OAH and the
National Park Service

John A. Latschar

For those of us working in the world of "public history" at the National Park Service (NPS), there are two factors that influence our work tremendously, and present some interesting difficulties which I presume are not experienced by our colleagues in the academy.

The first deals with authority: Who is allowed on the playing field of public history? That is, who sets the rules of engagement, and who keeps score? Unlike academics, there are no standards or qualifications to be met--such things as a professional degree, scholarly publications, or peer credibility. In our world, all you have to do to become an "expert historian" is to proclaim that you are one. As one of my academic colleagues--who was helping us deal with several of these self-proclaimed "experts" wryly stated: "We haven't done a good job of defining our profession. Anyone who reads or writes a book about history is allowed to proclaim himself a historian. Could you imagine what the American Medical Association would say if anyone who had ever read or written a book about medicine proclaimed himself a doctor?"

This lack of definition becomes a problem when we enter public debates about how best to manage our battlefields, or how best to enhance our public interpretive and educational programs. Then all the "expert" amateurs come to the fore, sometimes bringing along two very potent and very under-educated institutions: the media and the Congress. Under the scrutiny of the third and fourth estates, our best professional opinions are countered by the sometimes eloquent opinions of the self-proclaimed experts, simply because NPS historians lack the credibility of academic historians. When that happens, complex issues get reduced to the level of a modern-day political campaign: the person with the best sound bite prevails.

The second phenomenon is merely that of our work environment, and all of the things we are expected (and need) to do besides history. At Gettysburg National Military Park (NMP), for example, we have 1.7 million visitors each year. Only 100,000 of those visitors are able to participate in ranger programs, since our staff consists of twelve full-time interpretive rangers supplemented by a handful of seasonal rangers. Another 250,000 can take the battlefield tour with our licensed battlefield guide corps. The rest of our visitors--all 1.3 million of them--are dependent upon our printed media (brochures) and our museum for their introduction to the Civil War and the Battle of Gettysburg. Our printed materials are reasonably up-to-date, but our museum is terrible.

However, the real point is that our twelve interpretive rangers are unable to keep up with current scholarship. In addition to preparing tours, they must staff the visitor center desk eight or more hours a day, seven days a week, 362 days a year. They must assist lost children, attend to scraped knees (or worse), clear traffic jams, explain why we don't allow picnics in the National Cemetery, explain why we don't allow metal detectors on the battlefield, and, above all, smile kindly and point the way to the restrooms hundreds of times each day.

And as their leader, I am in no better shape. I can readily discuss with you the nuances of NPS management policies, or problems and contradictions in the Government Results Performance Act. I am aware enough of the myriad federal personnel and procurement rules to keep myself out of Fort Leavenworth. I can recite from memory the really important stuff, such as which member of Congress has the most influence on the NPS budget process, along with the name and phone number of their principal staff person. But I have difficulty finding the time to keep up with the literature of our field. Sadly, I know the regulations of the National Environmental Protection Act and the National Historic Preservation Act better than anyone should ever have to, but I have not had the time to finish reading The Story of American Freedom.

With that background, it is not difficult to describe the benefits of the partnership between the NPS and OAH. There are four major points:

1. Scholarly Credibility

In 1998, we were in the midst of preparing a new, long-range general management plan for Gettysburg NMP. Part of such a plan, naturally, is a complete review and revision (as appropriate) of the park's primary interpretive themes. I had read about the Cooperative Agreement between the National Park Service and the Organization of American Historians, and decided to pursue the opportunity to obtain expert advice from the academic world. Working with John Dichtl of the OAH staff, we recruited a marvelous team for a site visit to Gettysburg: Eric Foner of Columbia University, James McPherson of Princeton University, and Nina Silber of Boston University.

The OAH visit to Gettysburg NMP in the summer of 1998 came at a crucial time. We were proposing to move our visitor facilities off of the actual Union battlelines of 2 and 3 July, 1863 onto less historically significant ground. In addition, we planned to fundamentally change our interpretive programs at the park. We wanted to move away from traditional (and safe) descriptions of battle tactics, tales of individual and unit courage, and sentimental narratives of the veteran reunions in the postwar years, toward discussions that would put the Gettysburg campaign into the context of the political, social, and economic environment of the mid-nineteenth-century United States. In other words, we wanted to introduce discussions concerning the causes and consequences of the Civil War.

Our sound bite (because that is what we had to boil it down to) was that we wanted to move from descriptions of "who shot whom, where" into discussions of "why were they shooting at one another?" Now that may not sound like much, but you had better believe that it was more than enough to bring us under attack for abandoning "military history" in favor of "politically correct history." Moreover, owners and operators of fast food restaurants and wax museums (across the street from our current location) bitterly opposed our proposed move of the visitor facilities, and their criticisms captured the attention of both the media and the Congress. In fact, the Secretary of the Interior received 1,100 postcards from a portion of the Civil War constituency, calling for my reprimand if not removal, and protesting our plans to "modify and alter historical events." They wanted the NPS to "return to its unaligned and apolitical policies of the past, presenting history, not opinions."

