U.S. Department of the Interior

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site

Manteo, North Carolina

Cultural Resources

Southeast Region

Cultural Resources Cultural Resources ral Resources

Southeast Region Southeast Re outheast Region

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site

Administrative History

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Fort Ralei ort Raleigh National Historic Sit National Historic Site

Administrative History Administrative Histor ministrative History

Preserving the Mystery Preserving the Mystery Preservin reserving the Mystery
Preserving the Mystery

An Administrative History of

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site

November 2003

Written by Cameron Binkley and Steven Davis
Cultural Resources

Southeast Region

National Park Service

100 Alabama St. SW

Atlanta, GA 30303

(404) 562-3117

The administrative history presented here exists in two 

formats. A printed version is available for study at the park, 

the Southeastern Regional Office of the National Park 

Service, and at a variety of other repositories. For more 

widespread access, this administrative history also exists in 

a web- based format through ParkNet, the website of the 

National Park Service. Please visit www.nps.gov for more 

information.

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site

1401 National Park Drive

Manteo, North Carolina 27954

Previous page: An engraved portrait of Sir Walter Raleigh, 

ca. 1580. Negative number 65-42, nd, Harpers Ferry Historic 

Photographs. Courtesy of Harpers Ferry Center, NPS.


National Park Service v

We owe a debt of gratitude to the Roanoke Colony Memorial Association of the 1890s and to its successor, the 

Roanoke Island Historical Association, for preserving the Fort Raleigh area and for making its importance better 

known to the American people through the production of Paul Green’s play.

Conrad Wirth

Director, National Park Service

October 13, 1961

The Waterside Theatre has been on government property since its existence, and Dare County has gotten along just 

fine with the landlord.

The Coastland Times

December 2, 1986
vi Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History
National Park Service vii

Contents

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

Figure Credits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii

Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .xvii

Introduction

Cultural Resources, Tourism, and the “Organic Act” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Chapter One: The Roanoke Island Colonies, 1578-1590

European Exploration and Settlement of the New World. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

The First English Effort to Colonize Roanoke Island, 1578-1586 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

The Second English Effort to Colonize Roanoke Island, 1587-1590 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

The Mystery and Significance of the Lost Colony. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Chapter Two: Settlement, Development, and Commemoration on Roanoke Island, 

ca. 1606-1931

The Settlement of Roanoke Island, ca. 1606-1860 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

The Civil War: Battling for Roanoke Island, 1860- 1862. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

The Freedmen’s Colony on Roanoke Island, 1862-1866. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Fessenden’s Early Radio Experiments, 1901-1902. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Early Commemorative Efforts at the Fort Raleigh Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Chapter Three: Creation of a National Historic Site

Economic Transitions in Dare County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

The National Park Service and the New Deal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Development of Fort Raleigh State Park. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

The National Park Service Considers Fort Raleigh . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Designation of Fort Raleigh as a National Historic Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Fort Raleigh and the Cape Hatteras National Seashore Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Chapter Four: Administration, Planning, and Development

Administrative Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Early Planning, Development, and Land Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Public Pressure for Reconstructions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

The Mission 66 Program. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Post-Mission 66 Development, Land Acquisition, and Boundary Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
viii Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Chapter Five: Archeology and the Search for the Lost Colony

The Development of Historical Archeology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Excavating and Reconstructing the Fort, 1947-1950. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Mission 66 Archeological Work, 1963-1965. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Investigating Harrington’s “Outwork,” 1981-1985. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

New Discoveries by the Virginia Company Foundation, 1991-1993. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Impact of Park Expansion Legislation, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Chapter Six: Interpretation and Visitor Services

Visitor Use and Interpretation Prior to Mission 66 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

The Elizabethan Room . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Furnishing the Elizabethan Room? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Interpretation and Visitor Services after Mission 66. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

“Roanoke Decoded” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Expansion of Fort Raleigh’s Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Chapter Seven: Fort Raleigh and the Roanoke Island Historical Association

The Early Years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

NPS Facilities Used by RIHA at Fort Raleigh. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

The RIHA Arts Center Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Impact of Park Service Policy on RIHA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Fort Raleigh NHS and the Elizabethan Gardens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

RIHA and Fort Raleigh NHS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Chapter Eight: General Preservation and Protection

Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Fort Raleigh as a National Historic Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Collections Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

Law Enforcement and Fire Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Natural Resource Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Erosion Control Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

Trends in General Resource Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

Appendices 

Appendix One: Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Appendix Two: “Fort Raleigh” – The Mystery of the Name. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Appendix Three: A List of Superintendents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Appendix Four: Annual Visitation Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Appendix Five: Federal Legislation and Orders

F.R. 2441, Issued April 5, 1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

75 Stat. 384, Approved August 17, 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Public Law 101-603, 104 Stat. 3065, Approved November 16, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
National Park Service ix

1: An engraved portrait of Sir Walter Raleigh, ca. 1590 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2: Map of Roanoke and surrounding islands by John White, ca. 1585. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3: A typical Native American village in the Carolinas, ca. 1590 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4: The capture of Roanoke Island by Union forces, February 1862 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

5: Freedmen building fortifications during the Civil War, 1865. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6: Domestic chores as they probably appeared among freedmen on Roanoke Island, 1865 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

7: Sketch of Fort Raleigh environs, while owned by the Dough family, 1862. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

8: RCMA members surround the monument to Virginia Dare at Fort Raleigh, ca. 1896 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

9: The Virginia Dare/Fort Raleigh Colony Marker, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

10: WPA Camp at Fort Raleigh, ca. 1935 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

11: The WPA blockhouse on either side of the entrance to Fort Raleigh, January 1938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

12: Captain Jeff Hayman, caretaker at Fort Raleigh, May 1938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

13: Theater construction at Fort Raleigh by WPA workers, June 1937. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

14: Franklin D. Roosevelt at Fort Raleigh, August 18, 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

15: Franklin D. Roosevelt at the Virginia Dare ceremonies, August 18, 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

16: The blockhouse and palisade at the fort site, January 1938 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

17: The WPA chapel at Fort Raleigh, January 1938. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

18: Louise H. Meekins giving an interpretive talk to visitors at Fort Raleigh, October 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

19: Map showing the boundary, layout, and facilities of Ft. Raleigh as inherited by the 

NPS from the state of North Carolina, 1942 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

20: View of front gate to Fort Raleigh, February 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

21: View of Ft. Raleigh Motor Court through front gate of park, February 1960 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

List of Figures
x Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

22: The WPA chapel at Fort Raleigh being demolished, April 1952 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

23: The Waterside Theater after the building sets were changed in appearance from log to wattle in May 1955 . 42

24: Fort Raleigh and planned Mission 66 acquisitions, late 1950s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

25: The Dough family homestead, 1961 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

26: The Lindsay C. Warren Visitor Center, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

27: Dedication ceremony of the Lindsay C. Warren Visitor Center, July 13, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .46

28: Land status map showing tract numbers, property acquisition dates, deed type, and previous ownership, 1995

50

29: Jean C. Harrington working on excavations at Fort Raleigh, October 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

30: Map of 1947 and 1950 Harrington exploratory trenches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

31: Earthwork outlined by granite, ca. 1949 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

32: Fort Raleigh earthwork being reconstructed following Harrington’s archeological investigations, September 

1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

33: Reconstructing earthworks at Fort Raleigh, 1950 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

34: Jean C. Harrington and his wife Virginia S. Harrington excavating at Ft. Raleigh, Oct. 1965 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

35: Major archeological investigations at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

36: Visitors to Fort Raleigh at the WPA museum building, July 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

37: Visitors at the reconstructed fort, ca. 1955 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

38: Children reading an interpretive sign on the Thomas Hariot Trail, June 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

39: Sixteenth- century fireplace and paneling in the Elizabethan Room, February 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .64

40: Interpretative image by artist John Heinly, one of a series commissioned by the NPS that sought to illustrate 

the Raleigh expeditions, 1968 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .69

41: A performance of The Lost Colony, late 1930s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

42: Waterside Theatre fire damage, July 1947. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

43: Albert “Skipper” Bell standing before the Waterside Theatre, ca. 1961. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

44: The Mission 66 Lost Colony Building, 1966 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

45: Land requested by RIHA for construction of the Roanoke Island Center for the Arts, 1982 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

46: Proposed Performing Arts Center planned by RIHA, 1986 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83
National Park Service xi

47: Statue of Virginia Dare in the Elizabethan Gardens, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

48: Sunken Garden at the Elizabethan Gardens, 1990 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

49: Marker commemorating spot where President Franklin D. Roosevelt spoke in 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

50: Marker commemorating spot where President Roosevelt viewed The Lost Colony in 1937 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

51: Thatched loghouse museum at Fort Raleigh, ca. 1937. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

52: Evidence of erosion off N.C. highway 345, on north end of Roanoke Island, ca. 1950. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

53: Jetty under construction east of Fort Raleigh, ca. 1950. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

54: Fort Raleigh statistical visitation data, 1956- 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

55: Chart showing visitation trends at Fort Raleigh, 1956- 2000. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
xii Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History
National Park Service xiii

Figure Credits

Cover: John Heinly, pen and ink with watercolor (1968). Heinly was commissioned by NPS to 

produce a series of interpretative panels illustrating the Raleigh expeditions, some of which 

are still in use at Fort Raleigh NHS. The cover image is an impressionistic depiction of an 

actual portrait of Raleigh engraved during his lifetime (see Figure 1). Harpers Ferry Center 

Commissioned Art Collection, File Number 01844: AVA Project #51, Plate 23.

 1: Negative number 65- 42, no date, Harpers Ferry Historic Photographs. Courtesy of Harpers 

Ferry Center, NPS.

 2: Theodore De Bry engraving of John White watercolor (ca. 1590). Courtesy of Harpers Ferry 

Center, NPS.

 3: Theodore De Bry engraving of John White watercolor (ca. 1590). Courtesy of Harpers Ferry 

Center, NPS.

 4: Painting of the Capture of Roanoke Island. Courtesy of the Outer Banks History Center, 

Manteo, NC. 

 5 and 6: Vincent Colyer, Report of the Services Rendered by the Freed People to the United States Army, 

in North Carolina (By the author, 1865).

 7: “Loungings in the Footprints of the Pioneers,” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, vol. XX, no 

120 (May 1860): 773.

 8 and 10: William S. Powell, Paradise Preserved (UNC Press, 1965), 82, 142. 

 9: S. Butler for NPS (NPS, 1990), SERO CRS Library, NPS. 

11: Negative Number FR- 38- 8, January 1938, Print File St/OA, Photograph Collection, CAHA 

Group Headquarters, FORA.

12: NPS photo in “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Photos” (NPS, 2000), SERO CRS Library, 

Atlanta.

13: CNHP- Fort Raleigh, North Carolina, 8227, Photograph Collection, CAHA Group 

Headquarters, FORA.

14 and 15: Photos of FDR, FDR Chronology File, 49- 22:3709 [110 and 112]. Courtesy of the Franklin D. 

Roosevelt Library.

16: Negative Number FR- 38- 7, January 1938, Print File St/OA, Photograph Collection CAHA 

Group Headquarters, FORA.
xiv Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

17: Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Reports for Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, 1941-

1954 (April 1952), CAHA Group Headquarters, FORA.

18: Negative Number 65- 39, October 28, 1966, Print File A/I/f, Photograph Collection, CAHA 

Group Headquarters, FORA. 

19: Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (NPS, 1942), in Booklets Relating to National Historical 

Areas, 1940- 42, SERO CRS Library, NPS. 

20 and 21: NPS photos in “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Photos” (NPS, 2000), SERO CRS Library, 

NPS.

22: Negative Number FR- 38- 4, January 1938, Print File, St/OA, Photograph Collection, CAHA 

Group Headquarters, FORA. 

23: Negative Number 55- 4, May 6, 1955, Print File St/C, Photograph Collection, CAHA Group 

Headquarters, FORA.

24: Fort Raleigh (National Park Service, n.d.), 21, SERO CRS Library.

25: Negative Number FR- 60- 13, February 2, 1960, Print File St/R, Photograph Collection, 

CAHA Group Headquarters, FORA.

26: Negative Number 19- 66, 1966, Print File St/VC, Photograph Collection, CAHA Group 

Headquarters, FORA.

27: Photo by Aycock Brown, July 13, 1966, David Stick Collection. Courtesy of the Outer Banks 

History Center, Manteo, NC. 

28: FORA map revision (1995) by Land Resource Division, SERO, NPS.

29: Photo in “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Photos” (NPS, 2000), SERO CRS Library, NPS.

30: Jean C. Harrington, Search for the Cittie of Ralegh (NPS, 1962), SERO CRS Library, NPS.

31: Fort photographs, Photograph Collection, CAHA Group Headquarters, FORA.

32: Negative Fort Raleigh 53, Photograph Collection, CAHA Group Headquarters, FORA; 

33: FORA Archives. 

34: Negative Number 65- 24, October 19, 1965, Print File A/R/a, Photograph Collection, CAHA 

Group Headquarters, FORA.

35: Chart compiled by Cameron Binkley for NPS. 

36: Negative Number 57- 1, July 26, 1957, Print File St/VC, Photograph Collection, CAHA Group 

Headquarters, FORA.

37: Fort photographs, Photograph Collection, CAHA Group Headquarters, FORA.
National Park Service xv

38: Negative Number 134, June 21, 1963, Print File Sn/N&T, Photograph Collection, CAHA 

Group Headquarters, FORA.

39: Negative Number unknown, February 1967, Print File St/Vie, Photograph Collection, CAHA 

Group Headquarters, FORA. 

40: Harpers Ferry Center Commissioned Art Collection, File Number 01857: AVA Project #51, 

Plate 37.

41: Charles W. Porter, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (NPS, 1952), 39, SERO CRS Library, 

NPS.

42: Negative Number unknown, July 24, 1947, Photograph Collection, CAHA Group 

Headquarters, FORA.

43: Photo by unknown, No date, David Stick Collection, Courtesy of the Outer Banks History 

Center, Manteo, NC. 

44: Negative Number unknown, No date, Print File St/VC, Photograph Collection, CAHA 

Group Headquarters, FORA.

45: Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Archeological Map with overlay data from an 

Environmental Assessment produced by East Carolina University Regional Development 

Institute (1981), RIHA Files, FORA.

46: Map showing proposed RIHA development, prepared by Cameron Binkley for the NPS. 

47 and 48: Photos by Bill Chapman for NPS (April 1990), SERO CRS Library, NPS.

49 and 50: Photos by S. Butler for NPS (no date), SERO CRS Library, NPS.

51: Photo in “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Photos” (NPS, 2000), SERO CRS Library, NPS.

52 and 53: Robert H. Atkinson, Combatting Erosion at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (NPS, 1950), 

SERO CRS Library, NPS.

54: Statistical data compiled by NPS.

55: Chart compiled by Cameron Binkley for NPS.
xvi Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History
National Park Service xvii

Foreword

We are pleased to make available this administrative history of Fort Raleigh National Historic 

Site, part of our ongoing effort to provide a comprehensive account of the development of each 

National Park Service unit in the Southeast Region. The principle author of this narrative is 

Cameron Binkley, a Historian under the supervision of Chief of History, Robert Blythe. Both 

serve on the staff of the Cultural Resources Division, Southeast Regional Office (SERO). 

Historian Steven Davis also worked on the first draft of this history under the supervision of 

Chief of Planning and Compliance, John Barrett. Both formerly served on the staff of the 

Cultural Resources Stewardship Division, SERO. 

Many other individuals and institutions contributed to the successful completion of this work. 

We would particularly like to thank Fort Raleigh NHS resource managers Steve Harrison and 

Doug Stover. Several additional park staff members reviewed this work, including Angela 

Brickhouse, Harriet Harrison, Charles Read, and Don Rowe, while other staff members 

provided useful input or advice as noted in the text. The study is also indebted to Park Service 

Bureau Historian Janet McDonnell for her helpful comments, advice, and encouragement, and 

to independent scholar Lebame Houston for her frank and thorough review of an early draft. 

Christy Trebellas, a former SERO historian, graciously provided consent to allow the adaptation 

and revision of portions of a published Historic Resource Study on Fort Raleigh NHS that she 

authored with William Chapman, material that is included in Chapter Two of this report. 

Georgia State University doctoral candidate, and Cultural Resources intern, Jennifer Dickey also 

provided insightful comments on the final draft. Finally, we appreciate the consistently reliable 

and expeditious support of Harpers Ferry Center, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, for efforts in 

obtaining graphic images used in this report. 

We hope that this administrative history will prove valuable to park managers and others in 

understanding the past development of Fort Raleigh NHS. In addition, it should provide 

important context and background information for future planning at the park.

Daniel Scheidt

Chief, Cultural Resources Division

Southeast Regional Office

May 2003
xviii Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History
National Park Service 1

Introduction

Cultural Resources, Tourism, 

and the “Organic Act”

In 1916, Congress passed the “Organic Act” that created 

the National Park Service (NPS). The act provided the 

basis needed to better manage the nation’s already 

existing and growing assortment of federally protected 

lands by placing these under the direct supervision of a 

national bureau. More important, the Organic Act 

established the essential tenets of faith that have long 

guided NPS policy. According to the act, the Park 

Service seeks “to conserve the scenery and the natural 

and historic objects and the wildlife” within parks and 

“to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such 

manner and by such means as will leave them 

unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”1

Over the years, some critics have questioned the 

commitment of the National Park Service to the 

standards of the Organic Act. One such critic is Richard 

West Sellars, an NPS historian, who makes this 

argument forcefully in his influential study, Preserving 

Nature in the National Parks. According to Sellars, the 

Park Service has failed to manage the natural resources 

under its care consistent with the standards of ecology 

revealed through modern science. Instead, he argues, 

long before the Park Service was formed parks were 

generally established to preserve the “façade” 

characteristics of natural landscape beauty. Hence, 

Congress set aside the reservation of Yellowstone in 1872 

not to protect its vaunted geological phenomena, 

majestic scenery, and abundant wildlife per se, but to 

facilitate parochial, largely commercial interests. As 

history records, the Northern Pacific Railroad was 

constructing a line across southern Montana Territory 

in the early 1870s. By denying squatters and settlers the 

opportunity to encroach on Yellowstone’s scenery, the 

Northern Pacific sought to enhance its revenue 

potential. The railroad could more easily plan depots, 

establish hotels and other tourist accommodations, 

strengthen its transportation monopoly, and generally 

limit competition if federal ownership of the land was 

maintained. The Northern Pacific thus launched a slick 

advertising campaign to back local park boosters. It 

even commissioned the artist Thomas Moran to craft 

inspiring works that were displayed in Washington, DC, 

during congressional deliberations on the matter. 

Congress, already in the habit of handing out large land 

grants to the railroads to facilitate national 

development, saw the merit in the novelty of 

withdrawing land from public use that could then be 

developed for a new and forthcoming industry: 

tourism.2

Two important ideas can be drawn from Sellars’s 

discussion of the Yellowstone creation story. First, much 

of the history of the management of nature in the 

National Park Service is told, as Sellars puts it, in “the 

persistent tension between national park management 

for aesthetic purposes and management for ecological 

purposes.”3

 This conclusion has some application to the 

Park Service’s management of cultural resources as well. 

For example, it is well known that designers of the Blue 

Ridge Parkway deliberately sacrificed the historical 

integrity of the cultural landscape along the parkway to 

contrive a more pleasing, albeit historically misleading, 

aesthetic appearance for motorists. This unfortunate 

policy resulted in a viewscape that more closely jibed 

with then prevalent myths about the bucolic nature of 

Appalachian Mountain culture than with its historical 

proto- industrial reality.4 Yet, despite that and other 

examples, the Park Service’s management of cultural 

1. The National Park Service Organic Act (16 U.S.C. l, 2, 3, and 4), August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535).

2. Richard West Sellars, Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1997), 4-11. The 

situation was also exceptional because both Wyoming and Montana were still territories.

3. Ibid., 5.

4. See Phil Noblitt, “The Blue Ridge Parkway and Myths of the Pioneer,” Appalachian Journal, vol. 21, no. 4 (Summer 1994): 394-

409.
2 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

resources has generally fared better than its 

management of natural resources, when judged against 

the standards of the Organic Act. The reason is simple. 

Regardless of whether one defines nature by its 

aesthetic beauty or by its ecological integrity, it is surely 

a more complex undertaking to preserve a vast natural 

landscape than a comparatively small number of historic 

sites. Moreover, while scholarship has brought change 

to NPS interpretation of historic sites, has expanded the 

range of those sites, and improved technical methods of 

evaluating and maintaining them, cultural resource 

management has not faced a drastic need to re- engineer 

its basic tenets. Indeed, in the case of Fort Raleigh 

National Historic Site, the Park Service has made a 

persistent and concerted effort to protect and interpret 

the site’s historic assets according to high scholarly 

standards whose basic methodology has changed very 

little since the park’s inception.

The second notion implicit in Sellars’s analysis is that 

national parks are not created out of thin air, by the 

good grace of Congress or the president alone. Instead, 

parks require a constituency. When there are enough 

supporters, which frequently has meant key players with 

a commercial interest, Congress can be persuaded to 

legislate on behalf of conservation. Commerce tied to 

tourism was an essential element needed to create 

Yellowstone National Park, the world’s first national 

park. That pattern would often be repeated with most, if 

not all, of the national parks subsequently created, 

including those established to preserve or 

commemorate sites associated with significant historic 

events. The history of the creation and management of 

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site also illustrates this 

pattern. Fort Raleigh, in fact, provides a striking 

example of how local commercial interests merged with 

those seeking to celebrate the origins of English 

America through the media of performance art and 

scholarly interpretation. It strongly indicates how 

closely parks are linked to the interests of local 

communities, how park policies and decisions must 

account for local concerns, and how engaged partners 

can act on behalf of the park to advance the goals of 

preservation. It also demonstrates, unfortunately, that 

tension between park managers and park supporters is 

perhaps inherent in the nature of their relationship. 

Unlike the picture presented in Preserving Nature, 

however, the story here is about how the Park Service 

has successfully managed that tension.

Overview of the Study

Under the sponsorship of Sir Walter Raleigh, English 

settlers established two colonies on Roanoke Island, 

North Carolina, in 1585 and 1587, respectively. The 

colonists from the first settlement returned to England, 

while the men, women, and children from the second 

settlement simply disappeared, thus becoming known 

to history as the “lost colony.” Despite initial failure and 

tragedy, these expeditions fueled and aided future 

colonization attempts by England, including the 

founding of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607, the first 

permanent English settlement in the New World. Many 

generations accepted the northern shore of Roanoke 

Island as the location for the famous “Cittie of Ralegh.” 

The site was thus the focus of various commemorative 

efforts over the years. In the 1890s, the Roanoke Colony 

Memorial Association (RCMA) was formed to preserve 

the area. During the 1930s, the State of North Carolina 

administered the site as a state park and developed a 

highly conjectural reconstruction of log structures as a 

New Deal work project. During the same period, local 

enthusiasts formed the Roanoke Island Historical 

Association (RIHA), which took over the preservation 

FIGURE 1. An engraved portrait of Sir Walter Raleigh, ca. 1590
National Park Service 3

and commemorative work of the RCMA. RIHA’s main 

purpose, however, soon became the production of an 

outdoor drama, The Lost Colony, which began to be held 

in 1937 at the state park’s Waterside Theatre. In 1941, at 

the urging of RIHA and the state, Fort Raleigh was 

designated as a national historic site and placed under 

NPS management, although World War II delayed much 

activity. During the 1950s, the Park Service embarked 

upon a major nationwide development program to meet 

the recreational needs of post- war America. By the 

early 1960s, this program led to the expansion of Fort 

Raleigh’s boundary and the construction of new 

facilities. The last period of park growth came in 1990, 

after boosters backed the acquisition of additional park 

lands to protect the rural character of northern 

Roanoke Island and to lessen the financial stress on 

RIHA, the owner of several tracts of that land. The 

resulting legislation also expanded the park’s 

interpretive mission. Over the years, Fort Raleigh’s 

managers have focused largely on preserving and 

recovering the site’s archeological data, interpreting the 

area’s history to the public, and managing the park’s 

unique partnership with RIHA. Since 1990, that mission 

has also included promoting greater understanding of 

Civil War- era events on Roanoke Island, the history of 

the island’s indigenous inhabitants, and even the area’s 

role in the development of early radio.

Today, the NPS continues to manage Fort Raleigh as a 

355.45- acre national historic site. The park is located in 

Dare County within the Outer Banks region of North 

Carolina. Every year, tens of thousands of people visit 

Fort Raleigh to learn about the Raleigh colonies and to 

attend showings of The Lost Colony. To preserve and 

interpret Fort Raleigh’s history, the Park Service 

maintains a visitor center with a museum, interpretive 

walking trails, a reconstructed earthwork, and a 

monument. Archeological research continues to be a 

high priority.

This study of Fort Raleigh National Historic Site focuses 

upon its administrative history. Generally, 

administrative histories present and analyze from 

inception the management record of an individual 

organization, in this case a particular unit of the 

National Park system. Former Chief Historian Edwin C. 

Bearss launched the administrative history program 

under his tenure during the 1980s to record the history 

and development of the National Park Service. Today, 

this document is one of nine baseline research reports 

required for every park by NPS Director’s Order No. 28, 

Cultural Resource Management Guidelines. Park Service 

administrative histories seek to provide institutional 

knowledge and historical perspective that staff members 

and other interested parties need to make informed 

decisions on current and future policy issues that affect 

the long- term management of the nation’s parks. 

This specific administrative history documents how 

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site was created and later 

managed by the Park Service. It discusses how NPS 

managers have sought to accommodate commercial and 

community interests while maintaining their own basic 

allegiance to the standards of professional scholarship 

and the directives of the NPS Organic Act. To manage 

these often- contending forces successfully, park 

officials have maintained a patient long- term focus, a 

willingness both to experiment and to correct missteps, 

and an understanding of the importance of good 

communication and the need for negotiation with 

important stakeholders. Of key concern to all managers 

at Fort Raleigh has been the park’s relationship with 

Roanoke Island’s historical association.

Within this study emphasis is placed upon the years of 

NPS administration, but a review of the site’s historical 

importance is also included. Chapter One, therefore, 

provides background on the Raleigh colonies and their 

significance. Similarly, Chapter Two reviews the 

settlement and development of Roanoke Island as well 

as early commemorative efforts undertaken by private 

groups and the federal government. Chapter Three 

details the events that led to the acquisition of the fort 

site as a national park, including its development as a 

state park, the creation of The Lost Colony theatrical

production, and the NPS approval process for 

designating the park as a national historic site. Chapter 

Four addresses administrative issues at Fort Raleigh 

since 1941 and includes sections on park planning, 

development, issues related to reconstructions, land 

acquisitions, and boundary expansions, including major 

park expansions in the 1960s and 1990s. Chapter Five 

examines archeological investigations undertaken at the 

park as well as the evolving understanding of the site’s 

history based on the findings of these investigations. 

Chapter Six addresses visitor services, especially the 

interpretation of the site to the public. Chapter Seven 

discusses the relationship between the NPS and RIHA 

under the cooperative agreement concerning the 

production of The Lost Colony. Chapter Eight reviews 

general preservation and protection policies, including 

cultural and natural resource management, collections 

management, law and fire protection, and erosion 

control efforts. The Conclusion outlines and 
4 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

summarizes the main findings of this administrative 

history. In addition, five appendices are provided: a 

chronology for Fort Raleigh, a section that discusses the 

origins of the park’s name, a list of superintendents, 

available annual visitation statistics, and copies of 

relevant federal legislation and orders. Last, a 

bibliography of sources for further information and an 

index are included.
National Park Service 5

Chapter One: The Roanoke Island 

Colonies, 1578- 1590

European Exploration and Settlement 

of the New World

Perhaps the first Europeans to explore and settle areas 

of the New World were the Norsemen of Scandinavia. 

After settling Iceland and Greenland, Norsemen, under 

Lief Eriksson, established outposts on the North 

American continent during the eleventh century, 

although these settlements were later abandoned. 

Further European attempts to explore the New World 

occurred during the Renaissance between the fifteenth 

and seventeenth centuries. These later efforts were 

mainly undertaken by Spain, Portugal, France, and 

England.5

Spain and Portugal spearheaded European exploration 

and exploitation of the New World. Trying to find a 

trade route to the Far East, Christopher Columbus 

undertook four trans- Atlantic voyages for Spain 

between 1492 and 1506. Other expeditions under the 

Spanish crown followed, including that of Ponce de 

León who landed in Florida during 1513. Six years later, 

Ferdinand Magellan led an expedition through the 

straight between the South American mainland and 

Tierra del Fuego and across the Pacific Ocean. After 

Magellan’s death in the Philippines, the expedition 

continued under Juan Sebastián del Cano and became 

the first successful attempt to circumnavigate the globe. 

Meanwhile, between 1500 and 1502, several Portuguese 

expeditions reached the New World under Pedro 

Alvares Cabral, Gongalo Coelho, and others. These 

voyages to the South American mainland formed the 

basis for Portugal’s claim to Brazil.

The first European effort to establish a settlement in an 

area now belonging to the United States came in 1526 

when Lucas Vázquez de Ayllón founded San Miguel de 

Guadalupe on the coast of South Carolina. This Spanish 

effort subsequently failed after Ayllón’s death. By then, 

in the name of Catholicism, other Spanish expeditions 

under Vasco Núñez de Balboa, Hernando Cortés, and 

Francisco Pizarro had conquered Central and South 

America, annihilating the Aztec and Inca Empires. 

