Chapter 4:
The First Monuments
THE PASSAGE OF THE ANTIQUITIES ACT OF 1906 addressed
regional issues rather than national ones. The demands of an
industrializing society left little time to ponder the remnants of
aboriginal Indian culture. To a nation not far removed from the rigors
of frontier existence, the preservation of a non-European,
non-English-speaking heritage offered little symbolic sustenance. A
civilized past in what previously had been thought a cultural void had
little meaning to the average American. The Southwest remained of
peripheral concern to the United States as it modernized, and to many in
the East, the region seemed a backward yet romantic place.
Archaeological ruins evoked images of an intriguing past, but they were
far from national centers of policy and power. Few urban Americans saw
any reflection of the contemporary struggle to attain global power in
the ruins of prehistoric societies. Archaeological preservation seemed
likely to remain the province of the upper classes and
intellectuals.
Yet the Antiquities Act was a harbinger of change in
the Southwest and West. Its passage added a potent new method for the
federal government to impose order upon public lands, and it provided an
emotional and intellectual argument that merged with the scientific
rationale advocating wise use of dwindling resources. The Act gave the
aggressive administrations of the early twentieth century another means
to implement their agenda of controlled regulation of the assets of the
nation.
Although the framers of the Antiquities Act regarded
the preservation of prehistoric ruins as an end in itself, others sensed
an implicit affirmation of industrial America cloaked in the speeches
that spurred its passage. The demise of prehistoric culture gave
Americans confidence in their destiny. In the aftermath of the
Spanish-American War, xenophobic Americans regarded their subjugation of
the wilderness as evidence of the superiority of English-speaking
people. The spread of industrial commerce in the Southwest offered a
sharp contrast to the remnants of an aboriginal culture and reinforced
that assumption. This quirky determinism suggested that the New World
belonged to those who could master its often harsh environment. The
ruins of previous attempts to bring order to a chaotic physical
environment offered assurance that modern solutions were best.
Early in the twentieth century, the American public
felt the beautiful and the scenic to be more accurate barometers of
their superiority than were the ruins of lost civilizations. Americans
found affirmation of their aspirations in the landscape of the national
parks. The uproar over the articulation of the closing of the westward
frontier and the back-to-nature cults it spawned revealed a general
preoccupation with the relationship between humanity and its
environment. Archaeological ruins were another way of confirming what
the descendants of Europeans already knew: the North American continent
was their rightful domain. From this perspective, the Antiquities Act
was only the most recent law in a history descending from the Papal
Intercaetara of 1493, which divided the unknown parts of the globe into
halves ceded to Portugal and Spain.
The Antiquities Act also had some very practical
functions given increased public interest in preservation. It allowed
the Department of the Interior to protect the national parks, by
creating an additional category for the permanent reservation of places
of interest. One measure of the growing public acceptance for
preservation was that congressmen began to covet national parks for
their states or districts. Between 1900 and 1906, Congress created two
national parks, Wind Cave in South Dakota and Platt in Oklahoma, as
pork-barrel maneuvers. Sully's Hill, a tract of unspectacular scenery in
North Dakota, also acquired informal designation as a national park.
None of these areas compared in scenic beauty or size to previous parks
like Yellowstone, Yosemite, and Mount Rainier, and the establishment of
such parks called into question the motivation for the creation of
national parks. The establishment of inferior parks prior to passage of
the Antiquities Act emphasized the need for some other category in which
to place proposed areas. The passage of the Antiquities Act allowed the
Department of the Interior to fend off the park proposals it did not
want; after 1906, if a congressman wanted a national park in his
district but the Department of the Interior thought such a designation
was inappropriate, the area frequently became a national monument.
The Act also expressed the middle and upper-middle
class values of decision makers during the Progressive-era. The federal
bureaucracy, operating as a managerial elite, acquired the right to make
decisions in the interest of public good. As befitted the era, this
power was unrestricted, yet narrowly conceived. The Act did not allow ad
hoc funding for the new areas, and its punishment clauses were hardly
sufficient to prevent vandalism. Progressive legislators believed that
legal restrictions alone would inspire compliance and that a sign
proclaiming federal property would deter a respectable citizen bent on
excavating. They did not realize that the law might not have an impact
upon someone not inculcated in middle-class traditions.
Despite the values of Progressive America and the
ease with which national monuments could be established, the Act
revealed a general lack of consensus over what should be preserved. The
category it establishedthe national monumentslacked the
cultural trappings attached to national parks. These monuments were only
proclaimed. Soldiers did not guard them, as they did the national parks.
