The Museum of the Confederacy

           Two weeks ago, I visited the Museum of the Confederacy. As I walked through the museum district, admiring the architecture and nearly tripping down the cobblestone pathways, I realized I had expectations going into the museum. I imagined the museum to be a white and powerful structure. What I found was a shabby and neglected building located next to, but seemingly more buried in the Virginia Commonwealth University Hospital and clearly lacking an identity separate from the surrounding structures. The juxtaposition of the White House of the Confederacy, the modern architectural VCU medical building and the Museum of the Confederacy creates a sense of confusion and incongruity for visitors.

            The three-floor museum, which has three exhibits, contains military artifacts, photographs, documents etc. After walking around the museum, I decided that it would be best to focus on the featured exhibit titled, “The Confederate Years: the Southern military in the Civil War,” which promised to give visitors a background of the confederate military.

            The exhibit began by asking two questions: Why secession? Why war? While the questions posed were important to ask, as a northerner I felt that I had already been exposed to enough history to answer these questions. I had prepared myself for the exhibit to be a clear praise of southern life and all its military conquests. I also prepared myself for the exhibit to defend the South and to frame their side of the debated war much differently than what the textbooks revealed in my fifth grade classroom in Pennsylvania. The exhibit attempted to answer these questions through the various artifacts, but because of the lack of interactivity for the visitor, the exhibit failed to provide a clear explanation and tell a comprehensive story of what started the civil war.

            With no clear direction of the order on how I should read and understand the artifacts, I began to wander. I read history’s of military battles, including For Sumter, documents of the 1860 political election, histories of the confederate generals, until I came to a title that caught my attention. The document read, “Why did they fight?” The poster explained that while the struggle over slavery caused the breakup of the union, the men who fought for the confederate army did so for reasons “not related directly to slavery.” Rather, the poster argued, “they were fighting for the rights and liberties that their forefathers had won in the first American Revolution.” This claim, which answered the question of why the soldiers fought, exculpated the soldiers from all stigmas related to their reasoning for fighting the war. Moreover, this poster justified the confederate soldiers battle and excused them from their inhumane practices, claiming that the soldiers were fighting for liberties that their forefathers had won in the first American Revolution, the key right, being the right to own slaves.

            The “Why did they fight” poster set the tone for the remaining artifacts of the exhibit. Rather than the soldiers being representative of struggle that is perceived as cruel and inhumane, the curators framed the soldiers as confederates simply fighting for their liberties that they had already won in a prior battle.

            There was a clear tension between what the exhibit revealed and concealed. As I continued to walk through the exhibit, I analyzed the artifacts, as not an introduction to the confederate battles, but as an attempt to ignore the most important issue of the war: slavery. Rather, the artifacts selected for the exhibit manifested the praise for the brave generals who fought in the war and the items glorified the south for its powerful army and mass production of weaponry. The exhibit was directed at reiterating the battles, and did not sufficient address other political issues that were key to understanding the entirety of the war.

            What the museum did reveal were the numerous victorious battles and notorious military leaders. I read about the disastrous defeat at Fort Donelson, the battle of Fredericksburg, Chancellorsivelle, and the first battle of Manassas. What is particularly noteworthy is that in the descriptions of the battles that Confederates lost, the curators framed the confederates as more passive victims, and therefore framed northerners as instigative aggressors. They did so in the descriptions of the lost battles, claiming that they were unlucky due to a surprise attack, a lack of weaponry, supplies, and other conditions. The museum put more weight on the military successes and the leaders who led the confederates to victory rather than simply telling the history in a congruous and chronological way. For example, the museum chose to highlight Robert E. Lee’s success, and recreated a display of his quarters. The museum also displayed Lee’s gray uniform coat, numerous flags, weaponry, saddles, which were personalized with labels of the owner of the items.

