|
National Park Service
Administrative History: Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s |
|
|
Chapter Five: New Initiatives in the Fields of History, Historic Preservation and Historical Park Development and Interpretation A. Background to Involvement of National Park Service in New Initiatives in Historical Field The preservation of historical and archeological sites became a responsibility of the Department of the Interior with passage of the Antiquities Act in 1906 and of the National Park Service at its establishment in 1916. The legislation establishing the Park Service named "historic conservation" as an important responsibility of the new bureau. Pursuant to the Antiquities Act of 1906, the Department of the Interior, as early as 1916, had under its jurisdiction seven national monuments of historical and archeological interest, as well as Mesa Verde National Park. These areas were placed under the National Park Service upon its establishment and formed the initial nucleus of its system of "historic sites." [1] From 1916-28 the number of historical and archeological areas administered by the National Park Service increased to sixteen. The forward thrust of the agency into the acquisition, preservation, and development of historical and archeological parks received tremendous impetus when Horace M. Albright became the new director of the Park Service on January 12, 1929. As director of the National Park Service from 1929 to 1933 Albright launched the agency on a new course in historic preservation destined to influence greatly the future growth and direction of the National Park System. The first opportunities to put the agency squarely into the field of historic preservation and development came with the establishment of George Washington Birthplace National Monument on January 23, 1930, and of Colonial National Monument on December 30, 1930, in accordance with legislative authority granted on July 3. Thus, the foundations of a program in historical park development were laid and the initial steps taken that would eventually place the Park Service in a leadership role in the emerging historic preservation movement in the United States. [2] 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:
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:
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:
In June 1935 Chatelain wrote on the role and interpretive objectives of the historical and archeological areas in the National Park System:
C. Historical Program at Colonial National Monument One of the first historical programs to be established in the parks was at Colonial National Monument. The impetus for such a program was the sesquicentennial observance of Lord Charles Cornwallis' surrender to the Americans at Yorktown in October 1781 . Although the historical program was well underway before Chatelain assumed his office, he nevertheless would play a significant role in its future development along with the local park historians. By June 1931 William M. Robinson, Jr., an engineer from Georgia who had written several historical works on the Confederate navy, had been hired as superintendent. Two professionally-trained "ranger historians," characterized as a new breed of Park Service employee, had been employed to commence a program of documentary research and planning that was a necessary prerequisite for the preservation, restoration, and interpretation of the earthworks and historic structures at Yorktown and solving the restoration problems at Jamestown. The two historians, B. Floyd Flickinger, a teacher at William and Mary, and Elbert Cox, a graduate student at the University of Virginia, found themselves almost completely without guidance at first because they represented a new discipline. [8] During the next five years the historical program at Colonial was developed under the general guidance of Chatelain. The major objective of the historical program became the hope that Colonial would "serve as a link to bind the past to the present and be a guide and an inspiration for the future." This was to be accomplished
Summing up a presentation on the historical methods that had been used in the Colonial historical program, B. Floyd Flickinger observed in January 1936:
D. Morristown National Historical Park Verne Chatelain also became actively involved in the National Park Service effort to acquire land for a new historical area in Morristown, New Jersey, the site of the Continental Army's winter encampments in 1776-77 and 1779-80. After investigating the site at the request of Horace Albright, he wrote a report in April 1932, recommending the site as a "Federal Historical Reserve" as it possessed every possible qualification for a first-class historical park. The proposed park would include not only the Jockey Hollow encampment site, but also the Ford Mansion, a significant Georgian house that had served as Washington's headquarters and in which was presently located a major collection of Washington manuscripts and books exhibited by the Washington Association of New Jersey. [10] Albright and Chatelain visited Morristown in November 1932 and a conference was arranged in January 1933 with Washington Association officials, local civic and business leaders, Louis C. Cramton, special assistant to the Secretary of the Interior, and Chatelain, representing Director Albright, in attendance. The draft of a park bill adopted by the conferees included provisions relative to the probable value and educational importance of the Washington Association collections, the eventual construction of a fireproof museum and library to house and display these materials, and new legal status for the concept of a national historical park. Such a park would not come into being by means of a presidential proclamation as did national monuments. Congress itself would set up the terms under which the park would become operative. In so doing, the draft bill gave the proposed park "the rank and dignity equal to the scenic program in the West." [11] The bill for establishment of Morristown National Historical Park was submitted to both houses of Congress (H.R. 14302; S. 5469) in mid-January 1933. Secretary of the Interior Lyman Wilbur supported the bill as "the most important park project before this department at the present time." [12] Hearings were held by the House Committee on Public Lands on January 24 and 27 with Director Albright providing the principal testimony. On February 3 the committee reported favorably on the bill, and the Senate Committee on Public Buildings and Grounds did likewise on February 8. [13] The House committee observed in its report that the bill proposed "to set aside as a national historical park certain areas at and in the vicinity of Morristown, New Jersey, which have outstanding historic importance because of their association with Gen. George Washington and his campaigns in the Revolutionary War." The report continued:
The act (Public Law 409), providing for the establishment of Morristown National Historical Park, was signed by President Hoover on March 2, 1933. [15] After the deeds to the lands were accepted by the U.S. Government, the park was formally dedicated on July 4, 1933, with Secretary Ickes giving the principal speech. [16] In his annual report for 1933 Director Cammerer observed:
In later years Chatelain observed that the addition of Morristown had a significant impact on the development of the historical program in the National Park Service. According to him the Morristown historical program
E. Impact of New Deal Programs and Reorganization of 1933 on National Park Service Historical Program Development By the time of the reorganization in 1933 the historical program of the National Park Service had been underway for less than two years. Nevertheless, the foundations for a fully-developed historical program had been laid through the pioneering efforts in research, preservation, and interpretation at George Washington Birthplace and Colonial national monuments and Morristown National Historical Park. The reorganization, which quadrupled the number of historical areas in the National Park Service by adding some 57 such units, made the Park Service the leading historical park management agency in the United States virtually overnight. In 1934 Director Cammerer acknowledged the tremendous growth of the Park Service historical program as well as its goals, objectives, and inherent problems:
The "inestimable value" of the various New Deal emergency relief and funding programs was crucial to the implementation and extension of the embryonic Park Service historical program. The influx of money and personnel that became available to the agency as a result of its involvement in the New Deal public works programs presented great opportunities to the Service in carrying out a program of preservation, restoration, planning, and interpretation of historical areas. [20] Under the ECW program that was organized during the spring of 1933 the National Park Service was assigned the responsibility of directing the vast program of the CCC in the preservation, development, and interpretation of both National Park System units and state parks having historical and archeological values. Archeological projects undertaken through federal emergency funds were jointly supervised by the Park Service and the Smithsonian Institution. Park Service historical and archeological personnel guided the technical phases of the historical and archeological activities of the CCC and provided state authorities with assistance in developing preservation policies while they further refined the historical policies governing historical areas in the National Park System. Through these efforts, the Service began to play a direct role in historic preservation at both the federal and state levels. [21] The ECW field organization in the historical parks provided for the position of historical technician in order "that the general viewpoint of the N.P.S. toward the development of historical sites could be represented." The historical technician was the field representative of the Park Service who was "above all familiar with the aims and objectives of the historical program." The ECW handbook noted that such persons were