Setting out from Cuba in 1539, Hernando de Soto led an 

interior expedition after landing on Florida’s West Coast 

that reached as far as the Mississippi River. By 1565, 

Spain had even established an outpost at Saint 

Augustine in Florida, the oldest permanent European 

settlement in the United States. Meanwhile, Portugal 

entrenched itself in Brazil and initiated the slave trade to 

supply labor to its own and Spain’s colonies. By the 

middle of the sixteenth century, these two nations had 

achieved unchallenged dominion over Central and 

South America. Spain had even made efforts to extend 

that dominion into North America, which still remained 

largely unsettled by Europeans.

France and England were not immediately prepared to 

participate in the great project of New World discovery 

for a variety of reasons. Most important, Spain and 

Portugal had recently completed the reconquest of the 

Iberian Peninsula from the Islamic Moors. The 

reconquest provided experience in the domination of 

culturally different peoples, fueled the growth of those 

institutions needed for empire- building, and generated 

commercial opportunities that spurred on naval 

innovation. These factors proved crucial to the 

discovery and conquest of Central and South America. 

Once established in these regions of mild climate, 

comparatively well- developed native societies, and 

plentiful resources, Spain had little interest in North 

America. However, Northern Europeans – fiercely 

competitive, commercially driven, and greatly inspired 

by the Iberian example – developed similar skills and 

5. The perspective of this section is based upon a reading of D. W. Meinig, The Shaping of America: A Geographical Perspective on 

500 Years of History, 1492-1800, vol. 1 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986). 
6 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

sea- faring capabilities. Hence, between 1496 and 1498, 

John Cabot led several expeditions to the New World 

for England, including the first English landing there in 

Canada during 1497. 

French exploration of lands later to belong to the United 

States began in 1524 with the arrival of Giovanni da 

Verrazano. Verrazano explored the coast from Cape 

Fear in North Carolina to the Hudson River in New 

York. A decade later, Jacques Cartier made two 

expeditions to the Gulf of Saint Lawrence and the Saint 

Lawrence River. France attempted two settlements 

between 1562 and 1564—Charlesfort under Jean Ribaut 

in South Carolina and Fort Caroline under René de 

Laudonnière in Florida. The first settlement was later 

abandoned, while the second was destroyed during a 

Spanish raid. France would continue to expand its 

presence in North America, and to compete with 

England until decisively beaten during the French and 

Indian War. Until then, French attention was largely 

focused on the fur trade in Canada. The rise of English 

naval supremacy, marked by the defeat of the Spanish 

Armada in 1588, and England’s experience in the 

unification of the British Isles, provided the basis to 

support an English presence in the New World, 

especially in areas where Spanish power was weak. In 

the beginning, however, English presence was tenuous, 

as evidenced by the colonies on Roanoke Island.

The First English Effort to Colonize 

Roanoke Island, 1578-1586

At the urging of English Secretary of State Francis 

Walsingham, Queen Elizabeth supported the initiation 

of English settlement in the New World to challenge 

Spanish domination. Francis Drake, Humphrey Gilbert, 

Richard Grenville, Walter Raleigh, and other seamen 

engaged in raids against Spanish shipping and 

settlement. In 1578, Elizabeth granted Gilbert a charter 

to settle unclaimed areas of the New World. He 

subsequently mounted three expeditions, including an 

unsuccessful 1579 voyage, a 1580 exploration of the New 

England coast, and a 1583 expedition to Newfoundland 

that ended with Gilbert’s death at sea. With the charter 

about to expire, Elizabeth issued a second charter in 

1584 to Raleigh, Gilbert’s half brother.6

FIGURE 2. Map of Roanoke and surrounding islands by John White, ca. 1585
National Park Service 7

Soon after receiving the charter, Raleigh sent out two 

small ships to explore the North American coast. Led by 

Philip Amadas and Arthur Barlowe, they arrived in the 

Outer Banks area of what is today North Carolina in July 

1584. The banks are a series of narrow barrier reefs that 

jut into the Atlantic and stretch nearly the entire length 

of the modern state of North Carolina. They enclose 

wide shallow sounds between themselves and the 

mainland but are broken occasionally by inlets opening 

to the Atlantic Ocean. The presence of shoals, or 

submerged sandbars that rise near the surface, makes 

the area particularly dangerous to mariners. 

Nevertheless, Raleigh’s men were seeking a place with 

some protection from the Spanish. They explored the 

region because the Banks seemed to provide some 

protection from Spanish warships, which could not 

easily sail in the shallow waters. They landed upon 

Roanoke Island, which straddles Albemarle Sound 

between Bodie Island and the mainland, and gathered 

various resource specimens. In addition, the expedition 

visited and traded with the Roanoke Indians at a village 

on the northern end of the island. The Indians received 

the Englishmen with much hospitality, perhaps hoping 

that they could assist the village in its dispute against 

another local tribe. Upon leaving Roanoke Island, 

Amadas and Barlowe took two members of the village, 

Manteo and Wanchese, along with them.7 After a 

visiting the Chesapeake Bay area, the expedition 

returned to England with information to assist in future 

settlement efforts.8

In April 1585, Raleigh sent out another expedition 

consisting of six or seven ships and some six hundred 

men with the intention of establishing a settlement on 

Roanoke Island. Led by Grenville, this force included 

Captain Ralph Lane, artist John White, scientist Thomas 

Hariot, metallurgist Joachim Gans, Manteo, and 

Wanchese. The fleet became separated during the 

passage across the Atlantic. Grenville stopped at 

Muskito Bay in Puerto Rico to await the lagging ships 

and build a small vessel to replace one lost during a 

storm. While there, Lane oversaw the building of an 

earthen fortification. After leaving Muskito Bay, he went 

to Cape Rojo in Puerto Rico to gather salt. As with the 

Muskito Bay excursion, Lane oversaw the construction 

of another earthen fort to protect the salt operation. At 

that time, disputes between Lane and Grenville 

emerged that would later impact the expedition. By 

August, after four months of travel, the fleet was at 

anchor off the Outer Banks and had begun to transfer 

settlers and their supplies to Roanoke Island.9 

Once on Roanoke Island, Grenville established a 

fortified settlement. There were no women or children, 

and the primary purpose of the colony was to explore 

the area and search for gold. In addition to a variety of 

structures built as part of the settlement, the colonists 

constructed one or more earthen fortifications and also 

a peculiar structure later identified by archeologist Ivor 

N. Hume as a “science center.”10 Within a month of his 

arrival on Roanoke Island, Grenville returned to 

England to gather supplies, leaving 107 men at the 

settlement under Lane’s command. Grenville planned 

6. David N. Durant, Ralegh’s Lost Colony (New York: Atheneum, 1981), 3-11; David Stick, Roanoke Island: The Beginnings of English 

America (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983), 27-35.

FIGURE 3. A typical Native American village in the Carolinas, 

ca. 1590

7. Manteo was a member of the Croatoan tribe, while Wanchese was a member of the Roanoke tribe. 

8. Durant, 11-20; Stick, Roanoke Island, 36-52; Karen Ordahl Kupperman, Roanoke: The Abandoned Colony (Totowa, New Jersey: 

Rowman and Allanheld, Publishers, 1984), 74-75; For an excellent recent account of the Raleigh expeditions, that also discusses

associated archeological research, see Ivor Noel Hume, The Virginia Adventure: Roanoke to Jamestown: An Archeological and 

Historical Odyssey (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1998).

9. Durant, 21-57; Stick, Roanoke Island, 60-117.

10. Ivor Noel Hume, “Roanoke Island: America’s First Science Center,” Colonial Williamsburg, vol. 16, no. 3 (Spring 1994): reprint.
8 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

to return during the following spring. With the 

settlement established, the colonists began exploring the 

surrounding areas. Most especially, Hariot and 

metallurgist Joachim Gans used their field laboratory to 

assay a variety of local plant and mineral samples. John 

White also documented the many nearby indigenous 

people through his artwork, although he may have 

completed this task prior to Grenville’s departure on 

August 25, 1585.11

The situation at Lane’s colony grew increasingly bleak as 

time passed. A series of incidents led to a deterioration 

of relations between the colonists and the native 

inhabitants. Fearing an attack, Lane led an assault on 

Dasamonquepeuc, an important Native American village 

on the mainland near present day Manns Harbor. 

Among those killed in the attack was King Wingina, an 

important Indian leader. To make matters worse, 

Grenville had not returned as expected in the spring. 

The colonists’ situation appeared desperate when a 

large English fleet under Sir Francis Drake arrived after 

attacking the Spanish settlement at Saint Augustine. 

Drake gave Lane two options. Lane could accept a small 

bark (a ship of seventy tons) and a few small vessels from 

Drake’s fleet, stay on Roanoke Island for another month 

to await Grenville, and then return to England if 

necessary. Or, Lane and the colonists could return to 

England with Drake. Lane decided to accept Drake’s 

first offer, which would have allowed him to continue to 

explore the coastline farther north for a more suitable 

colonization site. Unfortunately, a hurricane struck the 

Outer Banks scattering Drake’s fleet and forcing several 

vessels to put out to sea, including the bark Drake had 

earmarked for the colonists. Consequently, the colonists 

decided to return to England on board Drake’s 

remaining vessels. With the exception of three men 

inadvertently left behind, the first English colony on 

Roanoke Island was abandoned between June 18 and 19, 

1586.12

A short time after Lane departed with Drake, a relief 

vessel, sent by Raleigh, arrived off the Outer Banks. 

Finding no colony, the ship, with all of its supplies, 

returned to England. Grenville’s relief fleet finally 

reached Roanoke Island no more than a few weeks after 

the colonists had departed with Drake. Grenville 

learned the fate of the colony from several captured 

Indians, who apparently failed to impress upon him 

how Lane’s activities had incited local native hostility. 

Unwilling to abandon the settlement site, Grenville 

decided to leave some fifteen men stationed on Roanoke 

Island. He then returned to England, hoping to catch 

and loot Spanish galleons en route. Seeking retaliation 

for Dasamonquepeuc, the Roanoke Indians attacked the 

small force, killed at least one, and drove the rest from 

Roanoke Island. The ultimate fate of these Englishmen 

remains a mystery.13

The Second English Effort to Colonize 

Roanoke Island, 1587-1590

Raleigh’s plan for the second colony was radically 

different than the first colony plan. The second 

settlement was to be more than a military outpost. It 

included women and children. White was chosen to be 

governor of the colony, officially named the “Cittie of 

Ralegh.” The plan was to establish the second colony in 

the Chesapeake Bay area after checking on the fifteen 

men that Grenville had left on Roanoke Island the 

previous year. The expedition reached the Outer Banks 

in July 1587, but was unable to locate the men. Then, 

extraordinarily, the crews of the ships refused to go 

farther and insisted that the colonists would have to 

settle on Roanoke Island. White acquiesced, despite 

being in charge of the expedition and fully aware of the 

deteriorated state of relations with the local Indians 

caused by Lane.14

With no choice but to stay on Roanoke Island, the 

colonists began repairing the buildings from the 

previous settlement as well as erecting new ones. As a 

reward for Manteo’s faithful service to the colonists, he 

was christened into the Church of England and named 

“Lord of Roanoke and Dasamonquepeuc” on August 13. 

Five days later, White’s daughter gave birth to Virginia 

Dare, the first English child born in the New World. The 

christenings of Manteo and Virginia Dare are believed 

to be the first such Protestant rites recorded in North 

America.15

As the settlers went about reestablishing the Roanoke 

Island colony, “some controversies” ensued. A decision 

was made that White should return to England to 

represent the colony and to obtain additional supplies, 

perhaps to bolster the colony in the face of uncertain 

11. Ibid.; Durant, 58-76.

12. Durant, 77-95; Hume, The Virginia Adventure, 50-51; Stick, Roanoke Island, 131-148.

13. Durant, 95-100; Hume, The Virginia Adventure, 56; Lebame Houston, comments on August 2002 draft, SERO.

14. Durant, 103-114; Hume, The Virginia Adventure, 59-60; Stick, Roanoke Island, 152-176.

15. Durant, 115-122; Stick, Roanoke Island, 177-180.
National Park Service 9

relations with the natives or to facilitate the colony’s 

relocation to the Chesapeake Bay area. For whatever 

reason, White was reluctant to leave his goods and 

family. Some scholars speculate that White’s weak and 

vacillating leadership played a role in the colonists’ 

decision to send him back to England where his 

connections would do them the most good and his 

deficient judgment the least harm. Before leaving the 

colonists, White gave instructions concerning any 

potential abandonment of the settlement. It was agreed 

that if the colonists left the site, they would leave a 

message on a tree with their intended destination. If the 

relocation was caused by hostilities with local natives or 

Spaniards, the message was to include a Maltese cross as 

a sign of distress. With the departure of White in the fall 

of 1587, a total of 116 settlers remained on Roanoke 

Island.16

On April 22, 1588, White and a small group of settlers 

managed to gain passage on board a privateering vessel 

that agreed to transport them back to Roanoke Island. A 

month later, however, the ships aborted the voyage, 

having been bested in a foray at sea, and forced to limp 

back to England. In the combat, White himself was 

wounded. White recovered from that misadventure, but 

his plans to return to Roanoke Island were even further 

deferred by growing tension between England and 

Spain. The latter began assembling a large fleet to launch 

an invasion of England. Since all English ships were 

ordered to aid the country’s defense, and White’s 

sponsors, Sir Walter Raleigh and Sir Richard Grenville, 

were occupied assisting the queen, White was unable to 

mount a relief expedition to Roanoke Island until after a 

decisive victory over the Spanish Armada in August 1588. 

Further delays postponed his efforts until March 1590 

when, with Raleigh’s assistance, White finally obtained 

private passage with a small fleet whose main purpose 

was once again privateering. This fleet, however, did 

reach the Outer Banks during the late summer.17

On August 18, 1590, three years since the birth of Virginia 

Dare, White led a small group of men to the settlement 

site. Before entering the abandoned village, White 

discovered a tree with the letters “CRO” inscribed on it. 

At the settlement, the group discovered that a palisade 

had been erected around the site. The surrounding 

houses, in John White’s words were “taken down,” 

suggesting a planned movement by the colonists from 

the site. Thereafter, local tribes had also apparently 

salvaged items from the settlement. Finally, a palisade 

post had been inscribed with the letters “CROATOAN.” 

Neither of the two messages included a Maltese cross, 

the agreed upon sign of distress. Still, White prudently 

wanted to travel to Croatan Island near Cape Hatteras to 

search for the colonists, but most of the ship 

commanders and crews refused, having no monetary 

incentive and fearing increasingly poor weather 

conditions. One vessel did attempt to reach Hatteras, 

but bad weather repeatedly intervened and the ship 

returned to England without any answers about the fate 

of the “lost colony” on Roanoke Island.18

The Mystery and Significance 

of the Lost Colony

The disappearance of Raleigh’s second colony was the 

beginning of a mystery that has remained unsolved for 

more than four centuries. Available records for both of 

Raleigh’s colonies are limited, and there are no known 

records concerning the second colony after White’s 

departure. Historians remain unable to answer the key 

question—what happened to the colony between 

August 1587 and August 1590?

During the early seventeenth century, the lost colonists’ 

contemporaries attempted to solve the mystery with 

search efforts. In 1602, Raleigh sponsored an expedition 

in search of the lost colony. Led by Samuel Mace, the 

mission reached the Cape Fear region off North 

Carolina’s coast, but did not search the Outer Banks 

because of poor weather conditions. After the founding 

of Jamestown in 1607, several attempts were made to 

locate the lost colonists, but none were successful.19

Various theories have been advanced to explain the fate 

of the lost colony. The Spaniards may have eliminated 

the colony, as was the case earlier with the French 

settlement at Fort Caroline. Native Americans may have 

attacked the settlement, perhaps in response to previous 

hostilities with the colonists. The settlers may have 

moved to another island or farther inland from the 

coast. The colonists may have been assimilated into 

16. Durant, 122-125; Hume, The Virginia Adventure, 65-66; Stick, Roanoke Island, 180-186; David Beers Quinn, Set Faire for 

Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, 1584-1606 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 278-294.

17. Durant, 126-147; Stick, Roanoke Island, 187-209; David Beers Quinn, ed., Roanoke Voyages 1584-1590, Documents to Illustrate 

the English Voyages to North America Under the Patent Granted to Walter Raleigh in 1584, vol. II, (London: The Hakluyt Society, 

1955), 580.

18. Durant, 147-153; Quinn, Roanoke Voyages, vols. 1 and II, 470, 593-596; Stick, Roanoke Island, 209-214.

19. Durant, 154-164; Stick, Roanoke Island, 213-224.
10 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

friendly tribes. Or the answer may be a combination of 

one or more of the above theories. Though the fate of 

the lost colony will probably never be known, recent 

scholarship has tended to discredit the theory of a 

Spanish attack in favor of a combination of the other 

theories. The most widely supported theory is that some 

colonists may have survived for a number of years 

through assimilation with indigenous groups.20

Despite the mystery of the lost colony, Raleigh’s two 

settlements on Roanoke Island played an important role 

in European colonization of North America. The 

colonies were the first English settlements beyond the 

British Isles with the first recorded birth of an English 

child and probably the first Protestant christenings in 

the New World. Raleigh’s colonies provided valuable 

lessons for the Jamestown settlement established in 

1607. Like Raleigh’s second colony, Jamestown was a 

private business venture that included entire families. 

Furthermore, Captain John Smith and other leaders of 

Jamestown relied on information from the Roanoke 

Island settlers. For example, Richard Hakluyt, a 

contemporary English historian, published accounts by 

Barlowe, Lane, and White. In addition, Hariot had 

amassed significant information on the resources of the 

Outer Banks region. In short, even in failure, the 

Roanoke colonies helped fuel England’s interest in 

colonization, later resulting in the establishment of 

Jamestown, the first permanent English settlement in 

North America.

20. Hume, The Virginia Adventure, 71-72, 95, 190-191; Stick, Roanoke Island, 237-246.
National Park Service 11

Chapter Two: Settlement, 

Development, and Commemoration 

on Roanoke Island, ca. 1606- 1931

The Settlement of Roanoke Island, 

ca. 1606-1860

On April 20, 1606, the Virginia Company received a 

charter granting it land in North America from Cape 

Fear, North Carolina, to Bangor, Maine.21 The company 

established a permanent colony in Jamestown in 1607, 

and shortly thereafter expeditions began to explore the 

land to the south.22 Although Roanoke Island remained 

inhabited by the Roanoke Indians for some time, by the 

mid- seventeenth century, colonists began to occupy 

these previously “unsettled” areas of Virginia. In 1654, 

Francis Yeardley of Virginia arranged with “the great 

emperor of Rhoanoke [sic]” for the native population to 

move inland and allow English colonists to inhabit the 

coastal area.23 A number of Virginians then migrated 

south, establishing homesteads and raising cattle and 

tobacco. 

In 1663, King Charles II issued the Carolina Charter, 

forming a new province out of land south of the more 

settled areas of Virginia. The new province was named 

Carolina. Eight men, who had helped Charles II gain the 

throne of England three years prior, were named to 

serve as Lords Proprietors of Carolina. With an 

amendment to the charter made in 1665, they were 

authorized to colonize a vast area extending from the 

Virginia- North Carolina border into Spanish Florida 

north of Cape Canaveral.24 Shortly thereafter, the Lords 

Proprietors began making their own land grants along 

the coast of present- day North Carolina. For example, 

in 1669 Samuel Stephen, governor of Carolina, received 

a land grant to Roanoke Island and began raising cattle 

on the island.25

Since Roanoke Inlet was the main port of entry to the 

Albemarle Sound area at the time, most vessels traveling 

to and from Albemarle passed the northern end of 

Roanoke Island. Consequently, in 1676, the Lords 

Proprietors ordered their Carolina representatives to 

establish the principal town of the colony on Roanoke 

Island. Although no town was built at this time, traffic 

through the inlet continued to increase, and greater 

numbers of permanent settlers began to appear. These 

early settlers consisted of pilots and boatmen, who 

guided vessels through the ever- changing inlets and 

sounds, and stockmen, who were attracted to the area 

since the islands required no fencing for their cattle, 

hogs, and sheep.26

Although settlers from Virginia inhabited the area, early 

ownership of the island passed among only a few 

families. Upon Governor Stephen’s death in 1670, the 

island passed to his widow, who later married Sir 

William Berkeley, Governor of Virginia and one of the 

Lords Proprietors of Carolina. In 1676 the Berkeleys 

sold the island to Joshua Lamb, a New England 

21. Sections of this chapter are adapted with permission from: Christine Trebellas and William Chapman, Fort Raleigh National 

Historic Site Historic Resource Study (Atlanta: National Park Service, 1999), Chapter Two, 31-57.

22. Lefler, Hugh T. and William S. Powell, Colonial North Carolina-A History (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1973), 29.

23. Quoted in David Stick, The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-1958 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1958), 314.

24. David Stick, Dare County: A History (Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History, 1970), 8-9; William S. Powell, North 

Carolina Through Four Centuries (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989), 53-55.

25. Stick, Dare County, 9.

26. Ibid., 10; Gary S. Dunbar, Historical Geography of the North Carolina Outer Banks (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University 

Press), 18-24.
12 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

merchant, for 100 pounds. One year later, Lamb sold a 

half interest in the island to Nicholas Paige of Boston for 

150 pounds, and later sold a quarter interest in the island 

to George Patridge [Pordage]. Many of these absentee 

landowners hired settler families to tend their livestock 

on the island. For example, George Pordage employed a 

caretaker to manage his cattle interests on the island, 

while a William Daniels looked after Dr. Belcher 

Noyes’s livestock.27

The Lords Proprietors of Carolina continued to 

recommend that the inhabitants of Roanoke Island 

build a port town. However, efforts in 1715 and 1723 to 

establish a harbor both failed, due in part to the 

changing landscape.28 By 1700, the Roanoke Inlet had 

begun to shoal badly, and it was difficult to find a 

sufficiently deep channel for boat traffic. Ocean 

currents continued to change so that by 1730, there was 

not a direct, reliable outlet through the Outer Banks 

from Roanoke Island. The inlet finally closed altogether 

sometime between 1780 and 1810. With the Roanoke 

Inlet gone, there was no need to establish a port town on 

the Roanoke Island, and no real town was established 

there until the late nineteenth century.29

The last decades of the colonial period also marked the 

demise of the area’s indigenous population. In 1711 and 

1713, mainland Indians, possibly remnants of the former 

Roanoke Indians, attacked the settlers on Roanoke 

Island. The colonists then launched devastating 

retaliatory assaults. Disease further reduced the number 

of remaining Indians, so that by the 1770s, the area’s 

indigenous population had virtually disappeared.30

Life on Roanoke Island during the Revolutionary War 

(1775- 1783) remained relatively peaceful. Although the 

British conducted foraging raids for livestock and other 

provisions, there were no major land or naval battles in 

the area during the war. In addition, the British forays 

caused no noticeable reduction in the number of cattle, 

sheep, or hogs on Roanoke Island.31 However, 

significant changes did occur on the island after the 

Revolutionary War. Land previously owned by the 

British government and its representatives reverted to 

the state of North Carolina, and any citizen of the state 

could apply for a land grant for these properties. In 

addition, many large property owners began to sell small 

parcels of land to people who were moving to or had 

already settled in the area.32 Land on the northern end 

of Roanoke Island was parceled out to many families, 

none of whom had clear title to their property. 

Consequently, it became standard for a landowner to 

obtain a new grant from the state for the tract that his 

family occupied. Many families living on Roanoke 

Island in the late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries 

filed for deeds or land grants.33

In the early to mid- nineteenth century, the inhabitants 

of Roanoke Island, like those of the rest of the Outer 

Banks, continued to maintain a degree of selfsufficiency. Although most considered themselves 

farmers or planters, island residents developed other 

skills necessary to survive in the isolated area. By 1850, 

Roanoke Island’s total population was only 610, with a 

little more than 140 slaves.34

The Civil War: Battling for 

Roanoke Island, 1860-1862

Both Union and Confederate leaders quickly realized 

the military importance of Roanoke Island, for control 

of the Outer Banks and Roanoke Island meant 

command of the sounds and, thus, coastal North 

Carolina. Shortly after the Civil War began, Confederate 

forces strengthened their defenses on the Outer Banks 

by building two earthen fortifications to secure the 

Hatteras Inlet. These two forts, Fort Hatteras and Fort 

Clark, consisted of sand sheathed with two- inch thick 

planks covered with a layer of marsh grass and earth. A 

smaller fortification, Fort Oregon, was built along the 

south side of the Oregon Inlet while Fort Ocracoke (Fort 

Morgan) was erected just inside the Ocracoke Inlet on 

Beacon Island.35 Several detachments of North Carolina 

troops were then sent to the Oregon, Ocracoke, and 

27. Stick, Dare County, 10-1; Powell, Colonial North Carolina, 19.

28. Powell, Colonial North Carolina, 22.

29. Stick, Dare County, 12-3; Stick, The Outer Banks, 9.

30. Stick, Dare County, 13-14.

31. Ibid., 14-6.

32. Ibid., 16-7. Such accommodation was to the landowner’s advantage, for squatter’s rights allowed settlers to establish claims to 

the property that they inhabited.

33. Ibid., 17; Powell, Colonial North Carolina, 21-5. For example, Thomas A. Dough, whose family lived on the north end of 

Roanoke Island since the early nineteenth century, entered a claim for 240 acres of land along the Croatan Sound that his family 

occupied. Other people living on Roanoke Island at this time included members of the Pain, Daniels, Mann, Nash, Etheridge, and 

Baum families.

34. Stick, Dare County, 20.
National Park Service 13

Hatteras Inlets to defend these positions. However, 

because Confederate priorities were elsewhere, only 350 

soldiers manned Fort Hatteras, while 230 men were 

distributed among Forts Clark, Oregon, and Ocracoke. 

Later, a reinforcement of 365 men was sent to help 

defend Fort Hatteras.36

In the fall of 1861, Union forces organized a joint ArmyNavy campaign to cut off Confederate supply routes 

from the sounds to the interior and to end privateering 

raids on Union vessels in the area. With a combined 

force of 880 men, Major General Benjamin F. Butler, 

commander of the army troops, and Commodore Silas 

H. Strigham, in charge of the naval forces, set sail for 

Cape Hatteras on August 26, 1861. Shortly thereafter, the 

fleet arrived off Hatteras Inlet and began bombarding 

Forts Hatteras and Clark. About 350 Union troops 

landed on the Outer Banks approximately three miles 

northeast of Fort Clark, marched down the bank, and 

took control of the fort after Confederate forces had 

abandoned it. A few days later, on August 29, Fort 

Hatteras surrendered. More than seven hundred 

Confederate troops were captured along with twentyfive pieces of artillery, a thousand arms, and a large 

amount of ordnance stores.37 Instead of following his 

initial orders and sinking vessels to block the inlet, 

Butler received permission to occupy the two forts and 

maintain his position on the Outer Banks. Butler and 

other military leaders saw this as a way to obtain control 

of the area surrounding the sound as well as a large 

portion of the state.38

Consequently, Confederate forces, anticipating an 

attack on Roanoke Island after the fall of Hatteras Inlet, 

began fortifying the island. They created an artificial 

bottleneck near the northern end of the Croatan Sound 

by driving pilings across the sound and sinking old 

vessels filled with sand. A battery, Fort Forrest, was 

created at the western end of the bottleneck by sinking 

an old canal boat and mounting eight guns on its deck. 

The object of this obstruction and battery was to drive 

Union vessels passing along the west side of the island 

closer to the shore batteries on Roanoke Island.39

To fortify the area further, Confederate troops from 

North Carolina and Georgia, reinforced by members of 

Wise’s Legion from Virginia, constructed three forts on 

the northern end of Roanoke Island overlooking the 

Croatan Sound. Fort Huger, the northernmost defense 

on the island, was slightly north of the line of pilings and 

sunken vessels on the west side of Roanoke Island.40 It 

consisted of a turfed sand fort running along the coast 

and contained twelve guns: eight thirty- two- pounder 

guns, two rifled thirty- two- pounders, and two small 

thirty- two pounders on the right. A low breastwork 

with a banquette for the infantry enclosed the rear of the 

fort. Located twelve hundred yards south of Fort Huger, 

Fort Blanchard consisted of a semicircular, turfed sand 

fortification with four thirty- two- pounder guns. Fort 

Bartow, the southernmost defense on the west side of 

the island, was approximately two and- a- half miles 

south of Fort Blanchard. Like the others, it consisted of a 

sand fort covered with turf. Fort Bartow also contained 

six thirty- two- pounder guns and three thirty- twopounders.41

In addition to these defenses, Confederate forces built 

two smaller fortifications. To defend the island from an 

attack from the east, Confederate troops erected a small 

battery of two thirty- two- pounder guns. Located 

approximately three miles below Fort Bartow on the 

east side of Roanoke Island at Midgett’s Hammock, the 

battery stood just below Ballast Point on the south side 

of Shallowbag Bay.42 Fort Russell, a redoubt or 

breastwork built in the center of the island, was 

approximately two miles from Fort Bartow and one mile 

from Midgett’s Hammock. Erected across the road 

which connected the north end of the island with the 

south, the fort was approximately seventy or eighty feet 

long and had embrasures for three guns. It faced south, 

stretching from the marsh on its east to the swamp on its 

west.43

35. Ibid., 20-1; Stick, The Outer Banks, 118-9.

36. Louis Torres, Historic Resource Study of Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Denver: National Park Service, 1985), 101.

