Comments on the Office of HIstoric Alexandria (OHA) reported, “Finding the Fort: A HIstory of an African American Neighborhood in Northern, Virginia, 1980’s to 1960”s”

Comments on the Office of HIstoric Alexandria (OHA) reported, “Finding the Fort: A HIstory of an African American Neighborhood in Northern,  Virginia, 1980’s to 1960”s”  

J. Glenn Eugster

Fort Ward and Seminary African American Descendants Society, Inc.

March 20, 2014

This is in response to a December 13, 2013 request by OHA Director Mallamo asking for comments on the report from the descendants communities.

Cover letter

Mr. Mallamo’s cover letter notes “differences in views between the City and the Society how the story of the Fort neighborhood will be written and interpreted”.   Mr. Mallamo fails to mention his statements over the last four years when he told the descendants that this was “their story to tell”.  The report reflects a range of people who assisted in the effort and indicates that this was an ongoing effort which involved City staff and others.  Despite his earlier assurances that the descendants should and could be involved they were excluded from this public project.

Mr. Mallamo  doesn’t mention that his decision to hire a private consultant with very minimal experience in African American history effectively by-passed the City of Alexandria’s commitments to work through and with the Fort Ward History Work Group and the Fort Ward Park & Museum Stakeholders Advisory Group.  Neither of these bodies, created by the City, were notified of the study, or asked to participate in the research, by Mr. Mallamo’s consultant or his city staff.

Mr. Mallamo’s cover letter “welcomes comments” and hopes that “we can begin a renewed period of cooperation and reconciliation as we move forward to continue this multi-year project”.  Most importantly the Society’s interest in working with the city has been repeatedly rebuked by Mr. Mallamo.  He has discredited the interest of the Society  at public meetings and in the local and metropolitan media.

His suggestions that “OHA hopes to be able to work through the Descendants Society....to begin implementation and coordination of the remaining history interviews.  These memories could then be integrated into a new volume of work that approaches the history of The Fort from a different, but equally significant, point of view”, is troubling for several reasons.

First, his statement clarifies that there are important oral history interviews that have not been completed for use in preparing the management plan for the park and museum.  The Society provided Mr. Mallamo a list of those descendants and current and past city employees that should be interviewed prior to the completion of the management plan.  To date those interviews have not been undertaken and as a result important information on the location of graves has been omitted.

Second, part of the original purpose of the management plan was to integrate the activities of different city departments at Fort Ward.  OHA’s unilateral action in undertaking this study without the knowledge and input of the advisory an work group is  conflicts with the efforts overall goals.  Moreover, creating yet another research effort, after the completion of the management plan, discounts the input of the descendants, members of the Seminary Civic Association and other communities in the decision-making for the park and museum.  At best this is yet another civic engagement blunder on the part of Mr. Mallamo.  At worst it may in fact be a violation of people’s civil rights.

Finally,  Dr. Moon’s research relies heavily on oral history interviews done by the City of Alexandria as well as others.  It does not use all of the information that has been made available to OHA by members of the advisory group and work group.  Such selective historical research and interpretation, outside of the light of community awareness and involvement, hints of anticipatory compromise to cover-up the presence of additional graves.

Report Cover

The document’s cover requires the author’s written consent before it is reproduced.   Public funds were used for this report and as such it is a public document.  Does the author retain ownership of the report?

The title indicates that the report includes history of The Fort from the 1860s-1980s, yet the document includes selective history of the area and various activities.  Either the period the research covers should be expanded, or the selective information after the 1960’s should be deleted.  As it stands the report includes information after the 1960s but does not include relevant information during that period.

Acknowledgements

It is apparent from this section that this was a broad-based research effort inside and outside OHA.  The outreach does not include descendants or other persons with expertise directly relevant to the topic.

The reference made to information collected by the Fort Ward History Work Group, some of whom are members of the Descendants Society, Inc. infers that this group was aware and involved in this effort, which is not the case.  

