Nez Perce National Historical Park Administrative History

CHAPTER ONE:
Origins of Nez Perce National Historical Park

Interpretation of the Act

It was evident to all that the Nez Perce National Historical Park was an unusual addition to the national park system. The act authorized the Secretary of the Interior to designate a number of recommended sites throughout an area that measured 60 miles from north to south and 110 miles from east to west (Figure 1). Some sites would be acquired by the NPS, some would remain in the Clearwater National Forest, and some would remain under non-federal ownership and would be managed under cooperative agreements. The NPS would be responsible for relating all the sites to one another through a park-wide interpretive plan. No one connected with the establishment of Nez Perce National Historical Park would have argued with the statement of the National Parks Advisory Board that the park idea represented "an imaginative new concept of historic preservation." Beyond that general point of consensus, however, those individuals and groups involved in creating the park had different ideas about how the park would develop.

Probably the most nebulous aspect of the park concept had to do with the resources that were to be preserved. At a certain point in the planning process, the so-called scenic-recreational-historical values that made Nez Perce country an attractive region had to be redefined as primarily of historical value; this was, after all, to be a national historical park. Yet the scenic values remained implicit in the legislation. Senator Church argued that the area contained "scenic magnificence" as well as historical resources, and that the natural setting gave Nez Perce country "a high degree of historical integrity." [60]

This was a complicated formulation. The relatively undeveloped condition of the land gave the historical resources integrity in a dual sense. In the narrow sense of the term, there were few visual intrusions of modern life to distract the viewer; one could still see, for example, the White Bird Battlefield in much the same condition as it existed on the eve of the battle. In a broader sense, the natural setting contributed to the feeling of these historical sites because the historical themes that they reflected — exploration, gold mining, Indian-white conflict, logging — were strongly associated with nineteenth-century white Americans' experience of the wilderness. The scenic magnificence alluded to the area's wilderness values: not official wilderness as defined by the Wilderness Act of 1964, but the wilderness of western history and myth. Desiring to build support for the park proposal, Senator Church deliberately eschewed the term "wilderness" to avoid any confusion with official wilderness. But he implied, nevertheless, that "scenic magnificence" had a historical and mythic dimension in this case, for without the wilderness setting the historic resources did not have the same impact. That was why local preservationists began with the premise that Nez Perce country was rich in scenic-recreational-historical resources.

Erwin Thompson described the correlation between scenic and historical values in Nez Perce country in his 1963 feasibility study:

Despite extensive farming in the uplands, intensive logging on the mountain slopes and canyon walls, and the growth of towns and cities, the overall effect as one drives through the former lands of the Nez Perces is the impression, "This is how it was." The prairies are still open; vast armies of pines and firs still climb the hills; the grass-covered slopes still rise above basalt cliffs; the rivers and streams largely run clear and free. The country is so vast, so magnificent, and so lightly settled that the eye tends to glance over such recent developments as roads, railroads, mills, fences, towns, and spreading residential sections. This is still, in essence, the Nez Perce country. [61]

Scenic grandeur, in other words, would assist the park visitor in conjuring up the images of western history and myth.

The relationship of the park resources to the surrounding scenery was vague. The House report on the measure, for example, stated that the park concept departed from the usual type of park in which a single, compact area was placed in federal ownership; instead the park would comprise a number of widely scattered sites not necessarily under federal ownership. The historical values of Nez Perce country were too varied and diffuse to make a compact area under federal ownership feasible; therefore, "it is believed that the approach...will give maximum coverage at minimum expense." [62] This begged the question of what was meant by "coverage." Indeed, most of the sites would be designated without any defined or protective boundaries whatsoever.

Another important aspect of the park concept which still awaited definition concerned the park story. The park's creators agreed that the story was relatively complex, involving multiple events, eras, and points of view. They also agreed that the story must be presented skillfully to tie the various sites together. To the extent that the park's creators could foresee that the story would be contentious, they deliberately postponed discussion of that problem until the park bill had been enacted. In retrospect, one can find the seeds of contention in the park campaign.

Local non-Indians, Nez Perce, and Idaho's senators and representatives all had different ideas about what precisely constituted the park story. Local, non-Indian interest in the project had started with the Spalding mission site and the missionary story. Indeed, the Daughters of the American Revolution regarded the missionary experience as symbolic of a larger story of "civilizing" or "Americanizing" the Nez Perce country. Exemplifying its somewhat narrow vision of a Spalding museum, the DAR sponsored an "Idaho school childrens' historical drive for dimes" on May 13, 1954, to commemorate the coming of the first printing press to Idaho on that date in 1839. [63] As will be seen, a story that cast the Spaldings as heroic torch-bearers and the Nez Perce as benighted heathens did not sit well with the Nez Perce Tribe on whose land the museum would be built.

NPTEC approached the park idea with different expectations about the park story. It was assumed that the Nez Perce people would be at the center of the story. The NPS-administered visitor center would complement tribally-administered developments such as an amphitheater for pageants, a reconstructed Indian village, or an outlet store for Nez Perce arts and crafts. Anthropologists in nearby universities assumed that preserving Nez Perce cultural traditions and artifacts would be a major thrust of the new park. [64]

Idaho's congressional delegation took a more expansive view of the park story. Senator Church suggested that there were three principal stories to be told in Nez Perce country: the story of Lewis and Clark, the story of the mining frontier, and the story of the Nez Perce's flight from the U.S. Army in 1877. Representative White was even more inclusive. "The historic background of the State is an epic story of pioneer adventure, missionary zeal, Indian wars, and the advance of civilization," he testified. "In the north-central area of the State there is an area well adapted to the preservation of historical sites and the development of the cultural lore of the Nez Perce Indian Tribe." [65] The expansiveness of these statements were calculated to satisfy all of the park's proponents, not necessarily to provide guidance to the Park Service as it set about developing an interpretive program. Idaho's congressional delegation succeeded admirably in selling the park idea to Congress, but it left the NPS with a formidable challenge in making the park story coherent for visitors and at the same time palatable to local constituents.

The park campaign also highlighted the fact that tribal and non-Indian groups had potentially conflicting ideas about who the park would benefit. Tribal leaders anticipated that Nez Perces would find jobs on the park staff and that the park would stimulate arts and crafts sales. [66] NPTEC Chairman Angus A. Wilson told the Senate subcommittee that he thought the park would benefit the tribe. NPTEC intended to cooperate closely with the Park Service and to invest tribal funds in tourist services near the park. "Maybe the Government, at a later date, would have to invoke laws regulating this sort of thing," Wilson said. (NPTEC later considered a motel development at Orofino, but eventually dropped the plan.) [67]

NPS officials, for their part, stressed that the national historical park would be developed in accordance with accepted National Park Service standards and policies. There was nothing in the legislation specifically mandating that special consideration be given to tribal economic development. One official noted that the Armour Research Foundation's feasibility study wrongly implied that the NPS should build a visitor center at Spalding in order to relieve the tribe of this financial undertaking. The reason that the NPS supported the project was "to assure the proper preservation of cultural and historical values of the Nez Perce Country and to permit the Nez Perce story to be cohesively told." [68]

Governor Smylie added another wrinkle when he noted in his testimony before the Senate subcommittee that the Spalding State Park served admirably as a picnic area for thousands of local residents. [69] The governor promised to convey the state park to the National Park Service once the Nez Perce National Historical Park was established, but with the caveat that this traditional recreational use would continue to be permitted.