37. Ibid., 101-2; Stick, The Outer Banks, 121-7.

38. Stick, The Outer Banks, 128-9; Torres, 102.

39. Confederate States of America, Congress, House of Representatives, Roanoke Island Investigation Committee, Report of the 

Roanoke Island Investigation Committee (Richmond: Enquirer Book and Job Press, Tyler, Wise, Allegre & Smith, 1862; reprint, 

Louisville: Lost Cause Press, 1972, text-fiche), 4 (page references are to original edition); Stick, The Outer Banks, 137.

40. Stick, Dare County, 22-3; Stick, The Outer Banks, 137.

41. Confederate States of America, Congress, House of Representatives, 1862, 4; Stick, The Outer Banks, 137.

42. Ibid.

43. Ibid.
14 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Meanwhile, several months after the capture of Hatteras 

Inlet, Union forces began gathering another fleet for an 

attack on Roanoke Island. Brigadier General Ambrose 

Burnside, commander of the Union forces, assembled a 

fleet of light- draft steamers, sailing vessels, and barges. 

He strengthened the vessels, supplied them with guns, 

and then outfitted them with men from the northern 

seacoast, assuming that these men would be familiar 

with the coasting trade. On January 9, 1862, the Burnside 

Expedition, another joint Army- Navy campaign that 

consisted of more than eighty vessels and approximately 

thirteen thousand men, assembled in Annapolis and set 

sail.44

After nearly a month at sea, Federal vessels arrived off 

Roanoke Island and began firing on the Confederate 

defenses on February 10, 1862. Later that evening, 

Federal troops landed at Ashby’s Harbor (north of 

present- day Wanchese) on the west side of Roanoke 

Island. The following day, February 11, a force of 7,500 

Union troops marched up the road in the center of the 

island for a frontal assault on Fort Russell, a redoubt 

with three field pieces erected to defend the road.45

Burnside then divided his troops into three divisions: 

five regiments under the command of Brigadier General 

John G. Foster advanced along the exposed road, 

supported from the rear by six field howitzers. Four 

regiments of Union troops under Brigadier General 

Jesse L. Reno left the main force to assault the fort on 

the left, while four regiments under Brigadier General 

John C. Parke made a similar approach through the 

marshes on the right. The outnumbered Confederate 

forces defending the fort were eventually outflanked 

and overwhelmed by the Union troops. They 

abandoned the redoubt and retreated toward the north 

end of the island.46

After the fall of Fort Russell, Colonel H. M. Shaw, 

commander of the Confederate troops on Roanoke 

Island, quickly understood their desperate situation. 

Having been informed that the land defenses had been 

forced and the position of the forts turned, he ordered 

Forts Bartow, Blanchard, and Huger abandoned, their 

guns disabled, and their ammunition destroyed; their 

troops retreated to Camp Raleigh, the large Confederate 

encampment on the north end of Roanoke Island. No 

transports were available to evacuate the Confederate 

troops, and Shaw saw no other option than to 

surrender.47 A few Confederate soldiers escaped in 

small boats, but Union forces captured 2,675 officers 

and men.48

With the fall of Roanoke Island, a large portion of 

eastern North Carolina was now open to Union attack. 

With the capture of Elizabeth City in February of 1862, 

and New Bern in March, both on the mainland, the 

Union had complete control of the sounds, as well as a 

substantial portion of eastern North Carolina. They 

were able to maintain and use this position to their 

advantage throughout the rest of the Civil War.49

In addition to capturing almost three thousand 

prisoners, several forts, provisions, and a large number 

of weapons, Union forces also secured the Confederate 

camps on the north end of Roanoke Island.50 These 

compounds were then renamed after Union military 

leaders (Camp Foster/Camp Reno) and occupied by 

their troops. Several Union soldiers described the 

former Confederate quarters as being newly built, 

44. Stick, Dare County, 23-5; Stick, The Outer Banks, 138-9; See also Shelby Foote, The Civil War, A Narrative, vol. 1, Fort Sumter to 

Perryville (New York: Vintage Books, 1958, renewed 1986), 227-30.

45. Stick, Dare County, 25.

46. Ibid.; Stick, The Outer Banks, 146-7.

47. Confederate States of America, Congress, House of Representatives 1862, 7.

48. Stick, Dare County, 25; Stick, The Outer Banks, 147-8.

49. Dunbar, 43.

50. Augustus Woodbury, Major General Ambrose E. Burnside and the Ninth Army Corps (Providence, RI: Sidney S. Rider & Brother, 

1867), 45. According to Burnside’s report, Union troops seized a variety of buildings and equipment. The fruits of this splendid 

achievement, besides the prisoners captured, were “five forts, mounting thirty-two guns, winter quarters for some four 

thousand troops, three thousand stand of small arms, large hospital buildings, with a large amount of lumber, wheel barrows, 

scows, pile drivers, a mud dredge, ladders, and various other appurtenances for military service.”

FIGURE 4. The capture of Roanoke Island by Union forces, 

February 1862
National Park Service 15

comfortable, and large enough to accommodate almost 

all of the conquering Union troops.51

While Federal forces held Roanoke Island, they 

instituted several programs and provided services to 

help their troops deal with the boredom of military 

camp life. A reading- room, post office, and theater, 

which could accommodate five hundred people, were 

established. Several clubs were organized as well, 

including baseball teams, a debating club, and a theater 

troupe. In addition, some companies even erected 

gymnastic equipment and held competitions or matches 

to entertain fellow soldiers.52

The Freedmen’s Colony on 

Roanoke Island, 1862-1866

After Union troops captured Roanoke Island, many 

slaves on the island and from the surrounding area 

sought refuge on the island in an attempt to gain their 

freedom. Before the fall of Roanoke Island, Confederate 

forces sent a large number of slaves (and possibly some 

freedmen) to build the earthworks adjacent to the 

Oregon Inlet.53 Soon after the battle, the first group of 

slaves in the vicinity arrived, consisting of fifteen or 

twenty men, women, and children who escaped down 

the Chowan River. Many others followed shortly 

thereafter, and, on March 30, 1862, General Burnside 

appointed Vincent Colyer as the regional 

Superintendent of the Poor to look after the indigent 

families and freedmen in the area. 54

Union soldiers at Camp Foster hired the first freedmen 

that came to Roanoke Island as porters, cooks, and 

servants. Colonel Rush Hawkins, commander of the 

Ninth New York Volunteers, which occupied the island 

after the battle, set the standard wages. Men were paid 

ten dollars a month, clothes, and rations. Women and 

children, who washed, ironed, and cooked for the 

troops, received only four dollars a month, clothes, and 

rations. Provisions included pork or bacon, 16 oz. of 

flour and soft bread twice a week or 12 oz. of hard bread, 

and 16 oz. of corn meal five times a week. The freedmen 

also received 10 lbs. of beans, peas, or hominy, 8 lbs. of 

sugar, 2 quarts of vinegar, 8 lbs. of candles, and 2 oz. of 

pepper distributed among one hundred people. Ten 

pounds of rye coffee or 15 lbs. of tea was rationed among 

one hundred women and children as well.55

One of Vincent Colyer’s first duties as Superintendent of 

the Poor was to employ as many freedmen as possible to 

help build forts along the coast of North Carolina. He 

was authorized to hire up to five thousand men and to 

pay them a daily wage, clothing, and rations.56 Although 

the population of freed people on Roanoke Island 

continued to increase, so that by summer 1862, the 

number reached one thousand, only one- quarter of the 

population consisted of able- bodied men. Indeed, 

Vincent Colyer noted that at the time of his departure 

from his post, there were no more than 2,500 ablebodied freedmen within Union lines.57 Nonetheless, he 

was able to recruit a sufficient number of freedmen, and 

the forts at New Bern, Washington (North Carolina), 

and Roanoke Island were completed within four months 

of his appointment. Freedmen built the new docks at 

Roanoke Island during this time as well.58

Major General Foster appointed Massachusetts Army 

Chaplain Reverend Horace James as Superintendent of 

51. Charles F. Walcott, History of the Twenty-First Regiment, Massachusetts Volunteers (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 

1882), 37.

52. Matthew J. Graham, The Ninth Regiment New York Volunteers (New York: By the author, 1900), 193-4.

53. Loretta Lautzenheiser and Thomas Hargrove, “‘ . . . The Bright Glittering Sand,’ Archeological Survey and Test Excavations, Site 

31DR61, Roanoke Island, Dare County, North Carolina,” prepared for Rial Corporation/W.M. Meekins Jr. (Tarboro, NC: Coastal 

Carolina Research, Inc., June 1991), 49-50.

FIGURE 5. Freedmen building fortifications during the Civil War, 

1865

54. Vincent Colyer, Report of the Services Rendered by the Freed People to the United States Army, in North Carolina (New York: By 

the author, 1864), 5-6.

55. Lautzenheiser and Hargrove, 50.

56. Colyer, 6.

57. Ibid.

58. Lautzenheiser and Hargrove, 50.
16 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Negro Affairs in North Carolina in May 1863. Foster 

then ordered James to establish a colony for former 

slaves on the northern end of Roanoke Island.59

In June 1863, James journeyed to the North to acquire 

the necessary materials and implements to help build 

the colony. After a few weeks in New England and New 

York, he had raised between eight and nine thousand 

dollars, most of which was donated by Freedmen’s 

Associations in Boston and New York. While James was 

canvassing for funds, General Foster ordered Brigadier 

General E. A. Wild to obtain unoccupied and 

unimproved lands, divide them into lots, and then assign 

these plots to freedmen families. George O. Sanderson 

of the Forty- third Massachusetts, who was the Assistant 

Superintendent of Negro Affairs in North Carolina, 

began the preliminary surveys of Roanoke Island and 

planned the first avenues of the new community while 

James traveled through the North raising funds.60

Horace James returned to Roanoke Island in July 1863, 

with supplies for the colony. Work on the town now 

began in earnest, and one- acre lots on the northern end 

of the island were delineated and cleared.61 Families of 

African- American troops or other freedmen employed 

by the Union government were eligible to receive these 

lots, as were the elderly and invalids. Horace James was 

authorized to assign these plots of land to qualified 

freedmen, who would enjoy full possession of the 

property until the government or due process of the law 

annulled this right.62 Each family unit received a oneacre lot, which it was to improve by building a house, 

cultivating a garden, raising small crops, etc. James could 

not assign plots larger than one acre, for the land on the 

island was not rich enough, nor the island large enough, 

to provide the freedmen with sizable farms. In addition, 

the number of able- bodied men on the island available 

to prepare and raise farm crops continued to decline as 

the Union recruited more African- American troops.63

James and Sanderson laid out the city using a grid 

system, with broad, straight avenues approximately 

1,200 feet apart and parallel to the shores of the island. 

These parallel avenues were named after the area, such 

as “Roanoke Avenue,” or after Union leaders, including 

“Lincoln Avenue” and “Burnside Avenue.” Smaller, 

narrower streets approximately four hundred feet apart 

ran perpendicular to these broad avenues and were 

designated “First Street,” “Second Street,” “A Street,” “B 

Street,” etc. This arrangement divided the northern end 

of the island into large quadrangles, each containing 

twelve one- acre plots for freedmen families to improve 

with small houses and gardens. The lots were neatly 

enclosed, and the houses stood a uniform distance from 

the street.64 Hand- split logs and boards or salvaged 

lumber were used as building materials, while the 

chimneys were made of wattle and daub. Sawn boards 

obtained from the mainland or the Outer Banks were 

used for finer woodwork, such as in the doors and 

windows and their surrounds. According to one 

description, the average house consisted of a one- story, 

one- room dwelling made of thin pine boards split by 

hand from eight- foot- long logs. The arrival of a steampowered sawmill in spring 1864 greatly facilitated the 

construction of the new town. By January 1, 1865, the 

colony had at least 591 houses and more than three 

thousand residents.65

In addition to small dwellings, the freedmen’s 

community also contained a church, several schools, 

teachers’ residences, a smallpox hospital, sundry 

storehouses, and a steam- powered saw- and gristmill. 

According to Vincent Colyer, the first church on the 

island consisted of a meeting place featuring pine logs 

for seats, pine branches for a canopy, and a pulpit made 

of discarded quartermaster’s boxes.66 Later, in 1864, a 

simple structure with a dirt floor and no windows was 

built to house church services.67

In October 1863, the American Missionary Association 

sent Elizabeth James to serve as the first teacher in the 

freedmen’s community on Roanoke Island. Initially, she 

lived in one log cabin and taught from another. Shortly 

thereafter, in the winter of 1864, three other instructors 

joined her. Even though the fledgling school had seven 

teachers by the fall of 1864, the colony still needed more 

educators to meet demands. The town had 1,297 

59. Horace James, Annual Report of the Superintendent of Negro Affairs in North Carolina, 1864 (Boston: W. F. Brown & Co., 

Printers, 1865), 21-2.

60. James, 23.

61. Ibid., 24.

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid., 24-5.

64. Ibid., 25.

65. James, 25, 26, 52; Lautzenheiser and Hargrove, 52.

66. Colyer, 36.

67. Lautzenheiser and Hargrove, 52.
National Park Service 17

children under fourteen years of age, as well as many 

adults who wanted to learn to read and write.68 The 

freedmen’s colony also made several attempts to 

establish local industries to stimulate the economy. 

Horace James promoted spinning and weaving, as well 

as willow- working, as possible occupations for the 

women of the colony.69

For the men, James pursued local activities such as shoe 

making, barrel- making, and fishing. A storehouse for 

fish was built, and Holland Streeter, who was in charge 

of the fishing industry, reported that revenue from the 

fishery reached $1,404.27 in January 1864.70 In addition, 

many of the men from the colony worked for the Union 

forces in the Quartermaster or Commissary Corps. 

Others completed Union fortifications on the island.71

The grist- and sawmill also provided an important 

source of income for members of the freedmen’s colony. 

Located near Union military headquarters on the north 

end of the island, the structure contained a seventyhorsepower engine, several circular saws, a turning 

lathe, and a gristmill. The mill not only produced 

various styles of lumber and woodwork for construction 

purposes, but also ground grain for locals. As Horace 

James noted, the mill made “a positive addition to the 

wealth and resources of the island.”72 James also made 

plans for an industrial school and orphan asylum for the 

island.73 It is unclear, however, whether such an 

establishment was ever built.

The freedmen’s colony also experimented with selfgovernment. A council of fifteen leading colonists was 

appointed, and they were to meet periodically and work 

for the common welfare of the freedmen. Ideally, they 

would help govern the colony and communicate and 

enforce the orders of the federal government as well as 

those of the Superintendent of Negro Affairs. The 

council, however, was almost completely ineffective. 

James blamed this failure on the freedmen’s lack of 

education and felt that education was the prime 

necessity to prepare the colony for self- government.74

Ultimately, the freedmen’s colony on Roanoke Island 

was not a success. The colony never became selfsufficient as its planners had hoped. Its isolated 

position, lack of resources and economic base, as well as 

the enlistment of many of its young, able- bodied men 

into the Union army, made many of the remaining 

residents dependent upon the federal government for 

subsidies. Most of the population of the colony 

consisted of women, children, the elderly, and the 

infirm.75

Moreover, many of the freedmen employed by the 

federal government never received their promised 

wages. Union agencies and soldiers either neglected or 

refused to compensate the freedmen, or paid them in 

rations or worthless vouchers. In addition, the constant 

transfer of Union troops to and from the island made 

the settling of accounts difficult. According to the 

calculations of Horace James, the government owed the 

freedmen of Roanoke Island more than $18,500 in 

unpaid wages, which could help stimulate the economy 

of the colony if ever paid.76 The constant influx of 

former slaves also created further problems for the 

colony’s economy.77

68. James, 29.

69. James, 26.

70. Ibid., 28, 52.

71. Ibid., 27-8. As Horace James noted, “About one hundred of the most active men on the island are employed in Government 

work, by the Quartermaster and Commissary of the Post. Some two hundred more have been kept at work a large portion of 

the year upon the fortifications of the island.”

FIGURE 6. Domestic chores as they probably appeared among 

freedmen on Roanoke Island, 1865

72. James, 28.

73. Ibid., 29-30.

74. James, 30; See also Lautzenheiser and Hargrove, 53.

75. James, 31.

76. Ibid., 32-3.
18 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

The end of the Civil War brought about the demise of 

the freedmen’s colony. By June 1865 (shortly after the 

end of the war), the colony numbered 3,500, with 

approximately 2,700 of its members receiving rations 

from the U.S. government. With the war over, the army 

cut the freedmen’s rations and discharged workers, who 

were paid in worthless vouchers instead of currency. In 

addition, the island’s prewar residents returned, pledged 

an oath of allegiance to the Union, and reclaimed their 

land. The colony’s population declined by half between 

1865 and 1866, so that by November 1866, only 1,700 

residents of the colony remained. That same month, the 

Freedmen’s Bureau suspended the allotment of rations 

and recommended that all of Roanoke Island be 

returned to its prewar owners. The bureau felt that this 

would help induce the freedmen to leave the island to 

seek more favorable employment and better farmland 

elsewhere.78

In addition, many of the schoolteachers left the island in 

fall 1866, after northern missionary societies began 

limiting funding. The harsh winter of 1866–1867 further 

encouraged the former slaves to leave the area. 

Consequently, by February 1867, the colony had 

virtually dispersed, although a few remained on 

Roanoke Island where their descendants still live.79

After the Civil War and the demise of the freedmen’s 

colony, the population of Roanoke Island stabilized at 

around one thousand. The number of inhabitants grew 

slowly until it reached three thousand around 1900. In 

1870, with this increase in residents, the North Carolina 

General Assembly established Dare County on the 

Outer Banks. The new county was created out of parts 

of Currituck, Hyde, and Tyrrell Counties. It included a 

large swampy area on the mainland, Roanoke Island, 

and several barrier islands, including Bodie, Currituck, 

and Hatteras. Manteo, located several miles south of the 

Fort Raleigh site on Roanoke Island, served as the 

county seat. The town grew into the area’s commercial 

center and became incorporated in 1899. In 1920, the 

General Assembly transferred Kitty Hawk and several 

communities to the north from Currituck County to 

Dare County.80

By the 1870s, the primary industry in Dare County was 

commercial fishing. Improvements in refrigeration and 

transportation made large- scale commercial fishing 

operations practical. Elite hunting clubs also began to be 

operated on the barrier islands during the early 

twentieth century. Like the resort that was established at 

Nags Head, these clubs had little impact on the county’s 

economy, which continued to revolve around fishing 

and other maritime activities.81

Another development in Dare County during the 1870s 

concerned the federal government’s continuing effort to 

improve navigation. New lighthouses were constructed 

at Bodie Island, Cape Hatteras, and Currituck Beach. 

The U.S. Lifesaving Service, formed in 1871, also soon 

began operating life- saving stations along the county’s 

barrier islands. The stations warned approaching ships 

of the dangerous shoreline and sent out rescue boats to 

aid distressed vessels. The Lifesaving Service merged 

with the U.S. Cutter Service to form the U.S. Coast 

Guard in 1915. Eventually, fifteen life- saving stations 

operated within Dare County. Both the lighthouses and 

life- saving stations provided an economic boost to the 

underdeveloped area.82

Around the turn of the century, Dare County became 

the setting of significant important experiments by three 

important inventors. Attracted by the county’s isolated 

location and the constant breezes along the Outer 

Banks, Orville and Wilbur Wright of Dayton, Ohio, 

spent several seasons at Kitty Hawk performing flight 

experiments. On December 17, 1903, the two undertook 

the first successful powered flight using a heavier- thanair craft launched near Kill Devil Hill. Another inventor 

arrived in Dare County around 1900. Reginald 

Fessenden came to Roanoke Island, having worked in 

Thomas Edison’s New Jersey laboratory, to perform 

wireless communication experiments that eventually 

led to the development of radio. Fessenden’s 

experiments add another layer of historical distinction 

to Dare County. More important, however, they took 

place on Roanoke Island on land now part of Fort 

Raleigh NHS.83

77. Lautzenheiser and Hargrove, 53.

78. Ibid., 53-4.

79. Lautzenheiser and Hargrove, 54. This winter was so severe that the sound froze over.

80. Ibid.; David Stick, Dare County, 30-34.

81. David Stick, Fabulous Dare: The Story of Dare County, Past and Present (Kitty Hawk, North Carolina: The Dare Press, 1949), 51-

52; Stick, Dare County, 42-47.

82. Stick, Fabulous Dare, 27-29; Stick, Dare County, 26-30.

83. Stick, Fabulous Dare, 35-39; Stick, Dare County, 38-42.
National Park Service 19

Fessenden’s Early Radio Experiments, 

1901-1902

Between January 1901 and September 1902, Reginald 

Fessenden conducted several radio transmitting and 

receiving experiments between the north end of 

Roanoke Island and Cape Hatteras. Fessenden made a 

number of significant discoveries in this field, many of 

them during his twenty- month stay on Roanoke Island.

Reginald Aubrey Fessenden, the son of an Episcopal 

rector, was born on October 6, 1866, in Quebec, Canada. 

In 1877, he enrolled in Trinity College School at Port 

Hope, Ontario, and taught classes while attending 

college courses. After holding several positions in 

Canada and Bermuda teaching mathematics, Fessenden 

left for New York City in 1886 and eventually got a job 

with Thomas A. Edison and the Edison Machine Works. 

He first worked as an assistant tester, which involved 

scraping insulation off of conductors so the tester could 

check for ground faults. Before his section of the project 

was completed, Fessenden was promoted to tester, then 

chief tester, and finally, inspecting engineer.84

After his project was completed, Fessenden chose to 

work as one of Edison’s assistants at the new Llewellyn 

Park laboratory in West Orange, New Jersey. He stayed 

with Edison for a little over three years, working on new 

insulating materials for cables and new lacquers for 

dynamo wiring. While at Llewellyn Park, Fessenden not 

only got the chance to observe Edison’s methods 

firsthand, but he also had access to the laboratory’s 

library. In addition, Fessenden developed an interest in 

high frequency alternating currents during this period, 

which later led to his developments in radio 

technology.85

After leaving Edison’s laboratory, Fessenden went 

through a series of appointments, working briefly for a 

subsidiary of Westinghouse and then at the Western 

University of Pennsylvania (later to become the 

University of Pittsburgh), until he accepted a job with 

the Weather Bureau in 1900. The bureau hoped he could 

develop a method of wireless communication by which 

weather data could be transmitted along the East Coast. 

This position promised Fessenden greater research 

resources, a better location for wireless experiments, 

and greater freedom in developing the system. His first 

success was the transmission of a voice for one mile on 

Cobb Island, Maryland. After this accomplishment, he 

moved with his wife, Helen, to Manteo, North Carolina, 

and established his main experimental station on the 

north end of Roanoke Island. Another station was set up 

on Hatteras Island, and he also had an additional 

antenna at Cape Henry, Virginia Beach.86

Fessenden continued his refinements of wireless 

technology and strove to improve on the Marconi 

system, which was not suitable for the transmission of 

human voices. He also searched for a better apparatus to 

receive waves, as well as a way to transmit audible 

sounds. While on Roanoke Island, Fessenden made 

several breakthroughs in these areas.

Significantly, while on Roanoke Island, Fessenden 

discovered a way to piggyback voice and music onto 

continuous waves and invented a sensitive method for 

detecting and receiving the waves when they arrived, 

similar to today’s radio or television tunings.87 His 

activities constituted the first practical application of a 

successful, commercially adaptable technique of radio 

communications in North America.88

In fall 1902, Fessenden terminated his radio experiments 

on the north end of Roanoke Island. After several 

disputes with his employer, Fessenden quit the Weather 

Bureau in September 1902, and moved to Norfolk, 

Virginia. Nonetheless, his experience on Roanoke 

Island became the basis for his subsequent career in 

radio communications. Fessenden later established the 

first commercial trans- Atlantic two- way radiotelegraph 

service (1905) and was responsible for the first transAtlantic radiotelephone transmissions (1906). He 

conducted experiments in numerous related areas, and 

went on to develop the sonic depth finder, SONAR, the 

aircraft radio altimeter, and the turbo- electric drive for 

battleships and other large vessels.89 However, only a 

few signs of his accomplishments on Roanoke Island 

remain. A historical marker on North Carolina Route 12 

in Buxton commemorates Fessenden’s transmission of 

musical notes in 1902. The only other reminder of 

84. Hugh G. T. Aitken, The Continuous Wave: Technology and American Radio, 1900-1932 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 

1985), 41-4.

85. Ibid., 44-5.

86. Aitken, 51, 55; Patrick K. Lackey, “The Coast,” part of The Virginian-Pilot [Norfolk, VA], 13 September 1992.

87. Ibid.

88. Michael L. Everette, “The Fessenden Story. . .” (NPS pamphlet), 1983.

89. Ibid.
20 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Fessenden’s work is a concrete slab visible at low tide in 

the Croatan Sound about three hundred yards off the 

northwest shore of Roanoke Island.90 The slab once 

held the boiler used to power the transmitters for the 

radio experiments.91

Early Commemorative Efforts at the 

Fort Raleigh Site

As Roanoke Island was being settled during the 

eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the location of the 

earthwork associated with Raleigh’s colonies remained 

generally neglected, but the site was never lost to 

memory. Throughout the nineteenth century, Fort 

Raleigh was assumed to be the settlement location for 

both of the colonies established by Raleigh on Roanoke 

Island. Interested individuals traveled to the property, 

including President James Monroe in 1819. Although 

land titles on Roanoke Island are unclear until the midnineteenth century, the Dough family apparently was in 

possession of the fort tract by 1820. In 1849, Thomas A. 

Dough formalized his ownership of the land by 

receiving an official grant from the State of North 

Carolina. Fort Raleigh would remain in the possession 

of the Dough family until efforts to preserve and mark 

the site began during the late nineteenth century. By that 

time, the old fortification was widely known by its 

modern name.92 Raleigh’s original colonists, of course, 

did not use the name “Fort Raleigh” themselves. 

Instead, those who made the earliest attempts to 

commemorate and preserve the site of the fort chose to 

promote it by that name. The story of how the name 

came into use is discussed extensively in Appendix 2.

During the 1870s and 1880s, Congress undertook its first 

serious attempt to commemorate historic sites since 

appropriating funds for a monument at the Bunker Hill 

battleground in Massachusetts before the Civil War. 

Sparked by the Revolutionary War centennial, Congress 

commissioned a study of battlefields and provided 

funds for eight battle monuments. Perhaps inspired by 

these activities, North Carolina Senator Zebulon B. 

Vance attempted to gain recognition for Fort Raleigh. In 

1884, he introduced a bill in Congress to fund the 

acquisition of a small tract at the site for the placement 

of a monument to Raleigh’s colonies. This first federal 

legislative effort failed as Vance’s bill died in the Library 

Committee.93

Interest in the lost colony returned during the early 

1890s through the efforts of Sallie Southall Cotten, a 

prominent leader of the women’s club movement in 

North Carolina. In 1892, Cotten organized the Virginia 

Dare Columbian Memorial Association for the purpose 

of commemorating and perpetuating the birth of 

Virginia Dare. Cotten envisioned erecting a building for 

90. Although this slab is located near the park’s boundary, it is not on NPS property.

91. Lackey.

FIGURE 7. Sketch of Fort Raleigh environs, while owned by the 

Dough family, 1862

92. William S. Powell, Paradise Preserved: A History of the Roanoke Island Historical Association (Chapel Hill: University of North 

Carolina Press, 1965), 13-37.

93. Ibid., 40-51; Ronald F. Lee, The Origin and Evolution of the National Military Park Idea (Washington: National Park Service, 

1973), 7-12.

FIGURE 8. RCMA members surround the monument to Virginia 

Dare at Fort Raleigh, ca. 1896 
National Park Service 21

North Carolina at the 1893 World’s Columbian 

Exposition in Chicago. After the exposition, the 

building would be dismantled and re- erected in North 

Carolina as a Memorial to Virginia Dare. However, the 

North Carolinians in charge of the state’s exhibit at the 

exposition decided against a separate building and 

accepted space in the agricultural building for the state’s 

exhibit. Cotten gathered items related to the lost colony 

for display and served as a hostess at the state’s exhibit. 

As with the attempt to erect the building at the World’s 

Columbian Exposition, Cotten’s efforts to establish the 

Virginia Dare Memorial School for women proved 

unsuccessful. However, she did assist in the creation of 

another organization seeking to commemorate the lost 

colony.94

The first effort to mark and preserve the Fort Raleigh 

site was initiated by a group of native North Carolinians 

living in Baltimore, Maryland. Under the leadership of 

Edward Graham Daves, the group formed an 

organization to buy and improve the fort tract. 

