Week 3

A friend has always said to me “A truth is always a truth.” The statement I think corresponds to Fred Shuttlesworth’s quote and title of Chapter 2 that “If you don’t tell it like it was, it can never be as it ought to be.”(33) James Horton and Lois Horton’s book, Slavery and Public History: The Tough Stuff of American Memory, is a compelling compilation of essays that exemplify how both academic and professional historians worked together on public history sites to bring out the truth in the history of slavery that has been overlooked in the past.

Although there are many, two specific examples in particular stood out that illustrate the ‘techniques and strategies’ that J. Horton claims are necessary for ‘historians and historical interpreters’ to use ‘for addressing race and slavery.’(53) Gary Nash’s essay surrounding the controversy with the President’s House at the Liberty Bell site and Dwight Pithcaithley’s essay about NPS Civil War battlegrounds both faced considerable resistance, however, the authors’ involvement and commitment to presenting the truth prevailed. Ironically, these two historians together were instrumental in the case of the President’s House.

The President’s House controversy is an excellent example of the collaboration between historians and interpreters in revising the history of slavery in a public site. Nash demonstrated the positive use of media in not only gathering public opinion, but also allowing the public’s voice to be heard. This gave administration on the Liberty Bell project the opportunity to make the necessary revisions, despite the fact that they were ‘out of time and money.’(80) Pithcaithley’s role as chief historian for the NPS also provided an instrumental role in pushing the INHP’s interpretative team to meet the NPS’s new mission for presenting the truth about America’s historical sites.

Another good example is the case of the NPS Civil War battlegrounds. This instance, however, models the process of taking on the revisionist task when the public is not in support of change and when collective memory becomes a problem. The Sons of the Confederacy provided the most resistance to Pitcaithley because they felt the need to uphold the version of the Civil War that they remembered or wanted remembered. Memory will always be valuable in history, but when memory distorts historical truths then the obligation rests on the academy to correct it.

This obligation, identified throughout the Horton book, presents its own controversy. While I feel motivated as a historian to present the truth and not to back down to resistance, I also feel compelled to ask, ‘How are public historians in smaller institutions, dealing with lower-profile exhibits supposed to address such contested topics when administration or trustees above them dictate otherwise? We will not always be able to employ activists like Gary Nash to take on resistance. Therefore, I think the strengths of this book rest in the fact that as historians, we must begin to push discussions; as public historians, we must begin to delve deeper into our research to present the truth, no matter how difficult it is even if the result is not what we intended.