Chicago's 1934 World's Fair

THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION FOR STATE and Local History (AASLH) has published a useful “field guide” for the American semiquincentennial, with suggested guiding themes for commemorating America's 250th anniversary. One of these themes is “Doing History,” and the AASLH has suggested that, much like the 1975 bicentennial, this anniversary might provide an opportunity for professional historians to talk about our work with a public that has a renewed interest in the American past. Of course, there is a history to how Americans have “done history,” especially in relation to the Revolutionary era. This has played out in a variety of venues, including the 1934 season of the Century of Progress Exposition in Chicago.The year 1934 was the second season of the World's Fair, and featured updates based on the successes of the first season. The Century of Progress World's Fair itself was managed by a group of prominent white men, businessmen and politicians, mostly from Chicago's northern suburbs. The exhibits and concessions were contracted by a variety of businesses and groups.Although the fair's theme officially focused on technological progress, there were multiple visions of the past on display, including some Illinois-specific stories, like a replica of Fort Dearborn, a replica of Jean Baptiste Point du Sable's cabin, and of course, plenty of Lincolnania. There was also a space dedicated to America's colonial and Revolutionary past known as the Colonial Village. The Colonial Village was a portion of the fairgrounds where visitors could imagine themselves stepping back in time to the period of the United States’ founding. It was a bit of a hodgepodge: it included a Betsy Ross house, a replica of the Old North Church Tower, a “pilgrim settlement,” and more. The most preeminent building was a replica of George Washington's home, Mount Vernon.This Mount Vernon was a space of conflict when it came to “doing history.” Two different groups wanted to claim the space and manage it—that is, two different groups wanted to be responsible for telling the story of the American Revolutionary era. Two patriotic women's groups came into conflict over the management of the replica Mount Vernon: the Illinois Daughters of the American Revolution (DAR), and the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association. Both of these organizations had a vested interest in the Revolutionary era, and both were interested in the publicity that the world's fair would bring them. Additionally, both groups felt that they had a right to tell the story of George Washington's home: the DAR by virtue of their general interest and bloodline connections to the American Revolution, as well as the fact that fair organizers invited them, and the Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association because they were the longtime owners and managers of the actual Mount Vernon site in Virginia.The heart of the conflict was historical authority as well as commercialism. The two groups each believed they had the authority to tell this historical story to a massive public—millions of visitors from Illinois and beyond. They also disagreed on the appropriate level of commercialism and historical accuracy for a space that recreated a historic building but was not the actual building itself. The Mount Vernon Ladies’ Association believed in a strictly accurate historical interpretation based on the work they did at Mount Vernon, Virginia, as well as minimal souvenir selling. They were also concerned that DAR operation of the replica would lead to confusion where visitors would assume the DAR ran the historic site in Virginia. The Illinois DAR hoped the space could be a fundraising opportunity for their organization.Both groups agreed that American Revolutionary history was important to show visitors from Illinois and around the world and that it would promote American values. In the end, the Daughters of the American Revolution were the caretakers of the site, responsible for some of the most prominent historical storytelling at the world's fair.The story of these two Depression-era women's groups coming into conflict over ownership of the past is a good reminder that the Revolutionary era has long been contested. This is not necessarily a bad thing: many people are interested and deeply invested in the stories of the founding of the United States. Perhaps this means that many people are interested in doing the work of history or at least learning how the work is done. The interpretations of the past at the Century of Progress Exposition were different than how professional historians would share those same stories today—Washington himself was venerated uncritically, for example—and sometimes people feel like their worldview has been destabilized when they learn that history is a dynamic field and not a static one. America's semiquincentennial will hopefully provide many opportunities for historians to communicate with public audiences the ways we “do history”—how we interpret evidence, use sources, and seek to share ever more perspectives and stories about the past.