Railroads rarely promoted national monuments, and tourists did not go
out of their way to find these often remote places. Established with
little fanfare and sometimes with less thought, the monuments came to
include an increasingly diverse spectrum of features.
Progressive sensibility alone did not account for the
diversity of the monuments. In fact, the Antiquities Act lent legal
sanction to an informal system already firmly entrenched in the GLO.
Beginning in the early 1890s, the commissioners of the GLO actively
pursued a policy of withdrawing places with archaeological, historical,
or natural significance from settlement and other kinds of land claims.
GLO special agents in the field brought these places to the attention of
the bureau. To prevent development and exploitation, commissioners
Binger Hermann and W. A. Richards removed a broad array of locations,
including the homestead that Richard Wetherill staked out in Chaco
Canyon, from the sections of the public domain available under the terms
of the Homestead Act. A "temporary withdrawal" only required that the
area had potential for something other than agriculture. The interesting
features of many made them candidates for the then-amorphous national
park category. [1]
The Antiquities Act allowed the conversion of the
commissioner of the General Land Office's de facto system into a reality
grounded in law. The GLO played an important role in questions of the
disposal of land and worked to make its position understood throughout
the legislative battles in Congress over the preservation issue. Its
officials feared that measures like the Lodge-Rodenberg bill of 1904
might restrict their options. Edgar L. Hewett's close connections with
the GLO made him aware that its officials needed considerable leeway. If
the areas already withdrawn from entry could not be converted to
permanent status, the work of early preservation advocates and their
allies would be wasted. The Antiquities Act solved this problem. The
transformation of land from temporary withdrawal to national monument
status protected the work of prior commissioners of the GLO.
After the passage of the Antiquities Act, the
commissioner of the GLO began to convert previously withdrawn places
into national monuments. During the summer of 1906, the GLO staff
reviewed withdrawn tracts and drew up preliminary proclamations for the
secretary of the interior. On 24 September 1906 President Theodore
Roosevelt signed the first of these proclamations, making Devils Tower
the first national monument in the United States.
An 865-foot-high geological abnormality rising above
the plains of eastern Wyoming, Devils Tower had first come to the
attention of the Department of the Interior fourteen years earlier. In
1892 Sen. Francis E. Warren of Wyoming received a letter from GLO
special agent L. S. Hanchett concerning this "great natural curiosity."
Warren wrote to the commissioner of the GLO, Thomas Carter, to promote
the region as a possible national park. He requested that the GLO
"formulate a bill or suggest provisions for one which would cover the
ground and receive the support of [the D]epartment [of the Interior]."
[2]
But in 1892, the time was not ripe for the concept of
preservation of its own sake. The regulation of natural resources,
however, did already figure in federal policy; the Forest Reserve Act of
1891 allowed the president to select wooded areas of the public domain
as forest reserves, primarily to protect watersheds. As a result, Carter
developed a two-pronged justification concerning Devils Tower for the
secretary of the interior. He argued that the feature had served as a
landmark for early settlers in the West and that reserving it would help
preserve the watershed of the nearby Belle Fourche River. Symbolic value
and practical function, Carter insisted, made Devils Tower worthy of
reservation. [3]
Six years later, in 1898, Carter's suggestion became
reality. Although a temporary withdrawal required only a proclamation by
the commissioner of the GLO, it was not a desired prize in the early
1890s. The GLO initially sought a more permanent solution. But the
significance of the temporary withdrawal as an important tool increased
throughout the 1890s, and in 1898, Commissioner Hermann completed what
Carter had begun. He withdrew Devils Tower from the public domain. [4] As the scientific management of natural
resources became an important social issue to Americans adjusting to the
idea of a culture without a westward frontier, Hermann's move fit the
changing political and cultural climate.
Yet until the passage of the Antiquities Act, Devils
Tower remained in limbo, neither large enough nor important enough to
become a national park. But there was no other category for it. It was
ludicrous to add Devils Tower to a category that held Yellowstone as the
standard to which other park areas were compared. In the federal system
before 1906, Devils Tower was an anomaly. Its primary value was natural,
which would have left it out of the preservation system had the
Lodge-Rodenberg bill passed in 1904. Because the Antiquities Act of 1906
covered a greater range than did its predecessors, the main impetus for
the first national monument did not come from the archaeologists,
academics, or scientists who worked so fervently to pass the Antiquities
Act. The proclamation reflected the dual function Thomas Carter
suggested in 1892. An "extraordinary example of erosion in the higher
mountains," Devils Tower was preserved for its historic and scientific
value. [5] Inappropriate as a national park
or forest, it became the first national monument.
