Is it fitting today to have a national park named after Jean Lafitte, a pirate, slave trader, and womanizer?/Anonymous portrait, held by Rosenberg Library, Galveston, Texas
Princeton University made national news the other day when it took Woodrow Wilson's name off its School of Public and International Affairs because of President Wilson's racist thinking. Might that prod calls to have Jean Lafitte's name removed from Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in Louisiana?
After all, Lafitte not only was a pirate, but he was a slave trader, and some would add womanizer and even rapist to his resume, as well. But his aid to the U.S. government during the War of 1812 against Britain cast him as a patriot, not a pirate, and in some eyes a swashbuckling pirate at that.
According to the National Park Service, "(I)n September 1814, British military officials sought Lafitte’s help in their campaign to attack the U.S. from the Gulf of Mexico. Lafitte decided to warn American authorities and offered to help defend New Orleans in exchange for a pardon for his men."
"Although General Andrew Jackson, commander of the American troops, originally described Lafitte as a 'hellish banditti,' he finally accepted Lafitte’s help because of the ammunition, cannoneers, and knowledge of the area Lafitte could supply. The expert cannon fire of Jackson’s troops, including Lafitte’s Baratarians, contributed to the American victories during the New Orleans campaign that culminated with the Battle of New Orleans."
The following month, February 1815, President James Madison pardoned Lafitte and his men for any crimes they committed against the United States, the park's website notes.
How did the pirate's name get attached to a national park?
Well, U.S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston, a Democrat from Louisiana, was somewhat of a patron saint to Jean Lafitte National Historical Park. Johnston in 1976 introduced the legislation to create the park, and when he chaired the Senate subcommittee on national parks and served as floor manager of the Interior Department's appropriations bill he saw that the park was properly funded.
According to an administrative history of the park, naming it after Lafitte never really generated any uproar. Johnston simply deferred to Frank Ehret, who was viewed as the father of the park for his persistent lobbying.
According to Frank Ehret’s recollection, Senator Johnston took the stance that, if Jean Lafitte was a good enough name for Frank, it was good enough for the senator. The senator does not remember any discussion of a different name, and no other name was suggested during congressional hearings on the park bill. Only years after the park was established was there some scattered criticism of the name.
There was a time when the Delta Region Preservation Commission discussed a name change, "mostly because of concern that the public associated the name with the Barataria portion of the park only," but it never really caught fire.
In the 1990s National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy raised the question of renaming the park, but the superintendent at the time thought the locals favored the name and she didn't think it was worth creating controversy.
Might it create controversy today? What new name would you attach to the park?
Stories about:
Story Categories:
A copy of National Parks Traveler's financial statements may be obtained by sending a stamped, self-addressed envelope to: National Parks Traveler, P.O. Box 980452, Park City, Utah 84098. National Parks Traveler was formed in the state of Utah for the purpose of informing and educating about national parks and protected areas.
Residents of the following states may obtain a copy of our financial and additional information as stated below:
- Florida: A COPY OF THE OFFICIAL REGISTRATION AND FINANCIAL INFORMATION FOR NATIONAL PARKS TRAVELER, (REGISTRATION NO. CH 51659), MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE DIVISION OF CONSUMER SERVICES BY CALLING 800-435-7352 OR VISITING THEIR WEBSITE. REGISTRATION DOES NOT IMPLY ENDORSEMENT, APPROVAL, OR RECOMMENDATION BY THE STATE.
- Georgia: A full and fair description of the programs and financial statement summary of National Parks Traveler is available upon request at the office and phone number indicated above.
- Maryland: Documents and information submitted under the Maryland Solicitations Act are also available, for the cost of postage and copies, from the Secretary of State, State House, Annapolis, MD 21401 (410-974-5534).
- North Carolina: Financial information about this organization and a copy of its license are available from the State Solicitation Licensing Branch at 888-830-4989 or 919-807-2214. The license is not an endorsement by the State.
- Pennsylvania: The official registration and financial information of National Parks Traveler may be obtained from the Pennsylvania Department of State by calling 800-732-0999. Registration does not imply endorsement.
- Virginia: Financial statements are available from the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, 102 Governor Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.
