NOTE TO USERS
This reproduction is the best copy available.
® UMI
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. Reproduced with with permission permission of the of copyright the copyright owner. owner.Further reproduction Further reproduction prohibited without prohibited permission. without permission. REPRESENTATIONS OF SLAVERY IN WASHINGTON, D.C.: A CASE STUDY
ON PRESENTING SLAVERY AT DUMBARTON HOUSE
By
Christopher Charles Celauro
Submitted to the
Faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences
of American University
in Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
In
Public Anthropology
Chair:
Richard J. Dint
Karen L. Daly
Dean of the College
Date 2006
American University
Washington, D.C. 20016 AMERICAN UNIVERSITYLIBRARY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. UMI Number: 1432677
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
® UMI
UMI Microform 1432677
Copyright 2006 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company 300 North Zeeb Road P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. © COPYRIGHT
by
Christopher Charles Celauro
2005
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REPRESENTATIONS OF SLAVERY IN WASHINGTON, D.C.: A CASE STUDY
ON PRESENTING SLAVERY AT DUMBARTON HOUSE
BY
Christopher Charles Celauro
ABSTRACT
Most early urban historic house museums and plantation museums originated around a
need to “strengthen and fortify the conservative element of the nation’s life” through
restoring the homes of white, elite, male political figures (West 1999:2). Even today, this
continues. However, some historical institutions are now attempting to interpret the other
history of these house and plantation museums-the story of those enslaved.
Contemporary theory states that museums and historic sites fit into one of four
representational categories in their interpretations of slavery which are: symbolic
annihilation and erasure, trivialization and deflection, segregation and marginalization,
and relative incorporation (Eichstedt and Small: 2002). I will apply this typology to these
five D.C. historic house museums: Decatur House, Arlington House, Tudor Place, the
Frederick Douglass House, and Dumbarton House. I will also provide a case study which
will show Dumbarton House fits into the category of trivialization and deflection.
ii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my thesis committee Richard J. Dent and Karen L. Daly for
supporting me and guiding me through this important research. I would also like to thank
all the staff and volunteers at Dumbarton House. Thank you for being so knowledgeable,
kind, and welcoming.
m
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT...... ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... iii
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS...... vi
Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION...... 1
2. OVERVIEW OF URBAN SLAVERY IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND GEORGETOWN...... 3
Overview of Urban Slavery
Enslaved African and African American Culture in the Chesapeake Region
Urban Slavery in Washington and Georgetown
3. THEORIZING REPRESENTATIONS OF SLAVERY IN MUSEUMS...... 14
4. ANALYSIS OF WASHINGTON, D.C HISTORIC HOUSE MUSEUMS ...... 16
Decatur House
Arlington House
Tudor Place
Fredrick Douglass House
5. DUMBARTON HOUSE: A CASE STUDY ON PRESENTING SLAVERY...... 26
A History of the National Society of the Colonial Dames iv
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. A History of Dumbarton House
Nourse Family History
Enslaved Africans and African Americans owned or employed by the Nourse family
Dumbarton House Analysis
6. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SLAVERY INTERPRETATION AT DUMBARTON HOUSE 49
7. CONCLUSION 60
Lower Passage
Library
Dining Room
Music Room and Blue Parlor Room
Landing and Upper Passage
Dining Room Chamber
Library Chamber and Blue Parlor Chamber
Recommendations
REFERENCES 62
IV
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1. Dumbarton House, Front View, 2005...... 28
2. Dumbarton House, Front Passage Comice, 2005...... 30
3. Dumbarton House, Backyard Garden, 2005...... 31
4. Dumbarton House Visitor Survey Results Chart, May 2005...... 40
5. Dumbarton House Public Tour and School Program Evaluation Results Chart, 2005...... 43
6. Dumbarton House, Lower Passage, 2005...... 50
7. Front Archway Comice, 2005...... 50
8. Back Archway Comice, 2005...... 50
9. James and Sarah Nourse...... 51
10. The Washington Family. 1803-1850...... 51
11. Dumbarton House, Dining Room, 2005...... 52
12. Charles Wilson Peale, The Beniamin Stoddert Children...... 1789 53
13. Dumbarton House, Music Room, 2005...... 54
14. Dumbarton House, Landing, 2005...... 55
15. Landing View, 2005...... 55
16. Dumbarton House, Upper Passage, 2005...... 55
17. Federal Inlaid Mahogany Cylinder-Front Desk, Baltimore, c.1795...... 56
18. Mahogany Comer Basin Stand, Massachusetts,...... 1800 57 vi
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19. Federal Inlaid Mahogany Chamber Table
20. Dressing Table......
vii
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Most early urban historic house museums and plantation museums originated around a
need to “strengthen and fortify the conservative element of the nation’s life” through
restoring the homes of white, elite, male political figures (West 1999:2). Even today, this
is still the dominant trend. Currently, however, the Cultural Resource Management and
museum fields are beginning to diversify and interpret the other history of these house
and plantation museums-the story of those enslaved. These fields are beginning to
recognize they must be as diverse as the public they serve, to be relevant in the future
(King 1998:245-247).
Dumbarton House is one of the museums in Washington, D.C. that is in the process of
interpreting slavery into their tours and school programs. As a Dumbarton House
Graduate Interpretive Intern, I first examined four historic house museums to see how
other D.C. area historic house museums are approaching this issue. The urban historic
houses researched that center around white male political figures are Decatur House,
Arlington House, and Tudor Place. The historic house I researched which centers around
an African American male political figure is the Frederick Douglass House. Second, I
evaluated Dumbarton House’s current interpretation of slavery to see how it compares
and fits into the context of these other D.C. historic house museums.
This research was conducted between March and October of 2005. There are some
1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 2
additional museum tours I observed back in 2003 that are included. The research
methods for examining slavery interpretation at Tudor Place, Decatur House,
Arlington House, and the Frederick Douglass House, include: 1) participant observation
of public tours, 2) semi-structured interviews with staff and docents, 3) and evaluations
of website content and published materials regarding slavery.
The research methods for the Dumbarton House case study include: 1) participant
observation of tours and school programs, 2) semi-structured interviews with staff and
docents, 3) a visitor survey, 4) archival research, 5) a bookstore evaluation, 6) website
evaluation, and 7) a strategic plan evaluation.
Throughout this thesis I will refer to slaves as enslaved Africans and African
Americans (unless the word slave is cited in a reference). Using the term “enslaved
African and African American” instead of slave, “emphasizes the pointpeople that were
enslaved and that who they were exceeded their status” (Eichstedt and Small 2002:5).
This research will allow me to apply current theory to these museums which states
that museums and historic sites fit into one of four representational categories in their
interpretations of slavery which are: symbolic annihilation and erasure, trivialization and
deflection, segregation and marginalization, and relative incorporation (Eichstedt and
Small 2002). By applying this typology to these five D.C. historic house museums, it
will provide an understanding of how the culture of those enslaved in the nation’s capital
is currently being presented to the public.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 2
OVERVIEW OF URBAN SLAVERY IN WASHINGTON, D.C. AND GEORGETOWN
In this chapter I will discuss the differences between the urban enslaved African and
African American experience versus the plantation experience. This discussion will help
frame the milieu of the enslaved Africans and African Americans in Washington, D.C.
and Georgetown.
Overview of Urban Slavery
Urban slavery was inherently different from plantation slavery. The urban enslaved
African and African American experience differed from that of the plantation enslaved
African and African American in: occupation and skills, living quarters, social life,
master/enslaved worker relationships, and legal restrictions (Wade 1964:ix). Even
though urban and plantation slavery were different, urban slavery in every city was
similar because the characteristics of urban life were more important to the institution
than differences in locality (Wade 1964.:ix). Cities offered enslaved Africans and
African Americans a diverse array of occupations such as carpenters, blacksmiths,
shoemakers, porters, stevedores, vendors, and maintenance men (Wade 1964.: 16). But
despite this diversity of occupations, most urban enslaved Africans and African
Americans were house servants (Goldin 1976:46). The demand for slavery in cities was
constantly changing because there were short-term jobs, daily and hourly, that needed to
3
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 4
be done.
In response, masters developed the hiring-out system. “Hiring out” at its basic level
was a contract with a different master which included price, length of service, type
of work, and assurance of treatment (Wade 1964:38). But in reality there often was no
contract needed as long as the master received payment for his enslaved African and
African American’s work. Also, the master found it easier to let his slave find his own
work. This gave enslaved Africans and African Americans more independence because
“often the owner did not know where his blacks worked; no contract bound master and
employer; and no special public supervision governed the arrangement” (Wade 1964:48).
This fundamental change in the institution of slavery transformed the chattel-master
relationship into a worker-employer relationship (Goldin 1976:2). The distancing of the
master and enslaved worker relationship also ran over into where the enslaved African
and African American’s lived. In cities, there was limited space to live in. Enslaved
Africans and African Americans either lived inside the house in garrets, cellars, or on the
floor; or outside in two story buildings adjoined to the master’s house (McManus
1973:92). As enslaved Africans and African Americans began to “hire out,” they also
began to “live out” because the masters found it more profitable and it lessened
overcrowding. Some rented rooms where they could, others just slept anywhere they
could find in the city. Also, there were no written leases between landlord and the
enslaved worker. As a result, “it is difficult to document with any precision the numbers
or locations of these people” (Wade 1964:67). Family and social relationships for urban
enslaved Africans and African Americans were also different from plantation
counterparts. Family ties in slavery were hard to keep generally, but the “greater
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 5
instability of slavery in towns meant that attachments were seldom permanent, that
promiscuity became normal, and that racial mixing was common” (Wade 1964:117).
Socially, “on every day in every city, slaves could be seen away from their master’s
supervision and still not at work. Presumably on an errand or hired out to an employer,
they gathered at a friends place, stopped in a nearby grog shop for a drink or
conversation, chatted with other negroes on a comer or in the market.” Also, “at night
when the job was done and curfew had not yet sounded, this life took on a somewhat
freer furtive air” (Wade 1964:144). As a result, an informal life developed among urban
enslaved Africans and African Americans. But the interpretive problem is “no memoir of
either white or black ever chronicled this life, but the complaints against it afford . . . an
occasional glimpse of its existence (Wade 1964:143). All of these factors led to the
loosening of the master’s control over the slave. But slavery could not have existed very
long without a system of controls, because those enslaved hated and resisted the system.
To control enslaved Africans and African Americans in the towns, local ordinances were
passed to supplement the general laws (McManus 1973:81). Also, different from
plantation life, urban enslaved Africans and African Americans specifically those in the
North, had the right to a jury trial in criminal cases and could bring freedom suits against
their masters (McManus 1973:82). These court records provide rich primary source
material in interpreting urban slavery. Other available resources mostly come from:
police dockets, real-estate conveyances, tax and assessment books, minutes of city
councils, grand jury presentments, state archives, early local newspapers, letters, and
slave narratives. But there are very few urban analogues similar to those of plantation
records (Wade 1964:283-284). One of the most prolific urban analogues of the urban
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 6
enslaved experience is Fredrick Douglass’Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass.
