First They Came For Stonewall. Are Civil War Battlefields Next?
It took less than one month for the Trump administration to begin erasing the history that is shared at historic sites managed by the National Park Service. This week the website of Stonewall National Monument in New York City was edited by order of the Trump administration.
Established in 2016 by former President Barack Obama, the site tells the story of the Stonewall Uprising on June 28, 1969, which began in response to a routine police raid on a gay bar in the Greenwich Village neighborhood. The conflict spanned multiple nights and drew national attention as bargoers resisted the police. Though LGBTQ+ rights activism existed in various pockets prior to 1969, the incident at Stonewall galvanized and mobilized the community toward increased organizing.
Today the website for Stonewall National Monument no longer includes references to “transgender” and “queer” alongside people who identify as lesbian, gay and bisexual. This is a direct attack on the history that is central to accurately telling the story of the events surrounding the Stonewall Uprising.
Timothy Leonard, Northeast Program Manager for the National Parks Conservation Association released the following statement in response.
The National Park Service exists to not only protect and preserve our most cherished places but to educate its millions of annual national park visitors about the inclusive, full history of America. Erasing letters or webpages does not change the history or the contributions of our transgender community members at Stonewall or anywhere else. History was made here and civil rights were earned because of Stonewall. And we’re committed to ensuring more people know that story and how it continues to influence America today. Stonewall inspires and our parks must continue to include diverse stories that welcome and represent the people that shaped our nation.
Leonard is absolutely right that the general public deserves a narrative that is both historically accurate and reflects the diversity of the American people.
Everyone who visits historic sites, operated by the NPS, should be concerned about this development. Make no mistake, this is just the beginning. It is just a matter of time before sites focused on Native American history and Japanese internment during WWII are impacted as well.
But it’s not just these historic sites and their websites that I am concerned about.
At some point we are very likely going to see changes to how front line interpreters guide vistors at the sites themselves. This includes our Civil War battlefields and our one NPS site devoted exclusively to the history of Reconstruction in Beaufort, South Carolina.
It’s important to recognize that politics has always influenced interpretation at NPS sites. After all, the NPS falls under the Department of the Interior and relies on Congress for funding.
Interpretation at Civil War sites today, with its emphasis on the history of slavery, emancipation and the civilian experience emerged directly out of internal discussion within the NPS at various sites that gradually picked up steam in the 1980s and 90s.
But changes to interpretation at Civil War sites at this time was also influenced by then Democratic Congressman Jesse L. Jackson, Jr, who after visiting Civil War sites across the country noted the lack of discussion of the subject of slavery and emancipation. Jackson’s influence led to a conference of NPS historians and academic historians to discuss necessary interpretive changes in 2000.
The conference led the NPS to issue a service-wide intepretive plan, which later would serve as a foundation for its sesquicentennial planning. The plan sought to “have parks challenge people with ideas, challenge them to not just understand the nature and horrid expanse of the bloodshed, but the reasons for it, and the consequences of its aftermath.” The causes and consequences centered squarely on the subjects of slavery, race, and emancipation.
Today, few people question learning about such issues when they visit Civil War and other related historic sites. In this case, the question was always about how to enrich and expand interpretation and not erasing or censoring it for blatantly political purposes.
I am very concerned about the impact of future directives and the fear that this authoritarian regime has already instilled in NPS employees and to what extent the progress that has been made in site interpretation will be slowed and perhaps even reversed.
I accept that the NPS can never operate independently from the political forces that established and continue to fund it, but that doesn’t mean that such a partnership must necessarily be hostile.
The NPS includes some of our best public historians and educators in their respective subjects, especially in the area of Civil War history. They should be allowed to continue to develop tours and programs, invite lecturers from colleges and universities to speak to the public without having to look over their shoulders in fear that they have violated some vaguely-defined and fear-inspired crusade to limit discussion of certain subjects.
The steps that the Trump administration has already taken and will likely take in the coming months and years threatens the integrity of the entire agency. I don’t believe I am overreacting. Again, we are less than a month into this new administration and we are already witnessing the erasure of history at sites that belong to all of us and tell the stories of all of us.
Despite our fears, during the last Trump administration, we received little in the way of direction or commentary from above that might have affected how an individual park told its story (in my case, Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania NMP). Not in four years did I receive a directive that affected the work our staff was doing on the ground, every day, with thousands of visitors. We continued to challenge visitors to see the battles and the war through the broader lens of history and through the varied eyes all who were affected by the conflict--enslaved, free, civilian, soldiers, on the battlefields and on the home front. With few exceptions (Kevin knows and has documented those well), visitors appreciated having more ways to engage the story. They appreciated seeing these events as a human experience with immense implications for the nation and those affected. In fact, I'd offer that the period between 2015 and 2021 represented the greatest leap forward this nation has ever experienced in terms of understanding the American Civil War and its place in American culture.
This time around seems a different animal altogether. My heart breaks for the young people--committed and energetic--who have had their seasonal hires squashed and those early in their careers who may have their appointments terminated. It's impossible to overstate how important the constant infusion of young, smart, questioning minds have been to the evolution of interpretation in the NPS--not just at battlefields. They have affected even some of the hardest and most traditional old souls in the NPS (there are more than a few).
I lament for those professionals who will be told to do less than their best when it comes to the practice of history or science, who have to measure their statements and research not against historical evidence and scholarship, but the proclamations of ahistorical or anti-historical operatives.
The flat-hatted Park Ranger is an iconic symbol of American's engagement with their nation in all its forms--its places, its history, and the many lessons both have for us. They point (a lot), they famously gesticulate. They often also know more about the places they interpret than anyone on earth. They engage millions of visitors every year.
The engagement of those visitors with the places and stories of the National Park Service is essential to the health of our nation. NPS sites--and the people who work at them--help Americans connect across generations, across cultures, over distances. They help foster among visitors a common connection to our nation by helping them see their place in the American mosaic. That essential, fundamental mission is threatened. And, sadly, that seems to be the point.
If incoming Secretary of Education Linda McMahon won't say that Black history will be allowed in American schools, then yes, anything involving race, slavery, and emancipation is likewise endangered at battlefield parks. Get ready for a lot of fighting uphill, me boys.