Apparently, this effort was inspired by the Cape Cod 

Pilgrim Memorial Association’s commemorative efforts 

for the 1620 settlement by English separatists in 

Massachusetts. The Roanoke Colony Memorial 

Association (RCMA) was incorporated by the State of 

North Carolina in April 1894 and began selling shares; 

Cotten’s Virginia Dare Columbian Memorial 

Association was among the first shareholders. Before 

the end of the month, the association had acquired more 

than 260 acres from the W. T. Dough family, including 

the fort tract.95

When RCMA held its first North Carolina meeting at 

Manteo in August 1894, the topic of discussion was the 

development and marking of the Fort Raleigh site. The 

association appointed C. J. Dough as an agent of the 

association and caretaker of the property to maintain 

the site and to decrease vandalism. An 1895 

archeological investigation by Talcott Williams of the 

University of Pennsylvania confirmed the site as a 

European fort from the colonization era. In 1896, 

improvements to RCMA’s property began with the 

placement of granite posts marking all angles of the 

earthwork, and the erection of a tablet of North Carolina granite set upon a base of Virginia granite. The 

tablet, now listed on the National Register of Historic 

Places, included an inscription about Raleigh’s colonies, 

specifically focusing on Virginia Dare’s birth and 

christening and the christening of Manteo. RCMA 

constructed an access road to the fort site, which was 

enclosed with a split- rail fence. On November 24, 1896, 

the association held its dedication ceremonies for the 

Fort Raleigh site.96

After these improvements, RCMA focused on paying off 

the debt incurred from the acquisition and development 

of the site. In 1910, the association sold 246 acres to 

William J. Griffin, leaving only the 16.45- acre tract with 

Fort Raleigh. Despite some proceeds from this sale, the 

association was unable to retire its debt until 1937. 

Further efforts to improve the fort site proved 

unsuccessful. RCMA lobbied North Carolina 

congressmen to sponsor bills authorizing federal 

involvement. Between 1896 and 1901, three House bills 

and one Senate bill were introduced. Sponsored by 

Congressmen Harry Skinner and John H. Small and 

Senator Furnifold M. Simmons, the bills called for the 

94. Powell, Paradise Preserved, 52-62.

95. Ibid., 64-75.

96. Ibid., 76-82.

FIGURE 9. The Virginia Dare/Fort Raleigh Colony Marker, 1990
22 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

federal government to acquire a small tract of land, erect 

an enclosure, gateway, and a better monument. All three 

bills died in committee.97

While these legislative efforts failed, the Sir Walter 

Raleigh Monument Association erected a statue of 

Raleigh in 1913; however, the statue was located at 

Raleigh, North Carolina, rather than Roanoke Island. 

That same year, RCMA also erected a pavilion at Fort 

Raleigh for special events. Other efforts were not as 

successful, including repeated failed attempts by the 

Episcopal Diocese of East Carolina during the 1920s to 

erect a memorial for the christenings of Manteo and 

Virginia Dare. In 1924, the archeologically sensitive fort 

site even suffered damage when the state constructed a 

highway through the property.98

Finally, RCMA received a federal appropriation through 

the efforts of North Carolina Congressman Lindsay C. 

Warren. Signed into law by President Calvin Coolidge 

on June 11, 1926, the bill provided funds to erect a 

commemorative structure at “Sir Walter Raleigh’s Fort” 

after design approval by the War Department. The result 

was the erection in 1930 of two brick pillars, one on 

either side of the entrance to the property, including 

tablets with inscriptions dedicated to Raleigh’s 

colonists, the native Manteo, and Virginia Dare. This 

was RCMA’s last significant development activity at the 

site.99

Public use of Fort Raleigh was limited during the years 

that RCMA managed the site, largely because of its 

isolated location on Roanoke Island. Between 1894 and 

1931, the association sponsored sporadic observances of 

the anniversary of Virginia Dare’s birth in August. In 

addition, the Episcopal Diocese of East Carolina held 

special meetings at the site in commemoration of the 

christenings of Manteo and Virginia Dare. Members of 

RCMA and the North Carolina State Literary and 

Historical Association proposed celebrations at Fort 

Raleigh during the early 1900s. To promote these 

proposals further, the Roanoke Island Celebration 

Company was incorporated in 1902, and plans were 

prepared for a large exposition at the site in 1905. 

Insufficient funding, however, doomed this project. In 

1907, an exhibit on Raleigh’s lost colony was included in 

the exposition at Jamestown, Virginia, celebrating the 

three- hundredth anniversary of that settlement’s 

founding.100 Further development of Fort Raleigh had 

to await state and federal support.

97. Ibid., 83-84; Edmund B. Rogers, History of Legislation Relating to the National Park System Through the 82d Congress, Fort 

Raleigh (Washington: National Park Service, 1958), Part I, 1-2.

98. Powell, Paradise Preserved, 37, 87, 90.

99. Ibid., 91; Rogers, Part I, 1-2. Note, as of 2002 these pillars are located on Manteo waterfront. Copies of their inscriptions can be 

found in Powell, 93; The inscriptions bare factual errors, especially the date of Virginia Dare’s christening, which was August 24, 

not August 20, as stated on one of the pillars. See Figure 21 in Chapter Four for an image of the memorial pillars.

100. Powell, Paradise Preserved, 63-112.
National Park Service 23

Chapter Three: Creation of a 

National Historic Site

Economic Transitions in Dare County

In the 1930s, the growth of tourism, transportation 

improvements, and federal projects brought major 

changes to Dare County’s economy. By World War II, 

the county’s fishing industry was in decline because of 

depleted fish stocks and pollution problems. Similarly, 

decreasing fowl populations accompanied by stricter 

hunting laws gradually closed the large hunting clubs. In 

addition, the county’s U.S. Coast Guard facilities were 

scaled back. By the late 1940s, only eight of the fifteen 

life saving stations were still operating. Improved 

technology and equipment had reduced the number of 

shipwrecks and thus the need for scattered facilities. 

Most rescue work was based out of the Coast Guard’s 

air station at nearby Elizabeth City.101

Given these trends, the leaders of North Carolina’s 

Outer Banks region began searching for economic 

alternatives. Among this group were politicians 

Washington F. Baum and Lindsay C. Warren, artist, 

conservationist, and developer Frank Stick, and 

newspaper editor W.O. Saunders. Baum was elected in 

1924 as the chairman of the Dare County Board of 

Commissioners. A resident of Washington, North 

Carolina, Warren represented the Outer Banks in the 

U.S. House of Representatives. In that position, he 

sought the economic development and modernization 

of the isolated region. Originally from Asbury Park, 

New Jersey, Stick had invested in large tracts of barrier 

island property in Dare County. Since the speculative 

potential of this land depended on major development 

activities, Stick had a personal stake in the area’s future 

prosperity. However, Stick also had a great love for the 

Outer Banks and his efforts proved especially important 

in helping to create enthusiasm for a national memorial 

to Orville and Wilbur Wright, whose famous flight 

experiments were conducted at Kill Devil Hills near 

Kitty Hawk in the Outer Banks. Stick’s enthusiasm was 

also key in promoting the idea of a Cape Hatteras 

national seashore. Saunders served as editor of The 

Independent in Elizabeth City, the region’s primary 

newspaper, and was a major community spokesman and 

booster.102

The economic alternative that the Outer Banks leaders 

found most enticing was tourism. The 1920s saw large 

increases in tourism as the overall national economy 

prospered and more Americans owned cars. In 

addition, Dare County offered potential tourists a 

number of desirable attractions, including an isolated 

setting, scenic beaches, sport fishing opportunities, and 

several historical sites of national importance. However, 

two major problems persisted – the county’s inadequate 

transportation infrastructure and lack of developed 

tourist attractions.103

To increase Dare County’s accessibility, modern 

highways and bridges to connect the islands with the 

mainland were required. During the 1920s, Stick and 

other New Jersey investors began acquiring large tracts 

of the county’s beach property, which they considered 

among the best on the eastern coast of the United States. 

They convinced Baum that improved access to the 

barrier islands would lead to an economic boom, 

primarily from an increase in tourism. In 1927, after state 

assistance for construction of a bridge from Roanoke 

Island to Nags Head was rejected, Baum sought a 

101. David Stick, Fabulous Dare: The Story of Dare County, Past and Present (Kitty Hawk, North Carolina: The Dare Press, 1949), 27-

29, 51-57; David Stick, Dare County: A History (Raleigh: State Department of Archives and History, 1970), 26-30, 42-47; David 

Stick, The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584-1958 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1958), 242-243.

102. Andrew M. Hewes, Wright Brothers National Memorial: An Administrative History (Washington: National Park Service, 1967), 3-

16; Lebame Houston, comments on August 2002 draft, SERO; Stick, The Outer Banks, 243.

103. Hewes, 3-16; Stick, Fabulous Dare, 53-57.
24 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

county bond to construct a one- mile toll bridge. 

Although local opposition was strong, Baum was finally 

able to get the bond issue passed by the state’s General 

Assembly.104 During the same period, a group of 

Elizabeth City businessmen with speculative holdings 

on the barrier islands formed the Wright Memorial 

Bridge Company. Their aim was to build a three- mile 

toll bridge across Currituck Sound to connect Kitty 

Hawk with the mainland. They also hoped this 

endeavor would help convince the national government 

to authorize spending on the Wright memorial. With the 

two bridge projects underway, the State of North 

Carolina agreed to build a paved highway between Kitty 

Hawk and Nags Head to connect the two bridges. 

Several ferry operations were initiated to connect 

islands without bridges. By the early 1930s, the state had 

purchased the two bridges and removed the tolls. The 

state continued to improve access to Dare County with 

bridges across Croatan Sound in 1953, the Alligator River 

in 1959, and Oregon Inlet in 1963. These transportation 

improvements prepared the way for further resort 

development. As a consequence of the first major 

transportation improvements, property values in the 

Kitty Hawk area rose from ten dollars an acre in 1926 to 

more than 250 dollars an acre by 1934—a twenty- fivefold increase in the midst of the Great Depression.105

The transportation improvements sought by Warren, 

Saunders, Baum, and Stick in Dare County were 

essential if the area was to increase its tourist potential. 

Moreover, though local leaders initially relied on private 

and state efforts to develop the county’s beaches and 

historical sites, they came to envision the creation of a 

major federal presence in the county, including several 

parks. The question of accessibility was important in 

attracting federal aid. 

While Dare County pursued its infrastructure projects, 

area leaders sought to drum up enthusiasm for a 

national park. The Fort Raleigh site on Roanoke Island 

was one potential attraction that could be developed 

into such a park, but given the era’s enthusiasm for 

aviation, attention was first focused upon developing a 

memorial to the successful flight experiments of the 

Wright brothers near Kitty Hawk. With Saunders 

pushing for the project, Warren introduced a bill in 

Congress in December 1926 to establish a national 

monument under War Department management. To 

encourage passage of the bill, Frank Stick wired Warren 

in January 1927 that he and his associates owned Kill 

Devil Hills, the tract on which the Wrights had made 

their famous flight. Stick had convinced a group of New 

Jersey investors to purchase the tract and to hold it for 

donation to the government when legislation creating a 

national memorial came into being. After passing both 

the House and Senate, the bill was signed into law by 

President Calvin Coolidge on March 2, 1927. Even with 

passage of the bill, however, skepticism about the area’s 

remoteness was a major concern. Secretary of 

Commerce Herbert Hoover, who was designated 

chairman of the commission created to oversea the 

creation of a suitable monument, stated his opposition 

to “dumping a quarter of a million dollars of public 

money on a sand dune where only a few neighborhood 

natives would see it.” Local boosters then created the 

Kill Devil Hill Memorial Association, which was formed 

to raise money to acquire additional acreage for the 

Wright memorial and to promote further transportation 

improvements. The group’s purpose was “to give the 

world a ready opportunity to visit the Nation’s twin 

Shrines thus to be made accessible to motorists – Kill 

Devil Hills . . . and old Fort Raleigh.” Eventually, local 

and state efforts to improve the roads and bridges in the 

Outer Banks quieted doubt about the area’s remoteness 

and Hoover came around. The commission eventually 

accepted the design for a sixty- foot- tall granite 

monument, which was dedicated to the Wright brothers 

in November 1932. The Kill Devil Hill National 

Monument (NM) came into being under the 

management of the National Park Service the following 

year. It was the first national park in the Outer Banks.106

The National Park Service 

and the New Deal

During the 1930s, the Park Service emerged as the 

steward of a diverse collection of natural, historical, and 

recreational areas. Prior to the New Deal, the Park 

Service’s properties were not so varied. The federal 

government began establishing parks during the late 

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Starting with 

Yellowstone in 1872, Congress designated large 

wilderness areas as national parks under the 

104. Hewes, 16-39, 51-55; Stick, The Outer Banks, 243-247; Stick, Fabulous Dare, 53-57; Stick, Dare County, 51-55.

105. Ibid.

106. Hewes, 5-44; Lebame Houston, comments on August 2002 draft, SERO. See also William R. Chapman and Jill K. Hanson, Wright 

Brothers National Memorial Historic Resource Study (Atlanta: Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service: 1997). Note, the 

name of the monument was changed in 1953 because the term “Kill Devil Hills” was considered arbitrary, held no association 

with the Wright brothers, and for other reasons. Today, the site is known as Wright Brothers National Memorial.
National Park Service 25

stewardship of the Department of the Interior. In 

addition, Congress passed legislation to create national 

military parks under the stewardship of the War 

Department, beginning with Shiloh in 1890. Under the 

Antiquities Act of 1906, presidents began proclaiming 

national monuments at significant natural and historical 

sites. Since national monuments were declared on lands 

managed by the Interior, War, and Agriculture 

Departments, each of these three agencies served as 

stewards of national monuments. By 1916, the Interior 

Department was responsible for fourteen national 

parks, twenty- one national monuments, and two 

reservations. Recognizing the need for an organized 

park management approach within the department, 

Congress passed legislation creating the National Park 

Service. Since the Interior Department’s parks were 

limited to natural areas prior to the New Deal, early NPS 

management focused upon the large wilderness parks of 

the western United States.107

In 1933, Franklin D. Roosevelt significantly altered the 

direction of the service. At the urging of NPS Director 

Horace M. Albright, Roosevelt signed Executive Orders 

6166 and 6228, leading to a redistribution of federal park 

land and NPS reorganization. These executive orders 

consolidated most existing national parks, national 

military parks, and national monuments under the 

stewardship of the National Park Service. The parks 

transferred to NPS control from the War Department 

and the Department of Agriculture included eight 

natural areas but also forty- four historical areas. As a 

result, the Park Service became the prime keeper of 

federal historical sites, a fact that broadened its mission 

beyond the stewardship of scenic landscapes. In 

addition, NPS gained greater visibility in the eastern 

United States where most historical sites were 

located.108

The passage of the Historic Sites Act of 1935 provided 

another boost to the emerging role of the NPS as a 

steward of the nation’s history. The primary purpose of 

the new law was to provide firm legislative authority for 

NPS historic preservation activities. The Historic Sites 

Act gave the Secretary of the Interior responsibility for a 

federal historic preservation program, including survey, 

research, and documentation efforts for historical and 

archeological properties of national significance. 

Perhaps most important, the law authorized the 

secretary to designate national historic sites, acquire 

historical and archeological properties, preserve 

significant resources, maintain museums, administer 

sites for public use, and enter into cooperative 

agreements. The secretary could designate national 

historic sites without congressional approval, although 

Congress had to approve funds for land acquisition. To 

some extent, the Historic Sites Act provided a way to 

create new parks without having to go through the 

congressional process. To assist the secretary, the law 

established the Advisory Board on National Parks, 

Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments. The Park 

Service became the primary agency responsible for 

carrying out the provisions of the new law.109

Roosevelt’s New Deal agenda also paid attention to the 

creation of various recreational areas. In addition to 

gaining new authority over historical sites, the NPS was 

directed to broaden its interpretation of natural areas to 

include a recreational component. The new recreational 

focus was largely sparked by the Civilian Conservation 

Corps (CCC), a New Deal work program. By the mid1930s, the Park Service was overseeing six hundred CCC 

camps working on projects at various national and state 

parks. NPS efforts to develop state parks led to the 

creation of forty- six recreational demonstration 

projects, most of which were later transferred to state 

control. The emphasis on recreational areas forged ideas 

for new types of national parks, including national 

recreation areas and national seashores.110

Development of Fort Raleigh 

State Park

The Roanoke Colony Memorial Association was losing 

momentum by the 1930s. Accordingly, it made plans to 

transfer Fort Raleigh to another custodian. On January 

10, 1934, the privately owned 16.45- acre site was donated 

to the State of North Carolina. The North Carolina 

107. Barry Mackintosh, The National Parks: Shaping the System (Washington: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1991), 10-23; Ronald F. 

Lee, Family Tree of the National Park System (Philadelphia: Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 1972), 9-20;

Ronald F. Lee, The Origin and Evolution of the National Military Park Idea (Washington: National Park Service, 1973), 13-37.

108. Mackintosh, National Parks, 24-43; Lee, Family Tree, 21-36; Lee, Origin and Evolution, 52; Thomas Alan Sullivan, compiler, Laws 

Relating to the National Park Service, Supplement I, July 1933 through April 1944 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 

1944), 203-207.

109. Sullivan, Laws, 7-10; Barry Mackintosh, The Historic Sites Survey and National Historic Landmarks Program: A History

(Washington: National Park Service, 1985), 1-12; Mackintosh, National Parks, 49-53; Lee, Family Tree, 44-52.

110. Mackintosh, National Parks, 44-46, 53-56; Lee, Family Tree, 37-39, 52-60. See also, John Paige, The Civilian Conservation Corps 

and the National Park Service, 1933-1942: An Administrative History (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1985).
26 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Historical Commission (NCHC) then assumed 

stewardship of “Fort Raleigh State Park.” Eight years 

later, RCMA lost its charter and ceased to exist as a legal 

entity. The General Assembly had created the NCHC in 

1903 to serve as the state’s historical agency. Assuming 

the position of secretary in 1935, Christopher Crittenden 

headed the NCHC during the years that it managed the 

Fort Raleigh site.111

In 1933, Frank Stick wrote an article, published on July 21 

in the Elizabeth City Independent, in which he proposed 

a “coastal park for North Carolina and the nation.” 

Stick’s proposal included the restoration of natural 

vegetation, dune construction for erosion control, and a 

national park. The proposal gained the support of 

influential North Carolinians like R. Bruce Etheridge, 

the director of the North Carolina Department of 

Conservation and Development. Through the efforts of 

Representative Warren, Stick’s proposal became a 

federal relief project with funding and labor provided by 

the New Deal’s Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 

Emergency Relief Administration, Civil Works 

Administration, and Works Progress Administration 

(WPA). Workers began to arrive in 1934. Beyond beach 

improvement, the project included efforts to control 

mosquitoes and to develop both Kill Devil Hill National 

Monument (NM) and the Fort Raleigh site.112

Once under NCHC management, efforts to develop 

Fort Raleigh gained momentum. In 1934, the WPA 

established Camp Wirth on the northern end of 

Roanoke Island as part of Stick’s larger effort to develop 

the area’s beaches to foster tourism. At Fort Raleigh, 

relief workers were assigned to construct a series of 

structures as a highly conjectural restoration of the 1587 

settlement. This effort was planned and overseen by a 

state commission consisting of Stick, Etheridge, and E.B. 

Jeffress of the North Carolina Highway Commission.

Stick researched and designed the structures with the 

help of builder Albert Q. Bell, an Englishman 

affectionately known as “Skipper” who was living in 

Edenton, North Carolina. Bell relocated to Roanoke 

Island when contracted to oversee Stick’s construction 

project.113 With the Fort Raleigh project, Stick’s main 

goal was to restore the area “to a condition of 

primitiveness and beauty” while also reconstructing 

“the type of picturesque structure” that he believed 

once existed there. In this way, he stated, “the visitor 

111. Arno B. Cammerer, to Lindsay C. Warren, April 10, 1939, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, Mid-Atlanta Records Center, National 

Archives and Records Administration, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, hereinafter cited as MAR; William S. Powell, Paradise 

Preserved: A History of the Roanoke Island Historical Association (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965), 95-96; 

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources web page [http://web.dcr.state.nc.us/hist.htm], May 12, 1999.

112. Stick, The Outer Banks, 247-251; Louis Torres, Historic Resource Study of Cape Hatteras National Seashore (Denver: National Park 

Service, 1985), 152-156; Powell, 142.

FIGURE 10. WPA Camp at Fort Raleigh, ca. 1935

113. Powell, Paradise Preserved, 142-144; Angel Ellis Khoury, Manteo: A Roanoke Island Town (Virginia Beach: The Donning 

Company, 1999), 194.

FIGURE 11. The WPA blockhouse on either side of the entrance to 

Fort Raleigh, January 1938

FIGURE 12. Captain Jeff Hayman, caretaker at Fort Raleigh, May 

1938
National Park Service 27

who enters the log gateways may be transported back 

over those three hundred and fifty years which have 

lapsed since those first English colonists settled upon 

our shores.”114

Stick and Bell faced a major problem in achieving their 

goal because little information was available to describe 

the appearance of the original settlement. Stick argued 

that Raleigh’s settlers knew of log construction and, 

therefore, would have built substantial log buildings. In 

rejecting other possibilities, he claimed that simpler 

dwellings would have been built only by “a shiftless 

group of adventurers.”115

Using these assumptions, Stick and Bell designed a log 

settlement that was subsequently erected. A palisade of 

vertically placed juniper logs was constructed around 

the perimeter of the site. The entrance to the property 

was flanked on either side by a log blockhouse, which 

concealed the previous gateposts. Within this enclosure 

was another palisade and a group of buildings. The 

second palisade was built on the fort site itself and was 

intended as a restoration of the 1587 colony’s palisade. 

Workers constructed a large blockhouse in the center of 

this second palisade. In addition, the Fort Raleigh 

restoration project included seven buildings—a chapel, 

a museum, a one and- a- half- story house, and several 

smaller structures to house pumping equipment and 

rest rooms. All seven buildings were log in construction 

with stone foundations and chimneys; several structures 

had thatch roofs. As a result of these development 

activities, visitation to the site increased ten- fold, 

reaching thirty thousand visitors during the year 1935.116

Although Stick’s “picturesque” log structures charmed 

visitors, the NPS later determined that the Fort Raleigh 

“restoration” was historically inaccurate, “without 

authority,” and was unlikely to have resembled the 

original settlement. Indeed, Park Service Historian 

Charles W. Porter described the buildings as “18th

Century in type.” He found the alleged fort to be “a 

pretentious 18th Century blockhouse made of squared 

logs” that “would look well on the Pennsylvania frontier 

in 1776, but in a restored ‘Fort Raleigh’ it is absurd.”117

The WPA- era buildings built at Fort Raleigh were 

primarily an effort to provide something to show 

tourists – a difficult proposition at an archeological site. 

Because of the historical inaccuracy of the log structures 

and the damage done to archeologically sensitive areas, 

the “restoration” later proved problematic for the Park 

Service. The local community continued to pressure 

NPS officials for additional Fort Raleigh attractions, 

regardless of their historical accuracy or lack thereof.118

Another development during the New Deal era that 

later influenced NPS management of Fort Raleigh was 

the creation of an annual outdoor drama about Raleigh’s 

colonies. Frederick Henry Koch, a professor at the 

University of North Carolina, wrote the first known play 

touching upon the lost colony theme, although it was 

mostly about Sir Walter Raleigh. Sponsored by the 

North Carolina State Literary and Historical 

Association, Raleigh, The Shepherd of the Ocean, was 

performed at the state fair in Raleigh in October 1920. At 

the instigation of Mabel Evans, Dare County’s school 

superintendent, the North Carolina State Board of 

Education produced an educational film on the lost 

colony for the state’s schools. Written by Evans, The Lost 

Colony was filmed on Roanoke Island by the Atlas Film 

Corporation of Chicago in 1921 using mostly locals as 

actors and actresses. In both 1923 and 1924, locals staged 

scenes from the film script. The following year, an 

observance of Virginia Dare’s birthday in August was 

held with more scenes from the film script. These 

annual observances continued, and Evans wrote a new 

play script, America Dawning, in 1933. The following 

year, a play on the lost colony was held as part of an 

August homecoming celebration sponsored by the Dare 

County Chamber of Commerce. Harrington- Russell 

Festivals of Asheville, North Carolina, produced a play 

entitled O Brave New World! Unlike the previous plays 

on Roanoke Island, this production took place at the 

Fort Raleigh site, where benches were constructed for 

the two thousand attendees.119

These dramatic productions provided the momentum 

for the creation of the nation’s first annual outdoor 

drama beginning in 1937. This drama resulted from the 

efforts of a new organization dedicated to preserving the 

memory of the lost colony. As RCMA was fading during 

the early 1930s, Outer Banks leaders recognized the 

continuing need for such an advocacy group, especially 

114. Frank Stick, Fort Raleigh Restoration: Authorization and a Brief Description (Works Progress Administration, 1939), 7, Cultural 

Resources Stewardship Library, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

115. Ibid., 1-24.

116. Ibid.

117. Charles W. Porter to Regional Director, June 21, 1938, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

118. Powell, Paradise Preserved, 144-145.

119. Ibid., 113-130.
28 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

with the upcoming 350th anniversary of the Amadas and 

Barlowe expedition, which was scheduled for 1934, and 

that of the lost colony, which set for 1937. Largely at the 

instigation of W.O. Saunders, the Elizabeth City 

newsman, a new organization was incorporated in 

January 1932 as the Roanoke Island Historical 

Association (RIHA). One of the first priorities for RIHA 

was planning for the 1934 and 1937 celebrations on 

Roanoke Island. Seeking federal recognition and 

assistance for these efforts, Congressman Warren 

introduced a concurrent resolution in March to create 

the United States Roanoke Colony Commission. Agreed 

to by both the House and Senate, the resolution 

established a commission of three representatives and 

three senators to plan the 1934 celebration. However, 

Congress later failed to fund the Amadas and Barlowe 

celebration, prompting the withdrawal of RIHA 

sponsorship. Instead, the Dare County Chamber of 

Commerce stepped in to sponsor an event much 

reduced in scope.120

Despite this setback, RIHA continued to plan for the 

350th anniversary observance of the founding of the lost 

colony. When the association, fearful of the cost, 

decided not to sponsor a play as part of this observance, 

several play supporters from within the organization, 

most importantly Bradford Fearing, formed the 

Roanoke Colony Memorial Association of Manteo. This 

new group, a separate organization from RIHA, 

encouraged Paul Green to write a play script. Green had 

won a Pulitzer Prize in 1927 for his play In Abraham’s 

Bosom. He also had extensive contacts, especially with 

Hallie Flanagan, Director of the WPA’s Federal Theatre 

Project through whose auspices funding was obtained 

to attract several professional actors for the play. Using 

WPA funds, RIHA then contracted with Albert Bell to 

design and construct an outdoor theater on the state’s 

property at the Fort Raleigh site overlooking Roanoke 

Sound. The NCHC also assisted this project by creating 

a museum in one of the log buildings to educate the 

public on Raleigh’s colonies as well as local Indian 

culture. In support of the 1937 celebration effort, Warren 

introduced a bill to authorize the minting of fifty- cent 

pieces commemorating the lost colony. Signed into law 

by President Roosevelt on June 24, 1936, the bill 

provided for the coins to be sold by RIHA and the 

Roanoke Colony Memorial Association of Manteo to 

raise money for their efforts. In addition, Warren was 

able to get a five- cent stamp issued commemorating the 

birth of Virginia Dare.121

During a 1937 season running from July 4 to Labor Day, 

Green’s The Lost Colony was performed before fifty 

thousand people. On August 18, the 350th anniversary of 

Virginia Dare’s birth, President Roosevelt attended the 

outdoor drama. He gave a speech about the importance 

of majority rule in democracy and at some point signed 

legislation authorizing the creation of the Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore. With a successful first season, RIHA 

was induced to assume responsibility for producing The 

Lost Colony. The Roanoke Colony Memorial 

Association of Manteo, its mission accomplished, then 

dissolved. The play has continued with summer seasons 

each year, except for a temporary suspension between 

1941 and 1945, which was caused by the outbreak of 

World War II. In addition to producing The Lost Colony, 

RIHA continued to operate the museum at Fort Raleigh 

with North Carolina Historical Commission cooperation. Caroline Springfield, who served as curator, 

120. Ibid., 131-141; Rogers, Part I, 2-4.

FIGURE 13. Theater construction at Fort Raleigh by WPA workers, 

June 1937

121. Powell, Paradise Preserved, 141-169; Rogers, Part I, 4.

FIGURE 14. Franklin D. Roosevelt at Fort Raleigh, August 18, 1937 
National Park Service 29

began efforts to improve the museum using illustrations 

and archeological artifacts.122

The National Park Service 

Considers Fort Raleigh

As the state historical commission and RIHA were 

developing Fort Raleigh, they raised the idea of turning 

the site over to the National Park Service. With full 

RIHA support, NCHC Secretary Crittenden sent a 

letter to the Park Service on May 8, 1936, offering the site 

as a national park and providing information from Stick 

about the New Deal development activities then 

underway at the property. Assistant NPS Director Verne 

E. Chatelain thanked Crittenden for the offer, and the 

Park Service began considering Fort Raleigh for 

acquisition.123

An important area of concern among NPS officials was 

the authenticity of Fort Raleigh as the lost colony site. 