- Washington: National Parks Traveler is registered with Washington State’s Charities Program as required by law and additional information is available by calling 800-332-4483 or visiting www.sos.wa.gov/charities, or on file at Charities Division, Office of the Secretary of State, State of Washington, Olympia, WA 98504.
National parks and their natural resources belong to you. The National Parks Traveler works to ensure you know how these essential places are being cared for.
Sign Up For Our Weekly Newsletter
Unsubscribe at any time.
INN Member
The easiest way to explore RV-friendly National Park campgrounds.
Here’s the definitive guide to National Park System campgrounds where RVers can park their rigs.
Our app is packed with RVing- specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 national parks.
You’ll also find stories about RVing in the parks, tips helpful if you’ve just recently become an RVer, and useful planning suggestions.
Comments
I guess naming places and keeping them is getting close to canonization by the Church. This for me is getting old. As Joe E. Brown says at the end of Some Like It Hot "Nobody's perfect." That includes Woodrow Wilson, John Wayne, and Jean Lafitte. Leave them alone.
I understand what this article is getting at when it notes that the last discussions of a name change were dropped "mostly because of concern that the public associated the name with the Barataria portion of the park only" and I understand that a name change is probably still not worth the effort because that kind of thinking still exists. But, this is a national park and every American should get a say.
Most of the sites in this park are ostensibly devoted to celebrating an idealized remembrance of "Acadian" culture; however, many, if not most of the real descendents of that culture, especially in that "Barataria portion of the park" are now actually Cajun or Creole. Given the current national push to discard recast, outmoded, and sometimes prejudicially skewed celebrations of history, it might be a good time to ask the genuine descendents of that "Acadian" culture if they want to take a moment to stop and think about whether they want to continue celebrating Jean Lafitte, an individual who seems to have been somewhere between the Jeffrey Epstein and the Jack Abramoff of his time, or whether they might want to suggest a name that represents how they want their story told and how they want to be remembered to their descendents, among others.
As for the connection to the Battle of New Orleans, that connection is unsavory at best. We now have at least a few bits of evidence that Andrew Jackson may already have known about the signing of the Treaty of Ghent prior to the battle, which was actually more of an ambush anyway, yet made no attempt to present that information to Pakenham in a move that might, might, have averted the loss of over 2,300 combined casualties. Whether they realize it or not, today's Cajun and Creole residents of that "Barataria portion of the park" have more in common with the Cherokee and Choctaw who were ruthlessly displaced by Jackson than with either Lafitte or Jackson.
Andrew Jackson could not possibly have know of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent. The battle occurred on Jan, 8,1815 only 15 after the signing over 6000 miles away. No form of communcaition existed in those days that would have made this possible.
My grandmothers mother is actually listed on a 1908 Cherokee rollcall and through her father I'm related to this man.
Epstein abramoff is a bit of a stretch for someone probably and arguably whitewashed by history whose origins remainly somewhat a matter of scholarly debate since pirate.
Although even if he was mixed race or his compatriots they still were slavers according to historical inference if you werent a pirate tough cookies they were going to profit off anything to further their individual means.
Anyways to be quite honest I'm indifferent either way as a Florida native because I believe its not my business.
A name doesn't help native Americans unless the proceeds from the park went to fight problems in native american communities: such as alcoholism, "lost birds", among various others.
We have plenty enough mispronounced false platitudes to go around.
I think as long as local residents are in favour of a change and the proposed name change would be all that matters. I'm not particularly proud of a man who helped andrew jackson while he committed atrocities but enjoy that he stuck it to colonial spain as an ally of gran Columbia.
Take what you will from that but I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment.
Have a good day & stay safe
P
It's not a national park. There are 62 of them. I would think this blog would get that right.
History is history - you learn from it good or bad. The National Parks, Monuments etc. tell a us about variety of incidents, locations, and people in our natural history, cultural history, and the development of our country. Some things that happened do not put our country in the best light - but they happened. Most parks and I have visited over 200 make me proud of our country. A few do not but I always learn something. Keep the names the way they are - tell the whole story - the good, the bad, and even tell about disagreements. We should remember how to disagree properly - that seems to be lost somewhere in today's culture.