Urban slavery was inherently different from plantation slavery in that most enslaved
Africans and African Americans had lives outside their master’s houses; they had jobs,
independent living quarters, and a social structure. The only way the plantation system
could survive is if it was static. Plantations assured a kind of semi-isolation, which meant
that enslaved Africans and African Americans had contact with few neighboring peers.
This is where the major difference between urban and rural slavery is: on the plantation,
enslaved Africans and African Americans congregated at night in:
their quarters where they amused themselves, talked, sang,. . . But it was not the same social process. The overseer was seldom far away; everybody belonged to the same owner; all shared the same little world of events; no freedom mixed a new experience with theirs;. . . So countryside distances managed to confine life in a way the urban enclosure never could (Wade 1964:148).
The simple division between master and enslaved worker, kept the enslaved African or
African American under his control all the time. No area of independence was created.
Enslaved workers were also confined to primitive work at worst or acquired rudimentary
skills at best. Their contacts with whites were few and seldom lasting. Except for the
“infrequent trip to town or a neighboring farm, the possibilities of outside stimuli did not
exist” (Wade 1964:247). In these isolated conditions, family relationships were also
easier to keep together. With these circumstances, the most available resources for
interpreting plantation slavery are: plantation records, family manuscripts, records of
sale, wills, probate inventories, surviving slave quarters, and slave autobiographies. The
last of these is critically important to understanding the complexity of the institution of
slavery because “the distorted view of the plantation which emerges from planter records
is that of an all-powerful, monolithic institution which strips the enslaved African and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 7
African American of any meaningful and distinctive culture or family life (Blassingame
1972:vii).
Enslaved African and African American Culture in the Chesapeake Region
Frequently slavery in the South is portrayed as one monolithic institution where each
enslaved persons experience was similar (Morgan 1998:xvii). As previously discussed,
the institution was not monolithic because it differed in both rural and urban settings, but
there were also regional cultural differences in enslaved African and African American
culture. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there were two regional enslaved
African and African American cultures: the Chesapeake and the Lowcountry (Morgan
1998:xvii). The “two core colonies within each region—the earliest settled, the most
dominant politically, socially, and economically—were Virginia and South Carolina,
respectively” (Morgan 1998:xvii). Out of this Chesapeake region came many of the
enslaved African and African Americans who lived in Washington, D.C. and
Georgetown.
By the late seventeenth century, “Virginia had a plantation economy in search of a
labor force, whereas South Carolina had a labor force in search of a plantation economy”
(Morgan 1998:1). Virginia had a tobacco economy from the very beginning, and only
after its supply of indentured servants declined did the colony begin to recruit more
enslaved workers than servants (Morgan 1998:1). By the turn of the century, enslaved
Africans and African Americans played a “central role in the society’s productive
activities,” and formed a sixth of the Chesapeake’s colonial population (Morgan 1998:1).
For both regions, enslaved workers were brought over from the Caribbean originally
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 8
(Morgan 1998:2). However, by the late seventeenth century Africans began to arrive in
the Chesapeake. Between the “mid-1670s and 1700s, Virginia and Maryland imported
abousix thousand slaves direct from Africa, most arriving in the 1690s” (Morgan 1998:3).
The plantation system in the Chesapeake was built around tobacco.
The lengthy frost-free period (about 200 days in the tidewater and 180 days in the piedmont), stretching from early to mid April through middle to late October, permitted the transplanting in May and June and its harvesting in July and August. The predominance of fairly well drained soil also facilitated the spread of tobacco culture (Morgan 1998:33).
Tobacco plantations did not require a lot of capital to start up. They “could be set up
with no slaves at all, or with one or two, and certainly not more than ten” (Morgan
1998:36). A tobacco producer required “little capital equipment—tools, lumber, nails to
put up a tobacco shed.. .it was an ideal beginners crop because it could be grown on a
small scale” (Morgan 1998:36).
Next I will examine the life and culture of the enslaved African and African
Americans who lived in the Chesapeake region by examining material culture of housing,
dress, and diet. Additionally, I will examine the rise of domestic household enslaved
workers because they were prevalent in Georgetown during the Federal period.
First, “in the early years, a single structure generally sufficed to house the slaves.. .in
the Chesapeake, masters simply allocated slaves to structures” originally used by white
indentured servants (Morgan 1998:105). Eventually, more dormitory like structures were
built to house enslaved workers, and they were termed “quarter housing” (Morgan
1998:105). While enslaved African and African Americans lived in these separate
dwellings they also lived in work buildings, especially in the Chesapeake because of the
small labor force associated with tobacco plantations (Morgan 1998:107). The number of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 9
Chesapeake enslaved workers:
who lived in outbuildings can be approximated for two counties at the end of the [1700s].. .in 1785, a listing of the buildings belonging to more than two hundred householders in Halifax, Virginia, suggests that ‘quarters’ housed about one in ten slaves, cabins more than half, and kitchens and outbuildings the remaining third. In 1789, only 34 of the 1,400 households in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, had quarters; cabins were not mentioned, so perhaps the vast majority of this county’s slaves made their homes in the lofts of kitchens, com houses, outhouses, or similar work buildings (Morgan 1998:108).
The small size of most Chesapeake tobacco plantations did not allow for slaves to build
autonomous settlements, like their counterparts in South Carolina (Morgan 1998:120).
Second, the Chesapeake’s enslaved Africans and African American’s clothing paints a
picture of the conditions these individuals had to survive and live. Plantations owners
realized they had to provide some sort of clothing to keep their enslaved Africans and
African Americans alive and working (Morgan 1998:125). But there were no standards
for what clothing owners had to provide. A traveler in Virginia in 1732, “maintained that
masters annually provided each slave with a pair of shoes and ten yards of brown linen
for two shirts and two drawers” (Morgan 1998:125). On larger tobacco plantations adults
received “at least ten yards of cloth each year, “but on smaller estates scantier allocations
were probably the norm” (Morgan 1998:125). The most common cloth provided was
“coarse linens from Germany and inexpensive woolens from Britain” (Morgan
1998:126). Enslaved Africans and African Americans were able to vary their clothing.
First, some were able to use “dyes, patches, and edging” and those that had stronger kin
networks asserted more control over their clothing (Morgan 1998:128-129). There were
also differences between house servants and fieldworkers. “House servants consistently
wore more varied clothing than field hands. As the number of skilled and domestic
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 10
slaves rose, the range of slave clothing broadened rather than narrowed” (Morgan
1998:130).
Third, the Chesapeake’s enslaved Africans and African American’s lives can been
examined by the food they consumed. The diet of enslaved Africans and African
Americans consisted of maize as the staple with meat occasionally available. They drank
water and were afforded rum on occasion as well. Additionally, they supplemented their
diet by hunting, fishing, raising fowl and cultivating vegetables (Morgan 1998:134).
“Most Chesapeake masters provided their slaves with some meat or other protein, but it
was rarely a generous allowance.. .half a pound of meat of fish week became the standard
animal protein allowance on large plantations” (Morgan 1998:136). The type of meat
was not high-quality because “faunal remains at slave sites consist primarily of heads,
vertebrae, ribs, and feet” (Morgan 1998:136-137). Wild animals also supplemented their
diet, but in the Chesapeake they only consisted of 5 percent of animal bones (Morgan
1998:139). Enslaved Africans and African Americans also grew vegetables, masters
allowed them “’to plant little Platts for potatoes or Indian pease and Cimnells [a squash],
which they do on Sundays or [at] night” (Morgan 1998:140).
Next, I will examine the lives of household enslaved Africans and African Americans
in the Chesapeake region. Their lives and duties set the background for urban household
enslaved workers in Georgetown during the Federal period. Throughout the eighteenth
century, “increasing prosperity and larger plantations ensured that progressively more
slaves escaped the fields into household work” (Morgan 1998:244). Most household
enslaved workers were women and “no more than about 1 percent of the male workforce
served in a domestic capacity... [but] the elite house slaves were the personal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 11
manservants, or waiting men” (Morgan 1998:245). These Virginia male enslaved
domestic workers were very worldly:
Nineteen-year-old George, ‘genteel and well made’ and ‘as complete a waiting boy as perhaps any on the continent,’ spoke excellent English, wore fine clothes and even carried a brace of pocket pistols. Eighteen-year-old Robin, who had visited England as a waiting boy, had ‘delicate hands and feet and was ‘very fluent in speech’ (Morgan 1998:246).
While men stood at the top of the hierarchy of house enslaved workers, the majority were
still women. Some were employed in domestic activities such as cooking, childcare, and
cleaning (Morgan 1998:246). Others were employed in housewifery such as dairying,
raising poultry, marketing, and the manufacture and repair of cloth and clothing (Morgan
1998:246).
The lives of these enslaved Africans and African Americans in the Chesapeake region
set the pathway for the enslaved workers who then lived and worked in Washington, D.C.
and Georgetown during the Federal period.
Urban Slavery in Washington and Georgetown
The Legislature of Maryland approved the purchase of sixty acres of land from
George Gordon and George Beall in 1751, and named it the ‘town of George’ reportedly
after George II of Great Britain (Babb 1991:1). From Georgetown’s beginning, and
because it was a seaport, the slave trade flourished here. In 1760 “John Beattie
established his slave dealing business.. .in what is now the 3200 block of O Street.. .[he]
is also reported to have conducted auctions at Montgomery tavem, located diagonally
across the street from what is now the 1300 block of Wisconsin Ave” (Babb 1991:2).
In the census of 1800, Georgetown had “1449 slaves and 277 free blacks out of a total
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 12
population of 5,120” (Babb 1991:2-3). In 1810 “there were 1,161 slaves and
approximately 551 free blacks” with a total population of 4,948 (Babb 1991:6). The total
population is smaller in Georgetown in 1810 because the 1800 census included additional
areas of Montgomery County (Babb 1991:2-6).In 1850 the slave trade was banned , and
then in 1862 President Lincoln freed the enslaved Africans and African Americans in
Washington City and Georgetown, through compensated emancipation (Babb 1991:14-
19). In the 1870 census, the black population was 3,271 and the total population was
11,384 (Babb 1991:16).
Georgetown’s type of slavery typified that of most urban enslaved Africans and
African Americans in metropolitan cities. Many enslaved workers were “hired out” by
their masters and they lived in Georgetown in “lofts, stables, attics, alleys, or shacks”
(Babb 1991:3). Some enslaved workers did earn a small allowance for their work and
were able to buy their freedom, but most masters kept any wages they earned. Those that
earned money might be able to buy their freedom, but most enslaved Africans and
African Americans who were freed were done so in the wills of their masters (Babb
1991:3). As a result, there were free blacks in Georgetown (see census numbers above).