Assistant Regional Historian Charles W. Porter 

suggested to Chatelain the possibility that the fort 

remains dated from the early eighteenth century rather 

than the late sixteenth century. In raising this point, 

Porter referred to a 1750 map showing Pain Fort at the 

approximate location of Fort Raleigh. His assumption 

was that Pain Fort had been constructed to defend 

against pirates. Porter further pointed out the lack of 

definitive evidence establishing Fort Raleigh as the lost 

colony site in the absence of a thorough archeological 

survey. Operating under the survey provisions of the 

National Historic Sites Act, Chatelain hired Dr. 

Frederick W. Tilberg to produce a series of research 

reports with the hope of authenticating the site and 

providing further information on the original 

settlement.124 Realizing the politically sensitive nature of 

the research, Chatelain instructed Tilberg to “make no 

statements which will in any way commit this Service to 

any judgement on the historical importance of the site, 

or to any possible participation in a future development 

of the Fort.”125 Before accepting a position at Gettysburg 

National Military Park in April 1937, Tilberg produced 

periodic research reports on issues such as Roanoke 

Island history, sixteenth- century fortifications, 

navigation, Outer Banks inlets and islands, the Pain Fort 

question, and the 1895 archeological investigation at Fort 

Raleigh. Although Tilberg’s research failed to 

definitively verify Fort Raleigh as the lost colony site, 

NPS officials felt confident that the research indicated 

that the settlement had been located on the northern 

end of Roanoke Island either at or near the Fort Raleigh 

property.126

Besides uncertainty about the authenticity of Fort 

Raleigh, NPS officials were concerned about the 

appropriateness of the site’s reconstructed settlement, 

which was then being built as part of the New Deal work 

project launched by Frank Stick and Congressman 

Warren. NPS concern was warranted because of a 

recent example of historically inaccurate 

reconstruction. After the George Washington Birthplace 

National Monument was created in 1930, an influential 

122. Powell, Paradise Preserved, 141-169. The visit also resulted in the placement of two commemorative markers that support the 

site’s National Register Nomination and that are listed on NPS’s LCS database.

123. Ibid., 162; C.C. Crittenden to H.K. Roberts, September 21, 1936, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Verne E. Chatelain to 

C.C. Crittenden, June 1, 1936, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

FIGURE 15. Franklin D. Roosevelt at the Virginia Dare ceremonies, 

August 18, 1937

124. Charles W. Porter to Verne E. Chatelain, June 29, 1936, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

125. Verne E. Chatelain to Frederick Tilberg, July 20, 1936, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

126. Charles W. Porter to H.E. Weatherwax, September 25, 1936, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Charles W. Porter to

Frederick Tilberg, October 13, 1936, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Charles W. Porter to Director, December 29, 1936, 

File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Charles W. Porter to Director, January 22, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, 

MAR; Charles W. Porter to Director, February 4, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Charles W. Porter to Director, 

February 18, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Roy E. Appleman and Charles W. Porter to Director, March 23, 1937, 

File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Charles W. Porter to Rob Roy MacGregor, May 4, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, 

RG 79, MAR; Charles W. Porter to Director, May 4, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Arno B. Cammerer to 

Secretary of the Interior, April 27, 1938, File 000 (2), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.
30 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

private organization “reconstructed” a house at the 

Virginia site. Archeological excavations during 1936 

determined that the reconstruction was in the wrong 

location and did not resemble the original birthplace 

house. This incident convinced NPS officials to 

maintain a higher standard of accuracy when 

considering reconstruction efforts.127

In September 1936, an inspection of Fort Raleigh by 

Associate Regional Historian Roy Edgar Appleman did 

little to ease concerns about the development underway 

at the site. Appleman cited a number of problems with 

the reconstruction effort. The pace of the project was 

too fast, leaving no time for serious historical research 

and, more important, archeological investigations. The 

log buildings were historically inaccurate and the first 

known use of such construction techniques in the New 

World was in the 1630s by the Swedes. Appleman’s 

harshest criticism was aimed at the “ludicrous” small 

palisade and blockhouse at the fort site itself. Among his 

criticisms were the blockhouse’s eighteenth- century 

construction techniques, palisade walls too high to 

shoot over from the blockhouse gun holes, and a 

palisade radius too small to be accurate. In addition, he 

reported that future project plans intended to 

intersperse Indian dwellings among the log buildings 

and to build three sixteenth- century type ships to be 

anchored off the site’s bank. In closing his report, 

Appleman warned that “Fort Raleigh is becoming 

increasingly a bad situation.”128

During 1937, the continued development of the Fort 

Raleigh site strained relations between the NPS and the 

agencies behind the development, including the NCHC, 

RIHA, and the state WPA office. At issue was WPA 

Operating Procedure O- 4, a regulation issued in August 

1936 requiring WPA projects at historically or 

archeologically significant sites to be approved by the 

NPS. Concerned about the large outdoor theater then 

under construction for the 350th anniversary celebration 

in March, Porter contacted the state WPA office to 

inquire as to why no plans had been submitted to the 

Park Service for review as required under the new 

operating procedure. As a result of this inquiry, a 

meeting was held the following month to discuss the 

remaining WPA work at the site; attendees included 

Crittenden, Appleman, state WPA officials, and other 

NPS staff. According to the WPA representatives, only 

minor construction projects remained, mainly a 

dressing room and several comfort stations for the 

theater. The NPS wanted these removed after the end of 

the next play season.129

While the Park Service was reviewing the remaining 

WPA work at Fort Raleigh, newspapers in North 

Carolina began featuring stories about negative NPS 

attitudes toward the WPA development at the site, 

especially the log structures. Crittenden warned 

Appleman that many leaders in the state were turning 

against the idea of turning the park over to the NPS. 

RIHA and others involved with the development of the 

site took offense at the suggestion that the reconstructed 

village was inaccurate. Meanwhile, the local community 

was already becoming attached to the nostalgic log 

buildings, especially the chapel. In response to fears 

regarding NPS plans to demolish the log structures, 

regional officials pointed out that only the dressing 

room and comfort stations were to be removed under 

the current agreement with the WPA. The fate of the 

remaining structures was undecided.130 Despite 

127. Barry Mackintosh, Interpretation in the National Park Service: A Historical Perspective (Washington: National Park Service, 

1986), 26-27; George Washington Birthplace, undated brochure, park brochure files, Southeast Regional Office, National Park 

Service, Atlanta.

FIGURE 16. The blockhouse and palisade at the fort site, January 

1938

128. Roy Edgar Appleman to Herbert Evison, September 15, 1936, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

129. Herbert Evison to Director, February 3, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Herbert Evison to Director, February 6, 

1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Charles W. Porter to Regional Officer, March 30, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 

81, RG 79, MAR; Herbert Evison to C.G. Mackintosh, April 3, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Herbert Evison to

G.W. Coan, Jr., April 14, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Roy Edgar Appleman to Director, April 15, 1937, File 000 

(1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

130. “That Fort Raleigh Mess,” Charlotte Observer, April 14, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Roy Edgar Appleman to 

Director, April 15, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; H.E. Roberts to G.W. Coan, Jr., April 27, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 

72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.
National Park Service 31

concerns about the site’s authenticity and growing 

public controversy, Porter believed that Fort Raleigh 

should become a national park because of its 

connection with the Raleigh colonies. In his opinion, 

“The temporary custody of some historically inaccurate 

structures is more than counterbalanced by the prospect 

of ultimately having one of the most romantic and 

historically significant places in America.”131

In January 1938, Crittenden wrote Appleman urging 

quick action on Fort Raleigh since public support for the 

site’s transfer to the Park Service was weakening and the 

NPS was ready to accept the property as a national park. 

The Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, 

Buildings, and Monuments recommended acquisition 

in February, although the board did so under the 

assumption that the log reconstructions would 

eventually be demolished. In April, NPS Director Arno 

B. Cammerer recommended acceptance of Fort Raleigh 

as a national historic site to the Secretary of the Interior. 

Although Cammerer admitted that no evidence had 

been found to confirm the legitimacy of the property as 

the settlement site, he argued that research clearly 

indicated that the colonies were located on the northern 

end of Roanoke Island near the proposed park if not at 

it. Furthermore, Cammerer emphasized the NPS goal of 

adding more land to the park in the hope of eventually 

possessing the entire settlement site. To this end, he 

planned to include a provision in any cooperative 

agreement with RIHA requiring the association to assist 

in a gradual land acquisition program.132

Before the Park Service could proceed with the transfer 

of Fort Raleigh, additional controversies erupted with 

RIHA and state officials. C.G. Mackintosh, NPS 

inspector for North Carolina, alerted Region One 

officials in June 1938 of problems with the WPA activities 

at the site. The situation arose from a project approved 

by regional NPS officials in February to allow additional 

improvements at the theater. The project ended up 

including new towers, a new log building, and a new 

stockade for the theater, all items that the NPS had not 

approved as part of the project. The project manager, 

Albert Bell, vehemently denied that the features in 

question were outside of the approved project, 

especially since they were replacements of previous 

structures. The Park Service was alarmed at the ground 

disturbance caused by the new work at the 

archeologically important site, but in the interest of 

avoiding additional controversy, the agency backed 

away from the issue since the damage had already 

occurred.133

By July 1938, Green was leading an effort to keep Fort 

Raleigh in state hands. His primary concern was that the 

Park Service would interfere with the production of The 

Lost Colony or remove the New Deal structures at the 

park. RIHA President Bradford Fearing was concerned 

about the proposed requirement that the association 

fund land acquisitions, especially during years of 

financial difficulty. Realizing that Governor Clyde Hoey 

was unwilling to deed the property to the federal 

government without RIHA’s approval, Warren, 

Mackintosh, and additional NPS officials met with 

Hoey, Green, Fearing, and other local leaders in an 

attempt to negotiate an agreement. When RIHA sought 

the inclusion of deed provisions giving the association 

significant control over developmental and interpretive 

issues, NPS officials balked at the idea. “To accept the 

terms outlined by [RIHA],” wrote Roy Appleman, 

Acting Regional Historian, “would give the Roanoke 

Island Historical Association a control equal to that of 

the National Park Service in determining policy of the 

administration and development of the area. This is 

unthinkable.” With an additional meeting in December, 

however, several key issues were resolved. The Park 

Service postponed any final decision on eliminating the 

log reconstructions, guaranteed to permit the 

131. “Boundaries Recommended for the Proposed Cape Hatteras National Seashore, North Carolina,” October 27, 1937, 17, Cultural 

Resources Stewardship Library, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia.

132. C.C. Crittenden to Roy Edgar Appleman, January 24, 1938, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Arno B. Cammerer to 

Secretary, April 27, 1938, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

FIGURE 17. The WPA chapel at Fort Raleigh, January 1938

133. C.G. Mackintosh to Regional Director, June 27, 1938, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Roy Edgar Appleman to C.G. 

Mackintosh, July 1, 1938, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Albert Q. Bell to E.L. Winslow, July 6, 1938, File 000 (1), Box 

72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.
32 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

continuation of the play, and allowed RIHA greater 

flexibility in funding future land acquisitions, but NPS 

authority over the site was maintained. With the two 

sides now in agreement, the governor was willing to 

proceed with the deed of transfer.134

Designation of Fort Raleigh 

as a National Historic Site

With all the major players satisfied with the proposed 

transfer of Fort Raleigh from the state to the federal 

government, the National Park Service moved forward 

with national historic site designation. To that end, the 

NPS and RIHA signed a cooperative agreement on 

March 29, 1939, allowing the association to continue 

producing The Lost Colony at the site. The state deeded 

the property to the United States on July 14, 1939. The 

transfer was contingent, however, upon its approval by 

Assistant Secretary of Interior Oscar L. Chapman. Given 

the difficulties associated with the forging of the 

unprecedented NPS- RIHA alliance, the Park Service 

and the Interior Department proceeded with 

deliberation. Moreover, although Historian Frederick 

Tilberg had conducted significant research between 

1936 and 1939 on the authenticity of the Fort Raleigh site, 

Historian Charles W. Porter was still in the process of 

formulating a definitive opinion.135

By November 1939, Director Cammerer transmitted the 

title, deed, and related papers covering the proposed 

transfer of Fort Raleigh to the United States to the 

Solicitor of the Interior Department for use in crafting 

the national historic site. He did request that the 

solicitor conduct an expeditious examination of the title 

because as long as the land in question was not vested in 

the United States, RIHA would be able to charge 

entrance fees, proceeds of which were being lost to the 

government. Still, it was February 21, 1941, before the 

wheels of the bureaucracy had turned full- circle and 

Secretary Chapman had signed off on the cooperative 

agreement. Acting Director Arthur E. Demaray wrote 

RIHA Chairman Bradford Fearing in March explaining 

that the president had authorized the project and that a 

formal order designating the boundary of the new 

national historic site was being prepared. Demaray 

expressed the hope that the execution of the 

cooperative agreement would promote “a long and 

fruitful period of cooperation with the Roanoke Island 

Historical Association,” and that “our combined effort 

will make it possible for the Lost Colony Pageant to 

reach an ever increasing number of the American 

people.” Finally, on April 5, 1941, citing his authority 

under the National Historic Sites Act, Acting Secretary 

of the Interior Alvin J. Wirtz issued an order creating the 

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (NHS), which the 

Park Service began administering on July 21, 1941.136

Fort Raleigh and the Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore Project

At the time that Fort Raleigh was designated as a 

national historic site, the National Park Service 

envisioned the property eventually becoming part of a 

national seashore. The idea to create a major coastal 

preserve on the Outer Banks arose in the late 1920s. 

After celebrations to commemorate the flight 

experiments of the Wright brothers, local enthusiasts 

began to promote a “Dune Park” or “public shrine” to 

better commemorate the Wrights’ achievement, which, 

as previously noted, became a reality in 1932. In 1928, 

inspired by the rapid development of Florida, North 

Carolina’s Department of Conservation and 

Development began to inventory the state’s natural 

resources to evaluate those that could best be 

developed. The analysis was intended to determine, for 

example, whether the commercial value of a forest was 

134. Telephone Conversation Notes, Paul Green and Dr. Russell, July 7, 1938, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; C.G. 

Mackintosh to Regional Director, July 19, 1938, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Roy Edgar Appleman to Acting 

Regional Director, September 27, 1938, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Roy Edgar Appleman to Regional Director, 

December 23, 1938, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR. One of the reasons RIHA wanted greater authority in the 

cooperative agreement being negotiated was to allow it to continue to charge an entrance fee of twenty-five cents to the park 

grounds. NPS was not about to allow a private entity charge fees for entrance to an area under its jurisdiction. One reason RIHA 

wanted the fee was to keep out “undesirables.” A compromise was worked out by which it was allowed to charge ten cents 

until such time as the government could arrange to administer the site.

135. Powell, Paradise Preserved, 162-166; Charles W. Porter II, “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina: Part of the 

Settlement Sites of Sir Walter Raleigh’s Colonies, 1585-1587,” North Carolina Historical Review, vol. 20, (January 1943): 22-42.

136. Powell, Paradise Preserved, 162-166; Thomas Alan Sullivan, compiler, Proclamations and Orders Relating to the National Park 

Service up to January 1, 1945 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1947), 77-78; Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative 

Report for Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, July 1941, Superintendent’s Monthly Narrative Reports, Cape Hatteras Group 

Headquarters, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Manteo, North Carolina, hereinafter cited as FORA; Arno B. Cammerer to First

Assistant Secretary, March 18, 1940, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.
National Park Service 33

greater by logging it or by using it for recreational 

purposes. At the same time the Conservation and 

Development Department was creating publicly owned 

game preserves throughout the state to help address the 

loss of game habitat. There were twelve by 1929. Private 

hunting clubs were also specifically promoting Pamlico 

Sound as an area where a major game preserve, even a 

national refuge, should be established. National papers 

reported on these developments and the need for 

Congress to authorize funds to create protected areas. 

The Dune Park and Pamlico Sound game preserve 

movements meshed well with larger trends, brought 

publicity, promoted road construction and tourism, and 

helped increased Dare County’s land values. It was in 

this milieu, in 1933, that Frank Stick made his second 

pivotal proposal to create “a coastal park on the Outer 

Banks,” a proposal that led to a New Deal works project 

through the efforts of Representative Warren. The idea 

to create a major coastal park received a boost in 1935 

when the owners of a hunting club donated nearly one 

thousand acres around the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse 

for the Cape Hatteras State Park. Between 1935 and 1941, 

the CCC worked at the property improving its beach 

and constructing five visitor cabins.137

As with Fort Raleigh, the State of North Carolina was 

interested in having the federal government acquire 

Cape Hatteras State Park as a national park. After the 

historic reorganization in 1933 that broadened the NPS 

mandate, the Park Service was receptive to the idea of a 

recreation- oriented park on the Outer Banks. In 1934, 

the NPS surveyed twenty beach areas along the Atlantic 

and Gulf Coasts for possible national seashore locations 

and determined Cape Hatteras to be a top choice. To 

encourage such a finding, the North Carolina General 

Assembly passed legislation in 1935 authorizing the state 

to transfer land to the United States for a national park. 

Following up on the state legislation, Warren introduced 

a congressional bill to create the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore. Congress approved the bill and President 

Franklin D. Roosevelt signed it into law on August 17, 

1937, during his trip to see The Lost Colony on Roanoke 

Island. The bill authorized the nation’s first national 

seashore with up to one hundred square miles on five 

Outer Banks islands. There were several criteria—the 

land had to be donated; a minimum of ten thousand 

acres had to be acquired; and the park had to be 

established within ten years.138

With the passage of the legislation in 1937, the NPS 

mapped out the property desirable for acquisition as 

part of the national seashore. The new park was to 

include over sixty- two thousand acres or one hundred 

square miles along the Outer Banks.139 NPS proposals 

included both Kill Devil Hill National Monument and 

Fort Raleigh as part of the national seashore. In fact, the 

Fort Raleigh site was to be substantially enlarged to 

include the entire north end of Roanoke Island, a total 

of nearly three square miles stretching from the island’s 

northernmost tip to Baum Point near Manteo. With 

possession of the island’s entire northern end, NPS 

planners felt confident that the park would include any 

archeological sites associated with the Raleigh colonies. 

In addition, the Park Service could interpret other 

periods of the island’s history, for example, by using 

Civil War remains at Forts Blanchard, Bartow, and 

Huger.140

Progress to create the national seashore was slow. In 

December 1938, NPS officials met with North Carolina 

political leaders in Raleigh to get the process moving 

again. The meeting included Associate Regional 

Director Herbert Evison, Assistant Regional Director 

Ewell M. Lisle, Mackintosh, Stick, Warren, Etheridge, 

and other officials. During the meeting, it was decided 

to approach the North Carolina General Assembly with 

a bill creating a state commission to oversee land 

acquisition for the national seashore. At the suggestion 

of Warren, the decision was made to avoid potential 

controversy by requesting no state funding at the 

present time beyond that necessary for the 

commission’s operation. Funds for the purchase of land 

137. Powell, 142; Stick, The Outer Banks, 247-251; Torres, 152-156; “North Carolina Takes Stock,” New York Times (June 20, 1928), 24; 

“Four New Game Refuges,” New York Times (March 18, 1929), 47; “New Game Centres in North Carolina: Wright Celebrations in 

Dare County Attracting Attention to Its Advantages,” New York Times (September 15, 1929), 8 (section xii).

138. “Conservation: National Seashore,” Time, September 5, 1938, 9, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Lee, Family Tree, 58; 

Mackintosh, National Parks, 56; Torres, 152-156; Stick, The Outer Banks, 247-251; Sullivan, Laws, 195-197.

139. Note that Cape Hatteras National Seashore as originally proposed included over sixty-two thousand acres on the islands of 

Ocracoke, Hatteras, Bodie, Collington, and Roanoke. As established in 1952, the modern national seashore includes just over 

thirty thousand acres on Ocracoke Island, Hatteras Island, and Bodie Island south of Nags Head.

140. Carl P. Russell, Regional Director, to Kermit Johnson, June 10, 1938, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; “Northern Coast of 

State to be Federal Park Site,” Greensboro Daily News, October 16, 1939, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; “Hoey’s Selects 

Commission to Obtain Land for Park,” Greensboro Daily News, November 14, 1939, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; 

“Conferees Make Seashore Plans,” undated newspaper clipping, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore, North Carolina, Map NS-CH-7000, April 20, 1938, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.
34 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

would have to come from donations. Working in 

cooperation with Warren, State Senator D. Bradford 

Fearing of Manteo introduced a bill in the General 

Assembly in 1939 creating the Cape Hatteras Seashore 

Commission. Once the legislation passed, Governor 

Clyde Hoey appointed the nine- member commission. 

Its membership included Etheridge, former Governor 

John Christopher Blucher Ehringhaus, and Doris Duke 

Cromwell of the state’s prominent tobacco family, the 

Dukes. By the time that the commission was appointed, 

two of the ten years allowed for the national seashore’s 

establishment had already elapsed.141

While the state was preparing to begin land acquisition 

for the national seashore during the late 1930s and early 

1940s, potentially adverse developments on the 

northern end of Roanoke Island began to concern the 

NPS. In 1938, William J. Griffin subdivided property to 

the south of Fort Raleigh into seventy- two lots as the 

Fort Raleigh City residential development. Assistant 

Inspector Donald C. Hazlett expressed to Mackintosh 

the concern that such subdivisions would make land 

acquisition difficult if the state did not begin the process 

soon. Two years later, The Dare County Times

announced planned lumbering operations on tracts at 

the northwestern end of Roanoke Island owned by J.D. 

Hayman and Griffin. Fearful of damage to archeological 

resources and increased erosion, Supervisor of Historic 

Sites Ronald F. Lee encouraged Kill Devil Hill NM 

Custodian Horace A. Dough to seek assistance from 

Warren, Crittenden, and other North Carolina contacts 

to acquire the affected properties. After meeting with 

representatives of the North Carolina Society for the 

Preservation of Antiquities and the North Carolina State 

Department of Conservation and Development, 

Crittenden reported to Lee that no funding sources 

were available for land acquisition. However, he added 

that Etheridge had determined that the lumber 

operations would not do as much damage as originally 

feared. In 1941, the Park Service was concerned about 

the efforts of the private Fessenden Memorial 

Association to erect a memorial to the Fessenden radio 

experiments on Roanoke Island. Dough and Regional 

Supervisor of Historic Sites Appleman met with 

members of the association to discuss the proposed 

memorial and its relationship to the future national 

seashore. Appleman recommended trying to influence 

the development of the memorial and possibly entering 

into a cooperative agreement with the association if it 

would lead to the acquisition of land for the Fort Raleigh 

area of the national seashore. In the end, the 

association’s effort to erect a memorial to Fessenden 

proved unsuccessful. These residential developments, 

lumbering operations, and memorial plans increased 

NPS concern about the state’s national seashore land 

acquisition program.142

In addition to difficulties with land acquisition on the 

northern end of Roanoke Island, interest in the national 

seashore decreased during the mid- 1940s. Besides the 

impact of World War II, attention was diverted away 

from the project because of speculation over the 

potential for oil drilling off the coast. The conflict 

between natural preservation and economic 

development had already sparked controversies with 

park projects in the western United States. The most 

serious episode occurred when President Roosevelt 

proclaimed Wyoming’s Jackson Hole a national 

monument in 1943. That state’s cattle and timber 

industries bitterly opposed the designation as an attack 

on their economic interests. When oil companies 

suggested the possibility of oil deposits off Cape 

Hatteras, North Carolina’s political leaders chose 

petroleum development over recreational tourism and 

natural preservation. In fact, to encourage oil 

exploration, the General Assembly passed a bill in 1945 

postponing national seashore land acquisition for two 

years.143 Writing to Regional Director Thomas J. Allen, 

Assistant Director Hillory A. Tolson expressed his 

doubt “that the Service could have persuaded the State 

141. Meeting Notes, December 13, 1938, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; “Warren Approves Measure Creating Park 

Commission,” Elizabeth City Daily Advance, January 30, 1939, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; “Doris Duke Cromwell 

Named on Park Board,” Raleigh News and Observer, November 14, 1939, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Lindsey C. 

Warren to A.E. Demaray, Associate Director, November 15, 1939, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Arno B. Cammerer, 

Director, to L.C. Warren, November 18, 1939, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

142. Donald C. Hazlett, Assistant Inspector, to C.G. Mackintosh, July 21, 1938, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Dare County 

Times, September 13, 1940, File 000, Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; H.K. Roberts, Acting Associate Regional Director, to Director, 

September 26, 1940, File 000, Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Ronald F. Lee, Supervisor of Historic Sites, to Superintendent, Kill 

Devil Hill National Monument, October 3, 1940, File 000, Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; C.C. Crittenden, Secretary, North Carolina 

Historical Commission, to Ronald F. Lee, Supervisor of Historic Sites, October 16, 1940, File 000, Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; 

Ronald F. Lee, Supervisor of Historic Sites, to C.C. Crittenden, October 18, 1940, File 000, Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Inspector 

A.C. Stratton to Regional Director, June 3, 1941, File 000, Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Roy Edgar Appleman, Regional 

Supervisor of Historic Site, to Acting Regional Director, June 26, 1941, File 000, Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.
National Park Service 35

authorities to take any other course even if we [the NPS] 

had known the extent to which the Assembly was being 

influenced by oil interests.”144 The Dare County Times

predicted that by the end of the two- year delay, 

“interest will have waned sufficiently that the project 

will not revive.”145 Realizing that the ten- year deadline 

for land acquisition under the 1937 federal legislation 

was rapidly approaching, Warren spearheaded a bill 

through Congress in 1946 to extend the deadline for an 

additional five years. Although oil exploration efforts 

failed, the national seashore project lost momentum. 

Definitive action on the national seashore would have to 

wait until the 1950s. The park was finally established and 

funds were authorized for property acquisition in 1952. 

Cape Hatteras had no oil, but it still possessed beautiful 

warm- water beaches that could attract increasing 

numbers of Americans looking for recreational 

opportunities along the coast. North Carolina’s 

commercial leaders thus eventually again favored the 

national seashore idea. In the meantime, Congress did 

establish the Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge in 1938 

on nearly six thousand acres of Hatteras Island within 

the proposed boundary of the national seashore. Still, 

for a long period thereafter, the failure to extend Fort 

Raleigh’s authorized boundary to include the northern 

end of Roanoke Island insured that NPS managers were 

tied to the site as acquired from the state.146

143. Horace A. Dough, Custodian, to Regional Director, April 11, 1945, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Thomas J. Allen, 

Regional Director, to Director, August 5, 1946, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Hillory A. Tolson, Acting Director, to

Regional Director, August 9, 1946, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Hillory A. Tolson, Acting Director, to A.J. Wraight, U.S. 

Coast and Geodetic Survey, December 31, 1946, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; Mackintosh, National Parks, 47-48.

144. Hillory A. Tolson, Acting Director, to Regional Director, April 28, 1945, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

145. “Dare Takes Oil Prospects For National Park,” Dare County Times, March 23, 1945, 1, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

146. Carl P. Russell, Acting Director, to Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, December 5, 1946, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR; 

Hillory A. Tolson, compiler, Laws Relating to the National Park Service, Supplement II, May 1944 to January 1963 (Washington: 

Government Printing Office, 1963), 503-506; Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge web page [http://www.pinn.net/hatteras/

peaisland], April 1, 1998.
36 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History
National Park Service 37

Chapter Four: Administration, 

Planning, and Development

Administrative Arrangements

On July 21, 1941, the National Park Service began 

administering Fort Raleigh National Historic Site. At 

first, an on- site superintendent managed the park and 

reported to Horace A. Dough, the superintendent at Kill 

Devil Hill National Memorial. Robert H. Atkinson 

reported for duty as the first superintendent, but Dough 

took over the superintendent’s duties during World War 

II while Atkinson was serving with the U.S. Coast 

Guard. The placement of Fort Raleigh NHS under the 

management of Kill Devil Hill NM remained in effect 

until August 1951 when the two parks were split. When 

Atkinson left the superintendency in 1953 to take a 

position at Fort McHenry National Monument, Fort 

Raleigh was placed under the management of the new 

Cape Hatteras National Seashore. Allyn F. Hanks 

reported for duty in March 1954 as the first 

superintendent of the combined Cape Hatteras and Fort 

Raleigh parks, which became known as the Cape 

Hatteras Group. The group received a third park in 1962 

when Kill Devil Hill NM, then known as Wright 

Brothers NM, was added. Being grouped with a larger 

park brought Fort Raleigh benefits like greater staff 

specialization and resources, but it brought 

disadvantages like being overlooked at times as 

attention focused on the larger park. This administrative 

arrangement remains in place at the current time.147

During the early years of NPS management at Fort 

Raleigh, the park staff primarily consisted of local 

residents hired as seasonal employees. One staff 

member, Louise M. Meekins, served twenty- four years 

in the positions of historical aide and historian before 

her retirement in 1966. The original park administrative 

office was in a building at the park entrance gate. In 

1943, the office was moved to the museum building to 

allow for greater interaction with the visitors. Ten years 

later, the office was relocated to the John White House 

to gain more space and privacy. With the arrival of 

Superintendent Hanks in 1954, the office was placed on 

Bodie Island as the headquarters for the Cape Hatteras 

Group. With the Mission 66 program, the group 

headquarters was relocated back to Fort Raleigh.148

The Cape Hatteras Group underwent significant 

administrative changes during the late 1990s. Wright 

Brothers NM was authorized its own superintendent in 

1997. During the following year, Cape Lookout National 

Seashore in North Carolina was added to the group, 

which then became known as the Outer Banks Group. 

