Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
BNV378
UHON 3510
Information concerning slavery has to be actively sought out; in cases when this
information about the nature of slavery and its history are presented, it is problematic. It is
almost as if the truly vast history of slavery is hidden from the public, and when such
representation of the history of slavery is not easily accessible and readily presented? Why is it
that when the topic of slavery is given a chance to be presented, it is often disappointing,
depictions of the foulness of slavery are missing. How is it possible that the subject of slavery
can be presented, but the evidence of its evil are left out? The perpetuation of a slave narrative
that is congenial to the conscious of a great number of Americans who refuse to acknowledge the
massive transgression the institution of slavery truly was, is an additional injustice to those were
enslaved and their descendants. It is unfortunate that the presentation of slavery varies based on
who the presenter of this information is. This was the case for all of the destinations on our
itinerary for the spring break study trip in Charleston, South Carolina. Many of the locations we
engaged with had obvious shortcomings, however, there were locations that did a decent job
presenting slavery in an accurate light. This may be because “The clash between memory’s
ownership and history’s interpretation takes place in the public arena of historic museums,
memorials, and historical sites,” stated in James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton’s book,
Slavery and Public History.1 The presentation of slavery is critical to the understanding of
1James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton, Slavery and Public History (New York: The New
Press, 2006), xi
BNV378 3
In particular, one common aspect among locations on the spring break study trip that had
many shortcomings presenting slavery in a thorough manner is that they were exceptionally
aesthetically pleasing to the eye. The fact that these locations were elegant and pleasing to look
at was not the issue in and of itself. The issue was that when possible, the true nature of the evils
of slavery were made to seem not as unpleasant as they actually were or were avoided altogether.
These locations include Middleton Place National Historical Landmark and the Nathaniel
Russell House. Additionally, the location of the Denmark Vesey monument was quite
disappointing. With regards to Middleton Place, the location and its brochure did a fair job at
acknowledging slavery and the role enslaved people played in creating the beauty that exists as
Middleton Place. 2 In fact, its presentation on the lives its enslaved residents are impressive in the
Eliza’s House exhibit, documenting the names of slaves along with their price, the black
experience during the Revolutionary and Civil wars, accounts of slaves becoming freed people, a
glimpse into the culture of the enslaved, and the origin and initial enslavement of Africans. There
was little to no mention of the suffering the enslaved people endured at the hands of the
Middletons, leaving room for visitors to believe that the Middletons were “good and nice”
slaveholders, as many people want to believe. No definitive statements were present that
recognized the evil of slavery, rather, much of the material was restrained. Nevertheless, with
Middleton Place being a planation site, it had no choice but to acknowledge slavery, but it did so
only when it was obvious to do. In its brochure, Middleton Place is advertised as “a feast for the
senses and a true journey back in time”, only including one brief and ambiguous mention of
slavery as stated before. Mary, our tour guide who lead us through the house and gardens, only
2Concerning slavery, the brochure stated “Much of the wealth that built Charleston as a great
colonial city came from the early plantation system. Here is a rare opportunity to see and hear
what plantation life was like in the 18th and 19th century.”
BNV378 4
began to focus slightly more on mentioning facts about the enslaved when we asked questions
pertaining to slaves. This goes back to a statement I made earlier on how the presenters dictate
the way slavery is presented and how much of it is presented. It seemed as though it was only
certain information on the lives of the enslaved that were encouraged to be shared. At Middleton
Place, the markers on slavery were present, but no one intentionally drew our attention to them.
Had we not been a group whose course is focused on American slavery, we would not have been
as attentive to markers like these. We had to request to see the slave cemetery which did have a
marker, but for reasons unknown was not part of the original tour. We had to pay an additional
fee to experience the Beyond the Fields: Slavery at Middleton Place tour which included the
Eliza House exhibit.3 Granted, it is a positive that the tour is even an option. The Eliza’s House
marker stated that it “…now serves as the headquarters for the African-American history that can
be found in every aspect of interpretation at Middleton Place.” Unfortunately, I did not find this
statement to be true. While a separate tour that solely focuses on the African and African
American experience at Middleton can mean that the topic of slavery is being taken seriously
enough to devote efforts to communicating to the public the important role of the enslaved in
relation to slaveholders, it can also mean that much of this information is not presented in the
general tour because it is not perceived to be of interest to the public. The separate tour can
indicate that it is reserved for those who are eager to learn about the lives of the enslaved,
however, this is pertinent information that should be included in the general tour in order to
3 On the back of the Eliza House brochure, Beyond the Fields is described as “…an African
American historical exhibit center using as much site-specific material as possible. Beyond the
Fields commemorates and documents in a most personal way the lives, families, and
contributions of some seven generations of African Americans at Middleton Place. By
identifying by name 2,612 slaves and connecting many of them with family units, the exhibit
solidifies their history into a tangible reality and should be considered a 21st-centuray extension
of the Civil Rights Movement of the last century.”
BNV378 5
educate the public on this topic. This is an issue because many Americans will not take it upon
themselves to become educated on the history of slavery. In response to the general public not
willing to educate themselves on the issue of slavery and come to terms with the America’s
wicked past, many historical sites shy away from overtly presenting such tough information.