The free blacks in Georgetown also included “indentured servants, free immigrants,
those bom of free parents, those whose relatives had bought their freedom.. .and those
that had successfully escaped slavery by posing as free persons” (Babb 1991:3). Free
blacks were not really free. They were subject to laws and Black Codes that restricted
their lives. The Georgetown Corporation provided a list of ordinances in 1811 that
included different restrictions for free blacks. One of these laws was a speeding law
passed in 1795 that “provided for a fine of 15 shillings ‘if a freeman’ and of ‘seven
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 13
shillings, six pence if an apprentice, indentured servant, or slave”’ (Babb 1991:3). Free
blacks were also denied “the right to assemble in groups of seven or more” (Babb
1991:3).
Additionally, there were laws in the Washington regarding runaway enslaved Africans
and African Americans. One included “the right of a white person to legally ‘shoot, kill,
and destroy’ a suspected runaway enslaved African and African American. If a runaway
was caught she or he could be whipped, cropped, or branded with an ‘R’ on the right
cheek” (Cavanaugh 2001:159).
These are some of the laws that provided the milieu that enslaved Africans and
African Americans and free blacks lived in in Washington and Georgetown during the
Federal Period. Next I will examine how the historic house museums in Washington,
D.C. are currently exhibiting and interpreting the lives of those enslaved.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 3
THEORIZING REPRESENTATIONS OF SLAVERY IN MUSEUMS
In 2002 an in-depth study was published which examined how southern historic sites
are presenting and interpreting slavery through their tours and programs. By visiting one
hundred and twenty-two former southern plantation sites, Jennifer Eichstedt and Stephen
Small, inRepresentations o f Slavery (2002) have constructed a typology about how
museums interpret slavery. Their main argument is that most of the sites they have
researched tell a story of American history that “centers around whites, males, and elites,
and that these sites minimize the presence, labor, and lives of enslaved Africans and
African Americans” (Eichstedt and Small 2002:4). The four representational strategies
they constructed are: symbolic annihilation and erasure, trivialization and deflection,
segregation and marginalization, and relative incorporation. Symbolic annihilation
occurs in cases where slavery and the enslaved are either completely absent or where
mention of them is “negligible, fleeting, or perfunctory.” These museums use
euphemisms like servants and servitude, as well as, the passive voice and neutral
pronorms, to talk about slavery (Eichstedt and Small 2002:107). The second strategy,
trivialization and deflection, attempts to trivialize the significance and experience of
slavery by presenting it as a benevolent institution, and referring to owners/traffickers as
good intentioned and hard working, while dismissing the enslaved African’s and African
American’s labor (Eichstedt and Small 2002:147). The third strategy, segregated
14
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 15
knowledge, incorporates knowledge of slavery and those enslaved into segregated special
tours or separate places within the site. In order to learn about slavery visitors have to
choose to go on one of these (Eichstedt and Small 2002:171). The last category, relative
incorporation, represents institutions that make an obvious effort to incorporate issues
regarding slavery and those enslaved throughout the entire site. Museums in this
category will also present the complex institution of slavery from both points of view.
Additionally, the authors point out that none of these categories is static for each
museum, and the category that the tour and museum fall into can simply depend on the
docent guiding the tour (Eichstedt and Small 2002:203-204).
In the following chapters I will take this typology and evaluate five DC historic house
museums to see what representational category they currently fit into. During my
research, I paid close attention to the permanent exhibits and published material as well
as the language the docents used in regards to discussing slavery at each site. As
Eichstedt and Small state in their study, regardless of what permanent material culture is
exhibited, how slavery is interpreted can solely hinge on the docent leading the tour.
At the end ofRepresentations of Slavery Eichstedt and Small make a call out to
museum, historic preservation, and cultural resource management professionals, to apply
their findings to ones own institution. They make the case in their study that issues of
race and slavery have been ignored or poorly interpreted for too long. The stories being
told at historic sites are on sided and not historically accurate. I hope that the following
case studies, especially the in-depth one at Dumbarton House, is a step in the right
direction. I realize this is only a first step in a long process of a reinterpretation plan at
Dumbarton House, but it will give the staff the information they need to move forward.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS OF WASHINGTON, D.C. HISTORIC HOUSE MUSEUMS
The following are the evaluations of the four historic houses museums I researched
besides Dumbarton House. I chose these houses because they are Dumbarton House’s
museum peers and fit into the same Federal time period. I chose to examine the
Frederick Douglass House because Decatur House, Arlington House and Tudor Place are
all white-centric sites, while the Frederick Douglass House is black-centric.
Decatur House
Decatur House fits into the category of segregated knowledge in its interpretation of
urban slavery because it provides: a separate pamphlet, a separate exhibit, a separate
seasonal tour, and a regular tour that infrequently presents slavery. Decatur House is one
of the oldest surviving homes in Washington, D.C., and was completed in 1818 for naval
hero Stephen Decatur. In 2002-2003, the museum began to interpret slavery through a
brochure and an exhibition, funded by the United Planning Organization. The content of
the exhibition and the pamphlet were the same, and they told the story of one enslaved
African American, Charlotte Dupuy, who lived in the house. The exhibit also provided a
general overview of how enslaved workers and servants worked in the house, as well as,
a timeline of the African American experience in the city from 1800 to 1862. The
primary sources the museum used to interpret slavery for this exhibit were: a personal
letter between Charlotte’s owners, court records, architecture and layout of the house,
16
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 17
minutes of the D.C. City Council and Congress, and local laws known as Black Codes.
During a tour I took in 2003, the docent, who was paid staff, said she was the only docent
that “really talks about urban slavery” during her tours because she has an interest in it.
She stated that training consisted of memorizing the information available in the
pamphlet. During the tour, the docent did not mention slavery until we got to the exhibit
that was in the kitchen. She briefly mentioned what enslaved workers did in the room,
and allowed us time to read the exhibit labels.
In 2005, the museum now offers a new pamphlet titled, ’’Capital Contradictions: The
Untold Stories of Slavery at Decatur House” (also funded by the United Planning
Organization). The pamphlet offers most of the information from the old exhibit which is
a timeline of slavery in the city as well as, information regarding architecture and its
relationship to slavery. During the tour I recently took, the docent never mentioned
slavery at all. Only after the tour when I asked a question did she provide the pamphlet.
In June 2005, Decatur House began to offer a “Back Stair Tour.” The tour was
specifically about slavery. The tour was based on the information in the “Capital
Contradictions” pamphlet. The tour did feature the back staircase that servants and
enslaved workers would have used. The tour was excellent and heightened by the fact
that a party was going on at the same time. The docent and I got to experience what the
servants and enslaved workers would have while they were working during a party.
Additionally, Decatur House provides the content of this pamphlet regarding slavery on
their website-www.decaturhouse.org.
Lastly, Decatur House does have one educational program that deals with urban
slavery and that is for grades six through twelve called “same place, different time.” This
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 18
two-hour long program allows students to study the museum’s primary sources and
explore the history of Washington when the house was occupied between 1818 and 1956.
After this initial exploration, the program asks students to identify five changes that
occurred in Washington between 1818 and 1900; it asks them to describe what life was
like for children, enslaved Africans and African Americans, servants and adults during
this time; and then it ends with a group discussion of their answers (Decatur House [on
line resource] 2005). Overall, Decatur House does make an effort of including separate
tours and exhibits regarding slavery, but it has yet to relatively incorporate this
information throughout the museum.
Arlington House
At Arlington House, A National Park Service (NPS) site, slavery is interpreted in an
exhibit separate from the main house, and therefore fits into the category of segregated
knowledge. Arlington House, the home of Robert E Lee for over thirty years, functioned
as a plantation for over fifty years, and became a national memorial by Congress in 1925.
Originally, Arlington House was to be restored to its “condition immediately prior to the
Civil War,” but insufficient funding and flawed restoration in 1933 by the War
Department, had closed the slave quarters until recently (Byrne 2002:27). In 2000,
Arlington House received a Save America’s Treasures Grant for one hundred and fifty
thousand dollars which required matching private donations, but allowed for restoration
of the slave quarters (Byrne 2002:28). Annual visitation is between four hundred and
five hundred thousand, which 65% is national, and 25% international. Because of this
high volume of visitors, the tour, of both the mansion and the slave quarters, is self
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 19
guided with stationed interpreters, both paid staff and volunteers, in different rooms of
the house. The pamphlet that accompanies the self-guided tour provides directions and
descriptions of each room of the main house, but only mentions slavery twice. In the
description of the School and Sewing Room, it states that “[s]laves received their
education from Mrs. Custis and later from Ms. Lee. The slaves had been promised their
freedom in Custis’ will,” but it regrets to mention that they were not manumitted upon his
death. In describing the “Winter Kitchen,” it states it was “[e]quipped with a cookstove
and utensils typical of the period.. .. The area beyond the chimney was used as
laundry.” The text is written in the passive voice, and does not mention the enslaved
workers at all. At the end, it does provide directions to the slave quarters.
Additionally, in March 2001, an exhibit opened in the south slave quarters, “We Have
a Claim on This Estate.” This exhibit, which is still running, is split into three sections:
the first, provides an overview of slavery at Arlington House before the Civil War; the
second, describes the Civil War’s impact on the plantation and Freedman’s Village, a
community of former enslaved Africans and African Americans; the third, discusses the
community partnerships needed to secure the Save America’s Treasure Grant. The
primary sources available to interpret slavery at Arlington are: photos, portraits, maps,
numerous correspondences and diaries of Lee and Custis families, an enslaved worker’s
petition to Congress seeking title to land, an 1857 personal property inventory, a letter
from an emancipated female enslaved worker living in Liberia to Mary Lee, and first
hand accounts from the daughters of Selina Gray, an enslaved African American, about
the conditions of the house before the Civil War. The exhibit does acknowledge that
“most descriptions of Arlington and Freedmen’s Village come from white residents.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 20
Visitor’s reactions have been mixed to this exhibit. Some view it as “’an honorable
tribute to an unhonorable time in history . .. [some feel] a sense of ownership and
belonging” (Byrne 2002:28). Others express “outrage at the ‘second class’ status of the
slavery exhibit compared to Arlington House itself... . Many [believe] that the lack of air
conditioning in the slave quarters, and the absence of special signs directing them to the
exhibit” are deliberate (Byrne 2002:28). Regardless, the staff at Arlington House is not
only committed to interpreting slavery, they are also dedicated to teaching slavery to
children through their “Parks as Classrooms” programs.
These programs are successful for three reasons: they introduce slavery to students at
an early age, use the physical structure of the house to facilitate critical thinking, and
have interactive components that allow children to formulate their own conclusions about
slavery. The focus for younger students is on hands on activities, like scrubbing clothes,
and stacking wood, to impress upon them what enslaved workers did. For older children
the focus is similar, but they are expected to make more sophisticated conclusions about
the enslaved/owner relationship (Byrne 2000:10).
