PRESENTATION OF ROBERT HENLEY LAMB TO THE JOINT SUBCOMMITTEE TO EXAMINE THE COST AND FEASIBILITY OF RELOCATING THE MUSEUM AND WHITE HOUSE OF THE CONFEDERACY - HJ RES. No. 747
Monday, August 29, 2005, 2:00 P.M.
Senate Room A, General Assembly Building
My name is Robert Henley Lamb, an attorney with the D.C. law firm of Wright & Talisman, P.C., but a proud resident and native of Richmond, Virginia. In order to put my comments in perspective, it might be useful to briefly outline relevant features of my background and my family’s deep involvement with the Confederate Memorial Literary Society, better known as the Museum of the Confederacy (“MOC”), and its White House and Museum.
I have an abiding interest in military history and historic preservation — currently serving on the boards of the George C. Marshall Foundation, the Capital Region Land Conservancy, and The Museum of the Confederacy. I am Judge Advocate for Lee-Jackson Camp No. 1, Sons of the Confederate Veterans. Despite the fact that I had the honour to serve two tours in Vietnam as a combat infantry officer with the 1st Marine Division — and notwithstanding my membership in the Jamestowne Society, Society of Colonial Wars, and Society of the Cincinnati — my greatest historical passion is reserved for the War Between the States and the Confederacy.
With regard to my family’s connection to the MOC, what we now call the White House — though often during the War Between the States Confederate citizens referred to it as the “Grey House” — was built in 1818 by John Brockenbrough, a kinsman of my wife, Mary Ann Brockenbrough Lamb, and me. The initial Chancery Court recordation fees for the fledgling Confederate Memorial Literary Society were waived as a goodwill gesture by the authority of my great-grandfather, Judge James Christian Lamb. The present Museum building itself was dedicated in 1976 when my mother, Norvell Henley Lamb, was President of the MOC; she is now an Emeritus Trustee there. Her sister, Frances Tucker Henley, who started the Museum’s Haversack gift shop, also served as MOC President. My paternal grandmother, Janie Preston Boulware Lamb, whose 10-year stint as President of the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities coincided with the celebration of the 350th anniversary of the founding of Jamestown, also served on the MOC Board, as did my sister, Norvell Preston Adamson. My father, Brockenbrough Lamb, Jr., chaired a special outside committee that successfully raised money for the MOC at a critical time in its history; he also served as its legal counsel. Eleanor S. Brockenbrough, an aunt of my wife served as the Librarian of the MOC and its Library is named in her honour. Lastly, my great-great grandfather, William Ballard Preston, who introduced the resolution for secession at the Virginia Convention of 1861, frequently visited the White House during his service as a member of the Provisional Confederate Congress and later while a Confederate Senator from Virginia.
I am speaking today because of my family’s great reverence for the White House and Museum of the Confederacy and my concern for its future. However, I wish to strongly emphasize that the views I express are mine alone and not those of any of the boards on which I serve, nor of any of the organizations of which I am a part. As a Trustee of the MOC, I have not only a fiduciary duty to the integrity and viability of the institution itself, but also a requirement to be faithful to its good faith, consensus decisionmaking. Because my appearance here has raised the alarm in the minds of some that it might be misconstrued, despite the common practice of using disclaimers, I am resigning from the Board of the MOC effective immediately. As a consequence, though bound to honour confidences of the Board, I am now free to offer my views without the degree of circumspection I had originally intended to employ.
Under the provision of House Joint Resolution No. 747, establishing a joint subcommittee to study relocating the Museum and White House of the Confederacy, the subcommittee shall examine the cost and feasibility of relocation and such other related issues it deems appropriate, prior to submittal of findings and recommendations thereon. As an aside, I must observe that the dictionary meaning of “feasibility” is not only “capability,” but also “suitability.” The passage of this resolution, the wording of which was supported and promoted by the MOC, could be regarded fairly by the General Assembly and the public as an extraordinary interposing event in the decisionmaking process.
