La Jornada: Court authorizes the Trump government to replace an exhibition on slavery whose content today “seems sugarcoated”

Philadelphia. The Trump administration can replace a slavery exhibit at George Washington’s home in Philadelphia, a federal appeals court ruled yesterday, overturning a lower court’s order requiring the National Park Service to reinstall the interpretive panels.

The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said a lower court judge misinterpreted Philadelphia’s contract claims related to Independence National Historical Park, saying that just because the city had standing to sue did not mean its arguments had merit. The panel also praised the plans for the replacement facility, writing that they were “full of historical context,” despite objections from historians and city officials who contend the content appears sugarcoated.

The ruling comes a week after a federal judge in Massachusetts ordered the Trump administration to restore altered sites under an executive order that required museums, parks and monuments across the country not to display items that “inappropriately denigrate Americans past or present.” The federal government has requested that that decision be stayed while it appeals.

It was unclear how the Massachusetts ruling would affect the restoration or replacement of the panels at the President’s House Site. About half of the large panels in the outdoor exhibit had been restored before a pause in work in February.

Phone and email messages left with attorneys representing the city were not returned. Messages sent to spokespersons for the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service were also not answered.

The city of Philadelphia filed a lawsuit in January after the National Park Service, responding to President Donald Trump’s executive order, removed explanatory panels from the Site of the President’s House, where George and Martha Washington lived with nine of their slaves in the 1790s, when Philadelphia was briefly the nation’s capital.

The city had worked closely with the federal government, historians and private partners to create the exhibit in the early 2000s — as part of a cooperative agreement on the downtown historic park — and contributed $1.5 million toward its creation.

The city argued that the federal government should consult with the city before making changes to the President’s House Site. Justice Department lawyers argued that the administration alone can decide what stories are told on National Park Service properties.

The appeals panel noted that the maintenance portion of the contract between the city and the federal government could not be interpreted to mean that the site would remain as it was when it was completed.

“The ‘maintain’ obligation is intended as a general management obligation that accompanies the property, not as a promise that the exhibits will remain forever in place regardless of the owner’s wishes,” the opinion stated.