More recently, during the fall and summer of 2004, the National Park Service funded
a case study titled “Presenting Race and Slavery at Historic Sites: Arlington House,
Robert E. Lee National Museum.” The methodology of this project involved three areas:
1) Members of the research project team observed and recorded current interpretation practices at Arlington House. 2) Researchers interviewed Arlington House staff 3) Researchers conducted face-to-face interviews with visitors (Strait 2004:2).
The current slavery interpretation at Arlington House has not changed since the 2001
exhibit mentioned above. Slavery is not mentioned in the main house, but is exhibited in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 21
the slave’s quarters behind the house. Positively, the content that is in this exhibit is also
made available on their website-http://www.nps.gov/arho/tour/history/slavery.html
The staff interviews brought to light some of the main problems they deal with in
interpreting slavery. Both the site manager and site historian, Kendell Thompson and
Karen Kinzey respectively, agree that “because the site’s mission focus is directly tied to
Lee and his family, the subject of slavery and race are not always brought up unless
addressed by an individual interpreter or individual site visitor” (Strait 2004:12). The
main reason for this is that there are no guided tours because of the number of visitors.
“’[I]n terms of what the typical visitor would hear about slavery, it’s not as much as we’d
like because they’re gone in five minutes...it’s mostly focused on Lee” (Strait 2004:13).
They do mention that during African American history month the museum does offer
additional tours that focus on slavery. But overall they both agree that “slavery is not
accurately portrayed at the site.” Thompson is quoted,”4 there is still not going to be any
strong idea of what it was like to be the majority of enslaved African Americans on the
plantation... [because] we don’t have the where-with-all to tell the story” (Strait 2004:13).
The visitor interviews are equally insightful. Of the sixty visitors interviewed after
their visit, these were their responses to the following questions:
1) When touring the house did you learn anything about slavery? 10 Yes/50 No
2) Did you gain insight on the relationships between slaves and masters? Between slaves and slaves? 10 Yes/50 No
3) Did you learn anything new about race and slavery during your visit? 0 Yes/60 No
4) Do you think the topic of slavery should be presented in more or less detail? 26 Yes/12 No/25 No Answer (Strait 2004.: 14).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 22
These results point out the inherent issues with interpreting slavery at historic sites. First,
lack of resources prevents the site from making slavery interpretation a priority. Second,
all visitors come with different expectations. As result of these findings, Arlington
House, still fits into the category of segregated knowledge.
Tudor Place
Tudor Place was built in 1804 by Thomas Peter, the son of a successful Scottish
tobacco merchant who became the first mayor of the port of Georgetown (Tudor Place
2005: 1). Through my research I find that Tudor Place also fits into the category of
segregated knowledge in its interpretation of slavery because it is presented at a
provisional exhibit set up outside the kitchen, but it does do the best job of interpretation
out of all the house museums sampled. It is on its way to relative incorporation
throughout the site because it also presents slavery in exhibit labels in the outside
gardens. I observed two tours at Tudor Place, one in May of 2005, and the other in
October of 2005.
In May, the provisional exhibit setup outside the kitchen included photographs of
Charlie, a former enslaved African or African American at Tudor Place, who was “the
footman, who greeted family and visitors at the door and served food in the dining room
from Patty the cook’s kitchen” (Tudor Place 2005:4). According to the Education
Director, Tudor Place is lucky in that it has always been owned by one family, the Peter
family, from 1805 to 1984. As a result, the museum has an extensive archival collection
concerning the house and its residents. This provisional exhibit is excellent because the
docents stop to show the photograph and briefly discuss slavery at the house on each tour.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 23
In October, this provisional slavery exhibit was even more inclusive and detailed. The
museum had finished renovating the Butler’s Quarters and the slavery exhibit was moved
into there (the kitchen is still being renovated). Now instead of just one photograph there
are eight pictures of “enslaved workers,” the docents term, who were at Tudor Place. The
docent described each person by name and passed the pictures around. The docent also
discussed the history of slavery in Georgetown, and when it was abolished, as well as,
some history of the free black population. She also pointed out that the first resident here
Martha Parke Custis (Thomas Peter’s wife), one of four grandchildren of George and
Martha Washington, was willed ninety enslaved Africans and African Americans when
her parents passed away. It was a very comprehensive presentation of slavery, and was a
seamless transition during the tour. As the tour went upstairs she also discussed slavery
as it related to the Civil War and the Peter’s.
In the permanent exhibit labels in the outside gardens there are additional references to
slavery. The labels show a map of the garden where a frame house used to stand. It
states, “This is the house where enslaved seamstress Anne Gray lived.”
After the May tour, the Education Director stated that she is in the process of making
slavery relatively incorporated through out the tour, but she admits the process is
daunting, due to limited time and resources. But she does train her docents to stop at the
photographs and discuss the issues of slavery on every tour. She also agrees that
Representations o f Slavery is the best and most current theory on slavery interpretation
and she using it as a guide in improving Tudor Place’s interpretations. Tudor Place also
publishes two pamphlets, and both have a picture of Charlie, as well as, some information
regarding his duties. There is no separately published pamphlet on slavery. The one
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 24
setback Tudor Place has is that none of this information on slavery and servants is
available on their website-www.tudorplace.org.
Frederick Douglass House
The Frederick Douglass House, an NPS site, is different from the other three historic
houses because it relatively incorporates the issue of slavery throughout the site.
Douglass, a former slave and influential political leader, wrote not only his slave
narrative,Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American (which Slave he
edited in three versions), but also wrote and gave numerous speeches on issues from
slavery to reconstruction to women’s rights. During my site visit in May 2005, the tour
began at the visitor center, with two movies, (one shown in a large movie theater, the
other in an exhibit), focusing on Douglass’s life and the institution of slavery. There was
also a large exhibit with similar material.
During my tour of the house, unfortunately, the museum collection was not on display
because the house is currently going through an entire restoration process. Fortunately,
the guide did have pictures of each room fully furnished. The museum collection in
general lends itself to the discussion of slavery because they are pieces owned and used
by Douglass. For example, one item in the collection is Abraham Lincoln’s cane given
by Mrs. Lincoln after his assassination. Objects like Lincoln’s cane facilitates tour
guides and visitors to discuss slavery, emancipation, and the Civil War.
The museum offers two free publications: a booklet of frequently asked questions, and
a pamphlet on the history of the house and Douglass’s life. Slavery is a central theme in
both of these publications, as exemplified by a Douglass quote on the pamphlet’s front
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 25
page: “To those who have suffered in slavery I can say, I, too, have suffered.. .to those
who have battled for liberty, brotherhood, and citizenship I can say, I, too, have battled”
(NPS 2005:1). The National Park Service also makes this information available on the
web at-www.nps.gov/frdo. Additionally, there is a bookstore in the visitor center with
numerous books and other publications on Douglass’s life and other aspects of African
American history.
This research shows that none of the white-centric sites: Decatur House, Alrington
House, or Tudor Place relatively incorporate slavery throughout their public tours.
Contrastingly, the black-centric site, the Frederick Douglass House, had some aspect of
slavery relatively incorporated through the whole site: the visitor center, exhibit labels,
house tour, website, and bookstore.
These results prove that the interpretation slavery at these Washington, D.C. historic
sites still needs to be improved. They also show how difficult this process is due to lack
of staff, resources, and research materials. It is a slow process piecing together the story
of those enslaved at these sites. Nevertheless it is a necessary and crucial component to
interpreting the real history of these sites. In the next chapter I will present a more in-
depth case study on how Dumbarton House, a historic house museum in Georgetown,
currently presents the story of those enslaved.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 5
DUMBARTON HOUSE: A CASE STUDY ON PRESENTING SLAVERY
A History of the National Society of the Colonial Dames of America
The National Society of the Colonial Dames of America (NSCDA) was established in
1891 in Pennsylvania by descendants of Colonial leaders who believed in the need to
“investigate, to preserve, to restore and to commemorate the history of the Thirteen
Colonies and to teach their lessons of patriotism to the citizens of the future” (Lamar
1933:28). Their national headquarters are based at Dumbarton House. To accomplish
their goals the NSCDA first functions as an historical society. The NSCDA:
Publishes books of reference.. .and other sources of Colonial history. It seeks and preserves old records, family Bibles, wills [and] deeds. It builds monuments to mark, the sites of notable events in Colonial times; it locates, and affixes descriptive tablets to historic buildings, to the homes of Colonial heroes.. .it investigates, restores and preserves interesting Colonial houses, fills them with authentic furniture of the period and opens them to the public (Lamar 1933:30)
Three of their most significant projects are the restoration of an early church at
Jamestown, building of a landmark at Plymouth Rock, and the building of the Spanish
American War Monument in Arlington National Cemetery (NSCDA brochure:2).
Currently, the NSCDA and its forty-four Corporate Societies nationwide are affiliated
with sixty properties; forty-two of these are solely owned and managed by these
Corporate Societies (NSCDA brochure:2).
Second, the NSCDA offers “scholarships, lectures and prizes for the encouragement
26
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 27
of the study of the history of the Thirteen Colonies in schools” (Lamar 1933:30). The
NSCDA funds: scholarships for Native Americans to study nursing; scholarships to
elementary, high school, and college students studying American History; and
sponsorship for essay winners to attend the Washington Workshop Congressional
Seminar each year (NSCDA brochure:2).
Today, the NSCDA has chapters in 43 different states and D.C. which include almost
16,000 members (NSCDA brochure: 1). The NSCDA membership guidelines state:
“According to the By-Laws, members are admitted, among other qualifications, upon
descent from an ancestor, ‘who came to reside in an American Colony prior to 1776’ and
who ‘as a statesman or officer contributed to the achievement of American
Independence”’ (Lamar 1933:31). With this history of the NSCDA, and its strict
membership guidelines, it is important to examine the history of Dumbarton House, their
national headquarters, and how they interpret the other side of colonial history, those
enslaved, who were also instrumental in the achievement of “American Independence.”
A History of Dumbarton House
In 1927, the NSCDA “resolved, that this Council authorize the President to appoint a
Committee to take steps toward acquiring a home in Washington and be given power to
act in consultation with the National Officers” (Lamar 1933:184). The NSCDA Board
added, “ the Society should acquire an old, historic, Colonial House, in its domicile,
Washington City, and maintain it as a museum, or educational center, for the collection,
care and display of Americana of the Colonial Period”(Lamar 1933:185). The NSCDA
researched and discovered a house on Q Street at the time named Bellevue in
Georgetown. On October 1,1928 the NSCDA purchased the property for 185,000.00
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 28
and took title to the house which today is Dumbarton House (Lamar 1933:189-190).
