From Hennessy, NPS.
Here’s another example of how we have used artwork to convey what I think are important messages.
These are two images of Fairview, in 1863 the home of the overseer of the Chancellor family’s slaves, James Moxley. The images, by Richard Schelcht, offer “before” and “after” images of the same place. They are used on side-by-side wayside exhibits. What I like about these images in tandem is that visually they convey a powerful message about the impact of the war on civilians and their homes–without us ever having to say a word (though of course we do throw the words around liberally anyway).
In the ongoing “debate” about using Civil War battlefields to tell a bigger story than just that of men in uniform, these images reflect the types of things we’re talking about. It’s not revolutionary. It doesn’t detract an iota from the story of the battle. And it tells us something both interesting and important about the effect of these battles had on the families that peopled these landscapes long before they were battlefields.
Here is the site today, with the exhibits in place.
The artwork examples are gorgeous; has the NPS considered getting licensing on them that would allow prints to be sold in the shops? Or maybe it’s just me that feels stymied because the easily available Civil War art seems to be either black and white period photographs and engravings, or Mort Kunstler’s extravaganzas.
By: Andrea on June 15, 2010
at 4:57 pm
Andrea: in the case of all three of the images we have shared here over the last few days, the NPS owns the images and the rights entirely. We regularly work with our cooperating association, Eastern National, to develop sales items from pieces of art like this. That we have not done so with these is simply a reflection of not having quite enough time to do it. I can say, though, that the Friends of Wilderness Battlefield is actively working to bring a few of these pieces related to the Wilderness to the public.
By: John Hennessy on June 15, 2010
at 6:00 pm
Oh, that is good news!
I do like seeing pieces like this on the interpretive signs, too, most especially in cases like Fairview where the structures are no longer standing. On another tangent, I’ve always wondered about some structures, like the cabins at Chickamauga — some are in place, some are not. Do you know off the top of your head if the ones standing are originals? Are there or were there circumstances in which the NPS would re-build a structure like that? Obviously some have been rebuilt, like the MacLean house at Appomattox, but the little bitty cabins at Chickamauga I wouldn’t think historic enough to be worth reconstruction effort.
Actually, come to think of it, I’d be really interested in hearing about NPS views on the restoration of battlefields. I know there’s been work to restore the historic vista on some, but I don’t recall that work encompassing reconstructing any structures that haven’t survived the intervening years.
By: Andrea on June 15, 2010
at 7:39 pm
Andrea: The issue of “battlefield restoration” is a hot one these days, as Gettysburg goes through its years-long effort to clear vistas and restore the patterns of forest and field. The reconstruction of absent buildings is a different matter, and rarely done at NPS hands, at least in the modern era. The NPS brings a philosophy of preserve as-is, and I think generally that’s the right approach, lest we start enshrining mistakes on our landscapes (the “Memorial House” at George Washington Birthplace is perhaps the poster child for misguided attempts at reconstruction; it is neither in the right location nor of the right form; that effort, however, dates to the 1930s). The Fredericksburg region faces a REALLY interesting case study in this at Ferry Farm, where the George Washington Foundation recently located the foundations of the original Washington house. They are considering alternatives for the interpretive development of the site, and likely one alternative they will look at will be reconstruction in some form. That will be a very interesting conversation.
At the park, we did a large rehabilitation project on the Sunken Road that included the reconstruction of missing segments of stone wall. That’s as close as we have come. Given that that’s an issue of landscape management, we’ll be looking at that some time soon over at Mysteries and Conundrums. It too is an interesting case study.
Thanks for reading….
By: John Hennessy on June 15, 2010
at 9:44 pm
When it comes to ‘restoring’ houses that did exist on the battlefield at the time of the battle, is the standard just to restore the house as seen in a photo from the time, or is there more? The Henry house at Manassas is clearly not the same house, nor does it look the same as the original. Obviously it adds to the ability to explain to visitors where the house was.
By: Stephen Keating on June 16, 2010
at 2:24 pm
Our standards for restoration are those that are used universally. First, to restore a building to a specific period, we have to have the documentation to do so. No guessing. Absent that, we do what’s called a rehabilitation, which is to say we preserve original fabric and form whenever we can, but we are not trying to return it to a specific look associated with a specific moment in time.
In the case of the Henry House, the park was dealing with a the post-Civil War iteration of the building (the original was severely damaged in the first battle and then torn down for its materials by the Confederates the following winter). The park worked strictly with what it had, with no pretense of rebuilding the original structure. Some might argue with this approach–that a post-war structure, even on the original site of an antebellum house–constitutes an intrusion. In cases where a site has been continuously occupied for decades or centuries before and after the war, I think the value of sustaining the obvious manifestation of that use (that is, the house) is pretty high. Keeping with Manassas, I certainly concur with keeping the post-war Brawner House intact (which the park has done). At Fredericksburg, on the other hand, I’m not enthused with the idea of keeping the Richardson House on Marye’s Heights. It was built in the 1890s (nearby houses were destroyed during the war) and is not part of a continuum of residential use of the same site. That house, in my view, IS an intrusion on a supremely important wartime landscape.
By: John Hennessy on June 17, 2010
at 12:57 am
Thanks for the info.
By: Stephen Keating on June 17, 2010
at 8:01 am
The illustrations are certainly telling and give the observer a better understanding of the effects of war on individuals, pity the husband and wife whose house was thus occupied. I would contend however that the two trees illustrated near the house and orchard would have been quickly converted to firewood for the cooking fires, the obvious fate of the fencing which in now “missing” from the second illustration.
By: John H. Verrill on June 18, 2010
at 11:33 am