            Lastly, the exhibit ended with an explanation about Jefferson Davis and his family’s abduction. The conscious decision to end with this display and not a battle or a summary of the war and its conflicts reinforces the argument that the exhibit is clearly making through its artifacts. The curators chose to reveal yet another attempt to praise the confederates, in an attempt seemingly to manipulate and confuse visitors into questioning who really won the war. The exhibit clearly attempted to free the confederate army from any guilt and to disassociate them with the stigma of slavery.

            On my way out of the museum, I decided to revisit to the newer exhibit on the lower level, “The War Comes Home,” which described the war more personally by showing details of how the war affected daily life in the South. This exhibit, rather than depict military conquests and victorious generals, focused on the life of the solider and his everyday life. This exhibit encouraged visitors to be more empathetic and helped visitors forge a connection with the soldier. Items in the exhibit included, toys, books and everyday items owned by southern families. This exhibit coupled with the first exhibit confuses the visitor because it makes it difficult to decide what perspective to take. While this exhibit had the potential to be inspirational, the first exhibit had such a clear statement, which affected visitors’ interpretation of the South and the war.

            In conclusion, I felt that the museum did not meet my expectations and did not pleasantly surprise me. Since the creation of the museum, nothing has been added or changed. It addition, there was a clear lack of technology and interactivity with the audience. Although I clearly have biases because I was raised in the North, I argue that aside from the museum taking one-side of the conflict and neglecting to address key aspects of the war, the museum was poorly organized and rather than tell the story clearly, complicated the series of events.

Maggie L. Walker National Historical Site

The Maggie L. Walker National Historical Site, run by the National Park Service, is located in the historically African-American neighborhood of Jackson Ward.  The neighborhood is tightly squeezed between the VCU campus and I-95, but it is the site of both inspirational and controversial histories.

A portion of the facility is the original home of Maggie Walker, while the other sections are the homes of what would have been her neighbors and a former storefront.  Visitors enter the site through the back of the former store, finding an open room with a collection of books and brochures about Walker and the Jackson Ward neighborhood. The museum is intended to show the eternal legacy of Walker within post-Civil War Richmond.

When I entered, a National Park Ranger directed me to a room with an informational video, which provides a background of the noteworthy female civil rights activist. The narration was simulated to be Walker speaking to children about her life from when she was a schoolgirl to when she was an influential member of society. In a warm and calming tone, the video explains that she was born free and therefore was able to be educated, join community organizations, and find work. The beginning of the video emphasizes her experience as an African-American child attending church, getting involved in community efforts like the Independent Order of St. Luke, and graduating high school at the early age of 16.

As the video continues, we learn about the hardships in her life: her father died when she was 9, her child died as an infant, and her son accidently shot and killed her husband.  Despite these tragedies, she became a national leader of the Independent Order of St. Luke, a fraternal insurance society created for the care and burial of blacks and the support of humanitarian causes. From that position, she started an organization newspaper and a bank, where she eventually became the president.

When the video was over, the ranger came in and said that since I was doing a school project, I must know that there were a few inaccuracies in the video. Her birth date was not actually in 1867 rather than 1864, which jeopardizes the validity of her being born free. The image used to represent her as a young girl was actually her daughter. She was not the first woman to operate a bank, but rather the first African-American woman.  After these surprises, I was handed a packet of information in which he made corrections to even more inaccurate information. Do they do this for everyone? Is there something they want to cover up unless the information could be republished in a new form?

After this startling interaction, I was taken on a tour of her home. We walked around to the front of the home where we stopped and discussed the history of the neighborhood and the architectural style of her home.  Her particular street, once called Quality Street, was a wealthy African-American section of Jackson Ward. The area housed the black doctors, dentists, lawyers, and bankers and was the host to many famous musical acts.  Walker’s house however, was distinguished as one of the finest on the block. It was designed in the Italian Eighth style and when it was acquired in the early 1900s, she made many expansive and decorative changes.