Yes, education not eradication
Fair enough. We should add to history good bad or in between not erase. Even if you changed the name keep more information on site not less for travelers to see.
Definitely helps make you want to stop on a long road trip. Rounding up the kids, stretch some legs, and learning whats not to like?
Okay, it's a "national historical park and preserve" and not a "national park" technically. Now that we've cleared that up, could we focus on maturing you past your bad attitude?
Treaty negotiations had been underway since the previous spring. Although the treaty wasn't signed until Christmas Eve, the British negotiating position had drastically changed by early to mid-November. The British were now willing to accept a treaty that restored pre-war boundaries and that change in position made a treaty virtually certain. By the end of November, Adams, with Gallatin's agreement, dispatched word to Madison that a treaty would be signed before Christmas and that American forces should therefore avoid further engagement, try to inform British officers in the field, and negotiate to forestall conflict if possible. While it is true that Jackson may not have been in possession of any official confirmation of the formal signing, there is evidence that he had been informed that the treaty was imminent, alerted to Adams' clear instructions, and aware that he should ensure that Pakenham was also aware. Adams was not in full agreement with Madison's subsequent politically expedient pardon of Lafitte. In fact, the subsequent acrimony between Adams and Jackson was at least partially due to this episode, to Adams' belief that Jackson acted improperly, to Adam's subsequent disdain for Jackson's character, and to Jackson's knowledge of Adam's feelings. Just sayin'.
Even if Jean Lafitte wasn't a slave trader changing the name seems like a good idea. The park preserves the site of the Battle of New Orleans but yet it's named after an individual that very few people are familiar with. Certainly the name of the park in no way signals that it is the site of a battle that most people learned about in school. Add to this the fact that the park is actually six different sites spread throughout southern Louisiana - the site where the Battle of New Orleans was fought, a nature preserve, a visitor center in the New Orleans French Quarter, and three sites dedicated to interpreting Cajun culture. In no way does the name of this park propely convey exactly what the park represents and protects. In truth the name Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve is probably one of the worse names in the NPS.
I agree; however, again given the current national push to discard recast, outmoded, and sometimes prejudicially skewed celebrations of history, it might be a good time to ask the genuine descendents of that "Acadian" culture, who are now predominantly Cajun or Creole, or whether they might want to suggest a name that represents how they want their story told and how they want to be remembered to their descendents, among others.
Good thinking, Hump.
Why in the world would you even bring that up in todays climate. That is only fueling the fire. The rioters don't need any more to destroy. It was part of history, whether we like it or not. Leave that alone. We can't destroy everything that somebody might think is offensive.
Now, Brent, I've been trying to stay just as polite as I possibly could; but, now that you've gone and just outright urinated in the punchbowl, the real problem isn't that somebody is bringing this topic up in today's climate. The real problem is that we've spent too much time listening to bullies, too much time cowering in the corners and pressed against the walls so as not to impose on the spaces people like you seem to want to keep reserved for bullies, afraid to speak for fear of annoying bullies, subserviently sweeping these kinds of issues under the rug to appease bullies, allowing toxic and revisionist versions of history to be promulgated so that those false histories can continue to empower bullies, and letting, again, bullies redefine and characterize every effort to correct the record as some sort of riotous act of destruction simply because it might inconvenience the bullies. That's the real problem, Brent, and the only way to improve today's climate as you say is to recognize that real problem, address that real problem, and let everyone have a voice and a chance to participate equally.
While folks are at it, how about tearing down the Coliseum in Rome, and the pyramids in Egypt. Isis & Al-Queda etc. also destroyed ancient monuments that did not fit within their beliefs.
To the best of my knowledge, nobody is talking about tearing anything down anywhere at Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve. The only thing being discussed is changing the name and, although a name change might involve taking down one set of signs in order to either repaint them or replace them, that really doesn't constitute anything close to tearing down the Coliseum in Rome or the pyramids in Egypt. You may have either forgotten to take your meds or perhaps need the dosage levels checked. You seem to be spinning out, although the way in which you're spinning out speaks volumes about your prejudices.
