Chapter 10:
History and the National Monuments (continued)
When Stephen T. Mather set the Park Service as the
guardian of the ceremonial landscapes, he unwittingly impressed a
one-dimensional role upon his agency. Mather had developed the system
and left an indelible imprint upon it, but his personal experience
limited his view of what was important. A Californian by birth and
education, he had treasured the scenic magnificence of the western parks
and when he laid the basis for national parks like Great Smokey
Mountains in the East, he had created them in the western image. The
parks included high elevations and the most spectacular scenery the
agency could find, but they presented only one aspect of American
tradition: their expansiveness showed the milieu that pitted humanity
against its environment. Well-promoted the parks doubled as recreational
areas, but Americans eventually sought other facets of their heritage.
By the 1920s, the American republic had a history of its own, revealed
in places far more important than the Verendrye National Monument. It
became more worthy of federal attention as the cultural distance between
twentieth-century America and its westward frontier grew. As the United
States emerged on the international scene, national sentiment supported
federal preservation as a means to explore more than the interaction
between humanity and the physical environment.
Prior to 1930, agency officials yearned for a
significant historic presence under the jurisdiction of the Park
Service. Colonial and Wakefield revolutionized the view the agency held
of its responsibilities and gave agency officials a precedent not only
for adding such places, but for sizable capital investment as well. The
two areas became popular with travelers, and gratified by the response
of the public, Albright and his staff sought more historic places.
The presence of the Park Service in historic
preservation altered the role of the agency. According to Albright, the
agency "doubled [its] efforts" to acquire important historical areas.
[14] After the emergence of the educational
division, which was staffed by museum and academic professionals, the
agency began to see that the scenic beauty of the national parks had
limited potential for interpretive programs. The addition of places like
Williamsburg and the George Washington Birthplace National Monument
allowed the agency to expand into interpreting the story of the American
republic in a way that scenic parks never could.
In part, the growing emphasis upon history helped put
the Park Service beyond the reach of the Forest Service. The majority of
historic places were located on small tracts east of the Mississippi
River, where the Forest Service had only a limited presence. Whereas the
disposition of federal land in the West had forced the two agencies into
competition, even the broadest vision of the responsibilities of the
Forest Service did not include interest in historic areas. As the Park
Service entered historic preservation, the Forest Service generally paid
little attention. Finally, the Park Service found a way to circumvent
whatever opposition to its plans the Forest Service may have had.
Even more telling, historic places were an avenue of
interpretation that Frank Pinkley had not explored. As the highest
echelons of the agency sought to curtail his role during the 1930s and
as his work became less unique, Pinkley found others in the agency
filling roles previously reserved for him. Because historic places
offered meaningful opportunities for interpretation, the educational
division seized upon American history in an effort to counter Pinkley's
constant complaints. Harold C. Bryant and his staff used the gap in
interpreting historic places to their own advantage to increase the
importance of the Division of Education.
The educational division sought to establish a
rationale for a systematic presentation of the historic past. The Park
Service administered random episodes of American history, a perspective
that Verne Chatelain, the man Albright hired as historian for the
Division of Education, found inadequate. In 1931 he articulated the
premise that historic areas had to be presented "not [as] a research
program but [as] an educational program in the broader sense." Chatelain
refined his thoughts over the following year and, with Roger Toll, the
superintendent of Yellowstone who was headed for the highest level in
the agency until his death in a automobile accident near Big Bend
National Park in February 1936, reported that the agency needed to
approach its areas from an integrative perspective. It was "unsound,
uneconomical, and detrimental to a historical system and policy to study
each individual area without reference to the entire scheme of things."
[15]
Chatelain's proposals offered the agency a new
perspective for interpretive programs. He suggested locating each
episode within the larger picture of the American past. The idea, a
comprehensive approach to interpreting the past, was new. Even Pinkley's
efforts had been largely episodic. As a result, Chatelain's proposal had
the added benefit of decreasing the significance of Pinkley's
contributions to the interpretation policy of the agency.