In summary, the functions and duties of the historical technician included responsibility for: (1) interpreting the aims and objectives of the Park Service historical program as applied to the work projects: (2) furnishing historical advice on the relative importance of the historical remains on proposed work; (3) furnishing historical information necessary for work projects decided upon; (4) custodianship of historical and archeological artifacts found during the course of emergency conservation work; (5) providing technical expertise on the use of the park by the public; and (6) directing the park educational program. [22] At the beginning of the ECW program the historical technicians had no other assistance than that rendered by "so-called miscellaneous or cultural foremen." Appointed under the CCC field organization, these foremen, later classified as historical assistants, were primarily young men with training in history or the related social sciences. Of the thirty-five assistants that had been hired by 1934, nearly half had masters' degrees or doctorates in these fields. They were responsible not to the technicians, however, but to the work superintendents. The task of recruiting, training, and educating qualified historical technicians for the ECW program fell to Chatelain. In later years he observed:
The problems of recruiting and training historians, coordinating the historical program in the National Park System as well as the ECW State Park program, and establishing uniform historical research and preservation policies fell to Chatelain as a result of the reorganization in 1933. In effect, a branch of historic sites was established with Chatelain as acting assistant director and a small staff paid with emergency funds to oversee the increased historical activities of the National Park Service--a step that would later pave the way for passage of the Historic Sites Act in 1935. Accordingly, he had Elbert Cox assigned to his office in fall 1933 to provide assistance in hiring historians, establishing a centralized research staff at the Library of Congress, and reviewing reports coming in from the field. [24] Conferences were also organized to aid in the formulation and articulation of a National Park Service philosophy of historic preservation and a policy of administering historical areas. For example, B. Floyd Flickinger chaired a Conference of Historical and Archeological Superintendents in Washington on November 23, 1934. Chatelain, architect Charles E. Peterson, Assistant Director Demaray, and Director Cammerer were on the program to represent the administrative functions that related to the historical areas. At the conference Chatelain pleaded for better-quality restoration work based on thorough research and supervised by trained personnel, urged development of a more thorough historical interpretation program, and defended the idea of historic sites as educational tools, citing the nearness of the new park areas to the metropolitan areas of the East. [25] Thus by late 1934 many of the barriers that made the movement toward a national policy of historic preservation more difficult had been removed. The reorganization of 1933 had concentrated administration of all federally-owned historical and archeological areas in one agency. The National Park Service employed a staff of professional historians capable of providing the technical knowledge and skill that it needed to carry out its programs. Through the many relief programs large sums and personnel were available to carry out a comprehensive historical program. Through the many assistance programs federal officials had the opportunity to become acquainted with the major problems of the states and localities in the field of historic preservation. [26] F. Historic American Buildings Survey One of the first steps in the direction of the formulation of a national policy for the preservation of historic structures was the creation of the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) by the National Park Service in 1933. Charles E. Peterson, chief of the Eastern Division of the Branch of Plans and Design of the Park Service, originated the idea of a nationwide plan using 1,000 unemployed architects, draftsmen, and photographers during a six-month period to secure, by measured drawings and photographs, as complete a graphic record as possible of the rapidly disappearing examples of early architecture and historic structures throughout the United States. The memorandum proposing the program was submitted to Associate Director Demaray in November and included both a justification and a suggested range of subjects for the project:
The proposal received swift approval from Demaray and Cammerer who then submitted it to Secretary Ickes on November 15, 1933. It was approved by the Secretary and the Federal Relief Administration by December 1. [28] The opportunity for cooperation in this venture was offered to and accepted by Edward C. Kemper, executive secretary of the American Institute of Architects (AIA), and Dr. Leicester B. Holland, FAIA, who served both as chairman of the Institute's Committee on the Preservation of Historic Buildings and as head of the Department of Fine Arts in the Library of Congress. The Park Service placed Thomas C. Vint, chief of plans and design in the Washington office, in charge of administering HABS. He was assisted by Thomas T. Waterman, John P. O'Neill, and Frederick D. Nichols. By late 1933 the United States had been divided into thirty-nine districts (six states in the northwest were left out because of winter weather conditions and the relatively low number of architects there who were unemployed), each with a district officer nominated by the AIA and appointed by the Secretary of the Interior. Upon appointment these officers contacted the local Civil Works Administration (CWA) officers to secure architects and draftsmen for the field parties. An advisory board was named by the Secretary of the Interior consisting of Holland, chairman; Dr. Herbert E. Bolton, professor of history University of California, Berkeley; Dr. I. T. Frary, Cleveland Museum of Arts, Ohio; Miss Harlean James, executive secretary, American Civic Association, Washington, D.C.; Dr. Waldo G. Leland, executive secretary, American Council of Learned Societies, Washington, D.C.; John Gaw Meem, architect, Santa Fe, New Mexico; William G. Perry, architect, Boston, Massachusetts; Albert Simons, architect, Charleston, South Carolina; and Thomas E. Talmadge, architect, Chicago, Illinois. [29] By early January 1934 most field parties were in operation. On February 15, however, the CWA began a gradual phasing out of its programs and officially ended its funding on May 1 . At the height of this first phase of its activity, HABS employed 772 persons in preparing measured drawings and pictorial histories of some 860 buildings. [30] The success of the program was acknowledged generally, and steps were taken to endow the program with a formal charter. On July 23, 1934, a memorandum of agreement was signed by the National Park Service, the American Institute of Architects, and the Library of Congress to insure a permanent organization for the coordination and continuity of HABS. Under the memorandum the American Institute of Architects, through each of its sixty-seven chapters, had the responsibility of identifying and cataloging structures (built before 1875) whose architectural merit or historical association made them a significant part of the cultural heritage of the United States. The Park Service would carry out the actual work of preparing measured drawings and taking photographs. The Fine Arts Division of the Library of Congress agreed to serve as the repository for the HABS inventory forms, drawings, and photographs. The advisory board continued in its same capacity with the aforementioned personnel. [31] Emergency relief appropriations obtained from various New Deal agencies, as well as collaborative student thesis work arranged in cooperation with universities and colleges, allowed HABS to continue during the depression years. In the early period HABS programs were operated by local field teams in the vicinity of the architects' homes. In fiscal year 1940, however, an effort was made to distribute the coverage of HABS programs on a wider basis. A unit was established in Washington to coordinate the program of four special field groups that would work out of Boston, Richmond, St. Louis, and San Francisco. Each of the four special units was given a station wagon and a travel allotment to enable it to operate over a wider area. [32] By the end of 1940 funding and manpower had been reduced for HABS because of the hostilities in Europe. The survey virtually ceased during the American involvement in World War II, but early in 1941, some eight years after its commencement, a HABS catalogue was published containing entries for 6,389 structures recorded with 23,765 sheets of drawings and 25,357 photographs. [33] G. Movement Toward Passage of Legislation for National Program of Historic Preservation The reorganization of 1933 revealed the lack of a comprehensive nationwide program for the