As we entered the home, I was directed towards the parlor. Immediately, it was obvious that Walker was very wealthy. It was pointed out that the home was lit by electric lights and was heated by steam heat. The trim was detailed with gold paint and the room itself was decorated with expensive fabrics. We moved to the dining room, which was filled with artifacts that indicated her financial success. In this room we were informed that ninety percent of the artifacts were original to the house. Both family members and professional curators designed the exhibits, giving a visitor a strong sense of how Maggie Walker actually lived during the 1920s.

As we continue on, we learn that eleven family members lived in the home at one point. They often hosted parties and served alcohol (illegal at the time); however, Walker did not drink at all.  The tour guide emphasizes the indoor plumbing and the laundry room, luxuries of the time. As we are taken upstairs we are shown the elevator and her bedroom, which contained expensive furniture and fabrics. We are directed to notice the enclosed porch on her house where she would sit and watch parades that would be redirected specifically so she could watch and wave. Towards the end of the tour we learn that she even had a horse-drawn carriage and later an electric car (one of less than 100 in the city at the time).

This exhibit completely threw out my prior knowledge of the Jackson Ward area and the experience of blacks in the early 1900s. Why was there no mention of how this happened? Did she undergo any racial maltreatment?  The museum fails to take in to account a visitor’s understanding about racial inequalities from this time period.

The Maggie L. Walker National Historical Site is a site that could potentially distort the history of the life of African Americans in the early 1900s.  Walker had unique opportunities that few other blacks at the time had and her success was based on these opportunities.  The museum falls short of showing how unusual Walker’s situation was. Is the National Park Service intentionally presenting this era as a time when African Americans flourished?

For pictures and information, check out: http://www.nps.gov/mawa/index.htm

The American Civil War Center at Tredagar

The American Civil War Center at Tredagar

Perched on the banks of the James River, The American Civil War Center at Tredagar is located in a truly beautiful setting and overlooks the city of Richmond. How fitting, that a museum exhibiting the Civil War should lie at the heart of what was once the Capital of the Confederate South. While The American Civil War Center at Tredagar is located in Richmond, the museum itself offers very diverse perspectives and many different accounts of the happenings of the American Civil War. The museum highlights this when it states that, “The American Civil War Center at Historic Tredegar is the nation's first museum to interpret the Civil War from Union, Confederate, and African American perspectives.” It was interesting to me to hear the museum pride itself on this fact, considering that museums should be here in order to always tell us the whole truth about our history. Feeling the need to state that this museum does infact offer a more well rounded varied knowledge of the events that transpired in our history, speaks more to all museums in general and how their presentation of “facts” and occurrences aren’t always the whole entire truth. I appreciated the effort that The American Civil War Center at Tredagar made by trying to give a balanced view of such a dark time in American history.

When I first entered onto the grounds of the Civil War Center I was intrigued to learn that the museum had been built on an old Iron Mill, Tredegar Iron Works to be specific. This mill had actually been around since the time of the actual Civil War. Walking through the open courtyard you got the feel of what perhaps walking around during the 1800’s might have been like. The museum itself is very nice and aesthetically pleasing, clean, well organized displays, spacious, etc. When you first enter the museum you are greeted by a gift shop, a bit off putting for me personally, but a minor detail on the grand scheme of things. After walking by the gift shop the first exhibit isn’t about the Civil War, but about the Tredagar Iron Mill and the role it played in the Civil War and throughout history. I guess the museum was promoting its physical site along with the War itself.

The American Civil War Center at Tredagar was not focusing on one question in particular, but rather was focusing on the general history of the Civil War, what lead to it, what happened during, and after. Also, of course, making sure to express the varied views of not only confederate and union citizens, but African Americans as well. I felt like I was literally walking through a textbook while checking out the exhibits. Everything was laid out simply. There were two floors, the first focusing on what led up to the war and the start of it. While on the second floor the end of the war and what happened after were focused on.