Chatelain first tried to implement his concept at
Colonial National Monument. After the creation of the monument, he
guided the development of a historical program that the agency hoped
would "serve as a link to bind the past to the present and be a guide
and an inspiration for the future." The linkage between Jamestown,
Williamsburg, and Yorktown neatly encapsulated what the agency and the
public regarded as the important facets of the first two centuries of
Anglo-American inhabitation of the eastern seaboard. As the Park Service
developed its interpretation at Colonial under two young historians, B.
Floyd Flickinger and Elbert Cox, the presentation of the monument became
part of a move to link the foundations of the American republic. [16]
Chatelain continued to push the idea of synthesizing
the message of historic areas within the system. "Unless there is a real
philosophy of history," he told Arthur E. Demaray in April 1933, "it
will be easy enough to spend our time in academic discussions . . . and
never seriously tackle the bigger task." The larger "patterns of
history" were what Chatelain sought, and rather than search for the
story of each battlefield and house, Chatelain advocated exploring the
larger questions and subsequently relating individual areas to broad
themes. [17]
He also echoed earlier Park Service notions about
adding areas of national significance to the system. As Cammerer noted
in the Meriwether Lewis case, the federal government had to be careful
what it chose to preserve lest every small town organization offer its
local landmarks. Chatelain settled upon three types of areas that he
felt belonged in the federal network. The places that offered an outline
of the major themes of American history were important, as were the ones
with strong connections to the lives of famous Americans and the
locations of dramatic episodes in the American history. [18] To preclude inundation by insistent
locals, he suggested that the agency ignore potential areas that did not
meet his criteria. By 1933 Chatelain had established the roots of a
system and solid reasoning for the continued growth of agency interest
in historic areas.
But it was Executive Order 6166, which went into
effect on 10 August 1933, that truly put the National Park Service into
the business of historic preservation. Roosevelt's order to reorganize
the federal government transferred the national monuments previously
administered by the Forest Service and the War Department, as well as
the battlefield parks and cemeteries and the public parks in Washington,
D.C., to the Park Service. The centralization of the administration of
the monuments was the result of three decades of lobbying by park
advocates, and after 1916, by NPS personnel. This hard-won "inheritance"
made the National Park Service an entity with a national constituency
and multiple responsibilities. It also made the agency not only arbiters
of the natural and prehistoric heritage of the nation, but the guardian
of its federally preserved history as well.
In effect, Horace Albright's interests dovetailed
with those of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harold Ickes. Roosevelt wanted
to reorganize government bureaucracies; from its inception in 1916, the
Park Service had sought control of all the national monuments. The
perspectives of Albright and Ickes interlocked closely in ideas about
the value of historical experience. Their shared view also led to the
development of educational programs for the newly acquired historic
national monuments under the auspices of federal emergency relief
programs such as the CCC and the WPA.
With this inheritance, the Park Service became the
sole agency responsible for federal efforts at preservation. The
reorganization presented the NPS with fifty-seven new historical areas
to manage along with eleven additional natural areas, many of which
required immediate administrative supervision and visitation programs.
Fortunately, New Deal programs made funding available, but capital
development was only one step toward a comprehensive system. With the
added responsibility of historical parks of various kinds, something
many old-line Park Service people felt was a burden, the Park Service
needed a more flexible infrastructure. [19]
Reorganizing the NPS was the first task that confronted Cammerer when he
took over the directorship of the agency from Albright on 10 August
1933.
From its inception, the Park Service had relied
heavily upon the personalities of its leadership. Mather and Albright
ran every facet of the agency. But Cammerer was not as dynamic as his
predecessors; although he spent many years carrying out the agenda that
Mather and Albright designed, he played only a small role in shaping its
priorities. With 137 park areas to administer, he needed to delegate
responsibility, particularly for places of lesser importance. Pinkley
had long ago taken care of the administration of the archaeological
sites. Cammerer was left with responsibility for integrating the new
areas into the established system.
As Frank Pinkley astutely predicted in 1929, the
national monument category blurred as a result of the transfer. Although
Pinkley succeeded in convincing many that the term national
monument could be equated with archaeological preservation,
Executive Order 6166 destroyed the clarity of his distinction. The Park
Service now administered all kinds of historic places with an array of
names; some were called national monuments, and of these, some were
archaeological and others historical. The monuments were no longer alone
in the system with the national parks. The agency also administered
numerous other categories, such as national battlefields, national
memorials, and national military parks. Park Service nomenclature had
only begun to become confusing.