selection, acquisition, and preservation of historical and archeological sites. The federal government had been unable to plan, promote, and develop a well-rounded national program for the preservation of American historical and archeological sites under existing legislation. Certain periods of American history were well represented in terms of historical areas, while others equally important in the growth and development of the nation were ignored. A well-rounded pageant of America in terms of historic sites had never been projected, and no systematic evaluation of the historical resources of the nation had ever been undertaken. Before 1933 leadership in the preservation of historic properties came primarily from historically-minded individuals, patriotic societies, and private groups. Several factors helped to focus attention on the need for new legislation in the field of historic preservation in the early 1930s. Civic and private groups, motivated by community pride and anticipated commercial benefits, sponsored a large number of bills for the establishment of additional historical areas in the National Park System, pointing out the need for a systematic investigation of sites to insure wise selections. HABS directed attention to the vast number of important historical structures that were rapidly disappearing and the need for a comprehensive policy of wise selection based on high preservation standards. Leaders in the preservation movement who were familiar with historical activities in other countries called attention to the fact that while the United States had been the leader in the effort to preserve its outstanding scenic areas, it had only initiated haphazard efforts in the preservation of historical areas compared with the massive preservation efforts in most European countries. [34] Early in November 1933 Major Gist Blair, son of Montgomery Blair, Postmaster General under President Abraham Lincoln and owner of the Blair House that would one day become the nation's guest house, visited President Roosevelt. Blair felt the need for a general plan that would coordinate the activities of the federal government in the field of historic preservation with those of the states and municipalities. On November 10 Roosevelt sent a note to Blair, inviting him to give
Roosevelt asked Blair to talk the matter over with Secretary Ickes and observed that legislation might be necessary. [35] Blair conferred with Interior officials and at his request Director Cammerer provided him with a "Statement of Principles and Standards" that delineated the Interior Department's conception of the role that the federal government should play in historic preservation. The first section stated the principles and standards governing the selection of historical areas for inclusion in the National Park System. The criteria were the first such standards drafted by the Division of History and had not yet appeared in print as an official policy statement. According to the document the determining factor in the preservation of a historic site by the federal government was whether the site possessed "certain matchless or unique qualities which entitle it to a position of first rank among historic sites." That quality existed:
The remainder of the sites should be preserved by state or local governments or by private or semi-public organizations. To determine which sites possessed the quality of uniqueness, Cammerer suggested that the National Park Service should conduct a national survey every ten years beginning in 1935 and classify sites by listing them as "Potential National" or "Non-Potential National." He also recommended that a five-member national board on historic sites, composed of noted historians, architects, and archeologists, be appointed to assist in the "Decennial Survey" activities and aid in the classification and preservation of historic sites by making appropriate recommendations. [36] Blair also gathered information and documentation from R.C. Lindsay, the British Ambassador, concerning British legislation and historic preservation practices. He forwarded these materials to President Roosevelt on March 7, 1934, who in turn sent them to Secretary Ickes three days later. [37] Soon thereafter Blair submitted his own proposal calling for the formation of a national preservation commission that would administer and coordinate a wide variety of historical activities. On May 23 Ickes responded to the proposal in a letter to Roosevelt, which had been drafted by Chatelain, echoing the Park Service interest in developing a broad preservation policy but opposing the creation of a new federal agency when the Service had just consolidated its administration over all federal historical areas. The letter attempted to show that the commission would be a needless duplication of Park Service prerogatives in leading the development of a national preservation policy and would put the historical program back into the hands of amateurs at a time when professional historians had been brought in to bring order to the federal system of historic sites. Ickes felt the Department of the Interior had the capability necessary for the coordination and administration of historical resources and urged setting aside of Blair's plan in favor of a broad new survey under the National Park Service. [38] During this time various preservation groups became actively interested in the promotion of a comprehensive national program of historic preservation. The General Society of Colonial Wars, of which Blair was a member, established a Committee on the Preservation of Historic Monuments and the Marking of Historic Sites. The committee held meetings in May and June 1934 in Washington and Williamsburg and conferred with Interior officials and various Congressmen. The Williamsburg board of directors, which had been watching the Park Service historical program with interest, also became interested in the movement for a national policy of historic preservation and gave tentative consideration to the idea of turning over Colonial Williamsburg to the Park Service. [39] During the summer of 1934 the National Park Service was influenced by these historical groups as well as by Chatelain's continual prodding for an expansion of the existing historical program. As a result the bureau began to press more earnestly for the necessary legislation to implement a national program of historic preservation. The growing sentiment of the bureau for national legislation was evident in a report on recreational land use in the United States that the National Park Service prepared for the Land Planning Committee of the Natural Resources Board:
As early as the summer of 1934 Director Cammerer and Secretary Ickes were discussing the need for a historic sites and buildings branch within the National Park Service for the purpose of developing a federal historical restoration and preservation program. [41] On September 28 Ickes ordered Solicitor Nathan Margold to prepare a draft bill creating within the National Park Service a Division on Historic American Buildings and Antiquities to be headed by an assistant director. The new division, Ickes indicated,
As future events would bear out, this request and recommendation by Ickes would lead to three important events in the implementation of a national program of historic preservation with the National Park Service as the leading agency in the process: establishment of a Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, passage of the Historic Sites Act, and establishment of a National Park Trust Fund Board. [42] After looking into the matter Margold came to the conclusion that further information was needed to draft the proposed bill. Because of his long-held interest in historic preservation under the aegis of the National Park Service Horace M. Albright, by now a successful businessman, persuaded his friend John D. Rockefeller, Jr., to back a detailed comprehensive study of preservation work and legislation both in the United States and Europe including an analytic study of the administrative structure of the Park Service's historical program. The study would provide the Secretary of the Interior with the necessary background information to enable his office to draft a comprehensive historic preservation bill. Shortly thereafter, Ickes appointed J. Thomas Schneider, a graduate of Harvard Law School who was working in Newark, New Jersey, as his special assistant to undertake the study, and Schneider commenced his work on November 15. [43] Schneider toured a number of historical areas in the eastern United States, discussed the proposed historic preservation legislation with Park Service historians, preservation authorities representing various public and private organizations, and the staff at Colonial Williamsburg, and gathered data on European legislation and practice. In early January 1935 he drafted a bill with the help of Assistant Solicitor Rufus G. Poole, incorporating the overall plan for a national program of historic preservation as well as the administrative machinery for a national park trust fund board. On January 25 he officially turned over the draft bill to Ickes, noting that the bill was general in tone because he hoped to gather more specifics during his upcoming journey to Europe for incorporation in the bill at a later date. While in Europe he hoped to study European preservation policy and practice first hand and gather data for a report that he was preparing for Ickes. [44] H. Legislative History of Historic Sites Act and National Park Trust Fund Board Act The Historic Sites Act represented a popular idea at a time of economic crisis when the nation needed a sense of its heritage. The