The American Civil War Center at Tredagar was all about teaching. The exhibits ask questions about the war and try to explain as simply as possible how certain events came to be. Ranging from slave revolts to certain battles that took place, the museum was a walking timeline of events during the War. All the major events and battles, etc that took place were clearly laid out, but of course in this museum we had the benefit of getting perspectives from all parties involved in the war.  Like I stated before it was like walking through a middle school text book. It was as if each exhibit were a chapter in a textbook about the Civil War; key points were made, different examples were given, and at the end of each exhibit there were questions asked of the visitors to see what they had learned. It was interactive in this way because at the end of the exhibits there were questions about the war and post-its for each visitor to answer then place on the designated areas. I liked this lot about the museum, they were actually seeing if what they had presented was being absorbed by those visiting the Center.

Overall I greatly enjoyed the exhibit, I found the way it focused on really teaching about the events of the Civil War and presenting a balanced view really added to the impact that it had. The exhibits were clear, simple, and most importantly interesting! Perhaps a bit too dimly lit, but other than that the layout and set-up of the entire museum was superbly done. There were four running videos throughout the museum that played on a loop and it was as if they were acting like tour guides, strategically placed throughout the museum in order to effectively guide the visitor and instruct them about the history of The Civil War. I would recommend going to see this museum and learning even more about one chapter in American History. 

The American Civil War Center at Tredegar

            The history of the Civil War differs greatly for the North and the South, particularly for Richmond, as it was the capital of the Confederacy. The Civil War serves as a fundamental part of Richmond’s identity, and many museums and memorials have been dedicated to it in the city. It seems that a common difficulty and goal for these sites of remembrance is to depict the memories of honor, pride, and strength that reside in the South about the War, while recognizing that one of the underlying catalysts, slavery, was not such a noble cause. At least, it seems as though this is the ideal objective of the American Civil War Center at Tredegar. Although the most prominent exhibit at the museum, titled “In the Cause of Liberty,” states that its primary goal is to “interweave Union, Confederate, and African American narratives into one story,” the story that it tells truly serves to relieve the South, particularly Richmond, of the majority of guilt surrounding the brutality of slavery and the Confederacy’s attempts to preserve such a cruel and inhumane system. While the museum’s attempt to tell the story of the War from three perspectives is admirable, it is superficial in that it truly only presents one version of the history, and one that privileges white Richmonders.

            Pulling into the center, one immediately notices the aesthetic appeal of the entire landscape. The American Civil War Center is in actuality like three museums in one location. The permanent exhibit just described is housed in the adapted Tredegar Gun Foundry, which was built in 1861. Inside the restored Pattern building just a few yards away, the National Park Service operates the Richmond National Battlefield Park Visitor Center, which focuses solely on the military aspects of the war.

The landscape itself is a museum in its own way, as the actual buildings were formerly part of Tredegar Iron Works, the largest iron and artillery production facility of the South at the time of the Civil War, producing the vast majority of all cannon. The fact that the buildings themselves stand as artifacts contributes to the overall appeal of the center. Other then the restored Tredegar Gun Foundry, which is now built of metal and glass, all of the buildings are made of brick, and seem authentically historical. The two museums and three more restored buildings surround an open courtyard area. Several cannons are placed around the property, adding to the sense of legitimacy of the center. The fact that the buildings that house the history of the Civil War are artifacts themselves and played such as major role significantly contributes to the center’s voice of authority.

Immediately when you enter the museum in the Tredegar Gun Foundry building, you find yourself in the gift shop. The employees at the front desk briefly explain the history of the center and each building, and give you an exhibit guide that explicitly tells you how to proceed around each display, basically providing a strong framework for each viewer’s interpretation. As the displays wind around counter-clockwise, starting downstairs and ending upstairs, it is evident that it is in chronological order, and each significant event is addressed from the point of views of the Confederacy, the Union, and slaves. Perspectives specific to citizens of Richmond at the time are often a central focus as well.