The obligations of the Park Service changed so
dramatically as a result of the acquisition of these new parks that even
the broad outline of the domain of the agency became murky. A
generalization about natural or historic areas ceased to cover the range
of areas under those headings, and the accentuation of the diversity of
park areas presented new management problems. Mountaintop parks,
representative-area national monuments, Civil War battlefields, Mormon
forts, and archaeological sites did not offer a unified cultural
message. The simple interaction between the director and the
superintendents that characterized Mather's tenure became impossible
with 137 areas, and Cammerer and his staff had to determine how to
manage the broadened responsibilities of the newly expanded Park
Service.
One response was the development of a more
sophisticated system of administration. The Park Service moved toward
integrated management, a process that began in 1937 as the agency
divided itself into five geographic groupings of park areas. [20] The realignment created an intermediate
level of administration between park superintendents and the office of
the director. The regions, as the agency called these new
entities, addressed the concerns of all the areashistorical,
natural, archaeological, and recreationalwithin their
jurisdiction.
Regionalization formalized the developing structure
of the agency. After 1937 the informal hierarchy that had existed under
Mather became a codified process. With the exception of Pinkley, who
simply ignored the intermediaries at the Region III Office in Santa Fe,
superintendents approached the Washington, D.C., office through their
region. The new system sacrificed a degree of the personal contact
between high-level officials and field personnel that characterized the
Mather administration and, to a lesser extent, the Albright years.
Despite protests to the contrary, the Park Service gave up some of its
camaraderie in order to operate more efficiently.
Integrating its new historic areas into the system
posed a major burden for the Park Service. Revolutionary War and Civil
War battlefields in the East required intensive management if they were
to fulfill their promise, but before the agency could implement its
interpretation programs, it had to transform these historic places into
Park Service areas. Agency personnel had to bring each area up to Park
Service standards. Often the policies of the previous
administratorsthe Forest Service and the War
Departmentconflicted with the plans of the Park Service.
Particularly objectionable to the NPS was the War Department policy of
leasing historic places to private groups. Bryant and his staff regarded
the activities of private organizations as inferior and unprofessional.
From Bryant's perspective, the agency had to implement its programs so
that the public would identify the new acquisitions with the Park
Service.
The reorganization of Fort Marion became a crucible
and a test case for the Park Service. The fort had a built-in
constituency; the climate in St. Augustine made the fort a popular stop
for people visiting Florida in the winter. This project offered Bryant
the opportunity to show what the difference was between Park Service
interpretation and the efforts of local groups. If the agency could
wrest control of the area away from the locals, implement its history
policy, and make the fort into an important place for tourists, Fort
Marion would offer the educational division great advantages.
Fortunately for the Park Service, conflict among
local people in St. Augustine predated the transfer of Fort Marion to
the Park Service in 1933. As early as 1930, local residents contacted
Albright to complain about the tactics of the St. Augustine Historical
Society. When the Park Service assumed jurisdiction, serious tension
between the historical society and two other local groupsthe City
of St. Augustine and the local Veterans of Foreign Warsalready
existed. Both wanted to acquire the contract that the historical society
held. In 1933 the society was firmly entrenched; its lease had more than
a year to run. Herbert Kahler, whom Verne Chatelain recruited out of the
University of Minnesota history department graduate program to serve as
an historical foreman on the CCC project at Chickamauga-Chattanooga
National Battlefield, became the Park Service representative in St.