The number and type of monuments grew rapidly. On 8
December 1906 Theodore Roosevelt proclaimed three more national
monuments: El Morro, a rock abutment in western New Mexico that bore the
inscriptions of Spanish and American soldiers and travelers as well as
the petroglyphs of prehistoric people, and two areas in Arizona, the
Petrified Forest, two extensive clusters of prehistoric petrified
forests, and Montezuma Castle, a prehistoric cliff dwelling tucked into
a hillside in the Verde River valley. Along with Devils Tower, the three
December 1906 national monuments covered the gamut of potential
monuments in the American West. All had previously been included in
temporary withdrawals. These initial proclamations defined the
boundaries of the monument category for the coming decades.
Rising above the surrounding desert, El Morro was a
spectacular sight. Its small pool of potable water had attracted
prehistoric people and later travelers. Beginning with don Juan de
Oñate in 1605, Spaniards inscribed their names on the face of El
Morro. During the nineteenth century, American military explorers,
including Lt. James H. Simpson, who investigated Chaco Canyon in
1848-49, continued the tradition and left their mark. Late in the 1890s
El Morro attracted the attention of the Smithsonian Institution. "A more
beautiful and imposing bit of scenery is not to be found in the United
States," the acting secretary of the Smithsonian wrote to the secretary
of the interior on 22 December 1899. "I recommend immediate attention in
this matter for many of the early inscriptions have been despoiled by
vandal bands." The forestry report of the GLO in 1900 also noted the
significance of the El Morro, a place "of such historical interest that
ample protection should be thrown around it, especially in as much as
added years attach new interest and value," and suggested that "if the
lands upon which the rock stands were reserved from settlement, the
property would be measurable [sic] protected for the present."
[6] Because it was a unique and irreplaceable
monument to the continuity of human existence in a harsh environment, El
Morro was withdrawn by the GLO to await either national park status or
the passage of a bill to preserve antiquities.
The Petrified Forest region in Arizona also attracted
considerable attention in the period prior to the passage of the
Antiquities Act. By the turn of the century, casual vandalism was
threatening its features. Reports that thieves were using dynamite to
break up the formations to haul them away reached the GLO. The crossing
at the nearby Rio Puerco was littered with formations discarded when
drivers found them heavy enough to prevent their autos from fording the
creek. After numerous complaints by concerned people, the GLO withdrew
the tract in 1903, pending consideration of a national park in the
region. There was little progress toward a park bill in Congress that
year, but in 1904 GLO special agent Stephen J. Holsinger received
authorization to appoint an unpaid assistant with a specific purpose: to
"prevent all persons from doing further damage to the natural
curiosities within the proposed national park." [7] Park status for the Petrified Forest never
progressed beyond the proposal stage, and like El Morro, it lingered in
limbo.
In Arizona, Montezuma Castle was in a similar
position. Nestled under a cliff overlooking agricultural fields, Hohokam
and Hakataya aboriginals had built the "castle" as a defensive site.
Nineteenth-century Americans, immersed in the romance of what they
believed to be Aztec culture in the American Southwest, misnamed the
secluded fortress. Cosmos Mindeleff of the Bureau of American Ethnology
surveyed the site in 1892, and before 1900 it attracted the attention of
the Department of the Interior. The GLO, nominally in charge of the
area, did little until Gov. Alexander Brodie of Arizona wrote Secretary
of the Interior Ethan A. Hitchcock inquiring about the ruins. In 1904
GLO special agent George Wilson inspected the ruin. He advocated the
establishment of a national park, reporting that there were many
visitors and that the ruin required better supervision. [8]
But a problem of semantics plagued such areas. Like
the Petrified Forest, Devils Tower, and El Morro, Montezuma Castle
differed from already established national parks. It did not have the
scenery that characterized the national park class; it was a solitary,
if massive, cliff dwelling. Wilson suggested that Montezuma Castle be
proclaimed a national park because he recognized the need for its
protection. But from the perspective of the Department of the Interior
in Washington, D.C., Wilson's suggestion was implausible. In 1904 the
interior department had already expressed concern about the inferior
national parks, and if Montezuma Castle became a national park, the
department would appear to contradict its emphasis. Although it clearly
merited preservation, Montezuma Castle did not merit recognition as a
national park.