Ah.... Name calling and personal attacks. How intelligent. Its the same principle, isnt it. The pyramids honor the pharoahs who used slaves to build these monuments to themselves. A park name, does not even compare in significance. Respectfully, you are wrong. Folks are calling for the destruction and/or removal of monuments, and even destroying them, if they see fit.
If you look for the bad in people expecting to find it - you surely will.
This park is something of a mishmash in what it covers: a battlefield, a culture, a nature preserve,etc. Lafitte played an important, but probably not decisive role in one element of these. While I agree the name should be changed, I can't offhand think of one that captures its diversity.
Close all national parks the whole concept was a joke probably the idea of a white racist Steve Mather yeah right look in his background
If the guys wno drafted the documents which eventually created our nation and made it the freest in the world nad refused to participate in slavery, they would been rejected and scorned by the vast umber of early Americans who supported slavery, and likely the early attemps to create a Republic never would have happened and we'd still be a British colony. Also refer to the life of NYPD officer Frank Serpico and his attempt to be a good cop and face down corruption...and see what it got him. Working with wolves, one must be at least thought of as one of the pack. Otherwise youre on your own.
Fred, today, the descendants of the "Acadians" that this Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve commemorates are mostly Cajun and Creole. I know because I've been down there; the food is actually pretty good; and all we're talking about here is whether those folks might want to think about a name for the park that better reflects them and their heritage. We're just considering that in the spirit of respecting folks who might not been given a full say about the name in the past. That's all. Yes, I guess we're agreeing with the general opinion that, in hindsight, Jean Lafitte really wasn't such a nice person and maybe the local folks in that part of the country might want an opportunity to change the name to better reflect their values; but, that's all.
Just like you, we like being a Republic and not a British colony. So, we're not talking about starting any riots, establishing any socialistic autonomous zones, tearing down any sacred monuments, disrespecting Frank Serpico, working with wolves, forming any wolf packs, destroying anything that any white supremacists would truly be upset about, or anything like that. We're just thinking about changing the name on a few signs.
In fact, we're not really even making any new pronouncements about slavery and if you want to defend early Americans who supported slavery, then we leave that up to you. If you want, we can even try to take up a collection to go buy all the white bedsheets you might need in order to sew up a fine outfit for those special occasions where you might want to look good for your group. Fred, we want both you and Stephen Nault as well to feel comfortable.
Let's change it! History is being made each day. An important part of today's history will be how many wrongs we righted. The history can never forget the original name and we will now know the good and the bad about the original name, and have the opportunity to learn about the new name and the time in history when people felt it was important to make these changes. Education is about knowing more not keeping things the same. Let's embrace it. I vote for more women of history- so many wise female heros which are not represented in our monuments, money, or parks. Let the historians tell the story of a strong woman from Louisiana or a current person deserving of the honor. It will all be history some day.
Yeah, yeah, I already got the report on how the republican campaign machine has decided that a last resort campaign strategy for this fall might be to send out their flying monkey minions and cybersurrogates to raise a contrived stink about how everyone who isn't a diehard Trumpist is "calling for the destruction and/or removal of monuments, and even destroying them." But, again, it's just another silly attempt to distract folks from looking at the republican party's unending, dismal, and corrupt failures. It's really just a transparently, artificially, and desperately contrived "spinmeistered" stink about whatever you think might protect your dear leader from what he deserves to get at the polls.
Again, the descendants of the "Acadians" that this Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve commemorates are now mostly Cajun and Creole and all we're talking about here is whether those folks might want to think about a name for the park that better reflects them and their heritage. It's not about telling anybody what to think or what to do; it's all about just giving folks a say.
Why are you even inserting yourself into this discussion? Why are you so desperate to tell the folks living in that part of Louisiana what to do and think? Are you a fan of Jean Lafitte? What about his life as an alcoholic, thief, pedophile, rapist, adulterer, and slave trader do you find so crucial to defend? Nevermind, I already know the answer; you're just a republican minion, haven't got the vaguest idea about Lafitte, and really couldn't care less. If the republican party apparatchiks told you to go raise a stink on behalf of a national park for Jeffrey Epstein, you'd jump right to it.