Augustine. It was his job to determine whether the lease should be
renewed. [21]
What Kahler found was not impressive. Although only
authorized to collect donations, the historical society guides were
"hold[ing] the basket, so there is not much 'free will' about the
offering." The guides told him that they had to be aggressive because
visitors did not like to pay to inspect government property, but after
watching the guides in action, Kahler was skeptical. The story the
guides told consisted of "antiquarian details," Kahler reported, and
they offered little in the way of interpretation. The usual tour took
about fifteen to twenty minutes, and Kahler believed that its level was
below the standards of the NPS. The public did not complain about the
fees the NPS charged at its western parks, and Kahler suspected that
people just did not want to pay for poor service. He thought that the
existing guide service did little to maintain the interest of visitors
and ought to be changed. [22]
There were other problems at Fort Marion, and Kahler
believed the Park Service should not renew the existing lease. A museum
containing "heterogeneous materials," including Spanish-American War
relics and other items that had little to do with the history of the
fort, particularly disturbed him. Following the procedures of the
agency, he suggested its elimination. The City of St. Augustine, the
historical society, and the local Veterans of Foreign Wars continued to
quarrel over the monument, "primarily for its commercial value," Kahler
observed. "I recommend that it be taken out of local hands." [23]
The Floridians feared that they would lose control of
the fort and began to muster supporters, but the Park Service had no
intention of changing its policy. The historical society enlisted
Congressman W. J. Sears of Florida in its cause, and in January 1935 he
approached the Park Service. The most direct person on the central
office staff, Arthur E. Demaray, explained the position of the Park
Service. He told Sears that it was a mistake to leave the historical
society in control of the fort. Demaray believed that permanent
administration by any local organization would create animosity among
the factions, and that Park Service management of the fort was the only
professional solution. "The practice of 'farming out' national
historical parks and monuments," Demaray insisted, had to stop. [24]
As Cammerer considered the proposal, agency staffers
made their opposition to the historical society clear. Kahler wrote to
Cammerer that he believed the historical society to be "in the minority"
and revealed that he had convinced Florida senator Park Trammel not to
fight on behalf of the St. Augustinians. He urged the director to stick
to his decision to terminate the agreement. Kahler's superior, Verne
Chatelain, agreed. He thought that other elements in St. Augustine were
jealous of the existing arrangement, "which is a money maker for
the Society." [25]
The position of the Park Service at Fort Marion was
typical of its stance in similar cases. Chatelain and Kahler argued that
the agency represented the public good and that the historical society
represented private profit. The Park Service disseminated information,
whereas the guides of the historical society collected money from
unsatisfied visitors. Within an agency that saw its role as serving the
public, these officials found considerable sympathy. Cammerer decided
that the Park Service should take over the areas as soon as the current
lease expired.
In St. Augustine, Kahler began a publicity campaign
to win friends for the Park Service, and his public proclamations
enhanced the position of the agency. The Park Service had something to
offer the community besides its administration, and Kahler made sure
local citizens were informed. On 19 February 1935 the local newspaper,
the St. Augustine Evening Record, revealed that the Park Service
planned a budget allotment for the monument that would cover expenses
and salaries. There would be no more "holding the basket." Kahler also
said that the PWA intended to grant between $30,000 and $50,000 to
restore decaying parts of the fort. [26]
This meant jobs for local workers, the prospect of which made the
community respond enthusiastically. By taking over a measure of economic
responsibility for the people of the area, the Park Service outdistanced
local organizations.
Kahler's work made the Park Service the more
attractive alternative, and support for the local administration began
to diminish. Despite the skepticism of David R. Dunham, the president of
the historical society, who did not believe Kahler's press release,
Mayor Walter B. Fraser announced that the city supported the Park
Service. Local support for the historical society then evaporated. With
the end of its lease approaching, members of the historical society
became desperate and spread "fantastic tales" about the Park Service. To
maintain the credibility of the NPS, Kahler countered with press
releases. With the always persuasive Demaray handling the queries of the
Florida congressional delegation in Washington, D.C., and with Kahler
pursuing the interests of the agency in St. Augustine, by the spring of
1935, federal administration of Fort Marion was imminent. [27]
Kahler was an effective advocate for agency interests
in Florida and the Southeast. He had arrived in the middle of this
conflict and managed to turn it to the advantage of the agency.
