Court Orders Slavery Exhibit At George Washington’s House Restored After Trump Admin Pulled It Down

The Trump administration’s project for erasing the parts of American history they find inconvenient continues unabated. But that doesn’t mean it doesn’t hit the occasional roadblock.

In January, the administration removed portions of an exhibit at the former Philadelphia home of George Washington that made reference to 9 slaves he owned that spent time at the house. That Washington owned slaves is not a matter of opinion. He did. That he also rotated those slaves in and out of the home, moving them elsewhere for short periods of time, all to get around laws in Pennsylvania that slaves within its borders for a certain period of continuous time would be automatically freed, is also uncontroversial to state. He did that. One of our founding fathers that brought “freedom” to America was also a slave owner. He wasn’t alone.

The Trump administration doesn’t like being reminded of that history. It also prefers that younger generations never learn of that history. I’d call it jingoism, but that doesn’t feel sufficient. This rings as something far more dastardly, fit for the musings of George Orwell.

Well, the city sued to have the exhibit restored and it appears the Judge in the case, a George W. Bush appointee, agrees with my assessment. You can read as much in her blistering opening in her ruling, in which she also orders the government to restore the exhibit to its previous state.

As if the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell’s 1984 now existed, with its motto ‘Ignorance is Strength,’ this Court is now asked to determine whether the federal government has the power it claims — to dissemble and disassemble historical truths when it has some domain over historical facts. It does not.

The ruling, which you can read embedded below, is actually quite technical. It turns out that the agreements, under which these specific sites operate, are shared between the city and federal governments, and they are both old and complicate the government’s efforts.

The layman’s version of this is that several historical sites in Philadelphia were created by an act of Congress in the 1940s. Ownership of the site is retained by the city, while curation of the exhibits are maintained only under the agreement of both the federal government and city government. Adding to the complication is that a 2006 updated agreement between both parties had a short term attached to it, but there is also a survivabilty clause, which states that the expiration of the term of the agreement doesn’t mean that the city loses its rights to agreement on the curation of the exhibits.

Although the 2006 Agreement, as updated by the Third Amendment, ceased as of May 1, 2010,94 the terms in its Project Development Plan remained effective under the Third Amendment Survival Clause. The Survival Clause states that “provisions which, by themselves or their nature are reasonably expected to be performed after the expiration or termination of this Third Amendment shall survive.”95 Because the President’s House project was not contemplated to be completed by the expiration of the Third Amendment, it was reasonably expected that terms relating to the Project Development Plan would remain in effect to ensure that the commemorative exhibit was realized in accordance with the parties’ initial plan. While the Third Amendment granted NPS the right to interpret the exhibit after it was completed, it is the Project Development Plan that established the interpretive framework that NPS would employ. Profound alterations to that framework, seen here in the effort to remove all references to slavery, AfricanAmerican Philadelphia, and the move to freedom for the enslaved, would, under the Project Development Plan, require the written approval of both the City and NPS.

Whoops.

Now, this doesn’t mean that this judge spared words of disgust at the general plan that the federal government is attempting to carry out.

Defendants have completely ignored their legislatively imposed duties. They have disregarded statutory authority, compelled by Congress, by taking unilateral action without seeking agreement from the City of Philadelphia. An agency, part of the Executive branch, is not entitled to act solely as it wishes. Rather, it is the Legislative branch which authorizes agency action, and the Executive branch must comply with that direction.

There’s a lot more in there, but it’s largely legally technical in nature. What is obvious from the analysis in the ruling is that, at least in this one case, the federal government acted outside of its authority due to agreements struck as a result of legislation from Congress that are in good standing. I fully expect the Trump administration to waste time and resources by appealing this decision, but this is fairly straightforward stuff.

Trump, no matter how hard he pretends, is not a king. He does not have as much power as he desires. He cannot change history. In far too many places, he is hiding that history, but he can’t change it.

And, at least in this case, at this moment, he has found the limits to his power.