At a minimum the report needs to indicate that the advisory and work group, as well as the Descendants Society, Oakland Baptist Church and Seminary Civic Association were not asked to participate and OHA’s rationale of this exclusion.

Introduction

This section indicates that “the conclusion briefly discusses the renewed interest in the Fort’s history since the 1990s and acts of remembrance among its descendants and the City of Alexandria”.  This purpose seems well-intentioned but fails to be realized by the research report.  The section seems to rely on revisionist history and excludes relevant about the events leading to public concerns about the management and use of the park including the destruction and removal of graves, headstones and other historical and cultural artifacts.  The period between 1990 and 2008 needs to be described for the report to accurately reflect history of the park and the events that have led to the management planning effort.

Chapter 3: Making of Fort Ward.....

This section of the report contains useful information.  However, it omits information provided to OHA by the advisory and work groups which would more accurately describe the development of the park and museum.  

This section does not accurately reflect the relationship between city officials and African American residents during the period when Alexandria was acquiring property.  Insights of the descendants could add legitimacy to this part of the report.  The racial attitudes of the city officials played a big role in the what decisions were made and how they were implemented.

This section also selectively uses certain correspondence to and from Mrs. Starr and Mr. Hendryx.   It fails to mention that city officials, early in the process talked of making Fort Ward Park a historic park.  Applications for funding to purchase lands referenced the creation of a historic park, as did the condemnation actions taken.

This report also does not reflect information provided to OHA about first-hand experiences of current and past city staff on what they did and observed being done to the park and The Fort Community artifacts.

Page 204; second paragraph needs to be reworded.  Owners or residents of the property were not “obstacles”.  The difficulty in the city acquiring land from owners and residents was because it was in-fact a taking of land where people had lived, worshiped were educated, and buried.

Page 208; end of first paragraph.  The last sentence is an example of how the oral histories are used selectively to make the point that the author or city officials want to.  In other interviews done by city staff Mr. Young said that he and his wife did not want to move from The Fort.

Page 211; first paragraph.  Reference is made to the McKnight and Robinson property.  No mention is made to the correspondence about the family graves.  Mention is made about the city’s confusion in locating these parcels.  However, on several ocassions OHA staff was provided information on the parcels, as well and correspondence from Armistead Boothe, the attorney for McKnight and Robinson during the city’s condemnation proceedings.  Boothe’s letter asks what plans the city has for the family grave area.

Evidence, also not included, indicating that another McKnight grave was located within the CIvil War Fort, was provided to OHA multiple times.

In addition, overall, no mention is made to the various title search documents contained in the Ruffner files donated to OHA about graves on specific parcels of property included in the park.

Page 219; second paragraph.  Ms. McKnight’s quote is another selective use of oral history interviews to make the author’s or city staff point.  Mr. Mallamo, as well as other city managers, allege that the graves were exhumed but never are able to give facts on when they were removed or where they were taken.  

Page 219; last paragraph.  The statement, “No discussions related to park planning have surfaced with regard to the Old Grave Yard.....” is incorrect.  City leaders have discussed this area with their staff and have declined requests to share that information or make their staff available for oral history interviews.  Evidence exists that graves have been destroyed by the city and headstones removed by city staff.

Page 224; second paragraph.  The taking, or “trading” as the author puts it, of the Oakland Baptist Church Cemetery property was prompted by the actions of the city officials.  Although technically not a taking the racial climate of the time dictated that the church give-up a portion of their cemetery because the city officials felt it divided a portion of their new park.  Insights from the descendants would have improved the accuracy  of this information.

Page 224; last paragraph.  This statement is not objective but reflects a tone of protecting the city and disregarding statements made by OHA staff.  One burial site, according to Dr. Cressey, former City Archaeologist, was destroyed by the road to the maintenance and nursery yard.

Conclusion

I’m not sure given the way this research was conducted, and the apparent bias of the author--and city staff, that there is a basis for this report to include a conclusion.