Situated
in downtown Richmond, in the midst of Virginia Commonwealth University’s
campus, lies an architectural relic of the Confederate State of America.
Serving as a capital and symbol of the Confederacy during the Civil War, this
historical location serves as a memorial to the Confederate government and its President
Jefferson Davis. Built in 1818, The White House of the Confederacy is arguably
“one of the nation's finest historic, architectural
and decorative treasures.” It has been completely restored to resemble its
original wartime appearance, which allows its visitors to be transported back in
time to life in America during the Civil War Era of the mid 1800s.
Upon
arriving at The Museum of the Confederacy, a tour guide greeted visitors in the
lobby. Dressed in a suit and tie, the guide escorted those on the tour out of
the museum and over to the White House. Next, we were led into the building,
through a back basement door, and into a small room with several old black and
white photographs on the walls. Here I assumed a short film or explanation for
the significance of the tour would be given in order to situate visitors within
the historical context of the White House during the Civil War. However, the
guide quickly jumped into various dates and gave us ground rules for viewing
the exhibit. In addition, there were not any signs or posters detailing anything
we were viewing. The lack of a clearly stated historical setting gave the guide
free range to shape and present the history of the White House in any way he
pleased.
Unsure
of the true goal of the museum, I took my basic knowledge of the Civil War and
tried to make sense of what the guide was showing us. He led us through each
room of the mansion starting with the front entrance and making our way through
the dining room, meeting rooms, offices, master bedroom, finally ending with
the children’s nursery. In every room we visited, the guide speculated about how
different visitors may have been treated and what a typical day during
Jefferson Davis’ presidency would have been like. For example, someone entering
the main door of the house would be greeted, asked who they were, and depending
on their response, they would either be escorted to Davis’ office or permitted
to leave their calling card. Or he would reference different battles, such as
Yorktown, but never stated its importance or what actually occurred during the
feud. However, his addition of various random facts about the objects in each
room proved to be distracting. While a coffee pot stolen from the Confederate
White House, engraved by the thief saying “John B. Smith’s loot from the
Confederacy,” was interesting, it would have been beneficial to learn about more
significant historical occurrences that specifically tied into each room.
As
the tour came to a close and our guide asked if we had any final questions, I
decided I would ask what his motivations were behind how he presented the White
House and related history. Expecting his response to be that he wanted his visitors to leave with a better
understanding of what life at the White House would have been like during the
Civil War, he bluntly stated, “I hope you leave today wanting to go read a book
about Jefferson Davis or the Confederacy.” Unsure of how to take his response,
I left the museum feeling unsettled. Instead of leaving with a narrative of Confederate American history, I found myself trying to piece together all of the facts that
had been thrown at me.
The
obvious lack of continuity between the tour and presentation of the White House
is one major drawback of the museum. Had there been a clearly constructed
storyline that guided the core of the tour, either presented entirely before
the tour began or posted on various signs throughout the mansion, the significance
of the tour would have been easier to follow. This would give all visitors a similar
experience, while also allowing each tour guide to add his or her own personal
anecdotes throughout their tour. The lack of written words and total reliance
on what the guide was saying forced me to question the authenticity of what and
how he presented Confederate life. There was no supporting evidence to the
historical claims he was making, causing me to remain somewhat skeptical of how
he chose to shape the museum. While I enjoyed the décor and uniqueness of the
artifacts, those without a concrete understanding of American history would
likely be lost within a sea of incongruous facts and dates after leaving the
White House of the Confederacy.
No comments:
Post a Comment