The 1980s-90s crisis concentrated the institution's mind,
and in 1993 it declared that, "the primary mission of
The New-York Historical Society shall be to develop, preserve
and interpret to the broadest possible public, material relevant
to the rich history, cultural diversity and current evolution
of New York City and State and the surrounding region."
When a new administration under Betsy Gotbaum sought permission
from the Attorney General to deaccession some now-extraneous
holdings to raise money, it was granted as being "consistent
with the mission of the Society".
The new regime got the place back on its feet, made necessary
repairs, tapped some new funding sources, and mounted some
interesting shows, but it continued to skate on thin financial
ice. In 1996 several historians proposed a merger of the N-YHS
and the Museum of the City of New York, the point being to
pool resources in order to achieve long-term economic stability,
and undertake bold new initiatives, like "a full-dress
permanent exhibition that tells the history of the city in
a truly comprehensive way." When negotiations foundered
they tried again, in 2002, noting that "if the Gilder-Lehrman
Collection joined the new institution, and perhaps at a later
date, the Municipal Archives were moved to the site as well,
the new organization - already host to the Luce Center - would
immediately become one of the premier research institutions
of the City."15
As this suggests, the possible arrival of wealthy new N-YHS
trustees, passionately committed to history, was seen as a
promising development, heralding great potential for finally
creating a world class institution dedicated to explicating
New York's past. It seemed a renaissance was in store, and
that Gilder and Lehrman might take their place alongside the
civic patrons then refurbishing old landmarks like the Planetarium
and the Museum of Modern Art. Indeed their arrival betokened
the infusion of more than cash, as they seemed willing to
bring along their significant collection of early American
historical documents.
Vigorous public outreach strategies seemed newly plausible,
as well, given that their Gilder Lehrman Institute of American
History had done exemplary work in making historical scholarship
accessible to wider publics: it had sponsored history schools,
history programs within schools, research centers, teacher
training programs, public lectures, traveling exhibitions,
a web site, and an on-line journal, and had also established
fellowship programs and two historical prize competitions.
Nor had their rightwing personal politics led to imposition
of a political means test before bestowing support; in 2001
they contributed to a conference on New York City History
of which the Gotham Center for New York City History was a
co-sponsor (we appreciated their assistance then, and we appreciate
it still).
But then the new day dawned, and attached strings came dangling
into view. The price exacted for depositing the documents,
and the possibility of eventual support from their deep pockets,
was the Society's agreeing to abandon its focus on New York
history, sniffed at as parochial. "Mr. Gilder acknowledged,"
the Times reported, "that he and Mr. Lehrman were evaluating
the society on the basis, among other things, of whether it
fulfilled their desire to make its focus more national.''
They built a million-dollar segregated vault in the N-YHS
basement, for Gilder Lehrman documents only, and while they
let some out to commingle in the Hamilton show, each was labeled
"The Gilder Lehrman Collection, on deposit at the New-York
Historical Society," as if to underscore the collection's
provisional status which Gilder had spelled out bluntly to
the Times: "it's the society's to lose."16
At the same time, several New York City-oriented exhibitions
then on the N-YHS drawing boards were truncated or dumped.
''There was nothing wrong'' with the shows, Gilder told the
Times. ''They just weren't really in the mainstream of American
history. We want to focus on bigger things." Bigger things?
If the new desiderata were shows that looked at national issues
through the prism of New York City, why scuttle a show on
the centennial history of Times Square? Certainly the proposal
had been ambitious enough: it planned to tackle developments
in theater, movies, popular culture, architecture, language,
advertising, shopping, journalism, real estate, urban decline,
and urban renewal.17
The abandonment was doubly bewildering because if funded at
anything remotely approaching the outlay on the Hamilton show,
a Times Square exhibition could really have been a blockbuster.18
''Dick and I are reformers," says Lewis Lehrman. "We
are not interested in insulating the status quo from new ideas.''
Feisty words. But the Hamilton show betrays a musty reality.
How likely is that such narrow gauge nationalists, focused
on Founding Fatherology, will be open to what's happening
out in the wider world? It's hard to imagine them sponsoring
an international conference of city museums, much less helping
New York City get involved in the broader urban heritage issues
now being discussed in the global arena.19
The N-YHS position seems to be that while "local"
issues may be fine in their place, they can be safely left
to the MCNY while they attend to matters of more pressing
moment. Russell Shorto, in a recent piece in the Times, suggests
similarly that we let ourselves "dream a happy dream
in which the lofty New-York Historical Society sits grandly
on Central Park, unfurling big shows about the big New York,
while the Museum of the City of New York does the boroughs
with gusto and the Seaport sails into the schools."20
But the question is whether or not the N-YHS has any interest
in "unfurling big shows about the big New York."
Given Hamilton, I suspect the new trustees would prefer to
mount exhibitions about U.S. History, stressing the subjects
and eras on which they have long focused their collecting
energies - creating in effect a Gilder Lehrman Museum of Early
American History within the shell of the N-YHS. And from their
perspective, why not? It's understandable they would want
to make use of the materials they've accumulated, most of
which don't relate to New York City or State. But from New
Yorkers' perspective a nationalizing strategy would subtract
from an already historically underserved city one of the only
general-interest institutions dedicated to exploring its legacy.21
PREVIOUS
PAGE | NEXT
PAGE
