Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s:
Administrative History
Chapter Five: New Initiatives in the Fields of
History, Historic Preservation and Historical Park Development and Interpretation
|
|
B. Creation and Activities of History
Division
The growing importance of historical areas in the
National Park System and the wide variety of new questions, issues, and
problems that these areas presented led to the creation of a historical
division in the Branch of Research and Education, headed by Harold C.
Bryant, in 1931. On September 10 of that year, Verne E. Chatelain,
chairman of the history and social sciences department at Nebraska State
Teachers College in Peru, was appointed to head this division with the
title of park historian. Chatelain's responsibilities belied the title
he was given. He was assigned responsibility for extending and
coordinating the historical and archeological research program of the
Park Service, supervising the Service's activities in the fields of
history and archeology, assisting in the formulation and implementation
of policies and methods of procedure for preservation, interpretation,
and development in the parks, initiating studies of policies relative to
new area acquisition and techniques of restoration and reconstruction,
and providing professional judgment on a wide range of new historical
area proposals emanating from Congress. [3]
In his role as the first historian employed in the
Washington office, Chatelain had the task of attempting to reorient the
organization from its longstanding concern with western natural areas to
a new awareness of its responsibilities for eastern historical parks and
preservation issues. As part of his effort to educate the Park Service
to historical values, he called a history conference in Washington in
November 1931. Among the recommendations that Chatelain supported for
inclusion in the overall philosophy of the agency's programs and
policies were:
1. Historical activity is a part of the educational
activity of the National Park Service.
2. Historical activity is primarily not a research
program but an educational program in the broader sense.
3. Education presupposes accurate, scientific
knowledge, and all educational-type personnel in the Park Service should
have the knowledge necessary to interpret their parks or monuments and
see their individual areas in relation to the entire Park Service.
4. The historian should know his park or monument from
every possible standpoint.
5. The historian should be ready at any time to
disseminate accurate information in an interesting manner.
6. The historian should make at the earliest possible
moment an accurate and comprehensive inventory or bibliography of every
type of historical material bearing on his park or monument.
7. The historian should draw up an attractive
historical information bulletin or brochure dealing with his park or
monument.
8. Tracts, articles, and books dealing with special
phases of historical work and problems in the region of the park or
monument should be acquired, studied, and catalogued in the park
library.
9. The historian should prepare and deliver talks,
lectures, and guide instruction as well as be in charge of all
interpretive and historical services in his park or monument.
10. Park and monument historians should prepare a
regular monthly publication similar to "Nature Notes."
11. The historian should aid in the preparation of
museum and library! archive collections and be involved in all field
work endeavors in his park or monument. [4]
During the next eighteen months Chatelain refined his
thinking further regarding the function of a historical program in the
National Park Service and the formulation of a policy for the
development of a system of national historic sites. On November 19,
1932, a committee consisting of Chatelain and Roger W. Toll,
superintendent of Yellowstone National Park, was appointed by Director
Albright to address these topics. On December 12 they submitted a report
to the director which included the following excerpts:
The National Park Service is the bureau of the
Government that has been set up and equipped to handle such a system,
and it is believed that if we do not actively advocate, investigate and
promote a proper National Historical policy, we are not fully complying
with the desires of Congress. Such a policy cannot be established in a
helter-skelter fashion, but must be based on a complete and
comprehensive study of the entire system.
Historic sites include areas of military significance.
In addition, a system of acquiring historic sites should include all
types of areas that are historically important in our national
development. This entire subject is of greater importance at the present
time due to the recommendations in the President's plan of transferring
to the National Park Service the military historical areas from the War
Department. An examination of the list of areas that have been set aside
as national military parks, battlefield sites and national monuments
administered by the War Department, indicates that the selection has not
been the result of a plan or policy determined in advance, but rather
the acceptance of areas that have been advocated from time to
time by various proponents. Some of these areas are
undoubtedly of the highest importance, but others may not be. Certainly
the list does not represent all of the most important historical shrines
of American history, even in the field of military endeavor. The
pressure that has been brought in the past to bear on the War Department
in the establishment of these national military areas will be
transferred to the National Park Service along with the sites
themselves.
The setting up of standards for national historical
sites and the listing and classification of areas pertinent to the
development of the Nation seems to be of utmost importance. The
committee believes that it is unsound, uneconomical and detrimental to a
historical system and policy to study each individual area when
presented and without reference to the entire scheme of things.
[5]
Later on April 21, 1933, Chatelain submitted another
lengthy memorandum to Assistant Director Arthur E. Demaray that detailed
his conception of a historical program for the agency. The memorandum read:
I think that the historical work of the National Park
Service is dependent upon the acquisition of an historical mind by those
who control its administration, or at least upon their willingness to
leave the problem to the historically-minded. Of course it is
conceivable that those with authority and opportunity may acquire for
the Service in the name of the Nation one historic site or another under
one or many standards of selection. What areas are acquired, however,
and how these are then interpreted will in the long run show whether or
not we know what we are doing. Unless there is a real philosophy of
history, it will be easy enough to spend our time in academic
discussions over this or that museum or antiquarian problem, and never
seriously tackle the bigger task.
The historian is an expert and there are relatively few
of his kind. Most of those who work with history are struggling students
and should be properly alluded to as students of history--not as
historians. The historian is a philosopher because his work is
essentially synthetic. He is constantly studying causes and effects,
processes, patterns, and cycles,
in short everything connected with the development and
relationship of human beings in their environment and the recording of
what he sees. His professional knowledge has been acquired by the study--not
simply of many facts--but of many processes and patterns. . . .
No conception of the historical activity of the
National Park Service is complete unless it attempts to tie the
individual problem to the larger patterns of history. He must find these
patterns and then relate the Wakefield or any other problem with which
we are working to that scheme.
The sum total of the sites which we select should make
it possible for us to tell a more or less complete story of American
History. Keeping in mind the fact that our history is a series of
processes marked by certain stages of development, our sites should
illustrate and make possible the interpretation of these processes at
certain levels of growth.
It is going to be impractical for the Federal
Government to take a lot of unrelated historical sites--no matter how
significant any one of them might seem at the moment. What I feel we
must do is to select bases from which the underlying philosophy
can be developed, and expanded to the best advantage. [6]
In June 1935 Chatelain wrote on the role and
interpretive objectives of the historical and archeological areas in the
National Park System:
. . . The conception which underlies the whole policy
of the National Park Service in connection with these sites is that of
using the uniquely graphic qualities which inhere in any area where
stirring and significant events have taken place to drive home to the
visitor the meaning of those events showing not only their importance in
themselves but their integral relationship to the whole history of
American development. In other words, the task is to breathe the breath
of life into American history for those to whom it has been a dull
recital of meaningless facts--to recreate for the average citizen
something of thy color, the pageantry, and the dignity of our national
past. [7]
Chapter Five continues with...
Historical Program at Colonial National Monument
|