The first display in the exhibit is an interactive video titled “What Caused the Civil War?” that allows the viewer to participate by pressing buttons on the chair to vote for the answers to various trivia questions. There are three narrators of the film – a white woman, a white man, and a black man. The “diversity” depicted in the movie appears to be a transparent attempt to suggest that racism and discrimination are either non-existent today or at least almost to that point. The video eventually cites three smaller reasons for the War – westward expansion, diverging economic systems, and struggles between federal and state power – all which were tied to the overarching cause, which the film declares is slavery. Within the different displays that make up this “Causes” section of the exhibit, the brutal treatment of slaves is rarely mentioned, while references to the racism of Northerners are frequent. The museum makes it explicitly clear that the emancipation of slaves was only a goal of the North insofar as Northerners felt slaves gave the South an unfair economic advantage. The “perspective” of slaves is generally only mentioned in reference to statistics and stories of runaways and fears of being sold.

The majority of the remainder of the exhibit focuses on the various events that took place over the course of the Civil War. It is in this section that the center’s attempt to abdicate much of the South’s guilt, while placing more blame on the North, becomes apparent. A video explaining the Emancipation Proclamation, which is narrated by a black woman, as well as multiple other displays, express Lincoln’s reluctance to call for the freedom of slaves in the South. The film informs the viewer that the real purpose behind the document was to take away one of the most beneficial and key wartime tools for the South, free labor from slaves, and use the enormous number of emancipated slaves to enlarge the North’s army. The walls display enlarged quotes of Northerners who were outraged at the presence of black men in their armies. One particular quote from a Union army member says, “I am fighting to preserve the Union, not free niggers!” Several informational placards explain that preserving slavery wasn’t even really the primary goal of the South, citing the interference of federal powers in areas that should be left to states as the real catalyst behind the War. A third video discusses extreme racism that escaped and freed slaves faced once they reached the North, including violence such as lynching.

The last section of the museum is titled “Legacies,” and it seeks to provide a brief history of racial relationships that followed the War. In the very last display, a video narrated by the same three individuals from the first is played, and banners of prominent white and black Americans hang on the wall. The narrators use a significant rhetoric of progress, in which they discuss how far not only the South and North have come to be reunited, but also the great unity between black and white citizens that now exists. To be fair, they do briefly mention toward the end of the film that race relations in the United States are not perfect, and more work does need to be accomplished. The banners around the room feature prominent white citizens, such as Lincoln and other leaders from history. Tellingly, the majority of black individuals pictured are athletes or entertainers, with the exception of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Overall, I felt that the museum’s declared intent and goal was honorable – to tell the different histories and memories possessed by three of the key players in the Civil War. However, these three threads inevitably wove together to create one uncontested history, which privileged white Southerners, placed greater blame on white Northerners, and often ignored the voice of slaves. One issue that I also took with the exhibit is that there was very little visually within the actual museum. There were several display cases with artifacts, as well as four videos, but the majority of the information was written, which took a great deal of time to read and was often displayed in confusing ways. There was rarely occasion for interaction, and limited viewer participation. However, there was a display that allowed viewers to try on various uniforms, which contributed a performance element to the exhibit. 

Naturally, because of the location of the museum, there was much attention paid to the industrialization that occurred along with the Civil War. In general, I found that the exhibit had a great deal of potential, but it fell just short of its declared objective. To actually reach this accomplishment, greater visibility of Northern and slave memories and perspectives must be achieved.

White House of the Confederacy Museum Review

            The White House of the Confederacy, sandwiched amongst the bustling VCU medical school buildings in Richmond’s Court End neighborhood is certainly a uniquely situated historical artifact. After parking my car on level P3 of the VCU hospital parking deck located about a half block down the street from the White House of the Confederacy, taking a packed elevator up to level P8 (street level), walking past nurses, doctors, and ambulances, I finally reached the entrance to the Museum of the Confederacy. Once inside, I noticed immediately that the Museum itself had a unique feel; essentially a shrine to the Confederate States of America and all of the individuals who lived in the South during the war. I arrived a few minutes early and was told to wait in the lobby (where the Gift Shop chock full of Confederate flags, books, and memorabilia was located) for the 1pm tour.  

