You are here

Where Do You Draw The Line On Erasing History In The National Park System?

Share

Once known as LeConte Memorial Lodge, this building in the Yosemite Valley is now known as the Yosemite Conservation Heritage Center/Eric Polk via Wikipedia

History can be a messy, controversial thing. That's evident with the recent events in Charlottesville, Virginia; Baltimore, where a number of Confederate statues were removed under dark of night; and even in New York City, where the mayor has called for a review of "symbols of hate." But what should be done in the National Park System, where monuments abound to Confederate generals, troops, and, of course, presidents who owned slaves?

Across the country, the issue of "presentism," of viewing past events through today's attitudes and righteousness, is driving community decisions and fueling divisiveness, anger, and, in isolated instances, violent unrest.

So far, the National Park System has largely stayed outside of this debate. But might the agency come to the attention of those who oppose monuments to Confederate soldiers? After all, there's the shrine to Confederate Gen. Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, a slave owner, at Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park in Virginia, and a monument of Confederate Gen. James Longstreet astride a steed at Gettysburg. And then there's the bronze statue to Gen. William Tecumseh Sherman at the White House. The general did not view blacks as equals and after the Civil War worked to annihilate Indians who stood in the way of the railroads.

"We are not going to let a few thieving, ragged Indians check and stop the progress of [the railroads]," he wrote Ulysses S. Grant, adding in a later letter that "we must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to their extermination, men, women and children."

National Park Service officials, well aware of the debate into whether Confederate statues and monuments should remain in place, believe they should stay.

"Across the country, the National Park Service maintains and interprets monuments, markers, and plaques that commemorate and memorialize those who fought during the Civil War. These memorials represent an important, if controversial, chapter in our Nation’s history. The National Park Service is committed to preserving these memorials while simultaneously educating visitors holistically about the actions, motivations, and causes of the soldiers and states they commemorate. A hallmark of American progress is our ability to learn from our history," the agency said in a list of talking points it prepared for staff.

"Many commemorative works including monuments and markers were specifically authorized by Congress. In other cases, a monument may have preceded the establishment of a park, and thus could be considered a protected park resource and value. In either of these situations, legislation could be required to remove the monument, and the NPS may need to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act before removing a statue/memorial," the statement continued.

"Still other monuments, while lacking legislative authorization, may have existed in parks long enough to qualify as historic features. A key aspect of their historical interest is that they reflect the knowledge, attitudes, and tastes of the people who designed and placed them. Unless directed by legislation, it is the policy of the National Park Service that these works and their inscriptions will not be altered, relocated, obscured, or removed, even when they are deemed inaccurate or incompatible with prevailing present-day values. The director of the National Park Service may make an exception to this policy."

Interior Department Secretary Ryan Zinke, during a visit to Antietam National Battlefield, weighed in on the issue shortly after the uprising in Charlottesville.

"I think history's important, and on this battlefield, as an example, what did the battle of Antietam bring us? One is that it was the deadliest battle in the history of our country, but also one can argue successfully that it also brought us the Emancipation Proclamation," said the secretary. "So, there's goodness that came out of this battlefield, but recognizing two sides fought, recognizing the historical significance of a change in our country. So, I'm an advocate of recognizing history as it is. Don't rewrite history. Understand it for what it is and teach our kids the importance of looking at our magnificent history as a country and why we are what we are."

This monument recognizing Confederate soldiers from South Carolina stands in Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania National Military Park/Kurt Repanshek

Yosemite National Park in the past year has had an identity crisis of sorts in its iconic valley, as an ongoing trademark fight between Delaware North Co. and the Park Service has led to new names for the Ahwahnee Hotel (now Majestic Yosemite Hotel), Camp Curry (now Half Dome Village), and Yosemite Lodge at the Falls (now Yosemite Valley Lodge).

While there are no Confederate statues in Yosemite, until recently there was a building that stood as a memorial to Joseph LeConte, a geologist, natural historian, and botanist who taught at the University of California and was widely respected, with more than a few schools, streets, buildings, and even a mountain named in his honor.

There's also LeConte Lodge in Great Smoky Mountains National Park that arose in 1925 as a tent camp, some years before the park was established, and a LeConte Mountain (though there's some dispute whether it was named after Joseph or his older brother, John). And he was a charter member of the Sierra Club, longtime friend of John Muir, and proponent of establishing Yosemite National Park.

To honor LeConte, the Sierra Club early in the 20th century saw that a stone building was built, to serve as a reading room and information center, and named it after LeConte. That name remained attached to the building from its completion in 1904 until last year, when the organization deemed LeConte too reprehensible of a man to be honored and renamed the lodge the Yosemite Conservation Heritage Center.

"When the Sierra Club reviewed post-Civil War published writings on race by Professor Joseph LeConte Sr., we found them offensive and indefensible. His repugnant, public support for Jim Crow laws and white supremacy are in conflict with the Sierra Club's values as an organization committed to protecting clean air, clean water, and public lands for all," Sierra Club Deputy Executive Director Bruce Hamilton told the Traveler in an email last week.

"LeConte didn’t just harbor racist views, which would not have been uncommon at the time. What set him apart is that he used his status as an academic to help perpetuate and legitimize racist public policies that continue to plague America today. We recognize LeConte as a part of early Sierra Club's history, but we see no need to celebrate him, and when we had the unique opportunity to push to change that, we did."

“This is so absurd,” noted the historian Alfred Runte. “Had most of us been alive 150 years ago, we probably would have harbored racist views as well. It takes no courage to beat up on the past and pronounce your views ‘superior.’ Are they? Who next will be read out of the Sierra Club for not living up to Mr. Hamilton’s standards? John Muir himself, for example?”

