This is a very good argument to be having. Even though I seem to find myself on the other side of the fence from many who are posting messages lately, it is a good opportunity to see the wide variety of definitions of what the Underground Railroad means, and symbolizes, to serious African American history researchers.

The symbolism itself is important. It determines what sort of interpretation is given to historical data and events by historians, and teaching history is all about interpretation. Each generation often has a slightly different view of historical events, generally because the world view of each generation is different. This is why we often find that history textbooks of 1898 read quite differently from history textbooks of 1948, which in turn read somewhat differently from those of 1998. The facts are unchanged, but the meanings we assign to them are updated for the world view that we hold when we write the books.

If this sounds like revisionism, it is. I have been accused of being revisionist in my presentation of history in general and African American history in particular, and I wear that badge proudly.

To me, the Underground Railroad is all about resistance to slavery by flight. The facts concerning a specific network, small or large, in a specific area, are secondary, in my opinion, to the fact that many enslaved persons escaped by running away. Of course I recognize degrees of importance to the central topic. I am highly interested in finding out what, if any, connection existed between persons who actively helped freedom seekers. I want to find out names, places, dates of operation and specific numbers. But to me, the resistance by flight issue is of prime importance because it connects those who escaped in the 1600's with those who escaped in 1865. By studying the types and degrees of aid received in 1740 with the aid received in 1840, we can more fully understand the development of not only the loosly organized "network," but the development of social conditions and thought that fostered that phenomenon.

That is why I support the broad definition taken by the NPS Network to Freedom. I see more value in studying the full range of experiencees across the continent and thereby better understanding the importance and unique position of the traditionally known UGRR in the mid-Atlantic and Ohio Valley, and elsewhere, than in restricting the study to that area and time period originally, and possibly missing the broader context.

As for leaving the false impression that the broad-study view suggests a huge network of options, making it easy on freedom seekers, we will simply have to emphasize in local organizations--and the NTF is not meant to supplant local groups, but to provide a national context--the danger, gaps in organization, and the fact that the majority of freedom seekers had no help at all.