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.