I have no quarrel with the Whereas clauses of House Joint Resolution No. 747; indeed, the viability and ambience of the MOC has been threatened and compromised by governmental action and inaction — both State and City. I would like to think that there was nothing malignant in the governmental planning processes that lead to the current situation in which the MOC finds itself, but in hindsight at best they evinced a woefully insufficient appreciation or benign neglect for the protection of the luster and viability of many historical sites in the Court End area of Richmond.
At your first meeting, the Executive Director of the MOC, Waite Rawls, gave a thorough presentation on the circumstances that brought the MOC to its current deplorable position. (Copies of his presentation were later sent to the MOC Trustees for our perusal.) Mr. Rawls asked for the panel’s help, in furtherance of the MOC’s advocacy of HJ Res. No. 747 and implicit buy-in to its process, in identifying a workable solution for the MOC and noted that we may not have discovered other viable options besides the three he highlighted. The third option he mentioned was deemed to be the most reasonable one, based not only on the weighing of the various advantages and disadvantages of it and the other two options, but also due to the real prospect of additional deterioration of the MOC’s situation because of Virginia Commonwealth University’s ambitious 20-year expansion plan. However, accepting Mr. Rawls’ concession of the possibility of heretofore undiscovered viable options, Chairman Lee Ware enjoined the panel to look at other options “with fresh eyes and imaginative minds.” In this process, I am mindful that the panel is directed to come up with recommendations and that any implementation thereof is fraught with procedural and policy uncertainties. Furthermore, your timetable for recommendations and the scope of any subsequent governmental action might not dovetail with emerging exigencies and circumstances that may face the MOC and the good-faith decisionmaking responsibilities of its Board or, indeed, the Mission of the MOC itself. Nevertheless, a sense of expectancy and fresh review of the MOC has been created with the public at large.
I. PARTIAL SOLUTIONS
With those caveats in place, regardless how it ultimately may factor into the MOC calculus, I would like to respectfully urge the panel to give thoughtful attention to the proposals of Edwin Slipek, Jr. for revitalization of the North-of-Broad district that were laid out in a Style Weekly article dated June 22, 2005 (attached). He offered what may be a doable solution to the access and parking problems that have beset the MOC and other historical sites there. The very first of his six comprehensive suggestions was the following:
1. Re-establish the traditional street grid and sidewalks wherever possible.
In pertinent part he said:
A better possibility for re-establishing the grid would be reconnecting East Clay Street between Ninth and 10th streets, which the Safety, Health and Welfare Building now blocks. A few things would happen. First, the Safety, Health and Welfare Building would be demolished – or at least trimmed and reconfigured. Both architecturally and in its deplorable decrepit condition, it is a civic embarrassment.
But more important, reopening the 900 block of East Clay Street would reconnect VCU’s health campus, which functions successfully as a pedestrian-oriented urban neighborhood, with the grim area to the west. And thirdly, nationally important tourist attractions – the White House of the Confederacy, the Valentine Richmond History Center and the Marshall House – would be connected along Clay (although the Marshall House faces Marshall Street, the house museum wants to expand its grounds northward to Clay and build a visitor reception center there). With better access to the larger city, the Museum of the Confederacy might stop its rumblings about wanting to move. And since Clay Street is also on axis with the Convention Center, which houses the city visitor center, Clay would become a major promenade and focus for visitors.
His third recommendation was the following:
3. Place parking facilities on the fringes of the district or on upper levels of new buildings and encourage people to walk through the area.
I might add that one of the real horrors faced by visitors to the MOC is having to deal with the dizzying switchbacks, dinginess, and delays encountered when dealing with the multiple levels of the parking garage shared by the MOC and VCU. One possible solution to that problem might be to have all the non-emergency traffic enter the parking garage via a road behind the present Richmond Academy of Medicine, but reserve the upper level thereof exclusively for MOC visitors and have a separate, convenient lane entrance and exit for them. This would have the salutary effect of minimizing traffic along that portion of Clay Street in front of the MOC, while making the visiting experience for tourists considerably more pleasant than presently.
