Rich Conservatives Win One for the Little Guy

If you heard that the cash-strapped New York Historical Society was receiving a renowned collection of historical documents, a million dollar vault in which to house them, a board that demonstrates newfound commitment with its checkbooks, and important new exhibits with blockbuster potential, you might think this is good news. You might assume that everyone involved with the Society would be grateful to the new benefactors and the opportunities their largesse creates. After all, raising the profile of the venerable institution, founded in 1804, through significantly increasing the importance of its collection and the size of its revenues, thereby making it a must for historians and the interested public alike, is something most similar organizations crave but never achieve.

If you assumed all of that, however, you’d be naïve – not about the study of history, but about the politics of the historical profession. You see, Richard Gilder and Lewis E. Lehrman, the two wealthy businessmen who've bestowed their gifts on the Society, are also well-know conservative Republicans. And according to the New York Times, they think that dead white men such as Alexander Hamilton, subject of an upcoming exhibition, played key roles in American history and should be studied and better understood. They've even tapped Richard Brookhiser, a biographer of Hamilton and -- unspeakably -- a senior editor at National Review, to serve as curator of the Hamilton exhibition. [Never mind that the Times cites its own glowing review of Brookhiser’s book, by Michael Beschloss no less, thus undercutting its criticism.] All of this amounts, critics charge, to the hijacking of a prized institution.

In fact, Gilder and Lehrman are leading the charge to take the Society away from over-specialized, elitist professionals better known for producing tendentious, unreadable propaganda than for educating the broad public or increasing anyone’s curiosity about New York’s history. In returning the Society to the people of New York by emphasizing historical subjects that are genuinely important and interesting, Gilder and Lehrman have won one for the little guy at the expense of a pretentious gild whose members have gone a long way toward discrediting the academic study of the past. Given the comments from professionals that I cite below, it’s little wonder that devoted amateurs – a word that deserves a high place in our lexicon – should make up the most dynamic group of historians and historically-minded people today.

The article strains to spin the generosity of Gilder and Lehrman as a sinister, right-wing plot to force the Society to deviate from its New York City-centric emphasis in order to treat American history in general, and to treat only great men at the expense of modern academic history's favorite subjects -- women, minorities, and the "marginalized." "There is a potential for conflict of interest," Terry L. Davis told the Times. "The important thing is that the board really knows what it's doing and doesn't let the money coming in rule the mission of this institution." She's the president and CEO of the American Association for State and Local History in Nashville. The historian Mike Wallace said, "I am troubled by the direction apparently being charted by the historical society."

The Times intones: "Although Hamilton was an immigrant and slaves were hardly powerful, some historians say they worry that the society’s new focus is representative of a larger shift by some museums toward history that emphasizes leaders rather than ordinary people: minorities, women, and immigrants, for example." Examples of these (implied) legions of concerned antiquarians include Richard Rabinowitz, president of the American Historical Workshop, who told the Times: "We're seeing those things supplanted by a decision to try to tell a grand public narrative, to create shrines where a patriotic fervor can be cultivated.” You see, it’s a particular kind of victim they’re concerned about. Being the bastard son of the Caribbean who was never accepted by polite society and whose magnanimity in dueling cost him his life isn’t enough. Hamilton was important and, therefore, must be ignored.

One David Nasaw, who teaches history at the Graduate Center of CUNY, is also alarmed – very alarmed: “If you write history based only on primary documents that survive, there is a danger of overemphasizing the role of great white men who left such documents,” he said. “There has been great progress in museum exhibitions, in large part because historians have brought a critical eye to the presentation of history in public. I would certainly hope that the same critical eye on our past remains a significant part of the exhibits at the New-York [sic] Historical Society.”

Just think: Gilder and Lehrman are so influential that their actions at the Society spell the doom of all non-great-white-men historical study. Worship is in, historical study is out. It’s hagiography we’re after, boys, and no warts will be shown.

My suggestion: Show your support by joining the New York Historical Society if you live on the East Coast or visit the region often. If not, then take a close look at your local historical societies to see if they’ve developed a “critical eye” toward the past. If their exhibitions are tendentious, overly specialized, and boring, chances are you’ve got a problem in your own backyard.