Certainly, some see him as an even bigger racist than LeConte. Writes Jedediah Purdy in The New Yorker:

But Muir, who felt fraternity with four-legged “animal people” and even plants, was at best ambivalent about human brotherhood. Describing a thousand-mile walk from the Upper Midwest to the Gulf of Mexico, he reported the laziness of “Sambos.” Later he lamented the “dirty and irregular life” of Indians in the Merced River valley, near Yosemite. In “Our National Parks,” a 1901 essay collection written to promote parks tourism, he assured readers that, “As to Indians, most of them are dead or civilized into useless innocence.” This might have been incisive irony, but in the same paragraph Muir was more concerned with human perfidy toward bears (“Poor fellows, they have been poisoned, trapped, and shot at until they have lost confidence in brother man”) than with how Native Americans had been killed and driven from their homes. -- Environmentalism’s Racist History, by Jedediah Purdy, The New Yorker, August 13, 2015

“They have a huge statue (at Manassas National Battlefield Park) there of Stonewall Jackson. It’s massive. I would never support any attempt to remove that statue. That park was founded to commemorate the Confederate victories at Manassas 1 and Manassas 2." -- Dr. Harry Butowsky/Kurt Repanshek photo

Nor should we forget the military “protectors” of Yosemite. After helping “cleanse” the West of holdout native tribes, these stalwart African-Americans held the line with shepherds, prospectors, and timber thieves.

“It is we who need to understand the complexity of history,” Dr. Runte said. “Blaming people of their times for acting out their times is to forget that every institution formed in those times was influenced by the exact same people. If the Sierra Club wants to disband, I’m all for it. Half of its members in 1913 supported damming the Hetch Hetchy Valley. How dare the Sierra Club now even exist?”

Dr. Harry Butowsky, a retired Park Service historian whose career included time at Manassas National Battlefield Park, wasn't in favor of ignoring controversial figures.

“We can’t cleanse the past. We can’t change our history. John Muir is a man of supreme importance to the national parks and to the preservation of natural resources, and like everyone, he had his flaws," said Mr. Butowsky. “Now, you can have some interpretive material that explains what these people said and felt. I don’t think what LeConte said and what Muir said is really substantial to why they’re remembered and why they’re honored.”

Rather than rush to "cleanse" the park system of unsavory parts of history, wouldn't it be better to place them in context, as the Park Service intends to do?

"The NPS will continue to provide historical context and interpretation for all of our sites and monuments in order to reflect a fuller view of past events and the values under which they occurred."

Featured Article

Comments

Lee _I find it quite offensive how you refer to our President as"Drumpf". I can understand your not agreeing with him however name-calling and using degrading language to describe something you don't agree with seems pretty small-minded and childish. Many of us voted for Trump--I suppose you think we are all idiots and just don't see clearly--as you do I suspect?? Fine to disagree but how about some grownup real dialog??


DG - His ancestral name IS apparently Drumpf - so that seems apporpriate.  As to thinking that all those who voted for any candidate might be idiots:  if they didn't look behind campaign literature and the screeching of what passes for the US media - well, look at the results.  National Monuments under attack, NASA now to be headed by a political hack instead of a distinguished scientist, a Secretary of Education who is supremely unqualified for the job, an expansion of the swollen black hole of military spending in endless wars designed to benefit only the war profiteers.... 

But this is a national parks site, so I'd simply suggest that Trump's hit list for our beloved and valuable national monuments alone is reason to think that only an idiot can support him.  Note that "idiot" is your word, not mine, and I'm simply borrowing it here. I would have used "unthinking anti-national park" voter or something along those lines.


I agree with Dick. Name calling is just petty. It doesn't offend me any but rather detracts from the post and the writer's point is generally lost.


The issue here is not President Trump.  The issue is that history is not being taught in our schools.  There is no understanding or knowledge of what many of these folks who are commemorated in statues did or what the bigger picture is.  I was in DC this summer and we went to Twilight Tattoo at Ft. Myer.  This is a history of the US Army and our country presented in music. When the men portraying Civil War soldiers galloped onto the field in their blue and gray, the Union cavalry carried the US flag.  But the Confederates had no flag.  We had seen this presentation before and it was always present.  After the show we asked the young man playing the Confederate part and he said one person (yes one person) was offended at the last perfomance so they removed it.  How can the "feelings" of one person lessen the impact of something for hundereds?  We are rushing to erase history and it scares me greatly.  Quit the name calling and divisive narrative and stand up for our complete, unadulterate history.  Warts and all.


Dick - I find it offensive that you refer to him as "our President". And no, I don't think that all Trump voters were idiots. Those who have been following his course in office, other than through Faux News and Alex Jones, who still support him are rapidly approaching that point.


Well I thought Trump was duley elected as our POTUS--despite some being unaccepting of the results. I guess the days of thoughtful dialog and discussion has devolved into name-calling and screaming inorder to make "your point" . It's unfortunate that some people can only see their take on things as the right choice and refuse to attempt to see anothers view. And not only that use slurs against the other person to validate their view. Thats not Democracy in my book.


It is my understanding that historically, many Nativie American tribes, as part of their accepted culture, would raid neighboring tribes enslaving captives. But, I'm not going to tout destroying their culture today nor discriminating against them due to perceived faults of tribal ancestors.


This is an interesting story about erasing history that some tribes find offensive; Tribal Leaders urge Yellowstone to Change names of Hayden Valley and Mount Doane

https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/montana/articles/2017-09-17/trib...


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.