The following year it was removed again while Wright 

Brothers NM was returned. These administrative 

changes apparently resulted from attempts to address 

147. Monthly Reports, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, August 1942, October 1945, August 1951, September-October 1953, March 

1954, June 1954, August 1962, FORA.

148. Monthly Reports, May 1942, October 1942, January 1943, January 1944, October 1944, June 1945, May 1946, February 1950, July 

1953, March 1954, June 1954, April 1962, September 1966.

FIGURE 18. Louise H. Meekins giving an interpretive talk to visitors 

at Fort Raleigh, October 1966
38 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

problems caused by vacancies in staffing superintendents for parks in the region, possibly by “frequent” 

changes of superintendents, and perhaps by the ill- fated 

system- wide attempt to reorganize the National Park 

Service that occurred in the mid- 1990s. The administrative changes made in the Cape Hatteras Group during 

this period, however, were so tenuous that signs posted 

at the park headquarters were never altered to reflect 

the various reorganizations.149

Fort Raleigh is administered in accordance with various 

required NPS management plans. Several management 

statements, master plans, resource management and 

land protection plans, interpretative prospectuses, and 

scope of collections statements have been prepared over 

the years. The status of most of these plans was listed as 

adequate in the 1992 Statement for Management, as 

revised in 1994. However, the Interpretative Prospectus 

approved in 1963 was outdated by legislation in 1990 that 

affected the park’s purpose, as well as by the Virginia 

Company’s archeological investigations conducted 

between 1991 and 1995 (see Chapter Five). 

A second major plan outdated by the 1990s was the 

park’s Master Plan, approved in 1964. Master plans were 

superseded in the Park Service when new regulations 

were issued that required parks to draft general 

management plans, or GMPs. GMPs are longer range 

and more comprehensive than the older master plans, 

which were mainly used for zoning development. In the 

149. Annual Reports, 1977, 1, 1996/1997, 6, 7, 1998, 1, 10; National Park Service, “Revised Statement for Management, Basic 

Operations Statement, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site,” 1994, FORA. Note, such frequent administrative adjustments can lead

to uncertainty, confusion, and tension among employees, potentially contributing to a higher staff turn-over rate.

FIGURE 19. Map showing the boundary, layout, and facilities of Ft. Raleigh as inherited by the NPS from the state of North Carolina, 1942
National Park Service 39

case of Fort Raleigh, the need for a serious long- range 

management re- appraisal was particularly urgent in 

light of the park’s expansion and change in focus as 

envisioned by the 1990 legislation. A five- year strategic 

plan was formulated at a workshop in May 1997 to 

comply with the Government Performance and Results 

Act (GPRA) in which the themes of the 1990 legislation 

were incorporated. However, this exercise could not 

substitute for the thorough analysis and guidance 

provided by the work of a dedicated planning team. In 

January 1998, Superintendent Robert Reynolds and 

Regional Director Jerry Belson signed a project 

agreement to set a new GMP in motion. “The 1990 Act 

broadened the boundaries and the purposes of the 

park,” the agreement stated, hence “guidance is needed 

to provide management direction to address issues 

associated with a park much different than that 

envisioned in the 1960s.” A few of the issues that the 

GMP hoped to answer included:

• redesign of the visitor center to accommodate the 

additional purposes of the park;

• protect park cultural and natural resources, 

including those on private land within the 

authorized park boundary;

• determine the future role of archeology in 

interpreting traditional and newer park themes 

given the absence of historic structures associated 

with those themes; and

• consider the feasibility of changing Fort Raleigh’s 

name to reflect legislation of 1990. 

In February 1998, the Southeast Regional Office sent a 

staff “scoping” team to do the preliminary groundwork 

for a public GMP stakeholder meeting planned later 

that year. Unfortunately, concurrent and highly 

controversial developments at Cumberland Island 

National Seashore led NPS officials in Washington to 

redirect SERO planning resources, thus postponing the 

Fort Raleigh project. However, the development of a 

GMP for Fort Raleigh remains a priority. Regional office 

efforts to accomplish that task resumed in late 2002.150

Early Planning, Development, 

and Land Acquisition

The developed 16.45- acre “park” that the Park Service 

inherited in 1941 included a short loop road running 

through a wooded area and a series of log- cabin style 

structures. NPS officials envisioned enlarging the site’s 

acreage, removing the historically questioned

reconstructions, implementing a new layout, and 

building new facilities. Prior to the transfer of Fort 

Raleigh to the NPS, plans for the national seashore at 

Cape Hatteras called for the inclusion of 2,070 acres on 

the northern end of Roanoke Island with Fort Raleigh. 

However, when the North Carolina Cape Hatteras 

Seashore Commission began serious discussions about 

acquiring the land in 1943, area residents, fearful of 

being dislocated, responded with strong protests. As a 

result, the regional office scaled back the proposed 

acquisition to five hundred acres, but that proposal 

sparked another round of protests by locals in 1946. The 

regional office once again retreated.

In 1947, Region One prepared the first master plan that 

dealt exclusively with Fort Raleigh; previous plans for 

the site had been incorporated into the plans for the 

national seashore at Cape Hatteras. The most significant 

feature of the plan was a proposal to increase the site’s 

acreage to between 120 and 130 acres, a dramatic 

decrease from the 2,070 acres as originally planned 

under the national seashore development. The land to 

be acquired included small tracts to the southeast of the 

park and across State Highway 345 along with all the 

land to the northwestern tip of the island in the vicinity 

of the abandoned Camp Wright. The proposed 

expansion was made more appealing in 1947 when the 

landing for the ferry to Manns Harbor was relocated 

further to the southwest, meaning that State Highway 

345 could eventually be closed as an intrusion in the 

expanded park. The proposed administration building, 

150. Project Agreement General Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement for Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, 

December 1997, and Park Mission Workshop, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, May 1997, SERO files; Richard Sussman (Chief of 

Park Planning, SERO), interview by Cameron Binkley, September 10, 2001; National Park Service, “Revised Statement for 

Management, Basic Operations Statement, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site,” 1994, FORA.

FIGURE 20. View of front gate to Fort Raleigh, February 1960
40 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

park residence, and utility building were to be located 

along the highway on the current NPS property. Despite 

these plans, however, major expansion and development efforts at Fort Raleigh would have to wait for the 

Mission 66 program. First, funding for expansion under 

the national seashore project failed to materialize even 

by 1952 when Cape Hatteras National Seashore became 

a reality. Fort Raleigh and barrier island areas north of 

Nags Head were omitted from the seashore because of 

lack of funding, existing developments, high property 

values, and local opposition. Second, expected financial 

assistance from RIHA for land acquisition never appeared. (This shortfall, and other development issues 

related to RIHA, are discussed separately in Chapter 

Seven.) In the meantime, development around the park 

continued; for example, in 1952 a visually intrusive 

restaurant and motor court complex was developed 

immediately across State Highway 345 from the park 

entrance.151

While waiting for funding for a major park expansion 

and development program, the NPS maintained and 

utilized the facilities that the agency had inherited. The 

park sustained significant damage from a 1944 hurricane 

that blew down numerous trees and sections of the 

palisade. Under a contract by the park, L.R. Etheridge of 

Manteo secured thirty damaged holly and dogwood 

trees with wire rope and replaced eight hundred juniper 

posts in the stockade. The North Carolina State Highway and Public Works Commission performed periodic 

work to build up the park’s loop road, which improved 

its drainage. The palisade along the park’s boundary was 

expanded into the sound waters in 1945 to keep people 

out of the park after hours. Albert Bell rehabilitated the 

palisade in 1952. In addition, the museum building and 

the “John White House” required frequent roof repairs. 

Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, the park adapted the 

log structures for different uses. The John White House 

was repaired in 1953 for use as a temporary office in an 

effort to move the park’s office out of the museum 

building. Six years later, the John White House was 

relocated from near the park entrance to a site near the 

Waterside Theatre to be used for the sale of souvenirs.152

From the moment that the NPS acquired Fort Raleigh, 

the agency desired, in the words of Regional 

Archeologist Jean Carl (“Pinky”) Harrington, to “get rid 

of the present, impossible log cabins.”153 However, with 

the lack of funds for major new construction, the NPS 

had to dispose of the log buildings gradually. Because of 

their deteriorated condition, the blockhouse and small 

palisade at the fort site were removed in 1946. Five 

buildings were demolished in 1951, leaving only the 

chapel, the museum, the John White House, the pump 

house, and the palisade around the boundary of the site 

with the entrance road blockhouses. The most 

controversial demolition involved the chapel building. 

Over a period of two decades, numerous weddings in 

the chapel had turned the park into a “matrimonial 

151. Summary of Proposed Additions and Boundary Changes as of January 1, 1948, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Boundaries 

File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Planning and Construction Division, Region One, National Park Service, Road and Trail System 

Plan, Part of the Master Plan, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Drawing No. NHS-RAL 2008-A, 1950, Map Cabinet, FORA; 

Monthly Reports, June 1943, November 1943, February 1944, May 1944, March 1947, May 1947, March 1951, May 1952.

FIGURE 21. View of Ft. Raleigh Motor Court through front gate of 

park, February 1960

152. Monthly Reports, March-June 1943, September 1944-March 1945, May 1945, October 1945, June 1946, June 1948, May 1949, 

June 1950, April 1952, February 1953, June-July 1953, June 1954, October 1955, January 1956, June 1959.

153. Jean C. Harrington to David B. Quinn, November 17, 1950, FRNHS Miscellaneous Folders, Vault, FORA.

FIGURE 22. The WPA chapel at Fort Raleigh being demolished, 

April 1952
National Park Service 41

Mecca” for the local population. Even in 1949, at least 

seven weddings were held at the chapel. However, 

regional office staff inspected and closed the chapel in 

1950 because of its deteriorated condition—a condition 

that had already attracted local criticism of the Park 

Service. Despite the community nostalgia surrounding 

the chapel, Atkinson pressed forward with plans to 

demolish the structure because of its historical 

inaccuracy. The Park Service offered RIHA an 

opportunity to restore the chapel, concomitant to 

placing a sign in front attesting to the building’s 

historical inaccuracy, but nothing ever came of the offer 

(probably because the association lacked funding). 

When the chapel was demolished in April 1952, several 

regional newspapers carried a photo. Afterwards, 

Atkinson reported, “contrary to belief,” that only a few 

verbal complaints were received, mostly from the local 

community.154 Nostalgia among locals for the CCC- era 

chapel persisted for years, however. As late as 1962, for 

example, Nags Head Mayor Julian Oneto was making 

unsuccessful attempts to resurrect the structure. Oneto’s 

effort, especially when linked with his simultaneous 

attempt to rescind Fort Raleigh’s entrance fee, suggests 

that sore feelings lingered among some locals. The 

remaining and less contentious log structures were 

finally removed or relocated off park property in the 

mid- 1960s after Mission 66 funding became available.155

During these years, new construction was minimal. For 

example, Fort Raleigh constructed a small storage 

building in 1942 using salvaged materials from nearby 

Camp Wright. The building was used to warehouse 

museum items for the proposed national seashore at 

Cape Hatteras. The park also improved its infrastructure by installing an underground gas storage tank 

in 1952, placing phone lines underground in 1960, and 

acquiring a house trailer around 1961. By early 1960, the 

park had also created a self- guided nature trail. Trail 

crews constructed the trail on the northwestern end of 

the park stretching from the earthwork through a 

wooded area to Roanoke Sound. Originally, park 

officials named this path “the Dogwood Trail,” but 

chose to rename it to honor naturalist Thomas Hariot, 

who participated in the establishment of the first colony 

in 1587. The suggestion was made by Albert Bell, but 

heartily supported by Superintendent Atkinson. 

Interpretive signage and a leaflet were subsequently 

developed for use with the trail.156

Despite plans calling for a significantly enlarged park, 

lack of NPS funding meant that Fort Raleigh was only 

able to expand its boundaries with the acquisition of 

two small tracts of land before the Mission 66 program. 

The first of these tracts was property belonging to the 

estate of James M. Ward and consisting of a onefourth- acre strip of land separating the park from State 

Highway 345. In appealing to Regional Director Thomas 

J. Allen for help in acquiring the tract in 1947, 

Superintendent Atkinson suggested that although the 

asking price for the land was probably too high, the 

purchase was still justified since the tract was critical in 

that it separated the park from the highway. In response 

to this request, the park received the necessary purchase 

funds in an allocation from the National Park Trust 

Fund. The Ward property was purchased and 

transferred to federal ownership by a July 1950 deed.157

The second tract purchased by the NPS for Fort Raleigh 

was the Meakin Tract, a 1.8- acre parcel of land lying 

between State Highway 345 and Roanoke Sound 

adjacent to the southeast boundary of the park. 

Property owner Alfred P. Meakin of Florida offered the 

property to the park in 1950 for three thousand dollars. 

After consulting with officials in the regional office and 

in Washington, Atkinson decided to appeal to the board 

of directors of RIHA for assistance in purchasing the 

property, but the association was still in debt from its 

purchase of land northwest of the park a few years 

earlier. Considering the asking price too high, Atkinson 

negotiated it down to twenty- five hundred dollars. 

When funds from the National Park Trust Fund became 

available, the park moved forward with the purchase 

with a July 1951 deed. The Ward and Meakin tracts 

increased the size of Fort Raleigh a modest 2.05 acres to 

18.5 acres total.158 

154. Monthly Reports, June-August 1946, December 1947, August 1948, June-August 1949, October 1949, January 1950, April 1950, 

August-September 1950, January 1951, April 1952, June 1966; “Fort Raleigh's Admission Fee Likely to Stay,” Coastland Times, 

August 17, 1962.

155. “Fort Raleigh's Admission Fee Likely to Stay,” Coastland Times, August 17, 1962, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA .

156. Monthly Reports, June 1942, October 1952, April 1959, February-July 1960, December 1960, January-February 1961, May 1961, 

July 1962, October-November 1962, June 1963.

157. Robert H. Atkinson to Regional Director, July 21, 1947, Ward Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Thomas J. Allen to Director, 

September 10, 1947, Ward Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Chief Counsel and Chief of Land and Recreational Planning to 

Director, September 15, 1948, Ward Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Land Ownership Record, National Park Service, Deed 

No. 2, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Ward Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA.
42 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Public Pressure for Reconstructions

A major dilemma at archeology- based historical parks is 

the interpretation of site significance in the absence of 

above- ground remains. During the first couple of 

decades of NPS management at Fort Raleigh, this 

dilemma led to public pressure for various 

reconstruction schemes to beautify the park and create 

something to entertain tourists. These suggested 

reconstructions followed the tradition of the New Deal 

log reconstructions in their lack of historical 

appropriateness. The reconstructions recommended by 

North Carolina individuals and organizations ranged 

from additional house reconstructions to a native Indian 

village. However, with the exception of the fort 

reconstruction backed by strong archeological evidence, 

NPS officials were able to hold off the public pressure 

for reconstructions until the Mission 66 development 

program.

Perhaps the most outlandish reconstruction idea at Fort 

Raleigh was for an American Indian village. In the 

summer of 1949, North Carolina Governor W. Kerr 

Scott suggested such a village during a visit to the site. 

RIHA President Mrs. Charles A. Cannon and the board 

of directors discussed the idea during a January 1950 

meeting. Possibly, such a village could be located on the 

association’s land to the northwest of the park. The 

concept grew to include relocating some Cherokees 

Indians from a reservation in western North Carolina to 

staff the village and perform in The Lost Colony. Acting 

Regional Director Elbert Cox expressed his concerns 

about the appropriateness of the village to Superintendent Atkinson, although Cox did not object to the 

use of the Cherokees in the play. In the end, the village 

plan was abandoned by RIHA for two reasons. First, the 

association simply lacked the funds for such a 

development, and attempts to gain funding through the 

state’s Native American education program proved 

unsuccessful. Second, RIHA encountered resistance 

from the Cherokee Agency of the Bureau of Indian 

Affairs, which frowned upon the plan to relocate a few 

native people to Roanoke Island.159

Another reconstruction idea was pushed by Inglis 

Fletcher, a writer of historical fiction concerning North 

Carolina. Fletcher wanted to see the Park Service build a 

replica of Hayes Barton, Sir Walter Raleigh’s house in 

England, as a museum at Fort Raleigh. In fact, she 

appealed directly to the Secretary of the Interior 

Department in 1950. Although Regional Archeologist 

Harrington disapproved of the idea, he did accept 

Fletcher’s invitation to appear before the North 

Carolina Society for the Preservation of Antiquities to 

discuss the probable appearance of the lost colony 

houses. While Fletcher was unable to convince the NPS 

to build a Hayes Barton replica because of the agency’s 

strict guidelines on reconstructions, the society did 

provide RIHA funds to rework the theater stage 

buildings from a log appearance to a wattle and daub 

appearance in 1951.160 Acting Superintendent Wynne T. 

Dough commented “I will not pass on the authenticity 

of the change, but at least it will do away with the 

horizontal log effect that has been a source of 

criticism.”161

158. Fred Meakin to Robert H. Atkinson, April 8, 1950, Meakin Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Robert H. Atkinson to Regional 

Director, July 21, 1950, Meakin Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Newton B. Drury to Regional Director, August 15, 1950, 

Meakin Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Alfred P. Meakin to U.S. Department of the Interior, August 17, 1950, Meakin Tract 

File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Robert H. Atkinson to Regional Director, September 4, 1950, Meakin Tract File, Land Records, 

Vault, FORA; Robert H. Atkinson to Regional Director, November 1, 1950, Meakin Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Fred 

Meakin to Robert H. Atkinson, April 14, 1951, Meakin Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; A.E. Demaray to Secretary, July 11,

1951, Meakin Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Land Ownership Record, National Park Service, Deed No. 3, Fort Raleigh 

National Historic Site, Meakin Tract File, Land Records, Vault, FORA.

159. Monthly Report, January 1950; Acting Regional Director to Superintendent, March 27, 1950, RIHA Files, FORA; Superintendent

to Regional Director, March 29, 1950, RIHA Files, FORA; Acting Regional Director to Director, April 11, 1950, RIHA Files, FORA;

Superintendent to Regional Director, April 19, 1950, RIHA Files, FORA; Powell, 190.

FIGURE 23. The Waterside Theater after the building sets were 

changed in appearance from log to wattle in May 1955
National Park Service 43

Although the reconstructed American Indian village 

concept failed to materialize, RIHA continued to 

consider development ideas for its property to the 

northwest of Fort Raleigh. At Fletcher’s urging, RIHA 

offered the Garden Club of North Carolina (GCNC) 

land for the development of an Elizabethan- era garden 

in January 1951. This development also kept the Hayes 

Barton idea alive a while longer, as discussed in the 

section on the Elizabethan Gardens in Chapter Seven. 

However, the Park Service resisted these and other 

reconstruction efforts at Fort Raleigh until the 

development of the Elizabethan Room during Mission 

66.

The Mission 66 Program

During World War II, funding limitations prevented the 

Park Service from improving the nation’s parks, 

including Fort Raleigh. After the war, economic 

prosperity, increased leisure time, and greater 

automobile use vastly expanded park visitation 

nationwide. In the five- year period between 1946 and 

1951, visitation at Fort Raleigh steadily grew from 105,601 

to 141,265. Outdated park facilities across the nation 

were ill- suited to meet the needs of increasing numbers 

of visitors. Consequently, NPS Director Conrad L. 

Wirth convinced the Eisenhower Administration and 

Congress to support a ten- year building program, 

which was dubbed “Mission 66.” Initiated in the mid1950s at a cost in excess of one billion dollars, Mission 

66 sought to substantially upgrade park facilities 

nationwide in time for the fiftieth anniversary of the 

NPS in 1966. Like other small parks in the national 

system, Fort Raleigh was transformed by Mission 66.162

Planning for the Mission 66 redevelopment of Fort 

Raleigh began during the mid- 1950s as staff from the 

160. Thomas M. Spaulding to Jean C. Harrington, October 4, 1949, FRNHS Miscellaneous Folders, Vault, FORA; Inglis Fletcher to Jean 

C. Harrington, October 31, 1950, FRNHS Miscellaneous Folders, Vault, FORA; Jean C. Harrington to Mrs. Charles A. Cannon, 

November 2, 1950, FRNHS Miscellaneous Folders, Vault, FORA; Jean C. Harrington to David B. Quinn, November 17, 1950, FRNHS 

Miscellaneous Folders, Vault, FORA; Monthly Reports, January 1951, March 1951.

161. Monthly Report, May 1951.

FIGURE 24. Fort Raleigh and planned Mission 66 acquisitions, late 1950s
44 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Mission 66 program and the Eastern Office of Design 

and Construction began revising previous park master 

plans. A 1956 Mission 66 prospectus for Fort Raleigh 

called for the removal of the short loop road, a new 

entrance from U.S. Highway 64/264, a large parking lot 

for The Lost Colony, a modern visitor center, and two 

employee residences. The visitor center and roads were 

to be located outside of the historic core area that 

surrounded the reconstructed earthwork. To 

accommodate the new facilities, the plan proposed a 

land acquisition program targeting the property 

between the Elizabethan Gardens and the northwestern 

tip of the island, a small amount of property to the 

southeast of the park boundary, and property across the 

old State Highway 345 stretching to U.S. Highway 64/

264. The plans allowed Roanoke Island Historical 

Association, to continue producing its play at the park 

and the GCNC to maintain the Elizabethan Gardens as 

a separate adjacent attraction. Although NPS land 

acquisition plans received broad support locally, park 

planners were also aware “that acquisition through 

negotiation [would] be only partially successful.” A 

formal master plan was finalized in 1964. Although the 

planning process was in full swing for Fort Raleigh 

during the late 1950s, no land acquisition or 

development activities took place until the 1960s as the 

Cape Hatteras Group remained focused on Mission 66 

construction projects at the national seashore.163

In January 1961, park planners began in earnest to carry 

out Fort Raleigh’s Mission 66 land acquisition program 

after receiving two appraisal reports for thirty targeted 

properties. Totaling 122.4 acres, the properties included 

approximately twenty residences, the Fort Raleigh City 

subdivision lots, the Fort Raleigh Motor Court, and two 

souvenir shops that catered to tourists visiting the park 

or viewing The Lost Colony. U.S. Representative Herbert 

C. Bonner, Lindsay C. Warren’s successor, sponsored 

Congressional legislation to authorize expansion of the 

site’s boundary. The bill was signed into law on August 

17 by President John F. Kennedy with the firm support of 

his Commerce Secretary, Luther H. Hodges, a former 

governor of North Carolina in whose administration the 

expansion drive began. The act provided for an addition 

of approximately 125 acres to the park’s 18.5 acres, 

although funds for land purchases had to come from 

state or private sources. Fortunately, the North Carolina 

General Assembly voted an appropriation for half of the 

estimated total cost of the land. Then in October, 

Governor Terry Sanford announced that Dr. and Mrs. 

Fred W. Morrison were donating the remaining half. A 

native of North Carolina, Dr. Morrison served as the 

head of a prominent Washington, D.C., law firm 

founded by a former North Carolina governor, O. Max 

Gardner. Mrs. O. Max Gardner was Chairman of RIHA 

during the push to expand Fort Raleigh, which at the 

time had limited visitor accommodations, especially 

restricted parking. The Morrisons were also familiar 

with Fort Raleigh because they maintained a summer 

home at Kill Devil Hills nearby on the Outer Banks. 

Moreover, Mrs. Morrison was active in supporting The 

Lost Colony, helped lead an important fund- raising 

drive needed to drum up local enthusiasm for the play 

after state funds for RIHA were cut in 1959, and assumed 

the chair of RIHA soon after the Morrisons’ donation. 

Politically well- connected and influential, RIHA made 

it possible for the Park Service to obtain the funding 

necessary to complete its land acquisition program at 

Fort Raleigh during the next several years. NPS Director 

Conrad Wirth acknowledged as much when he thanked 

the Morrisons by saying “it is curious how much good 

can come from a large private donation. It can often 

unlock doors otherwise closed to us and set in motion a 

train of events which can do much for an area such as 

Fort Raleigh.”164

Despite the high level of cordiality that arose between 

RIHA supporters and the Park Service during Mission 

66, the planned expansion of Fort Raleigh was not 

pleasing to some Roanoke Island residents – those 

forced to sell out. Some property- owners only 

reluctantly negotiated title to their lands, while the 

island’s historic Dough family refused outright to do so. 

Moreover, because Mission 66 development occurred 

prior to the 1966 National Historic Preservation Act 

(NHPA), NPS planners were not required to consider 

preserving historic properties, including the antebellum 

homestead of Walter Otis Dough. Modern federal land 

managers must carefully scrutinize the impact of their 

undertakings on any such property potentially eligible 

162. Barry Mackintosh, The National Parks: Shaping the System (Washington: National Park Service, 1991), 62; Master Plan 

Development Outline, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina, Interpretation, 1956, Mission 66 Plans, FORA.

163. United State Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mission 66 Prospectus, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, April 

19, 1956, Mission 66 Plans, FORA; United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Mission 66 for Fort Raleigh 

National Historic Site, Mission 66 Plans, FORA; United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Master Plan Brief 

for Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, 1964, FORA; Monthly Reports, August 1955, March 1957, August 1957, November 1960, 

April 1963, September 1963, March 1964.
National Park Service 45

for National Register listing (Section 106). Without 

safeguards to mitigate damage, the Dough homestead 

and most other aged private structures within the new 

park boundary were slated for removal or demolition. 

Of course, these structures may or may not have been 

deemed register eligible. The Park Service also had good 

reasons to acquire land immediately adjacent to the fort 

site, including to reduce commercialization and to 

return the area to a more historic setting. Likewise, 

RIHA backers were strongly in support of the same goal, 

although they were also seeking additional space at the 

park for play activities. The Dough homestead might 

have served that purpose, and the park did make use of 

other structures acquired during the expansion. At any 

rate, the Dough homestead was acquired by 

condemnation and a portion of it was then paved to 

create parking space for The Lost Colony production and 

the park’s visitor center. From the family’s perspective, 

the matter was made worse when the site’s two- story 

home was sold at auction for one dollar. The Doughs 

may have been holding out for a better price, but they 

had also previously donated land to the park. Because 

they refused to sell, their property was condemned. 

Ironically, Horace Dough, a long- time manager of 

Wright Brothers National Historic Site, was an heir to 

the Dough estate. Other Dough family members have 

also worked at Fort Raleigh, a situation that has partially 

mitigated ill feelings created by the condemnation. 

Nevertheless, the process of land acquisition during 

Mission 66, which included both negotiation and 

condemnation, was a sore point long remembered by 

some Dare County residents.165

In 1963, another event occurred that created friction 

with locals. Josie D. Bennett, chairwoman of the GCNC, 

approached the NPS about the possibility of having the 

agency assume ownership and responsibility for the 

Elizabethan Gardens from the garden club. Included in 

her rationale was that the park’s visitor center could be 

placed at the gardens. Acting Regional Director E.M. 

Lisle urged Director Wirth to decline any such offer 

from the GCNC, a subject discussed in more detail in 

Chapter Seven. He pointed out the unfinished state of 

the garden and the high maintenance costs of such a 

property. Lisle’s opinion was that the garden was best 

left as a private operation, which was what happened.166

Once the land program was completed, the actual 

development of the park began. In December 1964, a 

contract was awarded to Kellogg- Cuthrell, Inc., of 

Manteo to construct the buildings. Besides the visitor 

center, two residences, and maintenance building called 

for in the original plans, the contract included the 

headquarters building for the Cape Hatteras Group as 

well as two additional residences and a building for use 

by RIHA in producing The Lost Colony. Stetson and 

164. Clifford J. Harriman, “Appraisal of the Market Value of 30 Parcels of Land on Roanoke Island in Dare County, North Carolina,” 

January 19, 1961, FORA; Roundtree and Associates, Inc., “Appraisal for National Park Service of 30 Tracts of Land Proposed for 

Addition to Fort Raleigh National Historic Site,” January 13, 1961, FORA; Hillory A. Tolson, compiler, Laws Relating to the 

National Park Service, Supplement II, May 1944 to January 1963 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963), 349-351; 

Conrad L. Wirth to Mr. and Mrs. Fred W. Morrison, October 13, 1961, Land Records, Vault, FORA; “Bonner Backs Bill,” Virginian 

Pilot, May 4, 1961, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Fort Raleigh Bill Passes Congress, Ervin Praises It,” Coastland Times, August 

18, 1961, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Ft. Raleigh to Expand,” unknown newspaper, September 30, 1961, Newspaper 

Clipping Files, FORA; “Generous Gift by Morrisons Assures Permanence of a Great Fort Raleigh Shrine,” Coastland Times,

October 6, 1961, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; William S. Powell, Paradise Preserved: A History of the Roanoke Island 

Historical Association (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1965), 191, 199.

FIGURE 25. The Dough family homestead, 1961

165. The house mover who purchased the Dough home after condemnation separated the first floor from the second, and removed 

the structure beyond the new park boundary where the separate halves were used to create two still-existing single-story 

homes. Some other structures were also removed, such as the “Vivian House.” The park allowed RIHA to use some of the 

structures to house it’s personnel, but most were demolished. The Doughs had several complaints, but mainly felt that they did 

not receive fair value for their estate. Rennie E. R. Fuqua and other Dough family members, interview by Cameron Binkley, 

December 5, 2002; Lebame Houston, comments on August 2002 draft, SERO.

