Is it fitting today to have a national park named after Jean Lafitte, a pirate, slave trader, and womanizer?/Anonymous portrait, held by Rosenberg Library, Galveston, Texas
Princeton University made national news the other day when it took Woodrow Wilson's name off its School of Public and International Affairs because of President Wilson's racist thinking. Might that prod calls to have Jean Lafitte's name removed from Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve in Louisiana?
After all, Lafitte not only was a pirate, but he was a slave trader, and some would add womanizer and even rapist to his resume, as well. But his aid to the U.S. government during the War of 1812 against Britain cast him as a patriot, not a pirate, and in some eyes a swashbuckling pirate at that.
According to the National Park Service, "(I)n September 1814, British military officials sought Lafitte’s help in their campaign to attack the U.S. from the Gulf of Mexico. Lafitte decided to warn American authorities and offered to help defend New Orleans in exchange for a pardon for his men."
"Although General Andrew Jackson, commander of the American troops, originally described Lafitte as a 'hellish banditti,' he finally accepted Lafitte’s help because of the ammunition, cannoneers, and knowledge of the area Lafitte could supply. The expert cannon fire of Jackson’s troops, including Lafitte’s Baratarians, contributed to the American victories during the New Orleans campaign that culminated with the Battle of New Orleans."
The following month, February 1815, President James Madison pardoned Lafitte and his men for any crimes they committed against the United States, the park's website notes.
How did the pirate's name get attached to a national park?
Well, U.S. Senator J. Bennett Johnston, a Democrat from Louisiana, was somewhat of a patron saint to Jean Lafitte National Historical Park. Johnston in 1976 introduced the legislation to create the park, and when he chaired the Senate subcommittee on national parks and served as floor manager of the Interior Department's appropriations bill he saw that the park was properly funded.
According to an administrative history of the park, naming it after Lafitte never really generated any uproar. Johnston simply deferred to Frank Ehret, who was viewed as the father of the park for his persistent lobbying.
According to Frank Ehret’s recollection, Senator Johnston took the stance that, if Jean Lafitte was a good enough name for Frank, it was good enough for the senator. The senator does not remember any discussion of a different name, and no other name was suggested during congressional hearings on the park bill. Only years after the park was established was there some scattered criticism of the name.
There was a time when the Delta Region Preservation Commission discussed a name change, "mostly because of concern that the public associated the name with the Barataria portion of the park only," but it never really caught fire.
In the 1990s National Park Service Director Roger Kennedy raised the question of renaming the park, but the superintendent at the time thought the locals favored the name and she didn't think it was worth creating controversy.
Might it create controversy today? What new name would you attach to the park?
Comments
I guess naming places and keeping them is getting close to canonization by the Church. This for me is getting old. As Joe E. Brown says at the end of Some Like It Hot "Nobody's perfect." That includes Woodrow Wilson, John Wayne, and Jean Lafitte. Leave them alone.
I understand what this article is getting at when it notes that the last discussions of a name change were dropped "mostly because of concern that the public associated the name with the Barataria portion of the park only" and I understand that a name change is probably still not worth the effort because that kind of thinking still exists. But, this is a national park and every American should get a say.
Most of the sites in this park are ostensibly devoted to celebrating an idealized remembrance of "Acadian" culture; however, many, if not most of the real descendents of that culture, especially in that "Barataria portion of the park" are now actually Cajun or Creole. Given the current national push to discard recast, outmoded, and sometimes prejudicially skewed celebrations of history, it might be a good time to ask the genuine descendents of that "Acadian" culture if they want to take a moment to stop and think about whether they want to continue celebrating Jean Lafitte, an individual who seems to have been somewhere between the Jeffrey Epstein and the Jack Abramoff of his time, or whether they might want to suggest a name that represents how they want their story told and how they want to be remembered to their descendents, among others.
As for the connection to the Battle of New Orleans, that connection is unsavory at best. We now have at least a few bits of evidence that Andrew Jackson may already have known about the signing of the Treaty of Ghent prior to the battle, which was actually more of an ambush anyway, yet made no attempt to present that information to Pakenham in a move that might, might, have averted the loss of over 2,300 combined casualties. Whether they realize it or not, today's Cajun and Creole residents of that "Barataria portion of the park" have more in common with the Cherokee and Choctaw who were ruthlessly displaced by Jackson than with either Lafitte or Jackson.
It's not a national park. There are 62 of them. I would think this blog would get that right.
History is history - you learn from it good or bad. The National Parks, Monuments etc. tell a us about variety of incidents, locations, and people in our natural history, cultural history, and the development of our country. Some things that happened do not put our country in the best light - but they happened. Most parks and I have visited over 200 make me proud of our country. A few do not but I always learn something. Keep the names the way they are - tell the whole story - the good, the bad, and even tell about disagreements. We should remember how to disagree properly - that seems to be lost somewhere in today's culture.
Okay, it's a "national historical park and preserve" and not a "national park" technically. Now that we've cleared that up, could we focus on maturing you past your bad attitude?
Andrew Jackson could not possibly have know of the signing of the Treaty of Ghent. The battle occurred on Jan, 8,1815 only 15 after the signing over 6000 miles away. No form of communcaition existed in those days that would have made this possible.
Treaty negotiations had been underway since the previous spring. Although the treaty wasn't signed until Christmas Eve, the British negotiating position had drastically changed by early to mid-November. The British were now willing to accept a treaty that restored pre-war boundaries and that change in position made a treaty virtually certain. By the end of November, Adams, with Gallatin's agreement, dispatched word to Madison that a treaty would be signed before Christmas and that American forces should therefore avoid further engagement, try to inform British officers in the field, and negotiate to forestall conflict if possible. While it is true that Jackson may not have been in possession of any official confirmation of the formal signing, there is evidence that he had been informed that the treaty was imminent, alerted to Adams' clear instructions, and aware that he should ensure that Pakenham was also aware. Adams was not in full agreement with Madison's subsequent politically expedient pardon of Lafitte. In fact, the subsequent acrimony between Adams and Jackson was at least partially due to this episode, to Adams' belief that Jackson acted improperly, to Adam's subsequent disdain for Jackson's character, and to Jackson's knowledge of Adam's feelings. Just sayin'.
Even if Jean Lafitte wasn't a slave trader changing the name seems like a good idea. The park preserves the site of the Battle of New Orleans but yet it's named after an individual that very few people are familiar with. Certainly the name of the park in no way signals that it is the site of a battle that most people learned about in school. Add to this the fact that the park is actually six different sites spread throughout southern Louisiana - the site where the Battle of New Orleans was fought, a nature preserve, a visitor center in the New Orleans French Quarter, and three sites dedicated to interpreting Cajun culture. In no way does the name of this park propely convey exactly what the park represents and protects. In truth the name Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve is probably one of the worse names in the NPS.