The African American Experience in Louisiana

associations. This further confirmed the limitations of standard surveys in identifying properties
for this project without a more intensive level of interdisciplinary research than could be
completed for properties across the entire state within the time limits of this project.
Once the list of 161 properties was established, a review was conducted to identify those
appearing to have true significance in association with this context. This selection process was
heavily based on property type and dates, with consideration of background history when
available. For example, because many potentially relevant churches accompanied by sparse
historical notes had been found in the survey files, only those that appeared to retain a good deal
of integrity were chosen for onsite documentation. On the other hand, singular examples of a
type, such as a slave chapel, were automatically marked for identification. Properties already
listed on the National Register were likewise automatically considered worthy of new
photography. Initially, 109 properties were selected for site investigation and photographic
documentation. This list ended up being revised considerably. As soon as field work began, it
was discovered that many previously surveyed properties had been demolished while others were
found to have been incorrectly identified or associated with inaccurate histories.
When it became clear that chasing after buildings surveyed decades ago could waste
valuable project time, attention was refocused on outlining the background history and
associated property types of the context. This allowed for a much more informed and selective
evaluation of the individual and collective significance of the identified properties. While the
rough inventory of properties associated with the context had helped to shape research of the
context, the broad historic pattern of the context now sharpened the assessment of the properties.
Ultimately, 114 properties representing thirty of the state’s sixty-four parishes were felt to be
notable examples of the property types defined in relation to this context. While the list had
started with just fifty-eight National Register listed properties, the final list actually included
eighty-two National Register listed properties. The reason this balance of twenty-four National
Register listed properties had not been identified as associated properties at the outset is that their
nominations either obscured their associations with African American history altogether or
mentioned it only briefly while arguing the significance of the property’s architecture or other
historic associations.
The fact that there were so many properties in Louisiana already listed on the National
Register with important associations with the African American Experience in Louisiana was a
slightly surprising revelation of this project. While it should be obvious that a great many
architecturally and historically significant properties would have association with the threehundred
years of the African American Experience in Louisiana, the element of surprise came
because of the fact that African American history is simultaneously underrepresented on the
National Register. The conclusion that should be drawn from this is that we need to do a better
job not just of identifying and nominating significant African American properties, but of
articulating all of the history of a given property, not simply that which contributes most
forcefully to an argument of significance. National Register nominations now do this much
more so than they did thirty and forty years ago, but in light of this finding it is well worth
considering and investigating the African American associations of any property so that we may
better understand the whole story that the historic buildings we value can tell of our national
collective experience. Only in this way, will a more holistic view of the inherent connections
Page 119 of 123