Prior to the passage of the Antiquities Act, federal
preservation efforts could not be comprehensive. Many areas worthy of
preservation did not meet the amorphous standards for national parks. In
addition, many were in the territories of Arizona and New Mexico, which
had only a nonvoting territorial delegate in Congress and lacked the
pork-barrel influence that often contributed to the establishment of
national parks. Increasing private demand for land in the Southwest made
the future of unclaimed areas uncertain. The GLO combated such problems
with the power of temporary withdrawal. GLO commissioner Binger Hermann
knew that Congress would never establish the Montezuma Castle as a
national park, but late in 1904 he withdrew the ruin because he hoped
for the early passage of the Lodge-Rodenberg bill or one of its
counterparts. After the passage of the Antiquities Act two years later,
GLO officials began to formalize such withdrawals.
As a result of GLO activism, the monuments became a
much broader category than many of the supporters of the Antiquities Act
had envisioned. Montezuma Castle was the first of many prehistoric ruins
to attain national monument status. El Morro had historic and
prehistoric significance; its walls held the answers to many questions
about Spanish endeavors in the north of old New Spain, and its ruins
were associated with some of the mystique of prehistoric life. Devils
Tower and the Petrified Forest were natural areas, evocative of the
culturally significant landscapes of the national parks.
The GLO used the Antiquities Act to codify in law
what had been its standard procedure during the previous fifteen years.
Although the Antiquities Act granted the president discretion in
proclaiming sites, in practice the GLO made those decisions. Between
1906 and 1909, most monument proclamations formalized earlier temporary
withdrawals, so that there was little argument about the suitability of
reserving the places in question. Long in advance of the Antiquities
Act, all had been withdrawn to protect them from the forces that the new
law addressed.
The GLO carved the early national monuments out of
the public domain and forest reserves, from land unclaimed by the public
that lacked apparent economic value and that was predominantly located
in remote, undeveloped sections of the country. Unproductive from an
agricultural standpoint and generally too distant from the nearest
railroad to support a profitable tourist industry, none of the early
monuments had sufficient value to private citizens to make their
reservation worth contesting.
The Antiquities Act had a severe limitation because
it applied only to federal land. Railroads and other industries had
acquired considerable land in the West and Southwest, and the GLO had
little control over ruins upon railroad sections. The Homestead Act of
1862 had facilitated private ownership of land throughout the West, and
by 1900 homesteaders claimed numerous objects of natural and cultural
interest. In such cases, the Antiquities Act offered little protection
for pictographs and petroglyphs, ruins, or other objects of value on
private land.
The case of the pictographs and ruins of San
Cristobal pueblo in northern New Mexico typified the response of the GLO
to suggestions involving privately owned sites. In January 1907 the
Los Angeles Times, which circulated widely throughout smaller
towns in the West, ran a Sunday article that featured these pictographs.
In Beatrice, Nebraska, William Wolfe, president of the German National
Bank, saw the article and asked Congressman John Lacey to bring San
Cristobal to the attention of Congress. [9]
Wolfe had visited the pictographs and was willing to attest to their
importance as relics of human history on the North American
continent.
But the GLO found itself powerless at San Cristobal.
Lacey thought that the pictographs were an interesting possibility for a
national monument and passed the request on to the Department of the
Interior. It landed on Commissioner W. A. Richards's desk at the GLO. On
5 February 1907 Richards concluded that the Arroyo San Cristobal lay
within the confirmed E. W. Eaton land grant. Unless the owners,
including New Mexico land baron Thomas B. Catron, wanted to make a gift
of the tract, the GLO could not act. [10]
Congress had not provided appropriations to purchase land for monuments,
and a national monument was not sufficiently valuable to engineer an
exchange of lands.
San Cristobal was not the only worthwhile
archaeological, natural, or historic area that remained outside of
federal control. The GLO had limited resources for preservation and
could not justify the time and effort that acquisition attempts
required. Monuments were little more than a symbolic triumph, not worthy
of extensive effort by the GLO. There were more than enough places of
interest in the public domain to fill the time Commissioner Richards and
his staff could devote to national monuments, and like most Americans,
they lacked comparative standards to make qualitative assessment of such
areas.