proposed bill, drafted by Poole and Schneider, and its companion bill to create a national park trust fund board, quickly found influential Congressional sponsors. After the bills received a favorable report from the Bureau of the Budget, Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia introduced them in the Senate on February 28, 1935. [45] The bills, which were first referred to the Committee on the Library but later transferred to the Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, were entitled (S. 2073) "An Act to provide for the preservation of historical American sites, buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance" and (S. 2074) "An Act to create a National Park Trust Fund Board." On March 13 Representative Maury Maverick of Texas introduced the bills (H.R. 6670--Historic Sites Act; H.R. 6734--National Park Trust Fund Board Act) in the House where they were referred to the Committee on Public Lands. While neither legislator had taken part in drafting the bills, they were both interested in historic preservation. Byrd, as a former governor of Virginia, could not ignore the importance of Colonial Williamsburg and the George Washington Birthplace and Colonial national monuments. Maverick, a first-term Congressman, had been a long-time supporter of the San Antonio Conservation Society and more recently had turned his attention to an effort to have the San Jose Mission made a unit of the National Park System. [46] When the bills were taken up for consideration by the two Congressional committees, the committee chairmen requested further information and clarification from Secretary Ickes. In response to these requests Ickes submitted identical letters to Rene L. DeRouen of Louisiana, chairman of the House Committee on Public Lands, and Robert F. Wagner of New York, chairman of the Senate Committee on Public Lands and Surveys, on March 26 and 30 respectively. The legislation, wrote Ickes,
The House Committee on Public Lands held hearings on H.R. 6670 and H.R. 6734 on April 1, 2, and 5. The first person to speak was Secretary Ickes, who explained that the House committee was about to consider two bills, one to create a National Park Service Trust Fund Board that could expend private donations given to the Park Service, and the other the Historic Sites Act itself. Ickes stated that the essential purpose of the bill was
Moreover, he needed the act to provide him with proper professional historical advice and services since Congress had responded so enthusiastically to the cause of history:
Chatelain also had the opportunity to testify at the hearings. After describing the degree to which the nation had no coordinated plan for protecting its historic sites, he noted that local agencies had been unable to handle the job. Hence he strongly supported the idea of cooperation in saving the nation's historical heritage:
Less than one week after the hearings were completed, President Roosevelt indicated his wholehearted support for the Historic Sites Act in letters sent to Chairmen DeRouen and Wagner on April 10, 1935. The president noted:
The House committee reported both bills on May 9, recommending passage subject to several amendments. [51] On June 7 the Senate considered both bills in executive session and reported favorably on both with amendments. [52] Three days later S. 2073 and S. 2074 passed the Senate in amended form, and on June 14 both bills were referred to the House Committee on Public Lands. [53] On June 18 the House committee reported favorably on the amended Senate versions subject to further revision and recommended their passage in lieu of H.R. 6670 and H.R. 6734. [54] The National Park Trust Fund bill (S. 2074) became law on July 10, but passage of the Historic Sites bill (S. 2073) was held up because of the opposition of Representative Bertrand Snell of New York. [55] Angered because Secretary Ickes had earlier rescinded an allocation for a bridge in Ogdensburg, New York, Snell continued his tactics until President Roosevelt personally intervened to restore the bridge appropriation. [56] On August 5 the House amended and passed S. 2073 in lieu of H.R. 6670. [57] At this point Senator Byrd requested Secretary Ickes opinion as to whether he wished the Senate to agree to the House version of the bill or whether a conference should be called. Ickes replied on August 12:
Ickes recommended that the Senate concur in the House amendments. [58] On August 14 the Senate complied with the Secretary's wishes, and on August 21 Roosevelt signed the bill into law as Public Law 292 (49 Stat.666 ). [59] I. Significance of the Historic Sites Act and the National Park Trust Fund Board Act The Historic Sites Act was viewed by many in the historic preservation movement in the United States as "the Magna Charta in the program for the preservation of historic sites" and provided evidence to them that "a new cultural nationalism" had arrived. [60] By committing the federal government to a continuing effort in the preservation of the places important in American history the act profoundly influenced the course of the historic preservation movement in the United States and placed the National Park Service at the forefront of that movement. [61] The act declared "that it is a national policy to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States." To execute this policy, Congress conferred a broad range of powers upon the Secretary of the Interior to be exercised through the National Park Service. These powers included the responsibility to:
The act also established the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments to supercede the National Park Service Educational Advisory Board. The new advisory board was to advise the Secretary of the Interior on matters of national significance, additions to the National Park System, and administrative policy. For the first time the federal government had developed a general policy broad enough to deal with the problem of the preservation of nationally significant historic sites, buildings, and objects. Armed with this sweeping legislation the National Park Service was in a position to exert a major influence on historic preservation, interpretation, and development on a nationwide basis. Broad and flexible, the new law promised much for the future of the preservation movement in the United States. [62] The National Park Trust Fund Board legislation, which was largely modeled on the Library of Congress Trust Fund Board created on March 3, 1925, made provision for administering gifts on bequests of personal property by state and local governments, private organizations, and individuals. These bequests were to be held in a trust fund for use by the Service in the acquisition, preservation, and restoration of historic sites and other areas of scientific and geological interest. Money or securities in the fund were to be invested or reinvested from time to time by the Secretary of the Interior in a manner to be determined by the board, consisting of the secretaries of the Treasury and Interior, the Director of the National Park Service, and two individuals to be appointed by the president for five-year terms. [63] J. Establishment of Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings Using some preliminary data that Schneider gathered before his European trip, Interior and Park Service officials began discussions leading toward the organization of a separate branch of historic sites and buildings as early as the summer of 1934. The purpose of the branch was to direct the comprehensive planning and development needs posed by the expanding Service historical program as a result of the reorganization of 1933. Accordingly, the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings of the Washington office was authorized by the Department of the Interior appropriation act for fiscal year 1936. The memorandum announcing the formation of the new branch, which began functioning nearly two months before passage of the Historic Sites Act on July 1, 1935, described the responsibilities of the organization
Dr. Chatelain was designated as acting assistant director of the branch. [64] Because the Civil Service provisions for personnel in the new branch included only three additional employees, it was necessary to supplement the staff with ECW personnel. At the same time steps were taken to initiate civil service examinations for historian and archeology positions for the purpose of establishing a more permanent staff. [65] After the regionalization plan for the National Park Service was adopted in 1936, changes were made in the duties and responsibilities of the branch vis-a-vis those of the historians in the regional offices and at the park level. On July 30 Chatelain issued a memorandum outlining the functions of the Washington office of the branch:
After some five years as head of the historical program of the National Park Service, Chatelain resigned from his position as acting assistant director of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings effective September 15, 1936, to take employment with the Carnegie Institution of Washington. Branch Spalding, superintendent of Fredericksburg and Spotsylvania County Battlefields Memorial National Military Park, was designated to serve as the acting assistant director on that date until further notice. [67] A complete statement on the organization and functions of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings was prepared on August 27, 1937. The statement noted:
