job of the National Park Service . . . is torndiscuss the events of the battle and placernthem in a larger context.”rnBut Russell sees the same problem asrnMeinhard. “It’s a zero sum game,” hernsa”s. “If they add something about slaver’,rnsomething about the battle is consequentlyrnlost. Ifs that simple.”rn”If thc’ want to create a museum de-rn’otcd to making a case for slavery as therncause of the war, I’m all for it,” Russellrncontinues. “But Congress establishedrnthe national battlefields with a mandaternto commemorate the battles and the menrnwho fought there. This should carryrnmore weight than Rep. Jackson’s directive.”rnRussell and other military historiansrninsist thcv don’t have a problem withrnsocial history in principle; imposing itrnupon battlefields is what upsets them.rnJesse Jackson, Jr., however, makes nornpretense about his objective. At Ford’srnTheatre in Mav, he spoke at a hvo-dav forumrnon sla’ery, the nafional memory ofrnthe var, and its impact at home. “Untilrnthese hallowed grounds . . . become sitesrnwhere c’er’one in our socich can findrntheir stor’,” he told battlefield officials inrnclosing, “‘ou have not done the job expectedrnof ‘ou b’ our Federal Gocrnment.”rnWhen one park interpreter at the seminarrnpressed Jackson about what right he,rna lawer b trade, had to impose his viewsrnon government-employed historians,rnJackson replied that the new act of Congressrnrepresents “the will of the people.”rnI le then added, “An act of Congress createdrnour job.”rnLeading Civil War historians, includingrnPrinceton’s James McPherson andrnUniersit’ of Maryland professor IrarnBerlin, also spoke at the forum. “Didrnslaver}’ cause the Civil War? The perennialrnqucsfion cannot be escaped,” Berlinrntold the Washington Post shortly beforernthe eent. “It has to be addressed.” Butrnon eer}- battlefield? Military historiansrnare up in arms, demanding the right torndecide within local contexts. “Let’s getrnback to the purpose of the parks,” retortsrnJim Court, longhme superintendent ofrnLittle Bighorn, “which is to interpretrnthem individnalh.”rnYet those who maintain the battlefieldsrnarc ciuTentl}- working diligentlv torndo just the opposite in order to complvrnA’ith the policies established at the Ford’srnTheatre gathering. Field interpreters atrnAntietam will soon be taught to incorporaternsocial histor into their programs.rnIjast summer, Manassas unveiled a newrnexhibit on slavery, civilian life, and thernstates’ rights perspective. And Vicksburgrncompleted a relatively new exhibit,rn”Grant’s Canal,” which details the storyrnof local plantation slaves impressed intornmanual labor by Gen. Ulysses S. Grantrnduring the siege of Vicksburg. Even thernMaryland state legislature has picked uprnon the initiative, asseirrbling in 1998 arntask force of legislators and social scientistsrnthat delivered a 500-page report thisrnpast January on how the state’s schoolsrnand cultural institutions currently addressrnslaven’.rnSo far, this juggernaut has met relativelyrnlithe resistance. Changing museumrnexhibits, however, is an expensive undertaking.rnAt Vicksburg, SuperintendentrnBill Nichols feels limited by available exhibitrnspace in the current museum,rnwhich he wishes to replace. “It’s my understandingrnthat a follow-up meeting tornthe Ford’s Theatre seminar will be held,rnperhaps in October, although the daternhasn’t been set,” he confides. “We simpl-rndon’t have the funding to update ourrnexhibits—some of which date back to thern1960’s. The Agency’s next goal is to developrna strategy for getting that money.”rnHe concludes that “The Park Service’s attemptsrnto meet the new policies are stillrnvery much piecemeal.”rnIn most eases, the “outdated” exhibitsrnat Civil War battlefields teach the tacticsrnand statistics of each battle, keeping withrnthe wishes of military veterans whornsought to tell the “stor’ of the battle” inrnthe early years following the establishmentrnof the National Battlefields. Andrnthe story of Civil War battles, most militaryrnhistorians contend, had nothing torndo with slaver)’.rnBut the truth of the battles isn’t appropriaternfor a modern American audience,rnat least according to Jackson, who touredrn18 battlefields to learn about what herncalls the “Dixiefication” of American politics.rnGettsburg National Militar)- Parkrnis, unfortunately, having more successrnthan Vicksburg in its attempt to conformrnto Jackson’s revisionist demands. “Sadly,rnGett)’sburg, the most-visited of Civil Warrnbattlefields, doesn’t even mcnfion slavery,”rncomplains Katie Lawhon, the park’srnpublic affairs specialist. “But, thankfully,rnwe’ve got a plan to change that.” Thern”plan” is a five-year project to build a newrnmuseum tiiat will address, “among otherrnthings,” die issue of slaver)’.rnBut Vicksburg has not been as financiallyrnsucce.ssful as Gettysburg. Thus, thernsuccess of its future fimdraising now restsrnon its willingness to follow the dicta ofrnthe P’ord’s Theatre gathering—the morernpolitically fashionable a new addition orrnrenovation, the more likely it is to receivernfederal dollars. Must Congress mandaternhistorical interpretations when allocatingrnmoney? “It’s the age of political correctness,”rnJoe Avalon, publisher of the CivilrnWar Interactive website, explained to thernWashington Post in April, “and we havernto include African-Americans in everyrnstory.”rnJim Court knows firsthand the effectsrnof legislating historical interpretation.rnHis Little Bighorn National Monumentrnwas a shrine to General George Custerrnuntil a 1991 law forced it to include a NativernAmerican focus. Materials now includernNative American perspectives onrnthe battle and its historical context.rnFor years. Civil War battiefields havernfollowed a non-p.c. tradition —one of diseussiirgrnbattlefield valor and a romanticrnideal of national reconciliation. But if today’srnvisitors need to hear “the entire stor)'”rnof the Civil War in 20 minutes or less,rnwhat will be omitted?rnSean M. Salai, an editorial intern atrnPolicy Review, is a sophomore atrnWabash College.rnGore’s DoublernStandard onrnFirearmsrnby David B. KopelrnSpeaking in Atlanta this May, Al Gorernjoined the National Rifle Associationrnand numerous police unioirs in supportingrnfederal legislation to override staternlaws regulating the concealed carr)’ing ofrnhandguns. Many states do not allow outof-rnstate, off-duh’ police officers to carryrnhandguns. The Vice President wants tornforce communities to allow non-resident,rnoff-dut)’ visitors, who happen to be policernofficers in their home state, to carry arnconcealed weapon.rnIn contrast. Gore’s position paper onrn”Gun Violence” claims that “Al Gorernwill oppose efforts to loosen existing limitsrnon concealed weapons.” Presumably,rnSEPTEMBER 2000/43rnrnrn