and a lot of other “museums” are nothing more than studies in political correctness. They give us “history” that carefully censors out and adds in all that is needed to validate their ideological point of view. George Orwell had nothing on these folks. In keeping with the politically correct agenda, slavery is presented as the central issue of the war quite contrary to actual history which shows a good many issues other than slavery as reasons why the South wished to withdraw from the Union – including oppressive taxes, a rise in collectivism (an old New England concept enhanced by the immigration of many Germans during the 1840s), the growth of the power of the federal government at the expense of the States, the People and the Constitution and the realization that the region would soon be reduced to a permanent minority status and unable to protect the rights and interests of its people against the Northern juggernaut.

Even references to the issue of slavery fail to recognize and inform about the calls by radical abolitionists like John Brown and those who supported and financed him for slaves to rise in armed revolt against their masters and other whites in the manner of the Nat Turner massacres. No wonder non-slave owning Southerners – white and black – were incensed at Northern federal representatives for not speaking out against what were essentially calls for anarchy and mass murder.

While it is no doubt possible to present an objective presentation on a particular battle, it seems that the Parks Department and other so-called “historical” institutions have a very real agenda in their presentation of the War of Secession (it wasn’t a “civil war”!) and I for one object to my tax dollars financing this skewed and mendacious presentation of “history” according to the current politically correct viewpoint.

Mr. Dorr, your sarcasm doesn’t prove intelligence, just a closed mind. There is enough information around even in the “history” of those who focus entirely on slavery to prove what I have said. Furthermore, you and those like you tend to focus on slavery without bothering to find out ALL about it – like who sold blacks to whites in the first place (other blacks), who bought them in Africa and shipped them to American (Yankees) and the fact that when Northern industrialists found slavery less profitable than using the white immigrants off the ships from Europe, Northern slaves were sold South – NOT “emancipated”.

Meanwhile, of course, the North had “black codes” which forbid blacks from living or in some cases even ENTERING those states. Massachusetts, for instance, had the office of “Negro Whipper” which was used when a black “overstayed” his welcome in that state. Ohio and Illinois had “black codes” and the most rabid abolitionist certainly did not want liberated slaves anywhere near his own town or home. Like so many other “do-gooders”, their “compassion” was a thing of ideology and not humanity.

So let’s just admit what cannot credibly be denied, shall we? That is, that slavery has existed as long as mankind (and still exists), that it was used by all concerned from the black chieftains in Africa to the Yankee slave ship captains to the slave owners BLACK and WHITE in the North and the South. As the title of a famous author’s book on another issue entirely put it, “there is blame enough to go around”.

Let’s also admit – if you are able to overcome your own prejudices enough to do it – that slavery was legal and constitutional while the war waged by the North against the states in the South that legally and constitutionally seceded from the Union was IL-legal, UN-constitutional and, in fact, barbaric. You may not like those facts, but they are just that FACTS.

I was at the new VC back in June. My observations are:

1. The new movie is pretty much a waste of time and money. My expectations were that the movie would provide a great overview of the battle. Instead I felt like I was being given a lecture on slavery and civil rights. The between 5-10 minutes spent on the battle was disappointing and I felt that my $48 spent so the family could see it was wasted.

2. The exhibit area was a maze. Whoever described it as being herded like cattle is correct.

3. The ratio of material in the exhibits was disproportional for why people are there, to learn about the battle. I was so frustrated by going through section after section of slavery and not Gettysburg items, that by the time I got to the battle exhibits I was losing interest.

4. Whoever thought putting movies describing the battle in each of the battle day sections is nuts. First, if you don’t show up at the right time, you are stuck in an exhibit area which channels people through. That makes it a little hard to stand around waiting. Second, you’re trying to watch a movie with people milling around and talking. That makes it an awful environment to actually try and digest material. Chickamauga correctly put their nice movie in the theater.

5. I do agree that the material on display is pretty sparse, but I don’t agree that it needs to be a collection display.

6. Some of the displays concerning organization of ACW units and what to take on your campaign were nice.

7. The “book” store is atrocious. I was depressed by the lack of selection for Gettysburg and ended up buying a book on Stones River.

In some ways what was attempted was nice, but it falls very short of being successful. My humble opinion is that the whole concept needs redone. To start with, the pre-battle and post-battle exhibits should consist of one area apiece. There is too much of an imbalance now and it detracts from why most people are there, to learn about the battle. Next, the exhibit areas need redone so you can actually go to the one you want without walking the maze. Having to plow through the crowd to return an interesting section is poor design. Also, for the die hard artifact people, there needs to be an exhibit area that is regularly displaying different parts of the collection. Third, add a movie that is solely about the battle. You can keep the current one but there needs to be one that actually focuses the battle itself. Of course, having an actual movie about Gettysburg is going to kill what little traffic there is for the current movie. Finally, the bookstore needs to have a far greater selection of books about Gettysburg.

“…but it seems to me that no one has really made a case that the VC has sacrificed display space to overly long renditions of causes and thus slighted the battle.”

If I remember correctly, there are twelve sections. Three dealt directly with the battle with I believe a pre-battle and post battle sections. That left seven sections that were non-battle related. At best you are looking at a 50-50 split. In my view that isn’t acceptable. And based on watching other people that day, most weren’t interested in the non-battle items either. One section for causes, one for after effects, one for The Gettysburg Address, and the rest for the battle seems more properly focused. Just like the movie, there was way too much focus on things that should not be the focus of the VC. And the movie does even a poorer job than the exhibits.

Slavery is a complex historical issue. Trying to increase the focus on it only causes unneeded arguments at the Gettysburg site. People aren’t going to Gettysburg to hear about slavery except at a cursory, slavery was one of the war’s major causes, level at best.

Better late than never…I’ve been to the G’burg VC. I ain’t impressed, people. I’m not a Neo-Con by any stretch, but if things go in the direction of the new VC in CW interpretation all over, you can forget about any kind of rememberances of Confederate history. To be one who venerates their Reb ancestors is going to put you squarely in the sights of those who would call you a racist at the very least. there were two sides to this struggle, and only one side will be presented. Makes me sad, it does!