Early Confederate Flag 

The White House tour is given hourly from about 10am-3pm (the daily schedule varies), and it starts with a quick walk across the path from the Museum of the Confederacy to the underground entrance of the White House.  The tour begins with a tour guide leading us into the unrestored basement and wine cellar area of the house, proving the authenticity of the site very early on. While in the wine cellar, the tour guide goes through a brief history of the White House and a quick biographical background of its residents—the first and only President of the Confederacy, Jefferson Davis, and his family.  It seemed clear from the beginning of the tour that the house is portrayed as, essentially, a reflection of pride to the glory days of the South and the Confederacy. The tour guide stated solemnly at the end of his historical background speech that the house had to be relinquished to the “boys in blue” after the North won the Civil War.

Jefferson Davis 

The next stop on the tour was the main dining room, an extremely elegant restoration of a space that the tour guide referred to as the “social political and military center of the Confederacy”. The main dining room was a place where the Davis’ entertained, Jefferson himself had military meetings, and various famous guests and visitors such as Robert E. Lee and Abraham Lincoln were said to have visited during and after the Civil War. The tour guide also made it a point to notify visitors that this room, as well as the entire house, is 50% authentic original antique furniture from the house, and that the remaining furniture had been chosen by historians as the “best guess” as to what was most likely in the house during its prime time of use.  A room that especially charmed me was the small parlor adjacent to the dining room, a tiny room with a wrought iron painted fireplace and a couple of beautifully decorated antique chairs for sitting, and a small tea table. This small room was said to be where Abraham Lincoln came for tea and crumpets to discuss post-war reconstruction plans for the South.

Formal Dining Room 

The next part of the tour took us up a narrow spiral staircase to the second story of the house, where the bedrooms and personal offices are located. This part of the house was certainly more personal than the downstairs guest/entertaining areas, but Davis’ personal office upstairs became a public meeting space as he aged and his health began to fail. The final stop on the tour was the nursery, where Davis’ children lived. This room had almost a eerie feeling to it, as the tour guide described the unfortunate fate of the Davis children—all but one died prematurely—one son even dying at the age of 5 in his crib in the nursery. I thought that it was an interesting choice to end the tour with this room, as it was a strikingly somber finish to a tour that was predominately a nostalgic glorification of the Davis family and the Civil War South.

In sum, the White House of the Confederacy was an extremely interesting historical site. I found the authenticity of the house itself to be special; standing in Jefferson Davis’ bedroom or in a small parlor where Lincoln was said to have had tea is just a neat feeling. The house is a reflective, memory inducing genuine artifact that makes the visitor think back and picture what life was like in the South during the Civil War.  Just a hop, skip and a jump from U of R campus (though parking is a hassle), the White House of the Confederacy is certainly a site worth visiting for a taste of authentic, tangible Civil War Southern history.

White House Garden 

February 14, 2012

           The 1960’s was a time of tribulation, but in the end a decade marked by triumph both in regards to women’s suffrage and to the Civil Rights movement.  Slavery and racial incongruity had predominantly been present in the south, but as colored men and women began to migrate north, the truth of segregation became harder to ignore. 

            Upon entering the “Becoming Equal” exhibit at the Virginia Historical Society, one cannot help but feel overwhelmed by the elements within it.  Behind a faded-green couch and mock living room setup, I was taken by a six-foot-something tall man, dressed in the uniform worn by members of the KKK.  Undeniably, the question of modernity is raised by that: are technological advances and widespread media a source of the problem? 

