“After the Revolution” and “New and Different”—Exhibitions at the National Museum of American History, Washington, D.C.

Abstract

"AFTER THE REVOLUTION” AND "NEW AND DIFFERENT”—EXHIBITIONS AT THE NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AMERICAN HISTORY, WASHINGTON, D.C. BARBARA MCLEAN WARD In 1985 the National Museum of American History opened “After the Revolution,” an ambitious and well-researched exhibition devoted to telling the story of everyday life in late 18th-century America. Its broad perspective, encompassing the ethnic and social diversity of the new republic, makes it a groundbreaking display for the nation’s cap­ ital. “New and Different,” a smaller, temporary exhibition that opened in 1986, was conceived as its corollary. It more fully developed one theme of its parent exhibition: the effect of the “consumer revolution” on the lives of middle- and upper-class Americans. The two exhibitions approached their subjects from different van­ tage points. “After the Revolution” focuses on the lives of individuals, while “New and Different” focused on commodities. The two displays thus complemented each other: one is about people, while the other was about how objects affected the lives of those people. The biographical approach of “After the Revolution” is one of its most appealing aspects. The major characters—Thomas Springer of Mill Creek Hundred, Delaware; Henry Saunders of Isle of Wight County, Virginia; and Samuel Colton of Longmeadow, Massachu­ setts—are included because each once lived in a home now partially preserved by the museum. The organizers ofthe exhibition were faced with the difficult problem of successfully integrating these period rooms into their story of everyday life. To do so, they did extensive research into the lives of these individuals and thus were able to deal with personal stories of domestic and community conflicts as well as with the mundane facts of routine existence. The room displays are Dr. Ward was formerly assistant professor in the Winterthur Program in Early American Culture. Her recent exhibition projects include “A Glimpse into the Shadows: Forgotten People of the Eighteenth Century” at the Winterthur Museum, and “After Ratification: Material Life in Delaware, 1789—1820,” at the University Gallery, Uni­ versity of Delaware. She is currently director of interpretation and publications at the Essex Institute in Salem, Massachusetts.©1988 by the Society for the History of Technology. All rights reserved. 0040-165X/88/2903-0005$01.00 613 614 Barbara McLean Ward extensively augmented by both original and reproduction objects, period graphics, modern photographs, lengthy explanatory labels, and some audiovisual components. Because the organizers sought to explore fully the racial diversity of early America, there are major sections devoted to native Americans and Afro-American slaves. Eco­ nomic and social differences are also made evident. Philadelphia, the largest city of the new republic, becomes a city, not of merchants and gentlemen, but of mariners and artisans. Most viewers will be unaware of the radical implications of this bold approach, yet it makes “After the Revolution” a significant event in the popularization of the “new” social history. The greatest disappointment of “After the Revolution” is that its fragmented design often detracts from the message it seeks to convey. Although the text of the labels is usually very good, objects are not well integrated into the overall story line, and in many cases the choice ofartifacts demonstrates the organizers’ lack ofsensitivity to the power of objects to communicate concepts. For instance, in a section devoted to the transfer of African culture to America, a high-style African basket is displayed next to a utilitarian Afro-American basket. Un­ wittingly, the show’s organizers have reinforced a perception that the arts degenerated under slavery, when they profess, in the label, to maintain the importance of continuing folk traditions among enslaved blacks. Objects could have been chosen to reinforce this idea; instead, the display of dissimilar objects, made for different uses and wholly different in the eyes of their makers, serves to refute it. One section, however, stands out as an exception. Samuel Colton was a merchant in one of the major towns along the Connecticut River. As such, he controlled his neighbors’ access to many imported food­ stuffs and household implements. In 1776, the local townspeople accused Colton of charging unfair prices for the goods he sold. When Colton refused to sell his merchandise for prices deemed fair by the...