The site visit from the OAH team took place in August 1998, and the written report from the team reached the park in September, just as the public debates over these issues was reaching its peak. The few days that professors Eric Foner, James McPherson, and Nina Silber spent with us in the summer of 1998 were invaluable. The follow-up report that they prepared was worth its weight in gold. The support these scholars put behind our efforts sincerely impressed both the media and the Congress. Suddenly, we had credibility, and could hold our ground against the jeers of critics.

2. Scholarly Advice

This same visit had other benefits for us, both short- and long-term. As you know, the hardest thing for anyone to evaluate is that with which we are most familiar. Sometimes, despite our best efforts, it takes the eyes of outsiders to really see what we are doing. One of the most important findings of the OAH team was that Gettysburg's interpretive programs had a pervasive southern sympathy.

In fact, they summed up our over-all theme at Gettysburg as being "The High Water Mark of the Confederacy." Once they pointed this out, we instantly knew they were right. That is exactly how we presented the Battle of Gettysburg: primarily from the southern point of view, and primarily emphasizing the heroism and sacrifices of the soldiers. But we said very little about why they fought each other.

Taking their advice we have changed our theme--our sound bite, if you will. Now, instead of emphasizing the battle itself, we stress the meaning of the battle. That meaning, of course, was eloquently captured by President Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address, and our new interpretive theme is "A New Birth of Freedom." From that simple change we have refocused the entire tone of our interpretive programs.

3. Teaching Tips

NPS historians and interpreters, like academics, depend on texts to impart understanding. Again, the OAH team left us with much good advice on how to use our language more precisely and more effectively. As just one example, as soon as we proposed moving our interpretation away from exclusive discussions of military tactics and toward "contextual" history, we found ourselves caught up in "the causes of the Civil War" debate. You might think this had been settled by now, but you should know that a large segment of our Civil War constituency is still hotly arguing the case, as recently as the last issue of The Civil War News.

The challenge is to discuss such a complex issue in a relatively brief presentation without getting bogged down in endless debates with our watching "experts." The OAH team gave us the key to the solution; although it may be problematical to state that slavery was the cause, or the primary cause, of the Civil War, no one can argue against the statement that "slavery was the cause of secession, and secession was the cause of the war." That simple advice has given our rangers both the courage and the means to tackle the subject.

4. Professional Development

My final point is probably the greatest compliment to Professors Foner, McPherson and Silber. Their visit was so stimulating, that, at the staff's request, we have invested time and money in several follow-up sessions with other scholars. These have ranged from short staff seminars to explore particular problems or topics, to our "summer scholar" program, where we brought in Pete Carmichael (Western Carolina University) to spend three weeks with us during the height of our busy summer season. The reason we chose Pete as our first "summer scholar" was that he had worked his way through graduate school as a seasonal ranger at several Civil War battlefields, so he had first-hand experience with the joys and travails of public history. Pete conducted daily seminars for our interpretive staff, presented several public lectures in the evening, and left us with a reading list that few of us have yet conquered. It was a delightful experience, and we are determined to provide similar professional development opportunities for our staff every year.

Other initiatives and benefits that can be directly traced to our relationship with OAH include the symposium on interpretation at Civil War parks held at Ford's Theater in Washington this past May. Without the new spirit of involvement and cooperation, I doubt that we would have been able to attract such a brilliant collection of speakers to that symposium. The benefits of that seminar to all the Civil War parks, as well as the NPS, is obvious.

Finally, at Gettysburg, we are getting ready to build a new museum--the first professional museum Gettysburg NMP has ever had. It is our once-in-a-lifetime chance to enhance the awareness, the education, and the understanding of 1.7 million people each year. Naturally, we need help to make sure we do it right, so we are now recruiting an advisory panel of historians and museum specialists to help us out. I am pleased and very proud to say that when we began looking for help, Drs. Foner, McPherson, and Silber were the first to say, "Yes."

In conclusion, the partnership has done several things for NPS. It has reconnected us to our professional field, provided us access to both scholars and scholarship, offered professional development opportunities for our staff, and is helping us move in the right direction with our programming. What is it doing for the OAH? On an organizational level, the OAH is helping the NPS provide better educational opportunities to the millions of people who visit national park areas each year. And I hope that on a personal level, the scholars on the site review teams went home knowing that they have made a difference.

John A. Latschar <john_latschar@nps.gov> is superintendent of Gettysburg National Military Park in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania.