River Raisin National Battlefield Park in Monroe, Michigan, preserves the site of the January 1813 battles that were among the deadliest engagements of the War of 1812 on American soil. On January 22, 1813, a combined British and Native American force defeated a larger American army along the River Raisin, and the following day, wounded American prisoners were killed in what became known as the River Raisin Massacre — the deadliest single event for U.S. forces in the war. The rallying cry "Remember the Raisin!" became a powerful recruiting tool for the American war effort. The park was designated a national battlefield park in 2010, making it the 392nd unit of the National Park System and the only national battlefield park dedicated to the War of 1812.
📚 Learn More at NPSHistory.com →Long before Rio Grande valley became a national park, this land was home to Indigenous peoples whose connection to it spans thousands of years. The interpretive materials now being reviewed tell their story — often developed through years of formal tribal consultation, as required by federal law.
From the internal review records: “Text in Question: Facing U.S. expansion in the early 1800s, diverse Native Nations united under Shawnee war chief Tecumseh. This Native Confederation, the largest organized Indigenous resistance ever, fought to protect their families, lands, and traditions against U.S. encroachment during the War of 1812.”
Why this matters: The Indigenous history presented at Rio Grande valley was developed through formal tribal consultation — a legal requirement under federal law. The language being reviewed was often specifically requested by tribal nations whose ancestors lived on this land for thousands of years. Revising it without renewed consultation would violate both the spirit and the letter of that process.
Text in Question: Facing U.S. expansion in the early 1800s, diverse Native Nations united under Shawnee war chief Tecumseh. This Native Confederation, the largest organized Indigenous resistance ever, fought to protect their families, lands, and traditions against U.S. encroachment during the War of 1812.
Long before Rio Grande valley became a national park, this land was home to Indigenous peoples whose connection to it spans thousands of years. The interpretive materials now being reviewed tell their story — often developed through years of formal tribal consultation, as required by federal law.
The administration has flagged for review content that includes the language: “U.S. forces attacked the Native Confederation and British…”, “found refuge… were deeply shocked when a warrior entered…”, and “All of the Couture family buildings were looted and burned.”.
Why this matters: The Indigenous history presented at Rio Grande valley was developed through formal tribal consultation — a legal requirement under federal law. The language being reviewed was often specifically requested by tribal nations whose ancestors lived on this land for thousands of years. Revising it without renewed consultation would violate both the spirit and the letter of that process.
Text in question: “U.S. forces attacked the Native Confederation and British…”; “found refuge… were deeply shocked when a warrior entered…”; “All of the Couture family buildings were looted and burned.”
Long before Rio Grande valley became a national park, this land was home to Indigenous peoples whose connection to it spans thousands of years. The interpretive materials now being reviewed tell their story — often developed through years of formal tribal consultation, as required by federal law.
The administration has flagged for review content that includes the language: “when U.S. forces launched their initial attack on the Native Confederation and British”, “Kentucky troops used the Godfroy’s barn as a barracks…”, and “their belongings destroyed or taken as spoils of war”.
Why this matters: The Indigenous history presented at Rio Grande valley was developed through formal tribal consultation — a legal requirement under federal law. The language being reviewed was often specifically requested by tribal nations whose ancestors lived on this land for thousands of years. Revising it without renewed consultation would violate both the spirit and the letter of that process.
Text In question: “when U.S. forces launched their initial attack on the Native Confederation and British”; “Kentucky troops used the Godfroy’s barn as a barracks…”; “their belongings destroyed or taken as spoils of war”
Rio Grande valley in TX preserves a piece of American history that the public has trusted the National Park Service to protect and interpret. The interpretive materials at this site have been developed over years by historians, subject-matter experts, and park staff — and are now being reviewed under Secretary's Order 3431.
The administration has flagged for review content that includes the language: “Mr. Jerome was in Detroit… but his buildings were used by the United States.”, “The large barn… was burned by the United States to prevent the British from using it.”, “All of the Jerome buildings… were destroyed on January 23, 1813.”, and “Mr. Jerome claimed… but was only awarded…”.
Why this matters: The specific language being targeted at Rio Grande valley — including “Mr. Jerome was in Detroit… but his buildings were used by the United States.” — is historically accurate content developed by professional historians and park staff. When this language is revised or removed, visitors lose access to the documented record of what happened here.
Text in question: “Mr. Jerome was in Detroit… but his buildings were used by the United States.”: “The large barn… was burned by the United States to prevent the British from using it.”; “All of the Jerome buildings… were destroyed on January 23, 1813.”; “Mr. Jerome claimed… but was only awarded…”
Long before Rio Grande valley became a national park, this land was home to Indigenous peoples whose connection to it spans thousands of years. The interpretive materials now being reviewed tell their story — often developed through years of formal tribal consultation, as required by federal law.
The administration has flagged for review content that includes the language: “General Hull surrendered the Michigan Territory to the Native Confederation and British...”, “U.S. attacked the Confederation warriors and British troops…”, “Confederation and British counterattack…”, and “Lacroix was arrested by the British…”.
Why this matters: The Indigenous history presented at Rio Grande valley was developed through formal tribal consultation — a legal requirement under federal law. The language being reviewed was often specifically requested by tribal nations whose ancestors lived on this land for thousands of years. Revising it without renewed consultation would violate both the spirit and the letter of that process.
Text in question: “General Hull surrendered the Michigan Territory to the Native Confederation and British...”; “U.S. attacked the Confederation warriors and British troops…”; “Confederation and British counterattack…”; “Lacroix was arrested by the British…”
Long before Rio Grande valley became a national park, this land was home to Indigenous peoples whose connection to it spans thousands of years. The interpretive materials now being reviewed tell their story — often developed through years of formal tribal consultation, as required by federal law.
Among the content targeted: “The Untold Legacy of the River Raisin” — language that the administration has flagged for review under its directive to review historically accurate interpretive materials.
Why this matters: The Indigenous history presented at Rio Grande valley was developed through formal tribal consultation — a legal requirement under federal law. The language being reviewed was often specifically requested by tribal nations whose ancestors lived on this land for thousands of years. Revising it without renewed consultation would violate both the spirit and the letter of that process.
The RIRA park film “The Untold Legacy of the River Raisin” is told fromthe tribal perspective. Acting Superintendent has reviewed the film and does not believ it violates SO 3431, but visitors at times have questioned it. Another opinion may be necessary.
See all 874+ entries across every national park and wildlife refuge.
Open Interactive Map →