Figure 1. Dumbarton House, Front View, 2005
The land that Dumbarton House was built on, and currently resides, was patented back
in 1703 by a Scottish immigrant named Ninian Beall, who named the land the “Rock of
Dumbarton.” In 1798 a developer, Samuel Jackson, bought the property and began to
construct a house (Dumbarton House Training Manual:23). Jackson went bankrupt and
the house went up for public auction where Joseph Nourse, the first Register of the
United States Treasury, purchased the land and finished the house in 1804 (Lamar
1933:186). The Nourse family lived there from 1804-1813. After the Nourses moved
out, “the home was bought and renamed ‘Belle Vue’ by Charles Carroll” in 1813
(Dumbarton House Training Manual:23). During the War of 1812, while the CarrolTs
resided at the house, they hosted Dolley Madison on August 24,1814, during her flight
from the White House and British invaders” (Dumbarton House Training Manual:23).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 29
Dumbarton House remained on its original foundation until its first major alteration in
1915.
In 1915, the house was moved back approximately fifty to one hundred feet from its
original location to make room for the construction of Q Street. Originally, the house
stood “on a bit of high ground directly in the middle of Q Street... when the beautiful
Dumbarton bridge was built over Rock Creek, Bellevue was moved back, by the District,
to the spot where it now stands. The two wings had no cellars, and could not be moved
with the house,” so they were taken down and rebuilt with the original materials (Lamar
1933:187).
Once the NSCDA bought Dumbarton House in 1928, they embarked on a mission to
restore the house to its original Federal period condition. In 1931, the first restoration of
Dumbarton House was completed under the direction of two men: a local architect
Horace W. Peaslee and consulting architect Fiske Kimball. Before the NSCDA
purchased the house, “the house had been heavily modified by the succession of
occupants since the Nourse family’s residency” (Dumbarton House Training Manual:
24).
These two architects, Peaslee and Kimball, made some significant restorations to the
house. First, they used an interior floor plan, “featuring a central passage with two rooms
on either side [which] has its origins in the earlier Georgian style... [this] floor plan
continued into the Federal period” (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 24). Second,
and of “particular architectural interest in the front passage is the ornamental plaster
cornice. The frieze below the cornice contains a wealth of neoclassical design, including
arabesques and classical urns,” see Figure 2 (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 24).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 30
Third, “the two rooms on the west side of the [central] passage also retain[ed] their
original decorative arts plaster cornices, indicating their status as public spaces for formal
entertaining” (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 24). Fourth, “The mantels
throughout the house were determined to not be original, they were replaced by period
mantels.. .of particular interest is the mantel in the dining room, which reportedly came
from the John Marshall House” (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 25).
Figure 2. Dumbarton House, Front Passage Cornice, 2005
Fifth, they updated the house’s mechanical equipment. They installed “an oil-burning
furnace, recess radiators, a humidifying device, and a fire-proof room and vault” (ibid:
25). Sixth, the grounds surrounding the house were also restored. “A retaining wall was
built on the east side of the property, a brick and stucco-panel wall.. .with neoclassical
temple inspired by William Kent was constructed on the north and west sides of the
property” (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 25). Seventh, the “gardens with period-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 31
appropriate plantings were laid out, gravel pathways were repaired and flagstone was
substituted for brick and tile on the terrace, walks, and steps” (Dumbarton House
Training Manual: 25). These additions to Dumbarton House’s backyard garden are
visible in Figure 3.
Figure 3. Dumbarton House, Backyard Garden, 2005
Dumbarton House’s museum collection consists of over a thousands unique
decorative arts pieces. Some of the highlights of the collection “includePortrait the of
the Benjamin Stoddert Children by Charles Wilson Peale, thePortrait o f Ann Rozier
Carroll by John Wollaston, [and] a Baltimore cylinder desk and bookcase” Dumbarton
House Training Manual: 26). The Dumbarton House museum finally opened to the
public on February 22,1932.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 32
In 1991 a second restoration took place in concurrence with the NSCDA centennial
anniversary. The National Society:
completed a $3 million expansion and renovation of the building.. .which included the excavation along the east end of the building and the construction of a public meeting space (Belle Vue Room), renovation to the [staff] offices and rest rooms, installation of an elevator,.. .relocation of the caretaker’s apartment from the west wing to the east wing, and the creation of two guest rooms in the west wing for use by visiting Dames. (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 26).
Additionally at this time, “the museum received the gift of nearly one thousand pages of
Nourse related archival material from a Nourse descendant and a member of the
NSCDA” (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 26). These documents have allowed staff
and researchers to not only learn more about the lives of the Nourse family but also the
lives of their slaves.
In 1991, the NSCDA also began to implement professional staff at Dumbarton House.
Prior to this the NSCDA employed a resident custodian in charge of public tours, caring
for the house, and assisting Dames. In 1991, they added two positions, that of
Administrator and Curator of Education (Dumbarton House Strategic Plan 2005:5). The
Administrator took over the custodian’s duties as well as, assisting the Dumbarton House
Board and acting as facility manager. The Curator of Education’s duties were to develop
a volunteer program and supervise the public tours. In 1992, a Marketing and Events
Director joined the staff, and in 1994 a Consulting Curator was hired to provide
collections “restoration, conservation and research guidance to the Board and museum
staff’ (Strategic Plan 2005:5). In 2000 the staff changed once again to what is it is
currently with the addition of a full-time Museum Curator. The addition of these
professional museum staff at Dumbarton House have moved the museum forward in its
interpretive plans and have allowed issues like slavery to become more present on the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 33
museum’s public tours and school programs.
Nourse Family History
Joseph Nourse, the First Register of the United States Treasury, was the NCSDA’s
choice for Dumbarton House’s interpretative focus. Joseph Nourse’s parents were James
and Sarah. James was bom in England in 1731 and married Sarah in 1753. Sarah
ultimately gave birth to twenty-one children, ten of which survived up until adulthood
(Dumbarton House Training Manual: 27). Wanting a better life for his family, James, in
March 1769, “left England on board the Libertyship with their nine children, two
servants, and 116 crates of family possessions” (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 27).
These two servants were most likely indentured. The family arrived in Virginia, and
settled in Berkley, where James established a plantation ‘’Piedmont,’ on which he grew
rye, wheat, and vegetables... [he also] utilized the labor of numerous enslaved Africans,
ensuring the successful operation of the plantation” (Dumbarton House Training Manual:
27). James was also very active in politics. In 1778 James was elected to the Virginia
House of Delegates (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 27). James political
connections helped his son Joseph throughout his own political career.
Joseph was bom on July 16,1754, and at the age of fifteen he came to America
(Dumbarton House Training Manual: 27). In 1776 he joined the Continental Army and
served as Military Secretary to General Charles Lee. By 1778 Nourse worked for the
Board of Treasury in Philadelphia, and four years later was appointed the first Register of
the Treasury and served in that capacity for six presidential administrations (Fitzgerald
1994:4-8). Joseph met his wife Maria Louisa Bull near his family farm in Virginia, and
they finally married on April 22,1784 (Fitzgerald 1994:6). The couple had six children,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 34
but only two of them lived to adulthood, Anna Maria Josepha Nourse and Charles
Josephus Nourse (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 29).
In 1804 Joseph moved into Dumbarton House, then called “Cedar Hill,” to continue
his position as Register of the Treasury. While the Nourse’s where there they had a
working urban farm. This “four-acre farm [had] four acres of adjoining lots which
Joseph purchased in 1808... [it] generated income from the sale of wheat, rye, and hay
and an occasional calf’ (Fitzgerald 1994:14). Nourse also built “a three-story carriage
house and stable, a combination smokehouse and dairy, an octagonal ice house, a shed,
and a privy” on the property, but none of them are standing today (Dumbarton House
Training Manual: 30). The Nourse’s owned several “enslaved Africans and employed
other free blacks to work the fields and to assist Maria Nourse with the daily operations
of the house (Dumbarton House Training Manual: 30). The family moved in 1813 to the
property that now features the Saint Alban’s Church and the Washington National
Cathedral. Joseph Nourse was fired under President Andrew Jackson in 1828. He
ultimately died in 1841 (Fitzgerald 1994:16-20).
Enslaved Africans and African Americans Owned or Employed by the Nourse Family
Current research from the Nourse family archives at Dumbarton House show that the
Nourse’s owned or employed a total of thirteen enslaved Africans or African Americans,
of which two were hired help. These enslaved workers can be grouped into categories of
assigned duties: those outside the house, house slaves, cooks, unknown, and hired help.
First, Juba, Fran, Peter, and Black Peter were enslaved workers with duties outside the
house, such as gardening, market shopping, and working in the field (Johnson 2004:1-3).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 35
In correspondence from Charles Nourse to Joseph Nourse June 9, 1805, “’Fran and D. are
going to do wonders in the garden—and Juba’s work will astonish you’” (Johnson
2004:1). Peter is mentioned in a letter from Joseph to Maria on August 2,1804 stating
that “Peter is preparing ground for Turnips” (Johnson 2004:3). Similarly, on August 10,
1804correspondence between Joseph and Maria states,” The Potatoes on this day
receiving the Plough of Black Peter, who brought down the butter from Dolly’s, this
morning—this same Black Peter is an industrious fellow” (Johnson 2004:3). So far there
is no indication that Peter and Black Peter are the same person, but further research will
hopefully clear this up.
Next, Jane and Frank were house enslaved workers and worked in close proximity to
the Nourses. Jane was the main house servant and supervised some of the other enslaved
workers. She was also in charge of the Nourse outstanding accounts, in a letter from
Joseph to Maria Nourse August 2, 1804 he states,’” Jane is to give me a weekly account
of sales to be sent to you’” (Johnson 2004:2). Frank was a personal assistant to Joseph
Nourse. “’Mr. Frank was I suppose the better for his Masters want of appetite, and I.. .on
the influence of good company, a kind Cook, a thought on what you please on the organs
of digestion,”’ Joseph writes to Maria August 1,1804 (Johnson 2004:1). Here Joseph
relates that Frank is the one in charge of his meals.
The Nourse’s also owned two enslaved Africans or African Americans who were
cooks, Dinah and Polly. Polly and Dinah are mentioned in Nourse family papers in
relation to preparing and cooking food. Joseph to Charles Nourse, “’I should have
mentioned that she is now partaking of a fine chicken one of four Polly had ready for us’”
(Johnson 2004:3). Next, Joseph writes to Maria, “Richard came down yesterday with a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 36
bag of apples which Dinah is pairing for to be dined”’ (Johnson 2004:2). But the
Nourse’s and Dinah did have conflict. In a letter from Joseph to Charles Nourse, August
17,1805, Joseph writes:
Dinah the day after you left home took it into her head to leave her Child... Your Mother will hardly be induced to receive her again and it is not improbable but that the State of Georgia may receive and acquisition in an able bodied Slave—the leaving of her Childrens is an evidence of her wickedness that is not common even among her complexion” (Johnson 2004:2).
This correspondence is telling because it provides insight into the Nourse’s relationship
with one of their enslaved workers. Joseph’s relationship with Dinah is not a benevolent
one. The letter doesn’t really explain where or why Dinah left her child—maybe Dinah
ran away? What it does do, is offer insight into Joseph’s feeling of race. The last
sentence when he states, “the leaving of her Childrens is an evidence of her wickedness
that is not common even among her complexion,” shows that he believes someone’s
“wickedness” differs based on their complexion. He also insinuates that there is a moral
hierarchy, with white at the top, enslaved Africans and African Americans on the bottom,
and then Dinah, for what she did with her children, even below that.
