HARPERS FERRY, W.Va. (AP) — At the turbulent meeting point of rivers, President Donald Trump’s initiative to reshape the narrative of American history meets a significant challenge: addressing the topic of slavery is complicated. There’s no easy way to present slavery in a positive light.
At the preserved site of Harpers Ferry National Historical Park, members of the National Park Service face the difficult task of reconciling the facts of history with a directive to provide a more optimistic narrative. The question arises: how do you present history truthfully if it means withholding some aspects?
Following a wider directive from President Trump, aimed at various government bodies, the park service is instructed to scrutinize all interpretive content at its historical sites. Any materials that “unfairly criticize Americans, past or present,” or tarnish the country’s history are to be revised or removed. This instruction aligns with Trump’s critique of organizations that, in his eyes, overly emphasize “how bad slavery was.”
It’s uncertain whether this directive will lead to a significant alteration of historical narratives towards a more sanitized version. However, it seems that those tasked with this review are proceeding cautiously when adjusting the fundamental stories of America.
Descendant of a John Brown raider wants the whole truth
Brianna Wheeler is hopeful that historical accuracy will be preserved. She is a descendant of one of John Brown’s anti-slavery associates who participated in the 1859 attack on the U.S. armory at Harpers Ferry, an event that helped spark the Civil War. She believes the painful truth of slavery must not be denied.
“You can’t wipe that,” she told The Associated Press. “You can’t erase that. It’s our obligation to not let that be erased.”
Staff at some parks have revealed to the AP that brochures mentioning “enslavers” are undergoing revision, indicating a comprehensive review process of educational materials.
Yet in the guided tour about Brown’s raid, the story presented about slavery remains unflinching. And at Fort Pulaski National Monument outside Savannah, Georgia, a photo of a whipped yet dignified man with welts across his back still occupied its prominent spot on an exhibit in the visitors center during a recent visit.
Its caption: “The enforcement of the slave regime relied on violence.”
Few changes are seen yet
The deadline recently passed for parks officials to remove “inappropriate content” from public display. More than 80 Democratic lawmakers then asked the National Park Service chief for a full accounting of changes made in the “pursuit of censorship and erasure.”
The Sierra Club, which is tracking changes nationally, said more than 1,000 items were flagged for review at national parks. But it has only confirmed one example of signage being removed. It was at Muir Woods National Monument in California.
It was changed during the Biden administration to highlight the violent displacement of Indigenous peoples, their enslavement by missionaries and other harms wrought by privileged classes. Yellow sticky notes were attached to existing wording to round out that story. Now that the signage is gone.
The Interior Department order covers more than history. At the nature parks, material that “emphasizes matters unrelated to the beauty, abundance, or grandeur” also is to be flagged. That means references to climate change or other human degradations of nature.
At Acadia National Park in Maine, 10 signs citing climate change are now gone, said Rep. Chellie Pingree, D-Maine.
“Our national parks are not billboards for propaganda,” she told Interior Secretary Doug Burgum in a letter. “They are places where millions of people come each year to learn, reflect, and confront both the beauty and the difficult truths of our shared history.” The Interior Department would not confirm changes at Acadia, saying the review there continues.
Pressure to brighten the American story has also come to the Smithsonian Institution museums, which get most of their money from the government.
Trump posted on social media that museum exhibits are about “how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was, and how unaccomplished the downtrodden have been,” and threatened to cut funding. In fact, the history museum reflects bountiful achievements in industry, science, culture and war as well as the legacies of injustice.
When a picture tells 1,000 words
In the review at parks, a decision was made locally, not from Washington, that the 1863 photograph of a lashed Black man that was on display at Fort Pulaski should be removed, said a federal official involved in the national review who was not authorized to discuss the matter publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.
Two federal officials said the photograph was not taken down at Fort Pulaski, nor will it be removed from any other park service sites.
One of the officials, National Park Service spokesperson Elizabeth Peace, told the AP: “If any interpretive materials are found to have been removed or altered prematurely or in error, the Department will review the circumstances and take corrective action as appropriate. Our goal is accuracy and balance, not removal for its own sake.”
The man depicted in the photo had escaped a Louisiana plantation to enlist in the Union Army. It became one of the Civil War’s most powerful images, exposing the brutality of slavery, according to the Smithsonian Institution’s National Portrait Gallery.
Still, under marching orders from the Interior Department, national historical parks must focus on “solemn and uplifting public monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage, consistent progress toward becoming a more perfect Union, and unmatched record of advancing liberty, prosperity, and human flourishing.”
A far more complex story was told in a recent guided tour at Harpers Ferry. Brown was held up as a transformational figure whose audacious and deadly raid swelled Northern anti-slavery sentiment on the cusp of a war that produced “a new birth of freedom.”
So said the park ranger speaking to a crowd on a bluff overlooking where the Shenandoah and Potomac rivers smash together like the forces of North and South once did.
Was John Brown a hero?
Whether Brown is a hero is explicitly left for you to decide. This fierce abolitionist had plenty of blood on his hands even before he set foot in Harpers Ferry. Witnesses said he and his band killed five pro-slavery men and boys in a Kansas massacre sparked by enmity between pro-slavery and anti-slavery Kansans.
Wheeler is a descendant of Dangerfield Newby, the first of Brown’s raiders to die in the Harpers Ferry fighting.
One of more than 20 children from a white enslaver and a Black enslaved woman, Newby was freed in Ohio while his common law wife, Harriet, and their children remained in bondage in Virginia. He was saving up to buy and liberate them when he joined Brown’s band of men.
Newby was shot dead by a musket loaded with a railroad spike in a street battle between townspeople and the raiders. His body was mutilated. Wheeler said that the chilling scene with her ancestor and the broader experience of millions of enslaved people are as much a part of the American story as the uplifting episodes.
This country must know “what really made America,” Wheeler said. “Who bled, whose blood is in these stones and on these streets. Harpers Ferry is a huge thread in that tapestry.”
So is Brown a hero in the eyes of his descendant? “Yes,” says Wheeler, because he gave up everything, including his life, for a monumental cause. But “he’s not a superhero. He’s a flawed character.”
He’s complicated. Like history itself.
___
Associated Press writers Russ Bynum at Fort Pulaski, Georgia, Matthew Daly in Washington and Dorany Pineda in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
