Let me start with an overview of our position and then elaborate on the details. As we have told you previously, we requested $700,000 in grants from the Commonwealth of Virginia to cover our operating deficit and to finance an independent study of our situation by outside experts. We were awarded a grant from the state of only $50,000 on July 1st. Despite this setback, our independent study is proceeding (please be sure to read the interview with Nick Muller later in the Magazine), and the Executive Committee of your Board of Trustees heard its first interim report in mid-July. We have a number of tough long-term decisions before us, and we have already made some tough immediate decisions. Let me elaborate on each of these points.

The Museum’s leadership has worked hard for two years now on our planning process, beginning when the hospital’s announcement of their expansion made it clear to us that our site was being completely compromised as a viable museum location. Knowing that we represent a public asset, we approached the state and requested that it “study” our situation fully—before we asked for any financial assistance. The General Assembly’s study concluded last November and stated that we represent one of the state’s and country’s greatest assets. Further, our financial problems were “largely of the Commonwealth’s making” and that the state should, therefore, cover our annual operating deficit for one year and cover the cost of an independent analysis of our future options. At the January session of Virginia’s General Assembly, we requested $700,000--$500,000 to cover our estimated deficit and $200,000 to cover the cost of the study—all consistent with the conclusions of their own recommendations. At our June Board meeting, the Board approved our budget, which was in line with those previous estimates.

In Virginia, the General Assembly is charged to produce a budget in March in time for a July 1st implementation, but it ended its session without a budget accord. On-again/off-again discussions led to a mad scramble in mid-June to construct a budget in order to avoid a shut-down of government functions on July 1st. We had done our job. Legislators across the board supported us. Republicans and Democrats. Liberals and Conservatives. Blacks and Whites. But, in its rush to deadline, the General Assembly dropped the ball, and a grant of only $50,000 was made. In spite of our following correct procedures and having much assurance that our request would be overwhelmingly approved, the state faltered and did not live up to its responsibility.

This grant is a significant disappointment, and we could spend valuable time determining who is to blame. Instead, we are facing up to reality and dealing with the situation by making some painful short-term decisions. Above all else, we are doing everything in our power to protect the collection and to minimize the negative effects on our visitors and members. But we must act now to raise emergency revenues and to cut all non-essential expenses. There are many measures being taken behind the scenes to accomplish this goal. As I write this letter, the Board is hard at work on the former—contacting some of our best supporters for emergency funding.

The Museum of the Confederacy has been open for most of 362 days a year for the last 110 years. But, effective from Labor Day to Memorial Day, the museum and the White House will be closed to the public one day a week. We will close on Wednesdays, traditionally our lightest day for visitors.

We will close the White House for public tours for several months a year—starting in January 2007.

We will indefinitely postpone mounting all new exhibits, except for an exhibit on Virginians in the Confederacy, privately funded by the Lee-Jackson Education Foundation. The Confederate Navy exhibit will not end this December but will continue into the future.

Long-time members will remember that there was a 30% cut in staff in 2003, and we will cut an additional 10% of staff now (through attrition).

The independent consulting study budget has been cut by over 50%, representing the single largest savings. This study is critical to our long-term viability and cannot be eliminated, but we are forced to cut down markedly in several vital areas, especially the much-desired market research portion. The study will nevertheless remain a valid and solid step toward our future. Our Magazine has been a great success with everyone, but we will cut it from four issues per year to three. (This is another good excuse for you to make sure that we have your e-mail address.)

What comes next? The independent consultants will meet with the Executive Committee in September and the full Board at an all-day retreat later in the month. A great deal of their work from the review will be revealed to members shortly after. Some of their conclusions, however, will necessitate further negotiations with public or private parties and will require some confidentiality for now. We have consistently maintained that we have three basic options: (1) stay here, (2) split the museum and White House by moving only the collection to a new museum site, or (3) move both the collection and White House to a new site. From the consultants’ work-to-date, it does not appear that the current site is viable for the museum, so work continues to determine the impact of a move and an appropriate location.

I want to address one issue very specifically—our collection. The depth and importance of the collection, its historical legacy and provenance, and its importance to the modern mission of education—set it apart from all others. More than anything else, we all—staff, board, and members—are fiduciaries of the collection. We owe it to the donors—whether a hundred years ago or last week—to preserve and exhibit the artifacts. The collection is at risk today. If we cannot afford to continue to preserve and exhibit the artifacts, the collection could be broken up and dispersed to other locations and collections. And future generations would be denied the benefits of its staying together, unified with its legacy. We all saw the public outcry recently when the papers of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., were put up for sale. It would have been a tragedy if the sale had gone forward. It likewise would be a great tragedy for historic preservation if we were ever forced to consider similar actions. That possibility remains our absolute last resort.

In summary, these are truly difficult times for the Museum of the Confederacy. The Board and the staff are working as hard as possible to protect our collection, our mission, and our legacy. We know that we are not a “sinking ship”—we will succeed in the face of adversity. We know that our decisions will not please every single person in our constituency; but, if there was ever a time when your support is needed—emotionally and financially, it is now. As I pointed out in my last letter, we learn from studying the history of the Confederacy that success came when debate about strategy ended before the attack began. We will soon move from strategy to tactics, from planning to implementation. If we are to succeed, we need your support and are confident that you will be there when the command is given, “Shoulder arms. Forward march.”

S. Waite Rawls III