Next, Will and Betsy are two enslaved Africans or African Americans whose duties in
the Nourse household are still unclear. Joseph discusses them in a letter to Maria,
October 10, 1810. He states, “’Your affairs go on as well perhaps as they could do in
your absence Dinah much engaged her business, and quiet-the girls without noise, and
Betsy pursues the harmless tenor of her way.. .Little Will, does as little as may be, but his
master may do better with him’” (Johnson 2004:3).
Next, the Nourses did pay for hired help. The two enslaved workers they hired were
Richard and Daniel. Richard was hired to work for them in 1804 and Daniel in 1814
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 37
(Johnson 2004:4). Lastly, the Nourse’s did have one enslaved African or African
American that didn’t make the move with them to Georgetown. Joseph writes to Maria
August 5,1804, “’I have often thought of Bachus—I hope he will not forget my praying
with him and for him—he cannot forget his Miss Sepha’s kind attention: Your servants
here were all at Church—too many Whites were absent” (Johnson 2004:4). These are the
enslaved Africans who worked and lived at Dumbarton House during the Nourse family
occupancy. Next, I will discuss the results of an evaluation of how these individuals are
presented on the museum’s current public tours and school programs.
Dumbarton House Analysis
In the context of the other historic house museums already evaluated, where does
Dumbarton House fit in? Dumbarton House fits into the category of trivialization and
deflection. The following case study which includes visitor survey results, public tour
and school program observations, strategic plan evaluation, and a bookstore evaluation,
will show that while the museum is in the process of improving their slavery
interpretation, currently it trivializes the significance of slavery to the overall functioning
of the house as an urban farm during the Federal period.
In July 2004, Dumbarton House staff carried out a survey of visitors to determine
demographic information, visitors’ interests, visitor’s reason for visiting, and visitor’s
previous knowledge of Federal period history and Dumbarton House (Pastides 2004:1).
The survey consisted of thirteen multiple choice questions with one open ended question
and was distributed to visitors during a full week (Tuesday through Saturday) and a
special event in celebration of the 250th birthday of Joseph Nourse. There were a total of
fifty-seven surveys collected, twenty during the regular museum hours and thirty-seven
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 38
during the special event (Pastides 2004:1-2). The findings of these surveys paint a vivid
picture of who visits Dumbarton House and why. According to these surveys:
• 72% of the visitors were female, while 28% were male • 49% of the visitors were from the Washington, DC metro area, while 51% were not • 74% of these visitors had college or graduate level degrees • 88% were first time visitors • 70% had some knowledge about decorative arts and antique furniture • 51% enjoyed learning about social history (Pastides 2004:2-3).
As these numbers show, the most frequent and likely visitor to Dumbarton House is a
first-time visitor who is educated, female, and knowledgeable about decorative arts and
antique furniture. These numbers also point to the fact that Dumbarton House has both
local and national visitors. One of the most interesting findings in this survey was that
fifty-one percent of visitors enjoyed learning about the social history of Dumbarton
House and Georgetown. While most visitors came with a knowledge of decorative arts
and antiques there was still an interest about the social context surrounding these
decorative arts. Slavery is a key component to the social context of Dumbarton House
and its decorative arts collection. A visitor survey which I conducted in May
2005, solely looked at visitor’s interest and concern for interpreting slavery at Dumbarton
House.
The purpose of the Dumbarton House visitor survey regarding slavery was to gauge
visitor’s interest in the subject, as well as, assess their museum tour experience. The
survey was conducted during the second week of May 2005 during Dumbarton House’s
regular museum hours, Tuesday through Saturday 10am-2pm. One surveyor was
stationed outside the museum entrance each day. Visitors were asked to complete the
survey as they exited and offered a free museum pass and a note card featuring the house.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 39
A total of sixteen surveys were completed. While this number appears low, it does
correlate to the average number of weekly Dumbarton House visitors, which in 2004, was
thirty-eight (Dumbarton House Strategic Plan 2005:6). There was also an issue where
groups, especially family groups, only agreed to fill out one survey for the entire group,
this led to a low number of completed surveys. The survey consisted of these six
questions:
1) During the tour of the house, did you learn anything about the lives of servants and slaves during the 1800s?
2) Did you gain any insight on the relationships between servants and slaves, and the Nourse family?
3) Do you think the topic of slavery should be presented in more detail?
4) Would you like to see publications regarding slavery available for sale at the house?
5) Reason for visiting Dumbarton House today?
6) Are you from the Washington,. DC metro area? If not, where are you visiting from?
While only sixteen surveys were completed, they still reveal important trends in visitor’s
attitudes about interpreting slavery at Dumbarton House.
Here are the results: Question one asked visitors what they learned about slavery and
servitude generally during the 1800s, thirty-one percent stated they learned something,
but sixty-three percent said they did not. Question two asked specifically about the
Nourse family and their relationship to slavery and servants. Thirteen percent of visitors
said they learned something, eighty-one percent said they did not. These findings point
out the current state of slavery interpretation on Dumbarton House’s tours is: slavery and
servitude are mentioned by docents only in a general sense (and only on a third of the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 40
tours) and the relationship between the Nourse family and their enslaved workers and
servants is rarely discussed.
Figure 4. Dumbarton House Visitor Survey Results Chart, May 2005 Question 1 Percentage 2 Percentage 3 Percentage4 Percentage Yes 5 31% 2 13% 8 50% 5 31% No 10 63% 13 81% 6 38% 9 56% N/A 1 6% 1 6% 2 13% 2 13% Total 16 100.00% 16 100% 16 100% 16 100%
The findings of questions three and four reflect the visitor’s interest in learning more
about slavery. Fifty percent of visitors stated they would like slavery presented in more
detail on the tour, while fifty percent either would not or failed to answer this question.
There were similar results for question four. Only thirty-one percent of visitors would
like to see publications for sale in the bookstore regarding slavery. Sixty-nine percent of
visitors did not want to see slavery publications for sale, or failed to answer this question.
The comments to these questions are very insightful. Visitors said this about interpreting
slavery on the tour:
• “Yes, where did they work? Freedoms? Where did they live? Education?” • “It would be good to know how a family managed this place-who helped?” • “Well, what was Nourse’s role in slavery or the Trade. Did he make money? Was he against it? Is this a factor in his success, etc. If not, it is not very important to me!”
These comments are important because they point out what type of information regarding
slavery visitors are curious about and why.
Question five revealed that visitors visited for two specific reasons. First, was an
interest in history and historic house museums, and the second, was they were on
vacation and found it in a tour guide book. All the responses centered on those two
reasons. Question six showed that eighty-one percent of visitors where not from the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 41
Washington DC metro area.
This survey demonstrates that slavery and servitude is infrequently discussed and
interpreted by docents on Dumbarton House’s current public tours.
The next step in this case study is an evaluation of Dumbarton House’s public tours
and school programs. A total of eleven programs were examined, six public tours, and
five school programs. Each tour and school program was led by a different docent. The
evaluations were conducted during the months of May and June 2005. I completed all
the evaluations by observing each tour and school program, and recording each time a
fact about slavery was presented. Prior to my observations, I spoke with the docents and
museum teachers on each tour so they were aware of my research objectives.
The museum trains their volunteer docents to discuss slavery during the tours, but it
does not require it. The museum guidelines reference the slaves and servants of the
house a total of three time. First, in the Lower Passage the guidelines state the Windsor
chairs in the hall could have been used for “servants to wait their tasks for the day”
(Dumbarton House Volunteer Manual:Lower Passage). Second, the guidelines state the
Music Room would have served as Mrs. Nourse’s chamber. She would have managed
the servants from this room. Third, for the Upper Passage the guidelines state that “a
number of slaves and servants helped the Nourses run their urban farm and household
during the Federal period.” Additionally, this space could be used as sleeping space for
the servants (Dumbarton House Volunteer Manual .‘Upper Passage).
The public tours of Dumbarton House begin in the Visitor Center with an introductory
video and exhibit panels. This ten minute video covers the history of Washington and
Georgetown as well as the NSCDA. It also discusses the history of the museum and the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 42
two prominent families who resided there, the Nourse family and the Carroll family. The
video commentator does state that, “there are so many secrets contained in these walls,”
but there is absolutely no mention of slavery or servitude in the video. The only time
race is presented is when the African American school children are shown dressed in
period clothing during their school program.
A second part of the tour is an exhibit in the Visitor Center. The exhibit consists of
some Federal period furniture, and Nourse family artifacts as well as three exhibit panels
that contain information on Dumbarton House, the Federal period 1790-1830, and Joseph
Nourse. None of these panels has any reference to slavery or servitude. The first panel
does offer information about how Joseph Nourse “enclosed the nearly five acres
surrounding the home with a low brick wall and constructed several out buildings on the
property, including a three-story carriage house and stable, privy, ice house, dairy and
smoke house.” This panel offers visitors insight into what the house and property looked
like during the Federal period but not how it functioned with the labor of slaves. Once
the visitors see the movie and exhibit panels, the docent begins the tour in the house.
Out of the six tours I observed (each with different docents), slavery was discussed by
the docents eighteen times. The two rooms where slavery was discussed the most, five
times each, were the Lower Passage and the Upper Passage. The average number of
slavery points discussed on the tours was three. The two rooms that had no discussion of
slavery on any tour were the Dining Room and the Blue Parlor Room. While every tour
had at least one point of discussion on slavery, none of them addressed any of the specific
enslaved workers by name. Only once did a docent mention the number of enslaved
workers that were at Dumbarton House. The docent stated nine, but there are actually
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 43
thirteen.
A total of nine different details about slavery were discussed by docents. In the Lower
Passage docents pointed out how “slaves” would clean the floor cloth, answer the door
and greet visitors, and move furniture so the Nourse’s could use the space for
entertaining. In the Music Room docents brought up that Mrs. Nourse would direct the
houses affairs and the “slaves” from here. In the Upper Passage, the docents discussed
the urban farm outside, that slaves would take care of the children, and that there is an
African American cemetery behind Dumbarton House. In the Dining Room Chamber,
one docent, in reference to the secretary desk made in Baltimore, discussed how
Baltimore was a large center for the slave trade. In the Library Chamber, docents
referenced that “slaves” would be the ones to empty the chamber pots.