With that being said, historical sites should instead always take the opportunity to relay
information on the topic of slavery to its audiences. Mary made it a point to repeatedly mention
that Middleton Place was not a working plantation, as if she was attempting to distance the
location with the common horrors of slavery. With historical sites such as this one, the complete
truth about slavery must be told. In first chapter of Slavery and Public History concerning
coming to terms with slavery in the twenty-first century, it is said that “No understanding of
slavery can avoid these themes: violence, power, and the usurpation of labor for the purpose of
aggrandizing a small minority” (6). 4 During the house tour, Mary told us that Caesar, an
enslaved man at Middleton Place, would regularly shave Henry Middleton’s beard. She implied
that Caesar could have very well slit his master’s throat, but chose not to but of their “trusting
relationship” she stated they had. This anecdote reminds me of Peter Kolchin’s observation in his
book, American Slavery, that the “exploitative, brutal, and unjust system [slavery] developed
under conditions that at the same time left slaves room to…[produce] particularly intense, and
contradictory, relations between masters and slaves, relations that were marked by affection and
intimacy as well as by fear, brute force, and calculation of self-interest” (168). 5 Mary
oversimplified and mispresented the master/slave relationship. She also seemed proud to say that
Henry Middleton freed Caesar from a life of slavery upon his death. This seemed to be a
common feature at Middleton Place, to mollify the brutality inflicted upon the enslaved and the
complete lack of power the enslaved actually had by heavily showcasing and focusing on the
charming gardens. The dismissal of the horrific nature of slavery is a disservice to the veracity of
The Nathaniel Russel House Museum is another example of a location that was
aesthetically impressive, but lacking in thorough presentation of the lives of the enslaved who
were forced to serve the residents of the house. Although there is a reference to the enslaved
individuals in the brochure, it is minimal. 6 Our tour guide, Mary Ann, was more concerned with
sharing details about the furniture than about the interactions between the residents of the house
and the enslaved individuals who served them. Initially, Mary Ann referred to the slaves as
“butlers” and “servers” until a fellow classmate in our group corrected her. Like many other
Americans, Mary Ann chose to use those words to avoid the discomfort associated with
discussing slavery, using words that minimized the harshness of the word “slave” and avoiding
the shame of America’s past. It was safe to assume that was how she regularly referred to slaves,
if at all, during her tours. This made it clear that this site’s focus was on the architecture and
furniture of a glorious time period for the white elite in America. The enslaved people who made
this glorious time possible were an afterthought, secondary to the focus of the tour only if a tour
guide chose to make any mention of it. It is entirely possible that visitors of the house can be
misguided to think these “butlers” and “servants” where free white individuals instead of
enslaved black individuals, especially if they did not read the educational panels on the enslaved
6 Regarding the slaves that labored at the house, the brochure stated “Eighteen enslaved Africans
lived on the property during the Russell occupancy, and an exhibit in the original kitchen house
features archaeological artifacts, educational panels, and stories of the people who lived and
worked on the property in the early 19th century.”
BNV378 7
people that were located in an obscure and likely less visited portion of the house. Admittedly,
the educational panels present were exceptionally informative on what one may expect the lives
of the enslaved people at the Nathanial Russel House Museum to entail. Even so, it is
disappointing that our tour guide was unable to tell us about this information from her own
preparation, instead she briefly mentioned the enslaved when we made our way back to the lobby
area and directed us to the panels. Should historical sites similar to the Nathanial Russel House
Museum rely on its visitors to seek out the information on slavery themselves? This is
problematic due to the fact that the way in which the museum is advertised and the material
covered during the tour likely lead visitors to believe the sole. The site is not attracting
individuals who are eager to learn about the lives of enslaved people, but rather those who are
intrigued by the beauty of neoclassical 18th-century homes. It is possible that the mention of
slavery is reserved for the educational panels because it gives people the choice of whether or not
they want to read about slavery instead of visitors being forced to listen about it from a tour
guide. This goes back to the previous statements about the complacency many Americans have
with avoiding the discomfort associated with discussing slavery. Due to this discomfort felt by
many Americans, oftentimes, historical sites do not want to put-off their visitors on their
vacation and for that reason tend to steer clear of evoking strong negative feelings that would
In comparison to the Nathanial Russel House Museum, the Aiken-Rhett House Museum
is strikingly different in the way it presents the house itself and the matter of slavery. The Aiken-
Rhett House Museum is an example of a location that more accurately and openly illustrates the
lives of the enslaved who labored there. As Ms. Sherese Williams shared in our class discussion,
one highly plausible reason for this is that due to the existing slave quarters which provides
BNV378 8
evidence of slavery so blatant and undeniable that discussion of it could in no way be avoided. In
fact, the brochure of the house stated “The slave quarters, virtually untouched since the 1850s,
reveal the everyday realities of the enslaved African and their descendants who lived and worked
on the property.” Subsequently, the slave quarters displayed information on items the enslaved
are believed to have used daily. One shortcoming of the Aiken-Rhett House Museum is its
insubstantial amount of information on the relationship between the slaves and the Aiken family.
