Lincoln Legacy Course

 

The most unique opportunity presented to me during my time at Minnesota State University Mankato, came in the Spring of the 2022-2023 academic year. My boss in the archives mentioned there was a humanities course that was one of a kind and would be designing exhibit text for the university’s Abraham Lincoln statue. I was very intrigued at the prospect of being part of such a project, so I registered for the course, HUM 450W Lincoln Legacy, shortly after. The main goal of the exhibit text we were designing was to create an informative and objective summary of Lincoln and his lasting impact, especially relating to the Mankato community, in hopes for the exhibit to serve as a permanent accessory to the statue. Throughout the class we faced various challenges, but in the end, we were able to produce a coherent and concise text.

​

From the incipient research the direction of the class was constrained by the amorphous character of the exhibit for which we were writing text. We did not know the layout or dimensions of the panels and we did not precisely know how many panels would be used. Despite the uncertainty of our product and parameters, we proceeded with the project under the guidance of the course’s instructor, Gwen Westerman. The first thing we did was learn about why the Lincoln Legacy class was happening in the first place. The Building and the Landmarks Committee recommended that the location of the Abraham statue be relocated and accompanied by a more comprehensive exhibit. The report cited conflicting views and measures taken by other universities and the complexity of Lincoln’s historical role, especially considering he signed off on the thirty-eight Dakota men who were executed in Mankato in 1862. The goal of the class was to research a great deal of information about Lincoln, the Dakota, and Minnesota history during the mid-nineteenth century, to be able to have extensive knowledge and context when creating exhibit text. The purpose of the text and exhibit itself, is to create a basis for informed discussion on a topic tied to the Mankato community, that will allow visitors to draw their own conclusions and be aware of what resources were available to them, should they wish to learn more on a subject. After defining the purpose of the project, we identified the target audience of the exhibition, three main topics of the exhibit text, and three subtopics for each topic. The research phase of the project constituted the majority of course and ranged from research about the statue of Lincoln itself to research about the Dakota people in general. Lincoln’s relationship with the Dakota people was one of the reasons for the belief the statue needed be accompanied by a more comprehensive exhibit. Lincoln was responsible for signing off on the thirty-eight Sioux who were hanged in Mankato, but initially only considered the two Sioux who violated women to have meet the criteria for capital punishment. Various Minnesotan figures wrote to Lincoln compelling him to take harsher action; Lincoln would go on to consider their views and others like theirs, but not those of the Sioux themselves, showing the complexity of the situation.

​

Next each student wrote text for four panels which were supposed to consist of around two pages or a maximum of five hundred words, unfortunately I greatly exceeded that criterion. I believe the primary reason for this was because I consider every fact pertaining to each subject important. For example, Lincoln’s role in the execution thirty-eight Sioux could be described in various ways depending on how people wanted to present it. If one wanted to portray Lincoln’s role in the executions as directly the consequence of his will, they could mention he signed off on the thirty-eight executions and include nothing else. If one wanted to portray Lincoln having a lesser role in the executions, they could focus on the writings of others about the executions. I wrote so much over to prevent an unintentional bias from happening, including every detail I thought could impact someone’s opinion. Since there were four students, we ended up with text for sixteen different panels originally. After thoroughly editing and revising we were able to condense the text for the final panels down to eight. Even though all four writers wrote in an objective manner, there was still the issue of having a singular voice that was emphasized at this point. To create a singular voice, we tried to use similar punctuation and vocabulary, and avoid phrases that were unique to each writer’s respective style.

​

The biggest problem during the extent of this course was self-invoked frustration. Frustration with adequately summarizing large amounts of information, frustration with the concomitant lack of context that comes with limited information, frustration with the lack of relevant primary sources we were finding, and finally frustration with the lack of initial work to show for all the research we had done. Persistence was key in finishing the text and feeling confident enough in knowledge of a topic to do so. The most difficult part of the project was being concise while still trying to present enough objective information for the readers to be able to walk away able to draw informed conclusions based on the text, or at least be informed. This was found to be essentially impossible given the number of panels we ended with was less than half of what we originally started with and much of the information on the panels, if not familiar to the reader, could be confusing.

Distress caused by lack of information ended up being the basis for innovation to address limitations of exhibit text. To address the information dilemma, I came up with two different ideas that could be useful in providing more context. The first was an annotated bibliography for both primary and secondary sources that would be accessible via a QR code. Most secondary sources were found on online journal articles or books from the Memorial Library. The secondary sources page would provide links to sources and the library location if it was available at the Memorial Library, to encourage utilizing the resources available there. Every primary source we found by searching collections related to panel topics on the Library of Congress website. The primary sources bibliography would also have links to the sources and could potentially compliment my other idea, a timeline showing the evolution of Lincoln’s policies regarding slavery. This would make the exhibit interactive, provide more context, and encourage use of the campus library housing the exhibit. At the culmination of the semester, we presented our final panels to the university administration and reflected on the experience.

​

Being able to participate in a course like Lincoln Legacy is a rarity and I am grateful for the opportunity. Our panels are currently the basis for a grant application for the construction phase of the exhibit. There is also a class revising the panels based off feedback from historians and other experts. My biggest take away from this project ironically something I had not included in the original draft of this reflection. I wrote earlier that I tried to avoid subjectivity by “…including every detail I thought could impact someone’s opinion”. The problem with this statement is what about the information deemed not important enough to include, or that my peers did; does that information’s exclusion mean it bears no significance? I think this dilemma is a paradigm of the broader issue facing contemporary historians. Despite the best efforts an individual may make to consciously address personal bias, it is always present to some extent. If the commonly perceived notion of a topic revolves around a specific aspect of the said topic, would the scholarship on this topic consequently fail to explore other characteristics more thoroughly? Could an author’s research stop prematurely because they have sufficient evidence to support their thesis? Most of all, when looking at the historiography of a topic, are sources from an era indicative of the dominant views during that time regardless of an author’s claim of objectivity? 

​

Accounts from during the time of the executions praise the executions and likely would argue such beliefs were objective because at the time that was the commonly held perception. Contemporary historians would certainly disagree with that notion. The exhibit text presented both views, but we endorsed neither with hopes that viewers will draw their own informed conclusions based on the text we display. In fact, we did endorse any views with the aim of being as objective as possible. In this project and future projects, I will try and address the issue of subjectivity by including as many perspectives and facts as possible. In future collaborative projects I will definitely draw upon my experience from this project whether it entails writing objectively, writing a group project in a singular voice, researching historical evidence, summarizing, or finding creative solutions to enhance the final product.

​