In short, Mr. Slipek has presented an imaginative blueprint for the solution and enhancement of a dysfunctional area of Richmond that would reconnect the historic structures therein and largely solve the access and parking problems the MOC is faced with. However, those are by no means the only difficulties confronting MOC. Another of its problems, ameliorating the inadequate directional and promotional signage, must be a vital part of any comprehensive solution. To that end, I commend to your attention the July 17, 2005 article (attached) in the Richmond Times-Dispatch by Bill Axselle in which he urged preparation for upcoming historical festivities and tourist trails linking sites with a common theme. The successful, well-marked numbered stops for tourists utilized by the City of Fredericksburg comes to mind. On the Confederate front, we have the upcoming 2007 and 2008 Bicentennials of the births of President Jefferson F. Davis and General Robert E. Lee, as well as the Sesquicentennial of the War Between the States from 2011 - 2015. The Commonwealth of Virginia and the City of Richmond should ensure the optimization of these events with kindred institutions like the MOC.
The solutions offered above, though interesting and in furtherance of Chairman Ware’s injunction and Mr. Rawls search for discoverable solutions, do not speak to the critical short-term and long-term issues of funding for the MOC and only partly address the compromised ambience of the MOC setting. The former must be addressed by the panel, VCU, and the MOC Board through some combination of mitigation dollars, subsidies, and a capital campaign. VCU, as a State institution, is answerable to Virginia and presumably this panel on which it has a member, for any of its initiatives. I do not propose to speak to the funding issue. However, I will briefly address the issue of ambience.
II. HISTORIC LANDMARKS
On April 26, 2004 I met in D.C. with Javier Marqués, the General Counsel for the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and apprised him of VCU’s plan for construction of another large medical building next to the White House of the Confederacy, which is a National Historic Landmark. I mentioned my concern about the temporary construction effects, as well as the permanent consequences relating thereto. I sent a letter the next day to the Executive Director of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, John W. Fowler, elaborating on my concerns and referencing applicable federal regulations pertaining to protection of National Historic Landmarks — alerting him to the VCU project and requesting to be advised of any assessments of adverse effects to the White House. Copies of the letter (attached) were sent to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (“DHR”). I have not received any written reply or update from either the Federal or State preservation institutions. I do know that the Department of Historic Resources became involved with some archeological work at the site of the former carriage house of the White House, but its minimalist role as a positive protective force for the White House exposed its lack of real authority. DHR’s failure to prevent the deleterious effect of the growth of the VCU medical complex on the White House over the last 25 years speaks for itself. As the Judge Advocate for Lee-Jackson Camp No. 1, SCV, I am painfully aware of the DHR’s weakness in other circumstances — such as its inability or unwillingness to prevent the continually ensuing encroachment of the Virginia Museum of Fine Arts upon the grounds of Confederate Memorial Park. The DHR should be required to participate upfront in any planning process that may adversely impact Virginia Historic Landmarks, as well as analogous historic buildings or sites, and be armed with the power to force satisfactory mitigation, require modification, and even prevent inappropriate projects, including those envisioned in the VCU 20-year expansion plan.