166. Josie D. Bennett to Conrad Wirth, September 22, 1963, Land Records, Vault, FORA; Acting Regional Director to Director, 

November 13, 1963, Land Records, Vault, FORA.
46 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Daniels, a local construction firm, was contracted to 

clear the sites for the new facilities. The final inspection 

of the completed facilities was made in December 1965; 

five hundred locals attended an open house at the park 

the following February. With the dedication of the 

facilities approaching, the park insisted on removing yet 

another feature from the pre- NPS development of Fort 

Raleigh, the two brick memorial entrance pillars 

authorized by Congress in 1926 and erected in 1930. As 

noted previously, NHPA guidelines were not yet in place 

to require the NPS to consider the historical merit of 

structures on park property that were not part of the 

main period of significance. At the time Superintendent 

Karl Gilbert told the Coastland Times that the 

“limestone gateposts are not in keeping with present 

surroundings at Fort Raleigh.” Today, these pillars would 

almost certainly be considered contributing features to 

the historical significance of Fort Raleigh because of 

their association with the historic commemoration and 

preservation movement. At the suggestion of RIHA 

Chairwoman Mrs. Fred Morrison, the pillars were 

relocated to a site in downtown Manteo (Waterfront 

Park). After initial reluctance, Fort Raleigh paid for the 

move. Finally, all preparations complete, the park held a 

formal dedication ceremony on July 13, 1966. NPS 

Director George B. Hartzog, Jr., spoke at the dedication 

ceremony of the new “Lindsay C. Warren Visitor 

Center,” which was named in honor of the congressman 

who had done much to establish the park during the 

1930s. After twenty- five years of planning and 

development, the NPS succeeded in dramatically 

changing the layout and facilities of Fort Raleigh from 

what the agency had inherited in 1941.167 

Post-Mission 66 Development, Land 

Acquisition, and Boundary Expansion

No major development activities have occurred at Fort 

Raleigh since the mid- 1960s. The park did complete 

several minor improvements, however. These 

accomplishments included installing a split- rail fence in 

1984, removing asbestos from the visitor center and 

headquarters building in 1988, and adding handicapped 

access ramps to the visitor center and headquarters 

building in 1987 and 1998. In 1995, the North Carolina 

Home Builders Association also donated materials and 

labor to build a house to replace an aging house trailer 

used for Cape Hatteras Group employees. This latter 

project brought a visit by Secretary of the Interior Bruce 

Babbitt. The Cape Hatteras Group’s museum storage 

facilities were also upgraded between 1987 and 1988, 

when a 1,550- square- foot metal curatorial building was 

built in the park’s utility area. A 2,800- square- foot 

museum resources center was constructed in the same 

area between 1996 and 1997. This facility improved the 

storage and treatment of Fort Raleigh holdings in the 

Cape Hatteras Group collections as is further discussed 

in Chapter Nine.168

The most significant event at Fort Raleigh after Mission 

66 was its major boundary expansion during the early 

FIGURE 26. The Lindsay C. Warren Visitor Center, 1966

FIGURE 27. Dedication ceremony of the Lindsay C. Warren Visitor 

Center, July 13, 1966

167. “Fort Raleigh Contract Goes to Manteo Firm,” Coastland Times, December 11, 1964, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Clearing 

Woodland Site for Fort Raleigh Expansion,” Coastland Times, February 5, 1965, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; Monthly 

Reports, December 1965, February and July 1966; “Moving Fort Raleigh Gateposts is Problem,” Coastland Times, May 6, 1966, 

Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Gateposts at Ft. Raleigh to be Moved to Town,” Coastland Times, June 10, 1966, Newspaper 

Clipping Files, FORA; “Lindsay Warren Visitor Center and Related Facilities Dedication, July 13, 1966,” souvenir program, “Fort

Raleigh, 40’s-50’s-60’s . . . ,” Box, Vault, FORA. See Figure 21 in Chapter Four for an image of the memorial pillars.

168. Annual Reports, 1984, 7, 1987, 1, 5, 11, 1988, 1, 8, 1995, 3, 1996/1997, 4, 1998, 6; “NPS Housing Project Attracts Top Officials,” 

Coastland Times, Jan. 12, 1995, A-1, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA.
National Park Service 47

1990s—an expansion sparked in large part by concerns 

about the northern end of Roanoke Island being 

developed for commercial and residential uses. During 

the mid- 1980s, RIHA formulated an unsuccessful plan 

to build a performing arts center on U.S. Highway 64/

264 near the park. To fund the project, RIHA proposed 

to develop a large complex of shops, a hotel, a golf 

course, and a residential development. When the plan 

became public, many local residents strongly opposed 

the development as it would transform the area’s rural 

character, increase congestion, and degrade the 

attractiveness of park resources, potentially even 

harming the popularity of The Lost Colony. Because of 

this opposition, RIHA retreated from its proposal, but 

only after already having acquired several sizeable tracts 

of land near the park. (For more detail on these events 

and the relationship between RIHA and Fort Raleigh, 

see Chapter Eight.)

In 1988, to prevent the development of the island’s 

northern end, locals formed a new organization, the 

Friends of Roanoke Island. The group’s goal was to 

work with RIHA to locate funding to build the 

performing arts center without the larger development. 

The Friends of Roanoke Island began working with 

RIHA and the Trust for Public Land to find a way to 

preserve the northern end, possibly as a state park. By 

1990, two important land tracts not owned by RIHA 

were threatened with development. Located on the 

northeastern side of U.S. Highway 64/264 at the bridge 

across to the mainland, an 18.4- acre tract owned by 

Arcle- Dare, Inc., was proposed for development as an 

upscale residential subdivision. Another upscale 

residential development, this one including a marina, 

was planned for an adjacent 125- acre tract owned by the 

RIAL Corporation. Together, these threats greatly 

increased community interest in the fate of the northern 

end of Roanoke Island.169

In May 1990, RIHA announced a plan to preserve the 

northern part of island through federal ownership. 

Although the association had backed away from its own 

development plans, it still carried a substantial amount 

of debt for the tracts that it had purchased in the mid1980s. RIHA’s new plan called for two separate agencies 

of the federal government to acquire most of the 

northern end of Roanoke Island. The acquired land was 

to be added to Fort Raleigh and used for a U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service visitor center serving the Alligator 

River, Pea Island, and Currituck National Wildlife 

Refuges. In August 1990, U.S. Representative Walter B. 

Jones, Sr., of North Carolina introduced the required 

legislation with the approval of Cape Hatteras Group 

Superintendent Thomas L. Hartman and other 

Department of Interior officials. The bill targeted the 

purchase of 243 acres, 208 acres to expand Fort Raleigh 

and thirty- five acres for the Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Although the acreage included most of RIHA’s land 

holdings, the association planned to retain around 

twenty acres as the site for a future performing arts 

center.170

A significant additional provision in the bill expanded 

the interpretive focus of the park beyond the Raleigh 

colonies to include “the history of the Native 

Americans, European Americans, and African 

Americans who lived on Roanoke Island, North 

Carolina.”171 This history included the Fessenden radio 

experiments, a major freedmen’s village, and Civil War 

forts and camps. The location of the Civil War- era sites, 

however, could not be confirmed since no archeological 

work had been done in areas outside park boundaries. 

Indeed, park expansion supporters hoped that “the 

acquisition of this property would enhance additional 

historical interest” in Roanoke Island by allowing the 

park to include areas once used for these other activities. 

A staunch promoter of the park’s expansion, Maria 

Odom, Chairman of the Garden Club of North 

Carolina, mobilized backers by noting “what other place 

in America can boast . . . the English – the Indians – and 

the Blacks,” which she said “could be turned into a 

major history lesson” that “would bring more tourists 

169. “Group Organizes for Try at Land Buy for Park,” Coastland Times, October 23, 1988, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Group 

Wants Park on Roanoke Island’s North End,” Virginian Pilot, October 23, 1988, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Roanoke Island 

Preservation Sought,” Coastland Times, October 30, 1988, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Roanoke Island Group Gets Advice 

on Direction,” Coastland Times, November 6, 1988, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “The North End,” Coastland Times,

November 11, 1988, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “RIHA Development Plans Sticky,” Coastland Times, November 17, 1988, 

Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Commissioners Sidestep Roanoke Island Proposal,” Coastland Times, December 5, 1988, 

Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Dare Group Opposes Roanoke Island Plan,” News and Observer, December 5, 1988, Newspaper 

Clipping Files, FORA; “Dare Resolution Opposes Adding to Federal Lands,” Virginian Pilot, October 2, 1990, Newspaper Clipping 

Files, FORA.

170. “Roanoke Island Land Touted for Park,” Virginian Pilot, May 17, 1990, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Bill Seeks 208-Acre Fort 

Raleigh Expansion,” Virginian Pilot, August 9, 1990, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; Public Law 101-603, 101st Congress, 104 

STAT. 3065, 1990s Land Acquisition Files, FORA.

171. Public Law 101-603, 101st Congress, 104 STAT. 3065, 1990s Land Acquisition Files, FORA.
48 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

which would translate into beaucoup [sic] taxes.” She 

especially emphasized the possibilities of attracting 

African- American interest in the park. Notably, 

historian Patricia Click secured funding to write Time 

Full of Trial: The Roanoke Island Freedmen's Colony, 

1862- 1867, the only published scholarship on the topic, 

after the park expansion legislation passed. However, 

because so little knowledge existed about the 

significance of the resources on the lands to be acquired, 

the George H. W. Bush Administration argued for delay 

in action on the proposed bill. These concerns were 

reflected in the bill itself, which instructed the Park 

Service to undertake historical and archeological 

research to address this lack of knowledge. Clearly, 

enthusiasm for expanding the park was not driven by a 

rising ground swell of recent scholarship indicating the 

historical significance of non- Raleigh- related themes. 

Instead, local boosters brewed various arguments into a 

rationale to help justify the park’s expansion. The true 

aim for doing so, as Odom further stated, was to protect 

the ability of the Elizabethan Gardens, The Lost Colony

sponsored by RIHA, and Fort Raleigh to continue 

“promoting the history of the first English colony in 

America,” which would be poorly done if “our revered 

historic sites [are] forever crammed in between the 

concrete and metal masses of urban development.”172

While the park expansion bill was under congressional 

consideration, the Dare County Board of 

Commissioners voted for a resolution opposing the 

legislation. The commissioners argued that the federal 

government already owned seventy- five percent of 

Dare County’s land between all of the national parks 

and the national wildlife refuges and that having more 

tax- exempt property would harm the county 

financially. The board’s primary issue, however, was the 

county’s simmering adversarial relationship with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service. The business- dominated 

board resented opposition by Fish and Wildlife Service 

managers to the town’s plans to construct mile- long 

stone jetties intended to improve commercial navigation 

near Oregon Inlet. The board wanted to use property in 

the Pea Island refuge and the Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore to stabilize the inlet. It also wanted to 

construct a landfill on county land adjacent to the refuge 

and to open a softball field on refuge land near the 

community of Stumpy Point. Understandably, the Fish 

and Wildlife Service opposed these plans that 

threatened to harm the refuge. Under these 

circumstances, however, the prospect that the Fish and 

Wildlife Service would increase its land holdings in Dare 

County prompted the commissioners to launch a 

protest campaign. A Dare County Board of 

Commissioners’ press release even claimed that “the 

citizens of Dare County have been held hostage by the 

Department of the Interior for too long.” When 

Governor James G. Martin withheld his support for the 

bill based on the county’s stance, Jones was forced to 

remove the Fish and Wildlife Service provision. Fortunately, this change resulted in the rescission of the board’s 

resolution against the expansion plan. North Carolina 

political forces were then aligned in favor of the bill.173

In the meantime, RIHA Chairman Thomas White 

noticed a discrepancy in the proposed legislation and 

the objectives of various supporters. The bill authorized 

the acquisition of 243 acres. However, White discovered 

that confusing maps had prompted an undercount of 

the acreage contained in three tracts. The total acreage 

required to meet the needs of all the parties actually 

totaled roughly 365 acres. White requested the bill’s 

congressional sponsors to amend the legislation. 

Representative Jones offered such an amendment and 

the Interior Committee subsequently adopted it. The 

bill’s final numbers were later reduced slightly to 

correspond with removal of the Fish and Wildlife 

provision. After passing the House, the bill passed the 

Senate with the support of North Carolina Senators 

Terry Sanford and Jesse Helms. On November 16, 1990, 

Jones’s bill became Public Law 101- 603 with the signature of President George H. W. Bush. It authorized Fort 

Raleigh to expand by 335 acres, added the park’s new 

interpretative purpose, and mandated new research on 

the park’s themes. Looking back on the process, Superintendent Hartman credited the legislative success to 

strong local support and the area’s historical signifi172. “Bill Seeks 208-Acre Fort Raleigh Expansion,” Virginian Pilot, August 9, 1990, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; Lindsay C. 

Warren, Jr. to Senator Terry Sanford, October 5, 1990, Vault, FORA; Mrs. W. Marion Odom, Garden Club of North Carolina, to 

Lindsay C. Warren, Jr., Warren, Kerr, Walston & Hollowell (law firm), October 2, 1990, Vault, FORA; Public Law 101-603, 101st 

Congress, 104 STAT. 3065, 1990s Land Acquisition Files, FORA. Note, Click had written a brief paper of the Freedmen's colony 

during the summer of 1981, but put further effort aside for ten years. See Patricia C. Click, Time Full of Trial: The Roanoke Island 

Freedmen's Colony, 1862-1867 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 2001), xiii-xv.

173. “Commissioners Vote 3-2 Against Wildlife Facility,” Virginian Pilot, September 5, 1990, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Dare 

Resolution Opposes Adding to Federal Lands,” Virginian Pilot, October 2, 1990, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; Mikey Daniels, 

Chairman, Dare County Board of Commissioners, press release (no date), John T. Taylor, Refuge Manager, to Jesse Ambrose, Dare 

County Board of Commissioners, June 15, 1990, and James G. Martin, Governor, to Bruce Vento, Chairman, House Subcommittee 

on National Parks and Public Lands, October 2, 1990, all in FORA Expansion Bill File, Vault, FORA.
National Park Service 49

cance. Certainly, the driving force behind the bill was 

the desire of locals to preserve the northern end of 

Roanoke Island from development while getting RIHA 

out of debt and back on track as the producer of The 

Lost Colony.

174

Passage of the expansion legislation was a major step, 

but park advocates still had to convince Congress to 

provide the necessary funds. Representative Jones could 

not submit an appropriations request until the spring of 

1991. To make matters worse, the RIAL Corporation 

began bulldozing trees on its property the same month 

that the expansion bill became law. The corporation 

stopped its work for several weeks to negotiate the sale 

of the property to the Trust for Public Land. When these 

negotiations proved unsuccessful and county officials 

granted the necessary permits in January 1991, the RIAL 

Corporation proceeded with its development plans. In 

an attempt to quell the controversy, the corporation 

sponsored a small archeological survey of five acres in 

the planned subdivision. Not surprisingly, no significant 

data was recovered. Jones submitted a request for a tenmillion- dollar federal appropriation in May. After the 

House’s appropriations subcommittee recommended 

2.5 million dollars for Fort Raleigh land acquisition, the 

Senate’s appropriations committee pushed the figure up 

to 5.6 million dollars, the value of the RIAL tract 

according to an NPS appraisal. Approved in November, 

the final appropriation figure was the Senate’s 5.6 

million, a significant increase above the House figure, 

but still much less than that estimated for the purchase 

of all the authorized lands. In the meantime, the RIAL 

Corporation had paved the streets in its subdivision, 

which it named Heritage Point. Urgency now created a 

dilemma. The Park Service had to choose either to 

purchase lands owned by the financially strapped 

RIHA, which had originated the park expansion plan to 

avert development (at least in part), or to buy lands 

owned by the RIAL Corporation, which was fostering 

development (or so many perceived) to increase the 

speculative value of its property.175

In late 1991, Fort Raleigh staff drafted an amendment to 

the park’s land protection plan outlining priorities in 

terms of which tracts should be acquired first. The 

document accorded the highest priority to the RIAL and 

Arcle- Dare tracts while RIHA’s property was to be 

acquired later. Park staff may have leaned in this 

direction because the Fish and Wildlife Service had 

recently purchased several acres from RIHA. The main 

reason for their decision, however, was simply that the 

RIAL and Arcle- Dare properties faced immediate 

development danger. Moreover, in Congressional 

deliberations over the bill, Representatives Jones and 

Sidney Yates specifically referred to the RIAL and 

Arcle- Dare tracts as the key tracts. They urged the 

National Park Service to use whatever funding amount 

that was finally appropriated in 1992 under the 

expansion act to protect those properties to the fullest 

extent possible. Park officials made a logical decision to 

pursue these tracts first, but their choice was detached 

from the feelings of local park expansion backers, 

especially those sympathetic to RIHA. When the park’s 

plan was released for public review, therefore, 

Superintendent Hartman received more than forty 

letters from important local civic, public, and private 

groups, as well as individuals, opposed to the land 

protection plan’s acquisition priorities. Numerous 

critics expressed the view of RIHA that the first land to 

be purchased should be along the U.S. Highway 64/264 

route, most of which was owned by RIHA. In arguing 

against the purchase of the RIAL tract, RIHA and others 

pointed out the high (and speculative) asking price of 

the property, the fact that the RIAL Corporation was 

Austrian- owned (implying that money spent on that 

land would not be reinvested in the local community), 

and the damage done to the site already by development 

activities. Given RIHA’s continuing debt burden and 

poor financial condition, supporters of the association 

were particularly upset that the NPS would postpone 

purchasing RIHA tracts. RIHA warned the park that it 

would have to start selling its land holdings by August 

1992 without NPS action. Taking this under 

174. Thomas White, RIHA, to Floyd J. Lupton, et al, August 13, 1990, FORA Expansion Bill file, FORA Vault; ‘Bush signs law to expand 

Fort Raleigh Historic Site,’ Virginian Pilot, November 17, 1990, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; Superintendent to Regional 

Director, January 29, 1992, 1990s Land Acquisition Records, FORA; Public Law 101-603, 101st Congress, 104STAT.3065, 1990s Land 

Acquisition Files, FORA.

175. “Bush Signs Law to Expand Fort Raleigh Historic Site,” Virginian Pilot, November 17, 1990, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; 

“Roanoke Island Clearing is Halted Through Friday,” Virginian Pilot, November 14, 1990, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; 

“Bulldozers Return to Roanoke Island Tract,” News and Observer, January 9, 1991, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Roanoke 

Developer to Finance Artifact Study,” News and Observer, January 26, 1991, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “U.S. Lacks Money 

to Buy RIAL Tract,” Coastland Times, March 28, 1991, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Land Bought for Visitors Center,” 

Virginian Pilot, April 18, 1991, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Panel Approves $2.5 Million for Fort Raleigh,” Virginian Pilot, 

June 11, 1991, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Fort Raleigh Expansion Approved,” Virginian Pilot, July 26, 1991, Newspaper 

Clipping Files, FORA; “Interior Bill Becomes Law, Area Helped,” Coastland Times, Nov. 17, 1991, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA.
50 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

consideration, Superintendent Hartman responded to 

the local criticism by altering the park’s acquisition 

priorities to focus first on the land along the highway. As 

a result, effective opposition to the development of 

Heritage Point was ended and the RIAL Corporation 

proceeded unencumbered. After Hartman began to 

initiate land acquisitions according to the revised land 

protection plan, Congressman Martin Lancaster 

questioned this apparent contradiction of the intent of 

Congress. Hartman carefully explained the situation, 

FIGURE 28. Land status map showing tract numbers, property acquisition dates, deed type, and previous ownership, 1995
National Park Service 51

public sentiments, and also that his modifications were 

supported by Senator Sanford and Representative Jones, 

the bill’s original sponsors, which ended the inquiry.176

By 1994, the Park Service had acquired approximately 

210 of the 335 acres authorized by the expansion bill, 

including the Arcle- Dare tract and even some 

undeveloped portions of the RIAL tract. On the former 

Arcle- Dare property, the park was able to demolish the 

unsightly and deteriorated Fort Raleigh Motor Court, 

which it replaced with a boat landing and interpretive 

waysides.177 Since then, limited funding has prevented 

Fort Raleigh from making improvements or conducting 

archeological investigations on its new property, but as 

the century turned, much of the historically significant 

land associated with the north end of Roanoke Island 

had obtained federally protected status. Despite the fact 

that some land was lost to development, it was an 

important accomplishment to protect the scenic 

approach to Fort Raleigh. Moreover, Superintendent 

Hartman’s decision to modify the park’s land protection 

plan to pursue RIHA’s property first, as opposed to 

overly priced land already under development, boosted 

the association’s financial stability and therefore the 

long- range health of The Lost Colony production. Of 

course, it also protected the park’s good relationship 

with the local community. Overall, this outcome was 

probably the best that could be obtained.

176. “NPS Airs Draft Plan for North End,” Coastland Times, December 10, 1991, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Park Service Alters 

Plans for Roanoke Island,” Virginian Pilot, February 13, 1992, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Park Service Moves to Buy 132 

Acres on Roanoke Island,” Virginian Pilot, May 22, 1992, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; Draft Land Protection Plan 

Amendment, September 1991, 8, 1990s Land Acquisition Files, FORA; Sybil D. Basnight to Tom Hartman, January 6, 1992, 1990s 

Land Acquisition Files, FORA; Uli and Eileen Bennewitz to Superintendent, January 3, 1992, 1990s Land Acquisition Files, FORA; 

Robert L. Knowles to Thomas L. Hartman, January 6, 1992, 1990s Land Acquisition Files, FORA; Superintendent to Regional 

Director, January 29, 1992, 1990s Land Acquisition Files, FORA; “Conference Report on HR 2686, Department of the Interior and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1992,” Congressional Record, Vol. 137, No. 154, H8499; Thomas L. Hartman, to Martin 

Lancaster, February 23, 1993, FORA Expansion Bill File, Vault, FORA. 

177. “Away With the Old,” Coastland Times, June 21, 1994, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA.
52 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History
National Park Service 53

Chapter Five: Archeology and the 

Search for the Lost Colony

The Development of Historical Archeology

It is difficult to overstate the significance of archeology 

at Fort Raleigh, a park that is essentially a preserved 

archeological site. With no above- ground sixteenthcentury resources, the National Park Service relies on 

archeological data to support its interpretive programs 

and planning efforts. Archeological work at Fort Raleigh 

falls within the field of historical archeology, “the study 

of the material remains of past societies that also left 

behind some other form of historical evidence.”178

Between the 1930s and 1970s, historical archeology 

developed as a distinct discipline separate from the 

more traditional archeology, which focuses on cultures 

that left no written records. In its earliest years, 

traditional archeologists tended to view historical 

archeology as a subfield of history. However, a number 

of pioneering investigations at Fort Raleigh and other 

historic sites earned historical archeologists greater 

respect within the broader profession of archeology.179

With the rise of the U.S. historic preservation movement 

during the late nineteenth century, a number of historic 

sites were excavated, including Fort Raleigh in 1895 by 

Talcott Williams. Williams visited the site briefly in 1887, 

but conducted a more thorough survey in 1895. Talcott 

reviewed the existing literature and then sank a test 

trench that confirmed European occupation of the site 

at the time the fort was erected. He then recommended 

that protective measures be instituted (a fence) to 

protect the site. Regardless of efforts by Talcott and 

other archeologists, however, it was the work programs 

of the New Deal that gave historical archeology its first 

major boost. During the 1930s, CCC and WPA projects 

made possible investigations at various sites associated 

with European colonization, including St. Augustine in 

Florida, St. Mary’s Cittie in Maryland, the Santo 

Domingo Mission in Georgia, and most important, 

Jamestown in Virginia.180

Jamestown represented the first major historical 

archeology effort by the NPS and served as a precursor 

to the investigations at Fort Raleigh. The Jamestown site 

was originally preserved by the Association for the 

Preservation of Virginia Antiquities (APVA), which 

received a donation of twenty- two acres on Jamestown 

Island in 1893. In addition to building a seawall to 

control erosion at the archeologically sensitive area, the 

APVA sponsored several investigations of building sites 

between 1897 and 1903. However, major archeological 

efforts did not occur until the NPS acquired the 

remainder of Jamestown Island in 1934 as part of 

Colonial National Historical Park. Using CCC labor, the 

NPS began an excavation project that ran from 1934 to 

1941. Following the philosophy of the APVA and 

architect Henry C. Forman, the Jamestown project was 

overseen by architects with archeologists working under 

them. The archeologists dug until reaching foundation 

remains, at which time the architects took over. Project 

managers believed that this arrangement worked best 

since they were dealing with structural remains. 

However, the arrangement led to turf battles and 

professional rivalries between the architects and 

archeologists. After a site visit in July 1936, Smithsonian 

archeologist Frank Setzler suggested the project be 

headed by a young architect- turned- archeologist that 

he had met – Jean C. Harrington.181

178. Samuel D. Smith, A Bibliographic History of Historical Archeology in Tennessee (Nashville: Tennessee Department of 

Environment and Conservation, 1996), 2.

179. Edwin A. Lyon, A New Deal for Southeastern Archaeology (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1996), 187-190.

180. Ibid.; Ivor Noel Hume, “‘Pinky’ Harrington: A Remembrance,” Roanoke Colonies Research Newsletter, Volume 6, Number 1, 

November 1998, 2; Jean Carl Harrington, Search for the Cittie of Ralegh: Archeological Excavations at Fort Raleigh National 

Historic Site, North Carolina (Washington: National Park Service, 1962), 3; William S. Powell, Paradise Preserved: A History of the 

Roanoke Island Historical Association (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1965), 30, 33-35, 79.
54 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

With a bachelor’s degree in architecture from the 

University of Michigan, Harrington, affectionately 

known as “Pinky,” found himself unemployed during 

the Great Depression, so he did graduate work in 

archeology at the University of Chicago. At Setzler’s 

suggestion, the Park Service hired Harrington to oversee 

the Jamestown excavation. Between 1937 and 1941, he 

established a pioneering historical archeology effort at 

the park, refining both the techniques and artifactual 

knowledge of the budding new field. As a result of his 

work at Jamestown, Harrington emerged as a leading 

historical archeologist, going on to become regional 

archeologist for Region One and to oversee excavations 

at Fort Raleigh and Fort Necessity in Pennsylvania.182

Harrington was a major player in the development of the 

historical archeology profession. Noted historical 

archeologist Ivor Noel Hume of Colonial Williamsburg 

has cited Harrington as “the father of historical 

archaeology in America.”183 The field organized 

nationally with the first meeting of the Society for 

Historical Archeology in 1967. The discipline received 

significant publicity during the 1960s with the 

excavations at Colonial Williamsburg in Virginia by 

Hume, who would lead investigations at Fort Raleigh in 

the 1990s. The formalization of the historical archeology 

field culminated with passage of landmark federal 

legislation, including the 1966 National Historic 

Preservation Act and the 1979 Archeological Resources 

Protection Act. These federal laws required 

archeological investigation and clearance of property 

prior to disturbance by federally sponsored projects or 

projects on federal lands. From the 1970s onward, such 

compliance work led to a boom for historical 

archeology. NPS excavations by Harrington at 

Jamestown and Fort Raleigh were pivotal in the 

development of the new discipline.184

Excavating and Reconstructing 

the Fort, 1947-1950

After the Second World War, the Park Service made 

archeological investigations a top priority for Fort 

Raleigh, especially given the need for confirmation of 

the site’s significance, interpretive information, and 

clearance for planned construction. As noted above, 

Talcott Williams of the University of Pennsylvania 

conducted the only previous archeological work at the 

site in 1887 and 1895. The fort site had suffered a number 

of ground disturbances over the years, including digging 

by artifact hunters, the placement of the Virginia Dare 

Monument, a ditch for a 1921 movie, and the 1930s 

blockhouse and stockade structures. Between 1945 and 

1946, Harrington began to formulate an archeological 

survey program for the park, which was funded the 

following year.185

During 1947 and 1948, Harrington excavated the fort 

site. The primary result of his work was the discovery of 

most of the outline of a fortification and information on 

its construction as an earthwork. Once Harrington 

181. Lyon, 1, 175, 187-190; Harrington, Search, iv; Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities web page [http://

www.apva.org/history/index.html], July 22, 1999; Colonial National Historical Park web page [http://www.nps.gov/colo/Jthanout/

JtArch.html], July 22, 1999.

182. Lyon, 187-190; Hume, “‘Pinky,’” 1-2.

183. Hume, Ivor Noel, Roanoke Island: America’s First Science Center, booklet reprinted from Colonial Williamsburg: The Journal of 

the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation (Spring 1994), 1.