As the coordinator of all the branches in the general administration of historical areas, it was the duty of the assistant director "to advise with the Branch of Land Acquisition and Regulation in approving historic lands for acquisition, determining methods of regulation, drafting legislation for establishment and protection of historical areas." He was to consult "with the Branches of Engineering and Plans and Design on problems of location and type of roads and trails, buildings, public use areas, and other physical developments in historical areas" and to confer "with the Branch of Operations regarding budget and personnel matters affecting historical areas." Master plans and individual project plans were subject to his review and approval. The assistant director was directly responsible to the director for the administration and implementation of an interpretive and museum program in the historical areas. He was responsible for the relationship of the National Park Service to learned societies, educational institutions, and civic and other organizations devoted to history and archeology. It was his duty to see that the Park Service initiated and put into effect a national policy of historic preservation, including the Historic Sites Survey, under the guidelines set forth in the Historic Sites Act. The Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings consisted of two divisions--the Research and Survey and the Coordinating divisions. The Deputy Assistant Director in charge of the Research and Survey Division had direct responsibility for conducting the Historic Sites Survey and the research program connected with the survey as well as that required to administer the historical and archeological areas in the National Park System. It was his duty to provide for the coordinated historical and archeological research program of the Park Service, both in Washington and the field, to supervise the formulation of basic historical plans for each area in the National Park System, and to produce research products geared toward the Servicewide interpretive and educational programs. The Research and Survey Division collected and analyzed data and acted as a clearing house of information in the specialized spheres of historical and archeological activity, thus providing aid in the solution of administrative and technical problems in the field. The division was composed of three sections, each supervised by a section chief: historical research, archeological research, and Historic Sites Survey. The Historical Research Section organized the Park Service research program as a whole, interpreted its objectives and methods to the field, and followed the execution of the planned program for each area to insure its sound and adequate basis. The chief of this section was responsible for the development and execution of three principal research activities in Washington and at each historic site in the National Park System: (1) the systematic accumulation of basic historical source material of all types applicable to each area; (2) the preparation and maintenance of proper bibliographies, catalogues, indexes, lists, and guides to these materials; and (3) the interpretation of these materials so as to insure an historically-sound physical development for each park and to obtain an historically accurate interpretation of the area for educational uses. The program of this section was carried forward through historians attached to the individual parks with the aid of a small research staff in Washington. The chief of the Archeological Section planned and directed, through the field technicians, all archeological study and investigation necessary to the preservation and development for public use of archeological areas in the National Park System. The chief planned and supervised archeological surveys of all national areas containing prehistoric remains to identify and evaluate for preservation all important prehistoric sites and objects within the boundaries of each park. His duties included planning and direction for the systematic accumulation of all archeological reports and other data pertinent to an area and responsibility for the introduction and maintenance of appropriate scientific archeological records. A major task of the field personnel of this section was to translate the scientific conclusions of their studies and that of other archeologists who had worked in an area into sound park development. Among his other responsibilities the chief of this section assembled data on techniques of preservation and the latest scientific methods for transmittal to the field, contributed to the interpretive program for archeological areas, directed the archeological side of the Historic Sites Survey, and coordinated the archeological activities of the Park Service with those of the Smithsonian Institution and other scientific organizations. The chief of the Historic Sites Survey Section was charged with general responsibility for the conduct of the survey authorized by the Historic Sites Act. He planned and supervised through the survey historians in the regional offices the study and investigation on a nationwide basis of historic sites and structures and organized the material from such studies for the purpose of developing long-term plans for their acquisition, preservation, interpretation, and utilization. The deputy assistant director in charge of the Coordinating Division was responsible for the educational and general administrative functioning of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings. He formulated and directed the interpretive program for historical and archeological areas in the National Park System and aided the assistant director in the handling of administrative routine such as personnel, fiscal affairs, and correspondence pertaining to interpretation and miscellaneous matters. The deputy assistant director in charge of the Coordinating Division was assisted by two field coordinators--the chiefs of the General Historical and Civil War sections. As specialists in educational methodology, public relations, and the history embodied in their respective groups of areas, the field coordinators visited each area frequently, advised park superintendents and historians relative to the program of historical interpretation and research, and provided the liaison between the field and the Washington office regarding such matters. The deputy assistant director in charge of the Coordinating Division was also aided by the ECW coordinator who maintained close touch with all ECW activity in historical areas and represented the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings in its dealings with the Branch of Recreational Planning and State Cooperation. He reviewed all ECW and other emergency projects proposed for historical and archeological areas and attended to their proper clearance within the branch. The ultimate expression of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings was expressed through the field historical staff. The personnel of that staff performed directly the historical interpretive function and carried out a large portion of the research program. Representing the branch in the office of the park superintendent or the regional office, they advised their supervisors in all matters pertaining to history and archeology, including interpretation and physical planning and development. [68] Several months later Director Cammerer issued a memorandum clarifying the attitude of the National Park Service as to the functions of the members of the field historical staff. The memorandum read:
Branch Spalding continued to serve as the acting assistant director of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings until May 16, 1938. On that date Ronald F. Lee entered on duty as the assistant director in charge of the branch (a title that would soon be formally changed to chief, Branch of Historic Sites). [70] An administrative reorganization of the Washington office (effective August 1, 1938) provided for certain changes in the organization of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings. The name of the branch was shortened to the Branch of Historic Sites and Lee's title as head of the branch was changed to that of Supervisor of Historic Sites. The branch had two divisions: Historic Sites Division, under Francis S. Ronalds, assistant chief; and Archeologic Sites Division, under Dr. Arthur R. Kelly, acting assistant chief (permanent appointment received on October 3, 1938). The Historic Sites Division had two sections under the new office realignment: Research and Survey Section under Alvin P. Stauffer, supervisor; and Planning and Interpretative Section, under Charles W. Porter, supervisor. The functions' statement of the branch as outlined on an organizational chart of the "Branch of Historic Sites," approved on August 1, 1938, was:
In 1939 Herbert E. Kahler, who had been superintendent at Morristown for about a year, traded jobs with Francis Ronalds and became in effect Lee's assistant. Thus, in the final productive years before the outbreak of World War II, Lee became in effect chief historian and Kahler assistant chief historian in the operation of the organization. [72] K. Adoption of Code of Procedure for Implementation of Historic Sites Act By September 1935 the National Park Service was actively engaged in framing a code of procedure to serve as a guide in directing the varied activities under the Historic Sites Act. The code was designed to include basic regulations and policies that were to be followed in carrying out the provisions of the act and governing its enforcement. [73] By this time Schneider had submitted his study entitled "Report to the Secretary of the Interior on the Preservation of Historic Sites and Buildings," and his research was used in formulating the directives to put the Historic Sites Act into operation. The report consisted of three parts:
It was this latter section that was used to draft the code of procedure. [74] In February 1936 the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, in cooperation with the legal staff of the Department of the Interior, finalized and issued the code of procedure. The three individuals who were most responsible for the code's contents were Chatelain, Merritt Barton of the department's legal staff, and Lee. The regulations in the code included an account of each step to be taken before bringing an area into the National Park System as a National Historic Site, which was an entirely new type of area designation. The procedure for designating such a site included six steps:
L. Appointment and Early Activities of the Advisory Board In early February 1936 Secretary Ickes announced the appointment of eleven members to the Advisory Board as provided for in the Historic Sites Act. The eleven members were noted historians, archeologists, and preservationists representing all geographical areas of the nation. The list of members included: Edmund H. Abrahams, Savannah, Georgia (head of Joint Committee of Memorials of the City of Savannah, Secretary of the Sons of the Revolution, and head of the Savannah Commission for the Preservation of Landmarks). Dr. Herbert E. Bolton, Berkeley, California (chairman of the Department of History and Director of Bancroft Library, University of California, Berkeley). Dr. Hermon C. Bumpus, Duxbury, Massachusetts (chairman of the Committee on Museums in the National Park Service and a member of the American Association of Museums). Mrs. Reau Folk, Nashville, Tennessee (Regent of the Ladies Hermitage Association). George DeBenneville Keim, Edgewater Park, New Jersey (Governor-General of the Society of Colonial Wars, and chairman of the State Commission on Historical Sites in New Jersey). Dr. Alfred V. Kidder, Andover, Massachusetts (chairman of Division on Historical Research of the Carnegie Institution of Washington). Dr. Fiske Kimball, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Director of the Pennsylvania Museum of Art). Dr. Waldo G. Leland, Washington, D.C. (General Secretary of the American Council of Learned Societies). Archibald M. McCrea, Williamsburg, Virginia (Restorator of Carter's Grove). Dr. Frank R. Oastler, New York City (member of former Educational Advisory Board). Dr. Clark Wissler, New York City (Curator of Ethnology at the American Museum of National History and Professor of Anthropology in the Institute of Human Relations at Yale University). [76] The Advisory Board held its first annual meeting in Washington, D.C. , on February 13-14, 1936. On the agenda were topics ranging from the ways and means of procuring funds for the preservation of historic sites to the drafting of a model law suited to the needs of state legislatures in recommending the preservation of local shrines and landmarks. [77] The meeting was addressed by Ickes, Cammerer, and Chatelain, who outlined to the newly-appointed board important phases of the historical work of the Park Service and suggested plans for comprehensive action under the scope of the new legislation. [78] At its second meeting on May 7-9, 1936, the Advisory Board adopted a number of resolutions concerning historic preservation. The principal one to be approved concerned a general statement of principles relating to the selection of historical and archeological sites that Chatelain had submitted to them. The approved statement read:
M. Historic Sites Survey: 1935-1941 One of the most significant programs to be organized by the National Park Service as a result of the Historic Sites Act was the Historic Sites Survey. The vast number of requests for federal assistance, which numbered more than 500 by early 1937, combined with the provisions of the act itself, made a comprehensive national survey of historic sites an essential first step toward the achievement of a national program of historic preservation. On December 8, 1936, the National Park Service issued "A Statement of Policy" that would serve as a guide in organizing and implementing the survey. According to the statement, the purpose of the survey was "to acquire an adequate system of sites, without encumbering the system with sites of insufficient importance, and without assuming more maintenance responsibility than can be met." In this matter the Service would adhere "to the principle whereby the criterion for determining the acquisition of a site is the unquestionable major significance of the site in national history." [80] That same day Director Cammerer approved a memorandum setting forth the initial policies and procedures to be followed in conducting the survey. According to the memorandum, the Historic Sites Survey was "probably the most important single project now before the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, and in its ultimate effects one of the most significant projects of the National Park Service." The reasons for such an assertion were:
The memorandum also outlined the scope and methodology to be used in carrying out the survey. It was to represent a nationwide geographic distribution, include a well-rounded variety of historic sites, and cover each of the principal periods in the course of American history. Four steps were to be followed in implementing the survey: (1) an inventory or index catalogue of the important historical and archeological sites was to be prepared; (2) field investigations and research studies for the more promising areas were to be conducted; (3) areas were to be classified according to their national or non-national significance; and (4) development of a national plan for the preservation of important historical and archeological sites was to be carried out in cooperation with various national agencies and state planning boards. [81] At its fourth annual meeting on March 25-26, 1937, the Advisory Board approved the general policies and procedures for the Historic Sites Survey as adopted by the National Park Service. To facilitate the classification process the board recommended that the historical and archeological sites be classified with reference to special themes covering the chief periods of American prehistory and history. Through this method, which was adopted by the Park Service, historical or archeological sites would be placed under one of these themes for comparison with other sites illustrating the same subject. The best example or examples would then be chosen for protection and inclusion, where otherwise not well maintained or preserved, within the National Park System. Sites of lesser importance would be recommended for state or local protection and development. Where possible these would be handled through the ECW state park program of the National Park Service in order that their development through state means might fit in with the system of national areas belonging to the same theme. Accordingly, there were twenty-three historical themes under which historic sites were to be classified and twelve cultural groupings under which archeological sites were to be classified. The historical themes were:
The archeological cultural groupings were: I. Southwestern National Monuments. As preparation for the Historic Sites Survey began the list of twenty-three historical themes was reduced to fifteen, and the archeological cultural groupings were similarly reorganized and reduced in number. [83] By 1941, when wartime budget restrictions began to curtail the survey, reports or preliminary studies had been prepared on the following historical themes: 17th and 18th century French and Spanish sites; colonial Dutch and Swedish sites; 17th century English sites; western expansion of the frontier to 1830; and western expansion of the frontier, 1830-1900. Work also had begun on two thematic studies: 18th century English sites and American Revolutionary War sites. Some 564 historical sites and 334 archeological sites had been inventoried and 16 sites had been recommended by the Advisory Board and approved by the Secretary of the Interior as units of the National Park System. Reports on archeological sites had been prepared on the following themes: Early Man in North America; Prehistoric Sedentary Agriculture Groups; and Historic Sedentary Agricultural Groups. The survey of archeological sites had been carried out in cooperation with Harvard, Columbia, Michigan, Louisiana State, Tennessee, Alabama, and Georgia universities--one of the leading projects being the Middle Mississippi Valley Archeological Survey comprising sections of eastern Arkansas and western Mississippi. [84] After the survey was halted by the war, it remained moribund until late 1957 when it was resumed by the National Park Service. By 1965 approximately 3,500 sites and buildings had been studied and evaluated by the survey. [85] N. New Historical and Archeological Areas Added to National Park System: 1933-1941 Between the reorganization of 1933 and passage of the Historic Sites Act in 1935, four areas having historical or archeological interest became units of the National Park System. These areas were: Ocmulgee National Monument, Georgia, June 14, 1934; Thomas Jefferson Memorial, District of Columbia, June 26, 1934; Fort Jefferson National Monument, Florida, January 4, 1935; and Fort Stanwix National Monument, New York, August 21, 1935. [86] The first historical area to come under federal administration through the provisions of the Historic Sites Act was the setting for one of the most problematical projects in historic preservation--the Jefferson National Expansion Memorial in St. Louis, Missouri--inasmuch as unemployment relief and urban renewal were probably