III. COMPREHENSIVE MISSION
VCU’s medical complex provides a great public service to Virginia and deserves its sterling reputation in the health care area. However, with all due respect to that splendid institution, it is not unique and Virginia has allowed it to pursue single-mindedly its laudatory health mission at the expense of our heritage. On the other hand, the MOC is sui generis. Its White House was at the epicenter when Richmond was on the world stage. As pointed out by Waite Rawls in his presentation to your panel, the MOC, of all Confederate and other museums of the War Between the States, is the most significant and comprehensive for the provenance and depth of its collection. He further noted: “We are the only Confederate museum to transform itself into a modern history museum and resource center.” In his presentation you were given a sampling of the testimonials about the MOC from historians and a discussion about how the MOC is uniquely positioned to be an objective center for the study of the Confederacy. Whereas the approach of the MOC is scholarly, it is important to emphasize that the MOC is not, as an institution, officially neutral and detached about the Confederacy, though it eschews hagriography. The MOC’s official name, after all, is the Confederate Memorial Literary Society (emphasis added) and one of the five key elements of its Mission is commemoration of the history and artifacts of the Confederate States of America. Because of that, it is important to avoid any suggested solution that would have the effect, designed or otherwise, of diluting the MOC’s Mission, either through a governmental hand in policy or by requiring an arrangement with an incompatible entity, such as the Tredegar National Civil War Center, which will have a more diffuse and blended message — one in which the Confederacy may be used as a foil. Furthermore, it is equally important that the MOC preserve its comprehensive Mission for which it has justly been so praised. Therefore, it is important that no attempt to be made to transfer some of its key operational functions, such as spinning off its resources and library components — vital to the study and interpretation aspects of its Mission — to some other institution, such as the Virginia Historical Society. In that vein, having been entrusted with such a comprehensive collection of Confederate artifacts, it is crucial that the MOC not be badgered or encouraged into treading down the slippery slope of shedding itself of some of them, duplicatives or otherwise, in order to raise funds.
In contrast to inappropriate alliances or misuse of resources, I saw in the June newsletter (portion attached) of Memorial Hall Foundation, the second largest Confederate museum, located in New Orleans, that it signed a cooperative endeavor agreement with Oak Alley Foundation, whereby Oak Alley will construct and own a proposed satellite museum building designed as a garconière in which a portion of the Confederate collection of Memorial Hall Foundation will be displayed. The two compatible institutions will split the profits from visitors to the satellite museum. Oak Alley Plantation receives about 250,000 visitors per year. Perhaps a similar arrangement for mutual benefit could be explored by the MOC with one of the James River plantations.
IV. WHITE HOUSE
The White House of the Confederacy is not merely an artifact, it was the raison d’être of the Confederate Memorial Literary Society itself. Unlike the other artifacts placed at 1201 East Clay Street, the White House is fixed to the land. Though it is physically capable of being moved, from a preservationist and suitability concept its status after any such move would be considerably lessened. Momentous events occurred not just in the White House, but at the site itself. Though its site has been tremendously compromised and dwarfed by VCU, it has not been made irrelevant or diminished by its surroundings. Indeed, its solitary grandeur arguably is even more pronounced. Its lovely garden, carefully tended by volunteers and containing the commemorative live oak planted in honour of LaFayette, is still a contemplative spot of repose, notwithstanding the hubbub of construction activities.
Whereas Jefferson Davis would be shocked at the unfortunate transformation of the neighborhood surrounding the White House, I suspect he would be pleased that it is still there. Borrowing from what Faulkner said with respect to mankind, it “will not only endure, but prevail.” It could be there long after the existing or planned buildings of the medical complex are torn down as obsolete.
SUMMARY
Waite Rawls indicated that the MOC came to the General Assembly as a last resort for help. I believe that the situation faced by the MOC is in some ways not unlike that of John Brockenbrough, the original owner of the White House. John Brockenbrough today lies entombed in Warm Springs Cemetery in Bath County, Virginia. The grand edifice of his tomb, though still dignified has been encrusted by nature in such a way that the inscription on it is decipherable with difficulty only by rubbing it. The state of the MOC, due largely to regrettable State and City decisions is analogous. Your wise counsel, decisive actions, and sufficient financial assistance are needed in a timely fashion to preserve the MOC’s viability and Mission as the preeminent world center for the study, interpretation, display, commemoration, and preservation of the artifacts and history of the Confederate States of America.