The GLO had few options in such cases and its
officials chose the earliest national monuments from the best available
areas that remained in federal hands. Barring donation by its owners,
private land was out of the question. The public domain, the national
forests, and military reservations formed a pool from which the GLO
selected "objects of prehistoric, historic and scientific interest";
many places outside the category were of equal or greater importance
than established national monuments.
Despite the limitations of the resources of the GLO,
pressure to establish monuments mounted as Theodore Roosevelt's tenure
continued. Private donations, threatened exploitation and development,
and pressure from members of Congress, government employees, and
individuals played a significant role in shaping the national monument
category.
In a typical instance, the establishment of the Muir
Woods National Monument resulted from conflict between the interests of
utilitarian development and preservation in the San Francisco Bay area.
Progressive-era administrators favored public control rather than
private development of irreplacable resources, and Muir Woods became the
first donation of private land for the establishment of a national
monument.
California congressman William Kent, a long-time
supporter of conservation and preservation causes, was the pivotal
figure in the Muir Woods issue. On 29 August 1905 he purchased a large
tract of redwood trees near Mill Valley, California, from the Tamalpais
Land and Water Company. Aware of the increasing competition for land in
booming northern California, Kent was determined to protect the few
remaining stands of redwood trees in the San Francisco Bay area. [11] But when the massive San Francisco
earthquake of 1906 decimated the city, local interests placed
considerable pressure upon Kent to give up the land for development.
Individuals and companies offered fair market value for the timber, but
Kent regarded the redwoods as an irreplaceable resource and declined
their offers.
The prospective purchasers saw the land only as a
commodity and intensified their efforts. Rebuffed, James Newlands, the
head of the North Coast Water Company and a nephew of the influential
Nevada senator Francis Newlands, threatened to use his uncle's influence
to wrest the land from Kent. Newlands filed a condemnation suit on a
forty-seven-acre segment of Kent's redwood tract. The North Coast Water
Company proposed to build a reservoir on the tract and to sell the water
to the city of San Francisco.
In the name of the public good, commercial interests
challenged private prerogative. Water was important to the city, and the
North Coast Water Company sought to fill the need. Kent believed that
Newlands selected the redwood tract to force him to divide his estate.
The wooded area would make an adequate reservoir, but it was not the
only place that could serve the purpose. From Kent's perspective, the
reservoir was a short-term solution that future generations would
regret. But he held a minority view; public opinion was more interested
in water than in the preservation of trees. If it came to a court
battle, Newlands's lawyers intended to present Kent as a European-style
"lord of the manor," whereas Newlands and the North Coast Water Company
offered a public service, albeit at a profit. They could easily seem
civic-minded in comparison with the caricature of Kent that might have
emerged in court. Under the conditions that existed, Newlands had an
excellent chance to win the condemnation suit in state court.
Kent had few options, but he made the most of them.
As an ardent conservationist during his years in Congress, he was aware
of the potential of the Antiquities Act. In response to the suit, Kent
mailed the deed for 295 acres of his land, including the forty-seven
disputed acres, to Secretary of the Interior James A. Garfield on 26
December 1907. Kent requested that Garfield accept it as a national
monument under the terms of the Antiquities Act and that the monument be
named Muir Woods, in honor of noted outdoorsman John Muir. [12]
Kent's situation required immediate action by the
federal government. His attorney, William Thomas, explained the
situation to United States forester and conservation advocate Gifford
Pinchot. Thomas also urged Frederick E. Olmstead, chief inspector of the
San Francisco branch of the USFS, to convince the government to accept
the donation promptly. Kent had not been served with court documents and
could still escape the lawsuit. "If I am forced to answer on behalf of
Kent before the United States has any vested interest in the property,"
Thomas continued, "the result will be disastrous, as our statute
provides that actions of this character will be given precedence on
every court calendar." If the government acted quickly, federal
ownership of the tract might preclude private or state-ordered
condemnation. Secretary of the Interior Garfield believed that "these
lands were deeded and accepted before the service of the process" and
asked the Justice Department to protect the interest of the government.
[13]
Kents donation furthered his reputation for public
service and gave the redwood grove the protection of the federal
government. On 9 January 1908, twelve days after Kent sent his initial
offer, Theodore Roosevelt signed the proclamation establishing the Muir
Woods National Monument. The North Coast Water Company found itself
suing the United States of America in federal court. Intimidated but
undaunted, Newlands persisted. The court granted continuances in the
case until Kent sold the North Coast Water Company another tract
suitable for a reservoir, and Newlands finally withdrew the suit.
|