Amidst a time of segregation in the 1960’s, people witnessed current happenings on television, a relatively-new household addition.  Also, with the technological advances came a wider spread of information, and heightened knowledge of the Civil Rights movement at large.  With this, the involvement of society was greater, and riots broke out nationwide as citizens stepped up to play a role in the Civil Rights movement.  The television, as well as newspaper articles on the wall demonstrate the ways the media played a role in the Civil Rights movement and struggles in the 1960’s to obtain and uphold “true” equality. 

In “Becoming Equal,” different pieces are interlaced to make the fabric of the display, all in a strategic and rhetorical manner.  The physical elements, including the restaurant counter representing the time when black men performed “sit-ins” in white-dominant restaurants, are alluring.  One’s eyes become fixed on the familiar items marked by captions that told of their racist history.  The “Becoming Equal” exhibit has a few locations filled with clusters of descriptions and artifacts which are presented in a series of specific groups.  One, for example, is the living room scene with a couch, carpet, television, and picture frames on the wall with images of church outcries, and key figures from the decade like Martin Luther King Jr. and John F. Kennedy. 

            The exhibit embeds itself in the Civil Rights debate on the merits of equality.  It clearly takes a side, and casts an unfavorable light on black-spiting Americans, such as members of the KKK and those who refused to allow interracial buses.  In politics, especially, the most successful candidates were those who supported white-dominant tendencies, which seemed very significant. 

The matter of religious support and religious discrimination is evident as well.  In the section with the KKK member, the plaque mentions how KKK members used Christianity and scripture to support their mistreatment of black people.  Conversely, though, framed pictures on the walls illustrate how some religious groups sought unity amidst a world of hatred.  One of the pictures frames in particular displays a picture from “The Episcopal Society for Cultural and Racial Unity,” showing a white and black man praying to the Lord by one another.  Clearly, some wanted unity and not separation for all people. 

The stark contrast of the KKK member nearby the religious pictures which instill hope for equality is significant, but also poses one challenge for the exhibit as a whole.  If visitors are attempting to make sense of events during the Civil Rights, one might be startled by the ways different members of the same religious group practiced their faith so differently.  There is no linkage between the two items, but merely an unresolved scenario, in which one group clearly sees hatred as the solution while others seek out harmony with all people instead.  One is left to wonder, “Why?”

Strengths of the “Becoming Equal” exhibit include jaw-dropping information, which has the power to tug at the hearts of visitors.  The evil and judgmental look in the eyes of the KKK member may make the exhibit’s audience members feel as though they have done something wrong, likely as the persecuted felt at that time.  As one’s eyes are diverted to the sit-in counter across the way, it is tempting to sit down on a barstool, and pretend as though you are stepping back in time to take part in the 1960’s.  If the words on the walls have resonated, one might realize the hesitancy many black people felt in white-designated areas, where they were not welcome.  Perhaps this feeling could be part of the exhibit, as no signs clearly mark where museum visitors can or cannot sit.  I know I caught myself looking left, then right, as I sat on the 60’s-style couch, and then bar stool, to try and put myself back in that decade.

The level of engagement at the “Becoming Equal” exhibit contributes to its overall strength, while the scattered nature of the religious pieces poses an interesting tension.  Overall, however, if the goal of the exhibit is to evoke strong emotion and help viewers understand how hard the 60’s were, curators were successful.  Additionally, it fits into the museum nicely as it takes a significant time in American history (the 60’s) and shows both the struggles and the triumph of the decade. 