It is possible that there is simply no information regarding this matter, but such information is
important in order to leave no room for visitors to ask common questions like “Were they nice to
their slaves?”. Questions similar to this convey that a number of Americans so desperately aim to
find ways to alleviate any responsibility, guilt, or shame they may feel towards slaves and their
descendants. It is also plausible that questions like this are asked out of sheer ignorance that
stems from miseducation or lack of education on the appalling nature of and complexity of
slavery. In response to the question, the tour guide said she likes to quote Frederick Douglass,
“The feeding and clothing me well could not atone for taking my liberty from me.” I appreciate
that she responds with this and it The apparent evidence of enslaved individuals made it easier to
discuss slavery because there was no space for ambiguity. I was impressed by how much our
guide talked about the enslaved, even sharing how the house slaves were more likely to be
abused because they were in close quarters with the masters. She even discredited a common
misconception many average Americans have about life as a slave: it was in fact not easier to be
a house slave than it was it was to be a field slave. Life as a slave was no easier for a male or
female, northerner or southerner, or a house slave or field slave, or in the rural areas or urban
areas. This relates to our frequent discussion on the complexity and diversity of slavery, and the
fact the it was not monolithic. The Aiken-Rhett House Museum presents a relatively decent
BNV378 9
interested in the slave quarters and the lives of the enslaved instead of the architecture of the mid
-19th century house. Because of the conservation approach taken, as opposed to the restoration
approach by the Nathanial Russel House Museum, the most of attention of the visitors to the site
is heavily drawn to the slave quarters. It is possible that this is intentional because had the house
been restored, visitors would spend more time inside and become less interested about what lies
outside.
The same notion of an overt presentation of slavery that was present at the Aiken-Rhett
House Museum was even more evident at the McLeod Plantation Historic Site. It was clear from
the brochure that this plantation would focus primarily on the lives of the enslaved. Surprising,
the tour guide stated that she oftentimes gets visitors who do not expect to hear about slavery and
the same people walk away when she goes into depth about the poor treatment of slaves at the
hands of their masters. This is interesting because it brings into question what motives those
people had for visiting the planation, if not to hear something about slavery. Visitors to historical
sites need to be confronted with the truth of slavery as it constitutes a critical amount America’s
history. The tour guide at the McLeod Plantation Historic Site spent a considerable amount of
time discussing the slave cabins, which gave us a look into the lives of the enslaved. This
location depicted slaves as agents, instead of passengers or passive victims, who could make
decisions in influence their own futures. For example, the tour guide discussed how at the
beginning of the Civil War, some slaves ran away and others did not. She also emphasized that it
is crucial to talk about the humanity of slaves. Regarding this, in Slavery and Public History,
James Oliver Horton and Lois E. Horton state “…the history of slavery is not only that of
victimization, brutalization, and exclusion. If slavery was violence and imposition, if it was
BNV378 10
death, slavery was also life…They refused to be dehumanized by dehumanizing treatment” (6).7
In humanizing the enslaved, the slave narrative comes alive with feelings of sympathy and
understanding. The importance in this is remembering that slaves were human beings and their
descendants are still living the effects of the institution of slavery. Historical sites may not
always do the best job at this because of the fear of emotionally upsetting visitors or by using
unknowingly using a passive and distant manner in the presentation of slavery. However, it is
important to do so in order for the general public to truly comprehend that just how distant
slavery is not, how real it was then, and how real the impact of slavery is still being experienced
by African Americans.
One common shortcoming all the locations had was the disconnect between slavery and
its impact on African Americans today. Many Americans do not understand the link between
slavery and its continued influence on the state of African Americans today, including race
relations in the twenty-first century United States. It is imperative for visitors of historical sites
that deal with slavery to comprehend the relevance slavery has today and how it has shaped our
world. Without depicting the African American journey after the end of slavery, one cannot
completely understand the grave repercussions of slavery that are present in American society. In
his introduction of The Slave Ship, Marcus Rediker discusses the importance of further the study
the salve ship because the lack thereof has “…has rendered abstract, and thereby dehumanized, a
reality that must, for moral and political reasons, be understood concretely” (12). 8 Rediker then
goes on to quote Barry Unsworth’s description of what he called a “violence of abstraction” that
has acted as a disservice to the study of the slave trade. These statements can be applied to the
8 Marcus Rediker, The Slave Ship, (New York, Penguin Group, 2007), 12
BNV378 11
presentation of slavery at historical sites. The inaccuracies, ambiguity, and often concealed
narratives of the enslaved must become coherent, straightforward, and pronounced. Is it not
peculiar that a thorough history of an institution, one of substantial importance to the success of
the nation for hundreds of years is not considered important enough to be accurately presented to
the public? When the history and proposed nature of slavery is presented, it is often lacking in
detail and complete truth. Oftentimes, slavery is presented in such a manner that makes it
comfortable, meaning to not evoke feelings of shame. It is imperative that slavery be presented
in a manner that is not passive, inconsequential, and distant. The daily trauma the generations of
African and African Americans lived through must be realized, accurately presented, and be