more significant facets of the project than were historical questions. In 1933 public officials and business and civic groups formed a Jefferson National Expansion Memorial Association to support a project to renovate the waterfront area in the city by turning it into a park and establishing a national expansion memorial . The federal government became interested in the park proposal, and on June 15, 1934, President Roosevelt signed into law an act establishing the United States Territorial Expansion Memorial Commission to develop plans for a national memorial commemorating Thomas Jefferson, the Louisiana Purchase, and westward national expansion. On April 10, 1935, the governor of Missouri signed an enabling act authorizing cities of 400,000 or more inhabitants to issue bonds in aid of federal historic projects, and on September 10 St. Louis voted a bond issue of $7,500,000 of which $2,250,000 was made available soon thereafter. By executive order on December 21, 1935, President Roosevelt designated that "certain lands situate on the west bank of the Mississippi River at or near the site of Old St. Louis, Missouri, possess value as commemorating or illustrating the history of the United States and are a historic site within the meaning of the said [Historic Sites] act." The Park Service was designated as the bureau to develop the memorial and $6,750,000 in Federal funds were allocated to the project to be used with the $2,250,000 from St. Louis for the acquisition, preservation, and development of the area. Work on clearing the area began on October 10, 1939, but the preservation and development work as well as the construction of the memorial itself was not completed until the 1960s. Despite the designation by President Roosevelt in 1935 the national historic site was not officially authorized until May 17, 1954. [87] Salem Maritime National Historic Site, the second such area (established March 18, 1938) to come into the National Park System under the provisions of the Historic Sites Act was easier for the professional staff of the Park Service to deal with since it involved the acquisition, preservation, and interpretation of a major early American port that had gained significance during the colonial, revolutionary, and federal periods of American history. Other areas that entered the National Park System as national historic sites during the period 1935-41 were:
Besides the aforementioned national historic sites a number of other areas having historical or archeological interest were added to the National Park System during the six-year period after passage of the Historic Sites Act. These included seven national monuments, two national battlefield parks, two national historical parks, and one national memorial. [88] In addition the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal was placed under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service on September 23, 1938, as a result of the bankruptcy of the Baltimore & Ohio Railroad, but it was not officially declared a national monument and hence a unit of the system until January 18, 1961. [89] O. Historical and Archeological Research: 1935-1941 The Historic Sites Act provided for a comprehensive research program "to obtain true and accurate historical and archaeological facts and information" relative to the nation's historical and archeological sites. Under Dr. Chatelain's tutelage the Park Service developed an energetic and far-reaching research program, so energetic Harold Ickes informed Director Cammerer on June 11, 1936, that the Park Service was going too far afield in the matter of research. Accordingly, the director had Chatelain draw up a document describing the overall purview of the Park Service research program. On July 7 the document entitled "Statement Regarding the Activities in Historical Research of the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings" was submitted to the secretary. [90] Asserting that the research activities of the branch were "an extremely important part of the work of the National Park Service," the statement noted that between January 1, 1935, and June 1, 1936, the research staff working with materials in the Library of Congress and in other federal departments had prepared more than 300 reports. Of these 57 percent were prepared at the request of Congressional committees or individual Congressmen or because of the need to obtain data to render judgments upon bills pending before Congress which would affect the National Park Service. Some 38 percent of the reports were made in response to inquiries from field personnel or from other Park Service branches in Washington, while some 5 percent were prepared to answer requests from state agencies or historical and patriotic agencies. Chatelain went on to note that the research program was based "on a true conception of the needs of the Park Service and a carefully planned program of meeting the day by day problems that come into the Service." The studies were necessary "if the high professional standards" of the Service were to be followed in the historical areas. The historical problems of these areas were "necessary problems" which must be met if the National Park Service were to meet the obligation placed upon it by law "to recommend action on sites proposed for national administration, and to develop those which are required." In handling these problems, Chatelain contended, historical research in Washington saved both time and money because of the research resources at the Library of Congress and the archives of the various federal departments. With such material at hand, a "small efficient research staff in Washington" could provide the essential historical information necessary to the handling of a large percentage of historical problems presented to the National Park Service" without expensive travel to the field, and without using the time consumed in field investigations." Moreover, the "true justification" for a
Chatelain argued that the National Park Service could not safely rely upon the accuracy of information provided by state and local agency historians. To meet the obligation placed upon the Park Service by the Historic Sites Act, the Park Service historians must "verify the historical truth" for themselves and "secure the information which meets our own particular problems." In conclusion he noted:
As the National Park Service became increasingly involved in the development of historical areas, there was a corresponding need to define the relationship between research and development. The Regional Historians' Conference held on June 6-10, 1938, recommended that the National Park Service adopt a draft research and development policy for historic sites that it drew up. Accordingly, Director Cammerer approved such a policy statement on June 20, 1938. The document stated that a "basic function of the National Park Service is the preservation and interpretation of historic sites." To perform that function effectively, it was ''necessary that the relationship of historical and archeological research to development programs of such areas be clearly understood." Such a research and development policy was needed to provide a framework within which the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings "could provide technical research assistance to the administrative officers in charge of historic sites and to the branches directly concerned with planning and development." The essential points of the policy read:
An example of an historical park program where research was tied closely to development was the Chesapeake & Ohio Canal. On July 21, 1938, Ronald F. Lee, Chief, Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, drew up the outline of a historical research program that would meet the needs of preservation, restoration, interpretation, planning, and development for the canal. The work program, which would require the services of two historians, included:
P. Development of Restoration and Preservation Policies: 1935-1941 From 1935 to 1937 the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, in consultation with technicians from other Park Service branches and the Advisory Board, held a series of discussions regarding the establishment of a "proper restoration policy" for historical areas new to the system. The result of these discussions, as approved by the Advisory Board at its March 1937 meeting, was incorporated in a memorandum signed by Arno Cammerer on May 19, 1937. The policies, one for general restoration, another for battlefield area restoration, and a third covering sample restoration, represented the first codification of a national historic preservation policy. [94] Examples of restoration work done by the National Park Service in the 1930s under the May 19, 1937, restoration policies included the Wick and Guerin houses and Ford Mansion at Morristown; the Lightfoot House at Colonial; Fort Pulaski; the Customs House, and Derby and Central wharves at Salem Maritime National Historic Site; Fort McHenry; Hopewell Village; Officers' Quarters at Fort Laramie; and Peach Orchard at Shiloh. [95] The National Park Service also formulated several other policy statements relative to the preservation of historical and archeological sites. In 1937 steps were taken to upgrade the preservation and recording of archeological sites and specimens and to provide general principles for the maintenance and preservation of prehistoric features and ruins. A memorandum was issued on March 31, 1937, establishing a set of guidelines for the presentation of archeological sites and initiating a new system of recording archeological specimens which included field accession cards, archeological survey cards, and maps. [96] Q. Classification and Objectives of Historical and Archeological Areas in National Park System: 1935-1941 During the same years, the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, in consultation with the Advisory Board, developed tentative definitions and objectives for various types of historical and archeological areas in the National Park System. [97] This was done to simplify the administration and provide for uniform standards of development and operation of the numerous historical and archeological areas that were transferred to the Park Service as a result of the reorganization of 1933 as well as the many new areas which were proposed as units of the National Park System after passage of the Historic Sites Act. The following definitions and objectives were discussed and adopted as preliminary guidelines for the nomenclature designations of historical and archeological areas by the Advisory Board in March 1937:
