By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following President Trump’s executive order, an exhibit on slavery at Philadelphia’s Independence National Historical Park was removed, sparking outrage from critics who accused the administration of “whitewashing history.” The exhibit, which detailed the lives of enslaved individuals at the President’s House site, was taken down despite a cooperative agreement between the city and the federal government requiring consultation before changes. Philadelphia has since filed a lawsuit against the Interior Department, arguing that the exhibit is crucial to the site’s story. The Interior Department claimed the exhibit’s removal was to ensure “accuracy” and align with national values.
Read the original article here
Philadelphia sues over removal of slavery exhibit at Independence National Historical Park, a move that’s sparking some serious conversations, isn’t it? When you think about it, the very place where the foundation of American freedom was laid, Independence National Historical Park, also housed a dark chapter: the story of slavery. The exhibit focused on the President’s House Site, where George and Martha Washington lived, and, crucially, where they kept enslaved people. It seems the exhibit was removed, leaving behind only empty bolt holes and shadows where the panels once stood, a visual reminder of what’s missing.
The heart of the matter, and a major point in the city’s argument, revolves around the actions of President Washington himself. Pennsylvania, while Philadelphia was the nation’s capital, had a law in 1780 that offered a pathway to freedom for enslaved people who stayed in the state for six months. Washington, seemingly wanting to circumvent this law, is said to have rotated his enslaved people out of Pennsylvania before the six-month deadline, effectively “resetting” the clock and preventing them from gaining their freedom. This act highlights a deep hypocrisy, doesn’t it? Freedom and liberty were being proclaimed, but the reality for many was very different.
Now, imagine the outrage this likely generates. It’s hard not to feel a sense of betrayal, a sense of injustice. The removal of the exhibit only adds fuel to this fire. It’s like erasing a painful part of history, potentially sanitizing the narrative for political or ideological reasons.
One thing that really stands out is the frustration. The tone of a lot of this is one of disbelief and anger at the situation. It’s understandable. The past informs the present. Removing the exhibit is seen as an attempt to hide or diminish the role of slavery, and therefore, deny its impact on the present.
The responses show various reactions to the news. Some people are rightly saddened by the fact that many Americans are unaware of Washington’s actions, and are only becoming aware of this now. It brings to light just how critical such exhibits are for public education and historical awareness. The reaction suggests that a lot of people may not have known the extent of slavery’s presence at the very core of American history, let alone the tactics used to maintain it.
The sentiment isn’t just about the past; it’s about the present. There is a call to resist any attempt to downplay the impact of slavery and its lasting effects on American society. It’s a call to confront the uncomfortable truths of the nation’s history, even when those truths challenge the narratives we’ve been taught.
The lawsuit itself, then, becomes a method of resistance, but the emphasis is placed on the broader spectrum of resistance. The law in and of itself may not be the only avenue for change. It gives time for people to organize more efficiently. The best approach may be to use all the tools available.
It’s clear that this issue goes beyond simply a historical exhibit. It taps into larger conversations about social justice, racial equality, and the importance of accurate historical narratives. This situation is a reminder of the complexities of history, and the way it shapes our understanding of the present.
One of the issues that is highlighted as part of this conversation is how the founding fathers are viewed. The whole mythology around them is starting to crack. The conversation goes beyond the immediate subject matter and looks at the issues of slavery and taxes, and the impact of the historical narrative.
The comment about Washington freeing his slaves after his death is insightful. The point being that even that gesture was delayed, and even when it happened, it was done in a way that left the former slaves, particularly his family, vulnerable. A stark reminder that the fight for freedom was never quite what it seemed, even for those who had a hand in founding the nation.