Whitney

The Museum of the Confederacy by Catherine Crystal

A few days ago, I took a trip to see the Museum of the Confederacy. The trip downtown was quite an adventure, but then when I finally reached the museum I was a little disappointed. The atmosphere within the museum was dull, desolate, and to be honest depressing. The museum was broken up into three separate exhibits, and I decided to look at two. The first exhibit, called “The Confederate Years” was a “year-by-year introduction to the Confederate military history, the soldiers, commanders, campaigns, and battles.” I vividly remember this section as being the “blue walled battle” section of the museum. This section glorified the South, and their decision to secede. One of the most prominent sections of the museum was the “Why Succession? Why War” section. As a Northerner, I came into the museum biased. I had always thought that the Union was the “right” side, and when I came into the Confederate museum, I knew that I would disagree with a lot of what was said or done. Although, I might have my own bias, I also thought that the Confederate museum, in the capital of the Confederacy, would also be biased. I assumed that the museum would favor the South, which it did.  The information at the museum said that the tensions between the North and the South, over slavery and the tariff, had been a tension since the Mexican War, in 1846-1848. It was not until 1860 that the tensions between the North and South escalated which consequently forced the South to secede.  The museum made it seem as though the South’s succession was reactionary and the North’s intolerable actions/rules caused the South to secede.  Interestingly, the museum did not mention how the election of Lincoln was also a large cause of the Civil War, because Southerners believed that Lincoln was against slavery and in favor of the Northern interests. Evidently, the conception of rhetorically revealing and concealing is at play in this section of the museum. The curators of the museum revealed certain things while concealing others. The next information tablet, “Declaration of the Immediate Causes which Induce and Justify the Succession of South Carolina From the Federal Union,” continued to validate the reasons for South Carolina’s succession. At this point, it seems as though the museum is trying to prove the reasons for the South’s secession. Rather than pointing out what happened, the museum uses specific diction such as “justify” to validate why the succession was “rational.” The tablets on the wall continuously attempted to validate and explain the reasons “why they fought.” Personally, I felt as though this museum was an example of the South attempting to explain why the Civil War was started and justified the South’s secession.

The museum continues chronologically to go through each battle of the war. Throughout the exhibit, I kept reading about death and casualties the South suffered. I understood that war involves casualties on both sides, but I never heard about how many casualties the North lost. I started to feel bad for the South, and sympathize with Southerners because they had lost so many men. However, I did not think of how many men were lost in the North. This was a strategic way that the curators of the museum manipulated the visitor to sympathize with the South. As I traveled from battle to battle, I noticed there was an exaggeration of the language when speaking about battles. The curators used words such as “disastrous,”  “greatest loss in history,” and “devastating.” As I read this it seemed that all of the loss and devastation was caused because of the North, and started to side with the South.  I even started to lose sight that the South was the first to secede and commence this war, because the tablets had made it seem the contrary.  

The next section of the museum that I personally found intriguing was called, “Between the Battles.” The exhibit focused on the time soldiers spent between the battles. In fact, “comparatively little of a soldier’s life is the army was spent in combat. The majority of the soldiers career was spent in camps, on garrison duty, or marching from one camp or garrison to another.”  This exhibit explored the daily life of the Confederate soldier between battles. The difference between the first exhibit and the second was profound. However, both exhibits attempted to manipulate the visitor into siding with the South. The “Between the Battles” exhibit made the visitor empathize with the soldier because the visitor realizes that these men were mundane human beings. As I walked through the exhibit, I started to identify with the soldiers. When I identified with them there was an emotional connection, which made me feel as thought the North was the enemy for killing so many young men. For example, the curators included a section on “Recreation and Diversion.” This section showed all the ways that the soldiers occupied themselves. For example, they played sports like every other person would such as horse racing, boozing, early forms of baseball and even ice hockey. They also played music such as the guitar, harmonica, and even the fiddle to make their camp seem as though it was a “home away from home.” Throughout this section, my heart went out to the soldiers. I emotionally felt like I understood them more, which I think is a key strategy to manipulating the visitors into siding with the Southerners.

I will conclude by stating that this museum was definitely not my favorite.  My expectations were definitely not met and I was quite frankly disappointed. I believe the museum is one sided, and purports a different side of the war, and obviously favors the South. Although, I may be bias, I do believe that the museum’s organization and the information that was given manipulates the visitor into sympathizing with the South.