Thereafter, there were various efforts to redesignate the historical areas of the National Park System to coordinate and simplify the nomenclature of these areas according to National Park Service standards. One of the chief attempts to accomplish this goal was the proposal in the legislative program submitted to the Interior Department Solicitor on August 31, 1938, to combine all national military parks with the national cemeteries and designate them as national historical parks. Three national battlefield sites were to be transferred to the national historical park designation while the remaining national battlefield sites were recommended for the memorial category. While this reclassification was designed to streamline the administration of areas in the National Park System, it was also proposed in part to "eliminate much of the public criticism of the National Park System as presenting numerous inconsistencies and illogicalities in the similar designation of areas that are not, in fact, comparable in character." The proposal was defeated, but the issue of reclassification has continued to be discussed periodically to the present day. [99] R. Impact of History on Master Plans: 1935-1941 As early as 1936 the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings was preparing plans to incorporate historical site sheets in the master plans for historical and battlefield areas in the National Park System. This was designed to bring about a closer coordination of the research work at the parks and monuments with the park development programs as outlined in the master plans. Early examples included historical tour sheets, "culture" sheets, and educational sheets showing historical points of interest along with the roads and trails system. [100] By October 1937 it had been determined to use a separate historical sheet in the master plans for historical areas. This sheet would show the "historic" ground cover, buildings, fences, bridges, and roads. The master plans of the battlefield areas would have an additional sheet(s) showing battle line positions, troop movements, batteries, fortifications, ground cover, extant remains, and actual extent of the battlefield area. [101] As a result of numerous conferences between the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings, the Branch of Plans and Design, and various regional representatives, a set of guidelines was established in May 1938 for the preparation of historical sheets in master plans for historical and archeological areas. [102] The guidelines, which were sent to all field historians, were designed to assist them in preparing data for incorporation by the field representatives of the Branch of Plans and Design in the master plans. The data was viewed as important both for its "scientific" value and usefulness for park planning purposes. The guidelines read in part:
These guidelines were later incorporated into the manual of standard practice for master plan preparation in 1941 . According to the manual, a variety of historical and archeological base maps were to be included in the master plans for areas designated as being of special historical or archeological significance. The maps were to include such sheets as historical base, troop position, archeological base, and historical or archeological tour. In addition the maps would be accompanied by a general statement describing the site, assessing its significance, defining its period of maximum historical importance, evaluating its scientific, educational, and commemorative value, and containing a list of bibliographical references. An interpretive statement and historical or archeological narrative would also be prepared. [104] S. Interpretation: 1935-1941 During the late 1930s efforts were made to upgrade the interpretive activities in the historical areas of the National Park System. Improvements were made in various types of field exhibits, including sample "restorations," outdoor relief maps, orientation maps, trailside museums, and markers An example of such sample restoration projects was the reconstruction of the Continental Army hospital, together with reproductions of a soldier's hut and officer's hut, at Morristown National Historical Park in 1936-37. As part of the interpretive program field historians began to give public lectures sponsored by outside groups and to participate in numerous radio broadcasts in the vicinity of their parks. [105] In April 1940 a historical technicians conference was held at Richmond, Virginia, with Ronald F. Lee as chairman and Roy E. Appleman, Regional Supervisor of Historic Sites, Region I, as vice chairman. The purpose of the conference was to consider interpretive problems relating to the development and presentation of historical and archeological areas. The subjects discussed included the objectives and standards of interpretive policy and park literature and the use of markers and material objects in museums and trailside exhibits. The objectives and standards of interpretive policy were:
The principal objective of park literature
Relative to the use of markers it was determined
Concerning the use of material objects in museums and trailside exhibits, the conferees agreed
T. Publications: 1935-1941 As early as 1936 National Park Service historians were involved in the publications efforts of the bureau. In that year they began preparing material for a new publication entitled of the Eastern Historical Areas. They also prepared copy for seven informal leaflets on the historical areas in the National Park System that were designed to be given to visitors. [107] In 1939 a new series of informative bulletins on historical areas was planned, and the first booklet in the series, Manassas to Appomattox, was issued. Copy for seven other booklets in the series was transmitted to the Government Printing Office by June. [108] During the late 1930s the Branch of Historic Sites and Buildings and the Office of Information developed a publications program for historical and archeological areas. In July 1940 a new publications program was announced that had the approval of the Committee on Publications and Director Cammerer. The principal types of publications of the new program included:
In addition there were plans for a history and archeology series to parallel the flora and fauna series that had been in existence for several years. Also under consideration was a research series that would publish original contributions by Park Service professional personnel in the fields of history and archeology and a source material series designed for the printing of excerpts "from interesting and human original historical source material, or particularly good interpretive statements from great writers or speakers, applicable to areas under our jurisdiction." [109] U. Historic Preservation in the National Park Service During the 1930s The decade of the 1930s was a significant period for the growth and development of the historic preservation movement in the United States. The quadrupling of historical areas in the National Park System as a result of the reorganization of 1933 placed the Service at the forefront of the movement. Public consciousness of the need to preserve our historical and archeological sites resulted in larger appropriations, the acquisition of new areas, and the establishment within the agency of a Branch of Historic Sites charged with responsibility for the preservation, development, and interpretation of the significant cultural resources of the country. Emergency relief programs designed to help the nation work its way out of economic depression provided the labor, funds, and materials to complete many park projects. The New Deal programs were invaluable in their role in training National Park Service personnel in historic preservation techniques and policies. Historians and architects, for example, learned about restoration and reconstruction by experimentation in state as well as national park areas around the country. This type of "hands-on" training would not have been possible without the influx of money and personnel during the 1930s. At the same time, study and comparison of European historic preservation policies with those of the United States led to passage of the Historic Sites Act that granted to the Secretary of the Interior through the National Park Service authority to establish and implement a comprehensive national program of historic preservation By the outbreak of World War II the basic foundations of such a policy had been formulated and implemented, and the stage was set for the full flowering of the historic preservation movement in the postwar decades. [110] |
| <<< Previous | <<< Contents >>> | Next >>> |
unrau-williss/chap5.htm
Last Updated: 29-Feb-2016