Although technically a CCC employee until June 1935, Kahler was already
indispensable to the Park Service. On 1 June 1935 the agency added him
to its permanent payroll as the junior park historian for Fort Marion,
and he continued to inspect southeastern parks like Fort Pulaski, Fort
Jefferson, Fort Frederica, and Ocmulgee National Monuments for the
agency. [28]
Cammerer, Demaray, and Chatelain looked favorably on
Kahler's work, and he shouldered increased responsibility for national
monuments in the Southeast. With a visible need to develop decentralized
authority as a result of the reorganization of 1933, and the central
office promoted Kahler to acting superintendent of the southeastern
monuments group on 16 December 1935. Kahler had "shown courage and
initiative in his work and discretion in the execution of his plan. His
unfailing tact [had] done wonders to remove many troublesome problems at
St. Augustine." [29] He filled an important
vacancy at the regional level. His new role paralleled that of Frank
Pinkley's in the Southwest.
With only one organization to pattern themselves
upon, the Park Service adapted Pinkley's southwestern structure to the
Southeast. The southeastern monuments consisted of Fort Marion and Fort
Matanzas near St. Augustine, Fort Pulaski, Fort Frederica, and Ocmulgee
in Georgia, Castle Pinckney in Charleston, South Carolina, and Fort
Jefferson in Florida. In structure, it was a geographic grouping similar
to Pinkley's group. Organized similarly, with a superintendent at the
top and custodians who reported to him, the southeastern national
monuments group even put out its own monthly report magazine.
There were major differences between the two
organizations and their leaders. The southeastern group was never as
controversial as Pinkley's. Kahler joined the agency as its
institutional structure was flourishing. He never had the autonomy that
Pinkley enjoyed during the 1920s, nor did he ever become embroiled in
the kinds of issues for which Pinkley was famous. Kahler's southeastern
monuments generally covered historic themes and, from an interpretive
perspective, were more coherent than Pinkley's areas. Only Ocmulgee, an
archaeological mound near Macon, Georgia, did not relate to the European
presence in the New World. Kahler also had a wider range of tourist
figures to contend with. At one end of the spectrum, Castle Pinckney was
closed to the public. At the other end, from June 1934 to June 1935, the
last full year before the Park Service took it over, guides escorted
134,049 visitors through Fort Marion, a figure that equalled almost half
of what all Frank Pinkley's monuments received in a year. [30] This level of visitation, particularly
with the required guide service, created numerous headaches for
Kahler.
The changes that the Park Service instituted at Fort
Marion were typical of its development of historic places during the
1930s. The story of Fort Marion was closely related to textbook history,
making Kahler's job easy. It revealed an early stage of European
civilization in the New World, and the battles between the Spanish and
English colonists added spice to its story. In a major tourist location,
with extensive year-round visitation, Fort Marion was accessible, rich
in history, and mild in climate. After wresting it from private
concerns, the historical division of the Park Service, with help from
CCC employees and a WPA allotment, administered the monument with
complete educational programs, concessions, and other amenities more
closely associated with the national parks. Areas like it were
showplaces for the specialists that came to dominate the interpretive
policy of the agency during the 1930s.
Fort Marion had broad appeal to a nation increasingly
concerned with the development of its own traditions. It conveyed an
image of a "usable" past, available to affirm American desires.
Americans no longer had to look to Europe and the ancient world to see
their cultural roots. The North American continent had a human past
worthy of consideration. By the time the National Park Service moved to
the forefront of historic preservation, Americans saw the European past
on this continent as evidence of the advancement of civilization as they
understood it.
The developments of the 1930s put the agency in the
field of historic preservation in a manner that no federal agency had
previously attempted. Fort Marion and the other areas acquired from the
military, along with the Colonial and George Washington Birthplace
national monuments, offered the best opportunities for the Park Service
to make an impact with the interpretation of historical events.
Interpreting the written record of the European past was easier than
understanding the artifacts and structures of the pre-Columbian
Southwest. The reorganization of 1933 gave the agency the chance to
expand its horizons, and dynamic agency personnel did not allow the
opportunity to slip away.
The reorganization of 1933 also transformed the NPS
in other, more subtle ways. Besides giving the agency a national
constituency and making it the primary agency concerned with
preservation in the United States, the reorganization contributed to the
move toward regionalization in the agency. The new historic areas forced
the agency to reconsider the role of areas that did not belong to the
national park category. Such places acquired a new significance as the
NPS became the public arbiter of American values. As the Park Service
interpreted historic placesthese transformed by dynamic New Deal
policiesagency officials took responsibility for conveying the
continuity of European experience in the Americas.
|