Figure 5. Dumbarton House Public Tour and School Program Evaluation Results Chart, 2005 School Combined Results Public Tours Programs Results
Intro (school program only) N/A 2 2 Lower Passage 5 4 9 Library 1 1 2 Dining Room 0 0 0 Music Room 3 3 6 Blue Parlor 0 1 1 Landing/Upper Passage 5 2 7 Dining Room Chamber 1 1 2 Library Chamber 2 1 3 Blue Parlor Chamber 1 0 1 Total 18 15 33
These tour observations show that currently the docents are not using the current
slavery research on their tours that includes specific enslaved workers names and their
duties. Visitors are getting an inaccurate sense of how important slavery was during the
Nourse occupancy to the functioning of this house.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 44
Dumbarton House’s current school programExplore 1805! is geared toward fourth
and fifth grade Washington, DC metro school students. The foundation of this program
is based on three core principles: The first is that learning about America’s past will help
to create citizens with an understanding of this nation’s underlying civic virtues of
equality and freedom. Second, students will be able to comprehend history by
experiencing that life, rather than just reading about it. Third, by creating a meaningful
experience for students in a historic house, it will foster their awareness of historical
appreciation and create preservation-minded adults (Dumbarton House Lesson Plan
2004:1). In addition to these underlying core principles, this school program’s
objectives for students are for them to be able to:
• Compare and contrast an early 18th century house to today’s houses • Describe how their lives would be different in thefh 19 century • Report findings from Federal period primary sources • Identify the types of people who would have lived and/or worked in Dumbarton House and their responsibilities. (Dumbarton House Lesson Plan 2004:1).
Both these core principles and program objectives require the program to include
information about slavery. According to museum guidelines, there are four rooms where
the museum teachers should include slavery during their programs: the Front Passage, the
Dining Room, the Landing, and the Library Chamber. Slavery discussion points are
offered for each of these rooms. In the Front Passage, the guidelines suggest the teachers
discuss that the slaves and servants would wait in the back of the passage for their daily
tasks (Dumbarton House Lesson Plan 2004:2). In the Dining Room, the guidelines
suggest discussing the roles slaves and servants had in serving and cooking meals
(Dumbarton House Lesson Plan 2004:3). On the Landing, teachers are supposed to
discuss how Dumbarton House functioned as an urban farm during the Nourse’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 45
occupancy and that the slaves were the essential part to making the farm function
productively (Dumbarton House Lesson Plan 2004:4). Lastly, in the Library Chamber,
the museum guidelines recommend that teachers discuss the slaves and servants chore of
emptying out the chamber pots.
In 2004, the museum updated its museum teacher guidelines regarding slavery. Here
are the new additions to the guidelines as presented to the Dumbarton House board on
September 30, 2004:
• Students learn about servants, slaves, and class issues in the classroom—DO NOT ignore questions about slavery or servants. The following information should be included in your tour even if the students don’t specifically ask about it. • Many servants and slaves helped to run Dumbarton House during the Federal period. • We know that Joseph Nourse did purchase slaves, but we do not know how many he owned, nor do we know how many servants at Dumbarton House were slaves, freed blacks, or whites. They may have included all 3 groups. • It was common in Washington at this time to own only a few slaves, but to rent out more from other owners to help work the fields and run the estate. • The names of servants/slaves that we have discovered so far included: Dinah, Moses, Black Peter, and Jane. • It was common to house servants and slaves in quarters over the kitchen or in outbuildings. The Nourse family probably utilized both spaces (Dumbarton House Lesson Plan 2004. :1).
While these are the basic museum guideline suggestions for discussing slavery during the
school programs, next are the results of what actually was discussed on five public school
programs each led by a different museum teacher. The museum teachers I evaluated
were currently aware of these changes to the guidelines before the program observations
took place.
Of the five school programs evaluated, slavery was presented a total of fifteen times.
Each school program had slavery presented at least twice. The two rooms where slavery
was discussed the most were the Lower Passage, four times, and the Music Room, three
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 46
times. There were two rooms where slavery was not mentioned at all, the Dining Room
and Blue Parlor Chamber. There were five specific facts about slavery at Dumbarton
House that the museum teachers presented. They were that “slaves”: would empty the
chamber pots, answer the door and greet visitors, work the farm, wait for instructions
from Mrs. Nourse in certain rooms, and serve tea (always discussed in the Music Room
by the tea service).
Looking at the combined results of both the public tour and school program
evaluations brings some important points to light. First, the two rooms slavery was
discussed the most were the Lower Passage, a combined total of nine times, and the
Landing, a combined total of seven times. The only room where slavery was never
mentioned either on a tour or school program was the Dining Room. This is interesting
since the museum guidelines for the school programs offers slavery talking points for this
room. Second, and more positively, each tour and program had at least one slavery
discussion point. This is even more relevant since each tour and program was led by a
different docent or museum teacher. So the eleven docents and teachers who led these
programs each interpreted slavery in some way, if only once.
The next step in this case study is an evaluation of Dumbarton House’s strategic plan.
To begin, the mission of the Dumbarton House museum, “is to preserve the historic
structure and its collections and to educate the public about life in Washington, D.C.,
during the early years of the Republic. In their vision statement the Board emphasizes
the need “to expand educational and public programs to serve a larger and more diverse
audience” (ibid.:4) The Board is more specific in its guiding principles, stating “the
museum strives for historical accuracy throughout its interpretation; Dumbarton House
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 47
values the history of all who owned, lived in, or worked in this house, and respects the
right of all DC area residents to have equal access to their past” (Ibid.:4).
In September 2005, the Dumbarton House Board approved a long-range plan for the
museum to guide it through 2011. In April 2004, an ad-hoc Long Range Planning
Committee was established to collect data and identify critical issues for the museum.
The Board identified six critical issues, one of them being that the museum period rooms
and their interpretation are in need of updating (ibid.:3). This issue involves interpreting
slavery at the museum. The Board states the importance of presenting slavery at the
museum under:Critical Issue 11-Education and Interpretation/Goal C-Improve
interpretation to accurately reflect the history of Federal period Georgetown and all
people who lived and worked at Dumbarton House then (ibid.: 13-14). Goal C(3) states:
• Continue to research servants and enslaved workers at Dumbarton House during the Federal period • Integrate findings into school programs and general public tours • Develop specific focus tours or public programs (ibid.: 14).
This strategic plan acknowledges the inadequacy of the current slavery interpretation and
states guidelines for the future. This plan has set up a path towards relative incorporation
of slavery throughout the museum.
The final step in this case study is an evaluation of the museum’s bookstore. The
bookstore offers publications for sale in the visitor center. There are eight publications
available:
1) “Great American Treasures” NSCDA brochure or properties 2) “Dolly at Dumbarton” exhibit catalogue 3) “In Search of Joseph Nourse 1754-1841” exhibit catalogue 4) “Introduction with Amusement: Children at Dumbarton House 1790-1830” exhibit catalogue 5) Georgetown Houses of the Federal Period 6) My Family Tree Workbook: Genealogy for Beginners
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 48
7) Antiques Magazine (issue featuring Dumbarton House) 8) American Family o f the Federal Period (workbook with paper doll cut outs)
The first five publications mention slavery in some capacity. None of them go into great
detail. Only the “In Search of Joseph Nourse” catalogue mentions the Nourse’s
relationship to slavery. In the “Children at Dumbarton House” catalogue, there is
reference to slavery in Georgetown and the limited education available for slave and free
African-American children. In the other three publications the mention of slavery is
fleeting at best. The other three publications have no mention of slavery or servitude at
all. Since none of these publications offers more than a paragraph on slavery, there is
definitely a need for additional material on slavery like the other Washington, DC historic
house museums offer.
After examining the results of the visitor survey, public tour and school program
observations, strategic plan evaluation, and the bookstore evaluation, Dumbarton House
currently has both positive and negative aspects to its current slavery interpretation.
Positively, the docents presented slavery at least once on all the observed tours and
slavery is an integral part of the museum’s long-rang interpretation plan. The negative
aspects are that on the observed tours, slavery was only interpreted in a general sense and
no specific enslaved African and African American names were ever presented. This is
the key component to why the museums current tours and programs fit into the
representational category of trivialization and deflection.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 6
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SLAVERY INTERPRETATION AT DUMBARTON HOUSE
The following are recommendations for making slavery more inclusive throughout
Dumbarton House’s public tours and school programs. First is a listing of all the slavery
facts recorded during the public tour and school program observations combined with
additional interpretative suggestions (while all the docents used the term slave, in this
chapter I will be using the term enslaved Africans and African Americans or enslaved
worker for reasons specified in the Introduction). Second are four specific suggestions
for how Dumbarton House can directly improve their current slavery interpretation.
Lower Passage
In the Lower Passage, there were five commonly discussed facts regarding enslaved
workers at Dumbarton House. First, is that enslaved workers would greet visitors,
specifically Jane, the main house enslaved workers, and Frank, Mr. Nourse’s personal
enslaved workers (Johnson 2004:1 -2). Second, is that enslaved workers would be
responsible for cleaning the painted canvas floorcloth accession #98.24. Third, is
enslaved workers would be responsible for moving the furniture to make space for
entertaining guests. Fourth, is that in front of the archway (see Figure 7), the public
space, has a decorative cornice, while the back section by the stairs, the private space, has
no decorative cornice (see Figure 8). Enslaved workers would greet visitors, and ask
49
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 50
them to wait in the public space, but slaves would wait for their instructions in the back
of the archway, the private space.
Figure 6. Dumbarton House, Lower Passage, 2005
Fifth, the enslaved workers would be responsible for cleaning and lighting the two-light
Argand chandelier, accession #99.17. The specific enslaved Africans or African
Americans to be mentioned in this room are, Jane and Frank.
Figure 7. Front Archway Cornice, 2005 Figure 8. Back Archway, 2005
Library
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 51
In the Library Chamber there are two pieces of the collection that offer ways to
discuss slavery. First is the portrait of James and Sarah Nourse c.1754, accession #91.1
(see Figure 9). This painting portrays a wealthy couple. Her dress and jewelry, and his
clothes and pen (symbol of his education) all speak to the wealth of the couple. This
portrait allows for interpreting the Nourse’s wealth, which allowed them to own enslaved
workers. Docents can also discuss Joseph’s family plantation in Piedmont.
Figure 9. James and Sarah Nourse Figure 10. The Washington Family. 1803-1850
Second is the copy of Edwards Savage’s The Washington Family on glass, accession
#33.19. The painting is of the Washington family and includes one of their enslaved
workers. The Nourse’s might have owned a similar painting because of Washington’s
stature as a hero. During one of the school programs, when asked about their heroes,
school children repeatedly answered names of Harriet Tubman, Mary McLeod Bethune,
and Frederick Douglass. This painting is an opening for discussing slavery and abolition
in more depth (see Figure 10). Again the specific enslaved Africans and African
Americans to be discussed here are Jane and Frank. They would have assisted Mr.
Nourse if he was working in this room.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 52
Dining Room
Slavery should be presented here because it is integral to the function of the room.
The Nourse family would have ate and entertained here, and the Nourse enslaved workers
made that happen (see Figure 11). The specific enslaved workers who worked in the
house should be mentioned: Jane, Frank, Dinah (cook), and Polly (cook) (Johnson
2004:1-2).
Figure 11. Dumbarton House, Dining Room, 2005
There is one painting, the C.W. Peale painting, The Beniamin Stoddard Children.
accession # 36.50, which has a background showing the Georgetown port and the
Potomac River (see Figure 12), that allows for a discussion of slavery.
