I will admit Rally on the High Ground left me feeling a bit confused as to what was really happening between Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. and the National Park Service, and how the speeches of the historians in the “online book” were related. Rally which from just a reading of its original text seems to have the opinions of several prominent historians on a somewhat universal theme, “an authentic context,” for the battlefield interpretations provided by the NPS as Jaclyn points out. The forward to the book states this as a summation of the reasoning:
“In the 2000 Department of the Interior appropriations bill, Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. inserted the language that brings us together. The language is brief and, I think, suggestive of possibilities. It simply says that Civil War battle sites are, ‘often not placed in the proper historical context.’ With that language, Congress directed the National Park Service to compile a report on the status of our interpretation of battlefield sites throughout the system. Then the language directed me, the Secretary, ‘to encourage Civil War battle sites to recognize and include in all of their public displays and multimedia educational presentations the unique role that the institution of slavery played in causing the Civil War.’” (Rally, Forward)
The forward goes on to speak about the current work of the NPS, the new sites under its control, as well as reassuring the reader/audience that the new mandate would not interfere with the overall mission of the NPS. Yet, for an “online book” formed as a response to a call for authentic context, Rally is greatly lacking in providing a context for its content. Being interested enough I decided to investigate.
Rally according to external sources was, “a book based on a National Park Service symposium on the Civil War, held May 8 & 9, 2000 at Ford’s Theatre.” (Amazon) Here some of the pieces come together, as we know understand that each of the historian contributors were, in fact, participants in this symposium which explains the common theme, why the book is a collection of speeches instead of written articles, and the question and answer sections. However, I was still left wondering as to the motivations and need for Congressman Jackson to have inserted the directions into the appropriations bill. While Jackson explains that he had visited over 20 battlefields and was dismayed at the neglect of context at each of the sites, the question I then wondered was why did Jackson mandate change in such a manner and how does this relate to our understanding of the history of each of those battlefields involved? To this I rely on context and intuition.
Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. is as his name suggests the son of the Reverend Jesse Jackson, Sr. a well known civil rights and political activist. So, with this history of race awareness, Congressman Jackson’s actions to push for the inclusion of the Civil War seems to be a logical carry over. While this proposal was not originally welcomed by the NPS, it did provide them with the opportunity to not only reconsider the messages of all of their battlefield interpretations but allow for the historical reinterpretation process to take place to meet the needs of the day, in this case racial awareness and sensitivity to the diverse groups of people visiting battlefields each year.
In this way, the symposium and following book represent an interesting moment in historical production. Not only does this event allow for an opportunity to see how even in our modern historical understanding, “power,” in this case the power of Congress can dictate the importance of certain narratives. Still, by drawing in the experts of the NPS and academic historians, this moment of historical reinterpretation opened the doors for discussion and the saving of “forgotten” or “silenced” histories often neglected by the usual NPS interpretation. So, by opening the way for the production of a new narrative, Jackson allowed for, Edward Linenthal cites from Carl Becker, “history is an unstable pattern of remembered things.” (Linenthal) This unstable pattern allows us to look at questions such as the role of slavery in Civil War Battles and come to new conclusions on how they should be interpreted. As James Oliver Horton explains,
“Today, we talk about revisionist history as if it were a new and dangerous thing. In reality, every generation revises its history. We should feel no more threatened by revisionist history than we would by revisionist medicine. (…) The fact is that revising history is what historians are supposed to do. Historians who are not constantly trying to revise history are not doing their jobs, and can be replaced by a simple tape recorder.” (Horton)
Overall, I was a bit disappointed by the presentations of the authors. Each of them attacks a different issue related to why slavery is important in the overall interpretation of the Civil War and why any narrative on the Civil War should by necessity include a recognition of slavery as a cause for the Civil War (Jackson), as an important story of both violence and heroics in our nation’s history (Berlin), as a suppressed triumph in the reconciliation period (Blight), a means of enriching contributions to cultural engagement with the Civil War (Linenthal), a motivation to fight (McPherson), an important labor system and cause of the war (Horton), and as a defining moment in the nation’s understanding of freedom (Foner). Yet, none of the historians fully provides an example of how this learning and reasons for inclusion can be actually incorporated into the interpretation given by the NPS. While it is very possible that the NPS requested this, it instead makes the “experts” seem foolish and shortsighted in their ability to provide useful and applicable discussion in the reinterpretive symposium that could be immediately applied in the field. I found this a glaring omission considering the context and purpose of the symposium, however, that does not diminish the importance of the arguments presented and their ability to reinterpret history to emphasize the role of slaves so that all might be aware of their involvement and so that the NPS an fully provide for the historical and citizenship learning of their visitors.
From this article and revisionist movement, I suggest that we carefully examine the building of our own Dick Dowling exhibit and make sure to be careful to provide context, but also to be sure to be very clear as the importance of each essay/piece in the collection and how it influences understanding of the subject.