This painting allows for the following discussion points. First, Georgetown was a
successful port, especially for tobacco. “About 1745 George Gordon built an inspection
house for tobacco at the foot of what is now Wisconsin Ave. The site.. .was a busy
terminus., .along which huge casks of tobacco, picked by slaves at remote up-river
plantations, were hauled on barges or wagons” (Babb 1991:1). At this same time, “nearly
a third of the population of Maryland.. .were Africans and African Americans who had
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 53
been imported to work as slaves on tobacco plantations (Babb 1991:1). Additionally,
according to the United States census of 1800, Georgetown including areas outside of its
current boundaries, had 1,449 slaves and 277 free blacks out of a total population of
5,120 (Babb 1991:3).
Figure 12. Charles Wilson Peale, The Benjamin Stoddert Children. 1789
Music Room and Blue Parlor Room
The Music Room is also very essential to the function of the house because the
archival records show that this was referred to as Mrs. Nourse’s room (see Figure 13).
She would entertain here, as well as, assign the enslaved workers their daily tasks from
this room. There is also a tea service, accession # 37.2, set up, and the enslaved workers
would have brought in the water to prepare the tea. All thirteen of the enslaved workers
can be brought up here because this is where they would have received their duties for the
day.
The Blue Parlor Room is the closest room to the kitchen. The kitchen is no longer
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 54
standing, and is now the visitor center. This fact should be discussed along with the two
enslaved workers who were cooks, Dinah and Polly. Due to the fact that this room was
so close to the kitchen it is probable that the Nourse’s also entertained here. Jane and
Frank can also be discussed.
Figure 13. Dumbarton House, Music Room, 2005
Landing and Upper Passage
The Landing and the Upper Passage are essential areas of the house where slavery
should be presented. On the Landing (see Figure 14), there is a view of the backyard (see
Figure 15), where the fields, outhouses, ice house, and carriage house might have been.
The slavery point here is that the Nourse’s had a working urban farm at Dumbarton
House while they were here. The enslaved workers made it a successful urban farm. All
the enslaved workers should be discussed here, but in particular, Juba, Fran, Peter, and
Black Peter, the enslaved workers in charge with caring for the fields and livestock, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 55
taking the products to market. Additionally, docents should discuss that the enslaved
worker’s quarters were believed to be in the back of the house.
Figure 14. Dumbarton House, Landing, 2005 Figure 15. Landing View. 2005
Figure 16. Dumbarton House, Upper Passage, 2005
In the Upper Passage (see Figure 16), Jane, Frank, enslaved workers of guests would
be in charge of caring for the guest’s children, as well as, Joseph and Maria’s needs.
They would most likely sleep on the floor in the Upper Passage, outside the Nourse’s
bedroom door.
Dining Room Chamber
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 56
In the Dining Room Chamber, Mrs. Nourse like in the Music Room, might conduct
business from here and assign the enslaved workers their daily tasks. The Nourses might
also entertain up here, especially during the winter months because it was warmer. The
enslaved workers would have served the Nourse’s guests.
Figure 17. Federal Inlaid Mahogany Cylinder-Front Desk, Baltimore, c.1795
Two pieces of the collection in this room can also be used to present slavery. First,
slavery can be discussed when interpreting the Federal Inlaid Mahogany Cylinder-Front
Desk and Bookcase, c. 1795, accession #30.31, made in Baltimore. Baltimore was one of
the largest port cities in the country and was a center for the slave trade (see Figure 17).
The Mahogany Comer Basin Stands, accession #32.33 and #34.18, were used for
washing, but the enslaved workers of the house were tasked with keeping them clean
(see Figure 18).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 57
Figure 18. Mahogany Comer Basin Stand, Massachusetts, 1800
Library Chamber and Blue Parlor Chamber
In the Library Chamber, the only slavery fact ever discussed was that enslaved
workers were responsible for cleaning the chamber pot in the night table, accession
#33.13 (see Figure 19). Similarly, in the Blue Parlor Chamber, the only slavery fact ever
Figure 19. Federal Inlaid Mahogany Chamber Table Figure 20. Dressing Table
discussed on the tours were that enslaved workers were responsible for cleaning and
preparing the gentlemen’s dressing table, accession #30.29 (see Picture 20). Again, Jane
and Frank would be responsible for these duties.
In addition to including the above slavery facts throughout the public tours and school
programs, the museum can take four basic steps to improving their slavery interpretation
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 58
in the near future.
Recommendations
The results of this case study show that is important Dumbarton House institutionalize
interpreting slavery throughout the museum. Currently, it is infrequently discussed on
the tours and school programs and when it is mentioned it is only in very general terms.
In order to be more historically accurate regarding all who lived and worked at
Dumbarton House, and to be on par with other historic house museums in the area,
especially Tudor Place, staff need to start taking immediate steps to improve how slavery
is interpreted. In the rest of this chapter, I offer some very specific recommendations
that Dumbarton House staff can begin to immediately implement in the museum.
The first recommendation is to establish a station for discussing slavery on the
Landing. Similar to the slavery stop on the Tudor Place tour, Dumbarton House staff
should compile a folder which includes: the Dumbarton House slavery fact sheet, copy of
the newly acquired slave bill of sale, and a copy of the “Children at Dumbarton House”
exhibit catalogue which contains information on children in slavery. This station will
make it easier for docents to discuss slavery on each tour and school program. The
second recommendation is to incorporate the newly acquired slave bill of sale, or other
archival material regarding Dumbarton House slaves, in the school program. At present,
school children read a letter from Mrs. Nourse to a family member and then use quill
pens and ink to write about Dumbarton House and their field trip experience. Using
archival material which mentions slavery, will help open discussion, and get children to
think critically about the enslaved African and African American experience. The third
recommendation is to makeBlack Georgetown Remembered (Babb 1991) available for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 59
sale in the bookstore. It allows visitors the opportunity to learn more about
Georgetown’s history, and will put Dumbarton House on par with Tudor Place which
currently offers this publication for sale. The fourth recommendation is to hold a docent
training session to emphasis the use of specific enslaved African and African American
names throughout the public tours and school programs. These four recommendations
will help to bring Dumbarton House’s presentation of slavery into the category of
segregated knowledge and will be positive steps towards relative incorporation of slavery
throughout the museum.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the theory put forth by Jennifer Eichstedt and Stephen Small in
Representations o f Slavery has helped to showcase how slavery is presented in
Washington, D.C. and Georgetown. Their main arguments, that most of the sites they
researched tell a story of American history that “centers around whites, males, and elites,
and that these sites minimize the presence, labor, and lives of enslaved Africans and
African Americans” is also apparent in the nation’s Capital (Eichstedt and Small 2002:4).
The four representational strategies they constructed: symbolic annihilation and
erasure, trivialization and deflection, segregation and marginalization, and relative
incorporation, fit these five D.C. historic houses. Decatur House fits into the category of
segregated knowledge in its interpretation of urban slavery because it provides: a separate
pamphlet, a separate exhibit, a separate seasonal tour, and a regular tour that infrequently
presents slavery. Arlington House fits into the category of segregated knowledge
because slavery is interpreted in an exhibit separate from the main house. Tudor Place
fits into the category of segregated knowledge because it presents an exhibit set up
outside the kitchen in the Butler’s Quarters. Contrastingly, the Frederick Douglass House
is different from these other three historic houses because it relatively incorporates the
issue of slavery throughout the site.
At Dumbarton House, the negative aspects are that, slavery was only interpreted in a
60
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 61
general sense and no specific enslaved African or African American names were ever
presented, on the public tours and programs. This is the key component to why the
museum’s current tours and programs fit into the representational category of
trivialization and deflection. I am certain, with the work of the current professional staff,
that Dumbarton House is on its way to relatively incorporating slavery throughout the
museum.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. REFERENCES
Andrews, William L., Minrose Gwin, Trudier Harris and Fred Hobson, eds. 1998 The Literature o f the American South. “Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, An American Slae, Written by Himself.” New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Babb, Valerie, Kathleen Lesko and Carroll Gibbs 1991 Black Georgetown Remembered. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Blassingame, John 1972 The Slave Community: Plantation Life in the Ante-Bellum New South. York: Oxford University Press, 1972.
Byme, Karen 2000 “The Power of Place: Using Historic Structures to Teach Children about Slavery.” Cultural Resource Management No.3: 9-10.
Byme, Karen 2002 “’We Have a Claim on This Estate:’ Remembering Slavery at Arlington House.” Cultural Resource Management No. 4: 27-29.
Cavanaugh, Katharine Marie 2001 “Those Things That Hurt, Instruct: Presenting Slavery to the American Public.” The George Washington University.
Davis, Deering, Stephen Dorsey and Ralph Hall 1944 Georgetown Houses o f the Federal Period. New York: Bonzana Books.
Decatur House Museum, [on-line resource]; available from http://www.decaturhouse.org.
Dumbarton House. 2004 Lesson Plan: Explore 1805!
Dumbarton House. 2004 Strategic Plan.
Dumbarton House. 2004 Volunteer Manual. 62
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 63
Eichstedt, Jennifer and Stephen Small 2002 Representations of Slavery. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Fitzgerald, Oscar 1994 “In Search of Joseph Nourse: 1754-184 1Washington, DC: Library of Congress.
Frederichk Douglass National Historic Site, [on-line resource]; available from http://www.nps.gov.ffdo.
Johnson, David 2004 “Dumbarton House Slavery Research Report.”
Goldin, Dale Claudia 1976 Urban Slavery in the American South: 1820-1860. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
King, Thomas F. 1998 Cultural Resource Laws and Practice: An Introductory Walnut Guide. Creek: AltaMira Press.
Lamar, Joseph Rucker 1933 A History o f the National Society of the Colonial Dames ofAmerica. New York.
McManus, Edgar 1973 Black Bondage in the North. Syracuse: Syracuse University Press.
Morgan, Philip D. 1998 Slave Counterpoint. Chapel Hill & London: University of North Carolina Press.
National Park Service, 2003 “Frederick Douglass.” Brochure.
Pastides, Katharine 2004 “Dumbarton House Visitor Survey 2004.”
Ryce, Kim 1996 “Dolley at Dumbarton” exhibit catalogue Dumbarton House.
Ryce, Kim and Donna Hayashi 1998 “Children at Dumbarton House 1790-1830.” exhibit catalogue Dumbarton House.
Strait, Kevin 2004 “Presenting Race and Slavery at Historic Sites: Arlington House, Robert E. Lee National Memorial.” National Park Service.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission. 64
Tudor Place. “Tudor Place Historic House and Garden.” Brochure.
Tudor Place, [on-line resource]; available from http://www.tudorplace.org.
Wade, Richard 1964 Slavery in the Cities: The South 1820-1860. London: Oxford University Press.
West, Patricia 1999 Domesticating History: The Political Origins of America’s House Museums. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.