FIGURE 29. Jean C. Harrington working on excavations at Fort 

Raleigh, October 1965

184. Smith, 2, 4; Hume, “‘Pinky,’” 2.

185. Monthly Reports, July 1945, September 1945, April 1946, December 1946; Project Construction Program Proposal Form, 

Archeological Investigations, November 6, 1946, “Special Events 1960s, FRNHS Miscellaneous Folders” Box, Vault, FORA; Maurice 

Williams, Archeological Data Section for the Preliminary Cultural Resource Management Plan, Southeast Archeological Center, 

March 1982, 20, FORA; Jean Carl Harrington, Search for the Cittie of Ralegh: Archeological Excavations at Fort Raleigh National 

Historic Site, North Carolina (Washington: National Park Service, 1962), 1-4, 14; Jean Carl Harrington, Archeology and the 

Enigma of Fort Raleigh (Raleigh: America’s Four Hundredth Anniversary Committee and North Carolina Department of Cultural 

Resources, 1984), 1-9.
National Park Service 55

confirmed the location of the fortification, which he 

assumed to be the primary one for the settlement, he 

began digging exploratory trenches out from the 

earthwork in an attempt to locate evidence of the 

settlement. His assumption was that the colonists would 

have built their dwellings near the main fort. In addition 

to the trenches within the 16.45 acres of the park, he 

opened an exploratory trench on adjacent private 

property to the southeast. In 1953, Harrington dug 

similar trenches on property to the northwest before its 

development as the Elizabethan Garden. In all of these 

efforts, he failed to find any evidence of a sixteenthcentury settlement. Nevertheless, confirmation of the 

earthwork’s presence and the assumption that it was the 

settlement’s main fortification brought the park’s 

archeological efforts significant publicity.186

Following up on these archeological investigations, park 

officials were anxious to incorporate the new 

information on the earthwork into their interpretation 

of the site. Both Harrington and the park wanted to see 

the fort reconstructed. Thus, in 1949, Harrington began 

researching sixteenth- century fortifications and 

traveled to Great Britain to meet with David Quinn, a 

noted expert on the Raleigh colonies. Harrington found 

that the configuration of the Fort Raleigh earthwork 

resembled the designs of Lane’s two forts in Puerto Rico 

and the typical plans of sixteenth- century English 

fortifications for colonial settlements. This information 

strengthened Harrington’s belief that he had found 

Lane’s main 1585 fort near the settlement site. In the 

186. Monthly Reports, March 1947, May 1947, June-July 1953; Jean C. Harrington to Director, August 16, 1948, “Special Events 1960s, 

FRNHS Miscellaneous Folders” Box, Vault, FORA; Harrington, Search, 5-27; Harrington, Archeology, 1-21.

FIGURE 30. Map of 1947 and 1950 Harrington exploratory trenches 

FIGURE 31. Earthwork outlined by granite, ca. 1949
56 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

meantime, the park marked the outline of the earthwork 

with granite slabs for interpretive purposes.187

In the 1940s, NPS general restoration policies and 

procedures, as set forth by Director Newton Drury, 

were strict and intended to limit the use of 

reconstructions. To gain approval for a reconstruction 

project, a park had to submit documentation as to the 

proposed reconstruction’s accuracy. Harrington argued 

that the earthwork at Fort Raleigh should be 

reconstructed for interpretive reasons, especially given 

that the strong archeological evidence would allow for a 

highly accurate reconstruction. Supervisor of Historic 

Sites Ronald F. Lee in Washington agreed with 

Harrington and approved the reconstruction of the fort. 

Harrington oversaw the full reconstruction of the 

earthwork at Fort Raleigh during 1950.188

Mission 66 Archeological Work, 

1963-1965

In 1963, Harrington and a team of NPS archeologists 

surveyed the sites of proposed Mission 66 construction 

at Fort Raleigh for evidence of sixteenth- century 

resources, but no significant data was uncovered. With 

the construction of the park facilities approaching, 

Harrington excavated an area between the 

reconstructed fort and the site of the planned Mission 

66 visitor center to investigate a sunken area with 

structural stains. This area was first noticed in 1959 

during the installation of underground utilities at the 

park. Harrington’s 1965 dig at the site revealed signs of a 

seven- by- eight- foot log structure with horizontal logs 

extending beyond the structure on two sides. In 

addition, he found brick and tile fragments that he 

believed dated from the sixteenth century. Not knowing 

what to make of the apparent structural feature, he 

called it an “outwork” and hypothesized that it was part 

of the palisade that the second colony had erected at the 

settlement site.189

187. Jean C. Harrington to Robert, July 23, 1949, “Special Events 1960s, FRNHS Miscellaneous Folders” Box, Vault, FORA; Harrington, 

Search, 24-28; Monthly Report, April 1949.

188. Newton B. Drury, “The Restoration Policies and Procedures of the National Park Service,” circa 1940, “Special Events 1960s, 

FRNHS Miscellaneous Folders” Box, Vault, FORA; Jean C. Harrington to Robert, July 23, 1949, “Special Events 1960s, FRNHS 

Miscellaneous Folders” Box, Vault, FORA; Monthly Reports, February 1950, August 1950; Harrington, Search, 27-33; Harrington, 

Archeology, 1-21.

FIGURE 32. Fort Raleigh earthwork being reconstructed following Harrington’s archeological investigations, September 1950

FIGURE 33. Reconstructing earthworks at Fort Raleigh, 1950
National Park Service 57

Investigating Harrington’s “Outwork,” 

1981-1985

In the 1980s, archeology once again became an issue at 

Fort Raleigh. The impetus was the celebration of the 

four- hundredth anniversaries of the two Raleigh 

colonies. The state of North Carolina formed a special 

anniversary committee to plan for these events. Among 

other activities, the committee urged an aggressive 

archeological campaign to uncover new information in 

time for the celebration. It suggested that the state 

government focus on finding American Indian villages 

associated with the colonies and that the NPS focus on 

finding the settlement site. In response to this 

suggestion, Phillip W. Evans of the park’s staff prepared 

a position paper in 1981 justifying additional archeological research at Fort Raleigh. Evans’s argument 

revolved around Harrington’s “outwork” discovery. 

Influenced by Hume’s recent excavation of a fort at 

Wolstenholme Towne in Virginia, Evans hypothesized 

that the “outwork” was in fact a corner of the large 

palisade fortification at the settlement site. With funding 

and the renewed hope of discovering the settlement site, 

the NPS Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC) began 

a series of investigations into the “outwork” feature.190

From 1982 to 1984, SEAC archeologists used remote 

sensing, aerial photography, and soil resistivity 

techniques to identify anomalies at the park that might 

have indicated archeological remains from a 

fortification. Looking at two areas specifically, SEAC 

staff recommended selective excavation. Judging from 

the triangular shape of one anomaly in the parking lot 

loop at the visitor center, the archeologists suggested 

that the reconstructed earthwork could in fact be only 

one bastion of a much larger fortification. In 1985, a team 

of SEAC archeologists led by John Walker excavated the 

area with the triangular- shaped anomaly. Hoping to 

find a second bastion of a fortification, they instead 

found remains of a 1921 dirt road. With the failure to 

confirm the theory of a large fortification at the site, the 

park was once again unable to figure out where the 

settlement might be located. Furthermore, it had 

become obvious that the reconstructed earthwork alone 

could not have been Lane’s main fort at the settlement 

since it was too small to hold all of the settlers.191

New Discoveries by the Virginia 

Company Foundation, 1991-1993

Ivor Hume of Colonial Williamsburg initiated the next 

phase of archeological work at Fort Raleigh. At a 1989 

meeting with park officials and SEAC archeologists, 

Hume discussed his proposal for further excavations 

under the sponsorship of the Virginia Company 

Foundation. A memorandum of agreement was signed 

the following year, allowing the foundation to sponsor 

Hume’s project at the park. Because of the park’s tight 

fiscal situation, the foundation was responsible for 

189. Monthly Reports, August-September 1963, March 1965; “Fort Raleigh Diggings Will Begin Aug. 20,” Coastland Times,

Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “‘Raleigh’ Sought by Diggers,” Virginian Pilot, August 21, 1963, Newspaper Clipping Files, 

FORA; “Search for ‘Cittie of Raleigh’ Resumed With Fort Expansion,” Coastland Times, February 5, 1965, Newspaper Clipping 

Files, FORA; “Elizabethan Brick and Tile Found at Fort,” Coastland Times, May 14, 1965, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; 

Harrington, Archeology, 23-33. 

FIGURE 34. Jean C. Harrington and his wife Virginia S. Harrington 

excavating at Ft. Raleigh, Oct. 1965

190. I. Noel Hume to Phillip W. Evans, July 29, 1981, “Evans, Phillip W.” file, Vertical Files, FORA; Phillip W. Evans, “Justification for 

Further Archeological Exploration for the Settlement Site at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site,” July 1981, “Evans, Phillip W.” 

file, Vertical Files, FORA.

191. William P. Athens, Soil Resistivity Investigations at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, Southeast Archeological Center, 1984, 

Cultural Resources Stewardship Library, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia; “Archeologists Hope ‘Triangle’ is Lost 

Colony Fort,” Outer Banks Current, June 20, 1985, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Archeologists Report ‘Finds’ are Abandoned 

1921 Dirt Road,” Coastland Times, July 4, 1985, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA.
58 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

raising the necessary funds, but the NPS would provide 

supplies and labor through SEAC. For the park, the 

agreement offered further archeological work by a 

respected historical archeologist with the hope of 

answering some of the major questions regarding the 

relationship of Raleigh’s colonies with the NPS site. The 

foundation was able to acquire grants and donations 

from the National Geographic Society and other 

sources. The project involved three periods of 

excavations at Fort Raleigh from 1991 to 1993. The 

recovered artifacts were sent to Dr. Robert Ehrenreich 

and Dr. Peter Glumac of Albany, New York, for 

treatment and research.192

The Virginia Company Foundation excavations led to 

what Hume described as “the most exciting in a lifetime 

of discoveries.”193 The artifacts recovered suggested that 

the site of the earthwork was a type of research 

laboratory of the 1585 to 1586 period, probably related to 

naturalist Thomas Hariot and scientist Joachim Ganz. 

Remains from unburned charcoal and items like 

crucibles suggested that the laboratory was the scene of

metallurgical activities, especially given that the 

colonists were hoping to find precious metals. Further, 

the location of the artifacts under the fort remains 

indicated to Hume that the laboratory predated the 

earthwork. Consequently, Hume concluded that the 

reconstructed fort could not have been Lane’s 

earthwork of 1585. Hume then confronted the obvious 

question—who built the fort and when? One possibility 

was that the earthwork had been constructed to guard 

the entrance to the Albemarle and Pamlico Sounds 

sometime during the French and Indian War or another 

eighteenth- century military conflict. Hume explained 

the lack of military artifacts by the fact that the fort was 

never needed and thus was never occupied. Another 

possibility was that the earthwork had been constructed 

by either the group of fifteen men left behind by 

Grenville in 1585 or by the second colony as a small 

fortification away from the settlement and the main fort. 

In Hume’s opinion, the sixteenth- century settlement 

site was probably lost to the waters of Roanoke 

Sound.194

192. Annual Reports, 1989, 3, 1990, 3, 1991, 3, 1992, 4, 1993, 6; Hume, Roanoke Island, 1-15.

193. Hume, Roanoke Island, 1.

 MAJOR ARCHEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS AT FORT RALEIGH

INVESTIGATION DATE COMMENTS

Talcott W illiams

University of Pennsylvania

1887, 1895 Earliest archeological work

Jean C. Harrington

University of Chicago/NPS

1947- 1950,

1953

First archeological survey; Discovery,

confirmation, reconstruction of earthwork,

originally believed to be “Lane’s Fort”

Jean C. Harrington

National Park Service

1963- 1965 Pre- M ission- 66 archeological surveys; Discovery

of sixteenth century “outwork” of unknown

purpose

NPS Southeast Archeological

Center (SEAC) Investigations

1981- 1985 Renewed but inconclusive search for settlement

site; Investigations of “outwork” determine it not

the main fortification

Ivor Noel Hume

Virginia Company

Foundation/SEAC

1991- 1993 Discovery of 1585- 1586 “science center”;

Speculation that settlement site is beneath sound;

Further doubt shed on theory of earthwork as

“Lane’s Fort”

Nicholas M . Luccketti

Virginia Company

Foundation/SEAC

1994- 1995 Further confirmation of Hume hypothesis that

settlement site is beneath sound; Findings also

suggest earthwork built to protect science center

or Grenville’s fifteen men

SEAC 2000-

Ongoing

Archeological Overview and Assessment

FIGURE 35. Major archeological investigations at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site

194. Ibid., 1-15; Laura P. McCarty, “New Findings at the Lost Colony,” National Parks, Volume 67, Number 7-8, July/August 1993, 36-

40, “McCarty, Laura P.” file, Vertical Files, FORA.
National Park Service 59

Hume’s theory on the Fort Raleigh earthwork echoed 

back to the skepticism of Historian Charles W. Porter 

and other NPS officials about the fort’s authenticity 

when the site was being considered for a park during the 

1930s. A further archeological investigation sponsored 

by the Virginia Company Foundation followed up on 

Hume’s work in 1994 and 1995. The project was 

managed by archeologist Nicholas M. Luccketti. 

Although investigations were cut short for lack of funds, 

Luccketti conducted two major excavations that 

discovered additional sixteenth- century artifacts. 

However, the relative dearth of artifacts uncovered 

failed to indicate the presence of any actual settlement. 

His conclusions reinforced previous findings by Hume 

that the main fort and settlement were not located in the 

vicinity of the earthwork, and were probably now 

beneath the sound. Luccketti did differ with Hume in 

emphasizing that the most likely explanation for the 

earthwork was that it had been built to protect the 

“science center” discovered by Hume or established as a 

garrison for the fifteen men left by Grenville to protect 

the colony Lane abandoned.195

The Virginia Company Foundation’s investigations 

complicated the interpretive mission of the Park Service 

at Fort Raleigh. On the one hand, Hume’s and 

Luccketti’s findings confirmed that the park was the site 

of sixteenth- century activities associated with the first 

Raleigh colony. On the other hand, the findings 

suggested that the settlement site of the second colony 

was not located on NPS property. Further, the findings 

indicated that the reconstructed fort interpreted by the 

park for over forty years as Lane’s main fort was in fact 

another sixteenth- century fortification or even an 

eighteenth- century earthwork.

Impact of Park Expansion Legislation, 1990

A final archeological issue requires comment. 

Additional focus given to interpretation at Fort Raleigh 

as a result of the 1990 park expansion legislation 

(detailed in Chapter Four) also generated new 

archeological issues. As the Fort Raleigh National 

Historic Site Historic Resource Study points out, no 

standing structures associated with the new 

interpretative themes pertaining to Civil War- era 

military camps, the Freedmen’s colony, or Reginald 

Fessenden’s radio experiments have survived within the 

confines of the park. Nevertheless, documentary 

evidence indicates that a number of archeological 

resources may be present within the historic site on the 

north end of Roanoke Island. Although not on park 

land, some ruins associated the boilers that powered 

Fessenden’s radio transmitters can be seen off the 

northwestern shore of Roanoke Island. However, the 

exact location of Fessenden’s equipment, including the 

transmitting/receiving towers on the northwest side of 

the island, has not been found. Possible locations 

include new park property near Weir Point, on the 

northwestern shore of Roanoke Island. This site should 

not be ruled out until more research is conducted.196

In addition, archeologists have uncovered some Civil 

War- related resources on the north end of Roanoke 

Island. Portions of a former Confederate fortification 

are located near the intersection of US 64 and NC 345 

(which is not within the site’s boundary). However, the 

precise location of Fort Huger, Fort Blanchard, Fort 

Bartow, Camp Raleigh, Camp Foster, and other features 

associated with the Civil War and the Battle of Roanoke 

Island remain unknown. These fortifications were 

constructed on the northern end of the island as part of 

its defenses, and could be located on Park Service land. 

Archeological investigations, conducted in 1989 and 1991 

on privately owned land within the park’s new 

boundary, have uncovered a large number of Civil Warera artifacts despite the disruption caused by relic 

hunters. These finds could indicate the site of the 

Confederate compound or the Union camp (or even the 

Freedmen’s colony).197 Nonetheless, more archeological 

research is needed to determine whether any of these 

Civil War sites are indeed archeological resources 

located within the park’s boundary.

The site of the Freedmen’s colony on the northern end 

of Roanoke Island is also a matter of speculation. 

Although the community consisted of schools, 

storehouses, hospitals, and approximately 590 

dwellings, and contained over three thousand 

inhabitants, no standing structures remain. However, 

archeological investigations have uncovered some finds 

that could be related to the colony.198 Further arch195. Nicholas M. Luccketti, “Fort Raleigh Archeological Project: 1994-1995 Survey Report,” a report of the Virginia Company 

Foundation and the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, December 1996, 25-27.

196. See Christine Trebellas and William Chapman, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Historic Resource Study (Atlanta: National Park 

Service, 1999), 54-57.

197. For the results of these archeological investigations, see Lautzenheiser and Hargrove, as well as Thomas Hargrove, “An 

Archeological Survey of the Manteo Wastewater Treatment Plant, Dare County, North Carolina,” Prepared for F. T. Green & 

Associates (Raleigh, NC: Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, September 1989).
60 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

eological research is needed to determine whether or 

not the site of the Freedmen’s colony lies within the 

park’s boundary, especially within the newly acquired 

land.

Despite all the archeological efforts at Fort Raleigh over 

half a century, the big questions about the Raleigh 

colonies remain unanswered. Moreover, the dearth of 

physical artifacts available for interpreting the park’s 

more recently adopted interpretative themes suggests 

that Fort Raleigh may have an interest in promoting offsite investigations when such rare opportunities arise. 

Regardless, most of the land added to the park during 

the 1990s has yet to be surveyed. For these reasons, 

archeology promises to remain a key park management 

issue.

198. Lautzenheiser and Hargrove; Hargrove.
National Park Service 61

Chapter Six: Interpretation 

and Visitor Services

Visitor Use and Interpretation 

Prior to Mission 66

The interpretation of historic and archeological sites to 

the general public is a major function of the National 

Park Service. Fort Raleigh is an especially fruitful 

historic site to interpret and has seen continuous growth 

in visitor use. During World War II, however, the park’s 

interpretative role was limited. The rationing of gas and 

tires kept park visitation rates low. Many who did visit 

the park were servicemen stationed at local bases, such 

as the naval air station located between the park and 

Manteo. Military personnel used the park for family 

visits, swimming (banned in 1948 because of pollution 

concerns), sightseeing, and other activities. 

In the post- war period, the park experienced a 

dramatic increase in visitors, rising from 8,950 in 1945 to 

105,601 in 1946. The end of wartime rationing and other 

impediments to travel sparked this increase. In addition, 

large crowds appeared on summer evenings after The 

Lost Colony resumed production. Other users of the 

park included school groups from eastern North 

Carolina, who came on field trips and Easter egg hunts, 

and African- Americans. Since federal parks in the late 

1940s and 1950s had no segregationist policies, as did 

many state parks, black visitors, including school 

groups, were able to tour Fort Raleigh. Apparently, this 

policy did not extend to the Roanoke Island Historical 

Association, which sponsored a special day for blacks to 

attend The Lost Colony in 1946. That event attracted one 

thousand people, including Dr. C.C. Spaulding, the 

president of the black- owned North Carolina Mutual 

Life Insurance Company. Attendees at later plays 

complained about RIHA’s practice of segregating blacks 

at its performances.199

After WW II, several special events were also held at 

Fort Raleigh. The most important of these was the 

annual ceremony for Virginia Dare’s August 18 birthday. 

Sponsored by RIHA, the event usually attracted several 

hundred to a thousand people, including governors, 

senators, and congressmen. Originally held in the 

chapel before its demolition, ceremonies were later held 

at the Waterside Theatre. The christenings of Virginia 

Dare and Manteo at the second Roanoke colony 

provided the inspiration for religious functions at the 

site. Both the Manteo Baptist Church and the Roanoke 

Island Baptist Church held baptisms on Roanoke 

Sound. Other religious events included numerous 

weddings in the chapel, Easter sunrise services in the 

theater during the late 1940s and 1950s, and regular 

Sunday services during the mid- 1950s.200

The park’s primary service to visitors was 

interpretation. During the 1940s, the main source of 

information for sightseers was the museum established 

by RIHA and NCHC in the 1930s. In fact, RIHA 

continued to help operate the museum by providing 

summer staff, although the NPS took a lead role in 

developing and maintaining the exhibits. Local teacher 

Louise Meekins served as the association’s curator 

throughout the decade. With the resumption of the play 

in 1946, RIHA’s staff was expanded with the addition of 

four guides at the museum to provide interpretation and 

sell souvenirs during the summer play season. 

199. Monthly Reports, August 1941, April-May 1942, July 1942, September 1942, January-April 1943, August-October 1943, AprilJune 1944, August 1944, January 1945, March 1945, July 1945, March-May 1946, July 1946, August 1947, July 1948, April 1950, 

April 1951, September 1952, July 1954; National Park Service, “Master Plan Development Outline, Fort Raleigh National Historic 

Site, North Carolina, Interpretation,” 1956, 4, FORA.

200. Monthly Reports, August 1942, May-June 1943, August 1943, October 1943, May 1944, July-October 1944, August 1945, 

November 1945, May 1947, August 1948, April 1949, June 1949, August 1949, April 1950, August 1950, September 1951, August 

1952, July 1954, April 1956, April 1957, August 1957, December 1957, August 1962.
62 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Superintendent Atkinson trained the guides to ensure a 

uniform program. In subsequent years, the number of 

RIHA guides was reduced to only one or two. During 

the years prior to Mission 66, the Park Service improved 

the museum exhibits with new features, such as 

American Indian archeological artifacts, reproductions 

of John White’s drawings, and new display cases. The 

Park Service produced interpretive literature for visitors, 

including a 1943 booklet by Charles W. Porter and a 1945 

two- fold leaflet. In 1947, an NPS sales area was 

established in the museum. 201

Early visitors to Fort Raleigh had to pay an entrance fee, 

which was first established on November 9, 1941. This 

fee was collected at the museum, although many visitors 

did not go to the museum to pay the fee. For this reason, 

the park eventually moved fee collection to the entrance 

gate. The fee charged was ten cents plus one cent federal 

tax. By comparison, the fee charged by RIHA for The 

Lost Colony production was $1.00. The first time the 

park fee was waived was on August 10, 1942, in 

conjunction with the commemoration of Virginia Dare’s 

birthday and, as Coordinating Superintendent Horace 

Dough wrote, so that “all who were interested might 

attend.” The fee was still being lifted on this date into the 

1960s. These fees were contentious among locals, 

especially RIHA supporters who felt the collection 

injurious to attendance at The Lost Colony production. 

Frequent park users also objected. In January 1945, 

hoping to assuage such discontent, NPS officials 

temporarily suspended the park’s admission fee, but reinstituted it in 1949. Beginning in 1955, FORA suspended 

fee collection during the winter months (initially, 

October to April) and this policy continued for many 

years. The change in policy was probably a result of 

cost- efficiency calculations, but local pressure may have 

played a role. Apparently, many were still unhappy 

about this issue in 1962, when Julian Oneto, Mayor of 

Nags Head, attempted to eliminate the park’s entrance 

fee while campaigning to build an air strip at the Wright 

Brothers National Memorial and also to resurrect the 

old “log cabin”- style chapel at Fort Raleigh. At the time 

the entrance fee was 25 cents, but was still only imposed 

during the summer months (Memorial Day to Labor 

Day). Oneto was not successful in rescinding the fee, 

which continued for several years thereafter.202

201. Monthly Reports, July-August 1941, November 1941, March 1942, May-June 1942, September 1942, January 1943, June 1943, 

June 1944, March 1945, June 1946, January 1947, May-June 1947, February 1948, June-July 1948, December 1950, January 1951, 

November-December 1952, April 1953, June 1953, July 1954, October 1954, June 1955, October 1955, October 1956, May 1959, 

April-May 1961, May 1964.

FIGURE 36. Visitors to Fort Raleigh at the WPA museum building, 

July 1957

FIGURE 37. Visitors at the reconstructed fort, ca. 1955

FIGURE 38. Children reading an interpretive sign on the Thomas 

Hariot Trail, June 1963
National Park Service 63

The park used both the museum and the fort site for 

interpretation. A trailside exhibit was placed at the fort 

in 1949, and a replacement trailside exhibit was erected 

in 1951 following the reconstruction of the earthwork. 

Once a visitor left the museum, however, the park relied 

on the trailside exhibit to interpret the fort site. The 

availability of tour guides for the fort area depended on 

the park staffing level at the time. Beginning in 1947, the 

park was usually able to provide a guided tour for 

groups, especially with advance notice. In 1960, the park 

completed a nature trail in a wooded area along 

Roanoke Sound. During the same year, Louise Meekins 

extended the park’s outreach efforts by developing a 

slide show for use at schools and other off- site 

locations.203

Mission 66 brought significant improvements to the 

interpretive facilities at Fort Raleigh. In June 1966, the 

completed Lindsay Warren visitor center opened to the 

public. The new Mission 66 facility allowed the park to 

upgrade and expand its exhibits, including an 

audiovisual program, a sales area operated by RIHA 

(until 2000), and the Elizabethan Room.204

The Elizabethan Room

The idea of a sixteenth- century room interior at Fort 

Raleigh grew out of a similar proposal for Fort Caroline 

National Memorial, a park in Florida that interpreted 

the site of a 1560s French settlement. Congressman 

Charles E. Bennett of Florida contacted NPS Director 

Conrad Wirth in April 1961 with an offer of donated 

funds to purchase paneling from an English room of the 

Elizabethan period. The room that Bennett had in mind 

was part of a collection belonging to the William 

Randolph Hearst estate and stored in a New York City 

warehouse. Originally built as part of Herondon Hall in 

Kent County, England, the room paneling had been 

purchased by Hearst in 1926. However, Chief Herbert E. 

Kahler and other staff members of the NPS Division of 

History and Archeology questioned the appropriateness 

of an English period room at a French settlement site 

and recommended that the Hearst room be acquired for 

the proposed Mission 66 visitor center at Fort Raleigh 

instead. With both Bennett and Wirth in agreement, the 

idea was suggested to Region One Director Elbert Cox 

and Cape Hatteras Superintendent Robert F. Gibbs.205

Cox, Gibbs, and other regional and park officials were 

generally receptive to incorporating the Elizabethan 

Room into the proposed Fort Raleigh visitor center. 

They viewed the room as a tool to interpret life in 

England at the time of the Roanoke Island colonies. 

Perhaps of greater importance, NPS officials viewed the 

Elizabethan Room as a relatively harmless way to satisfy 

local calls for more drastic reconstruction efforts. In 

1962, Assistant Director Jackson E. Price made explicit 

why the Park Service supported the Elizabethan Room. 

“It would do much,” he stated, 

to quiet the clamor for the construction of an 

Elizabethan type dwelling at Fort Raleigh 

desired by the Elizabethan Gardens group. The 

energy and enthusiasm of this group could then 

be channeled into the much more useful project 

of acquiring Elizabethan portraits and 

furnishings for the Elizabethan museum room.

NPS officials saw the inclusion of locals involved with 

RIHA and the Elizabethan Gardens in the development 

of the Elizabethan Room exhibit as a way to ease the 

pressure for an intrusive and historically questionable 

reconstruction effort.206

Despite this apparent enthusiasm for the project, other 

NPS officials expressed doubt about the 

appropriateness of the Elizabethan Room. The exhibit 

202. Monthly Reports, August 1942, November 1941; and “Collection of Entrance Fee at Fort Raleigh Suspended,” The Daily 

Advance, January 11, 1945, RIHA Files, FORA; “Suspending Fee,” The News and Observer (Raleigh), October 15, 1955; “Fort 

Raleigh's Admission Fee Likely to Stay,” Coastland Times, August 17, 1962; “Free Fort Admission, $1 Lost Colony Rate for Dare 

Citizens Sun.,” Coastland Times, August 16, 1962; all in Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA .

203. Monthly Reports, November 1945, January 1946, June 1947, May 1948, June 1949, May 1951, November 1951, July 1952, July 

1956, July 1958, September 1960; Interpretive Activities Reports, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, 1955, 1956, 1957, 1958, 1959, 

1960, 1961, FORA.

204. Monthly Report, June 1966.

205. Jackson E. Price, Assistant Director, to Regional Director, Region Five, November 7, 1961; E.M. Lisle, Acting Regional Director, to 

Dennis C. Kurjack, Executive Secretary, Eastern National Park and Monument Association, February 20, 1962; Herbert E. Kahler, 

Chief, Division of History and Archeology, to Regional Director, Region One, March 29, 1962; Superintendent, Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore, to Henry Belk, Editor, Goldsboro News-Argus, December 1, 1964; all in Elizabethan Room Files, Library, FORA.

206. E.M. Lisle, Acting Regional Director, Region One, to Dennis C. Kurjack, Executive Secretary, Eastern Park and Monument 

Association, February 29, 1962; Chief, Division of History and Archeology, to Regional Director, SERO, March 29, 1962; and 

Jackson E. Price, Assistant Director, to Regional Director, Region One, May 18, 1962; all in Elizabethan Room Files, Library, FORA.
64 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

was to represent a room and furnishings of the upper 

class sponsors of the project and probably did not 

represent the type of dwellings familiar to most of the 

Roanoke colonists themselves. The exhibit could 

mislead visitors into thinking that all of Raleigh’s 

colonists had lived in upper class dwellings in England 

before coming to Roanoke Island or that the colonists 

lived in such dwellings once in the New World. Assistant 

Director Price dismissed such concerns and argued that 

visitors would be able to understand that the room 

represented the dwellings in England of certain upper 

class colonists like Grenville, White, and Lane. In 

reaction to this complaint, however, the interpretive 

prospectus for Fort Raleigh, prepared by the regional 

office, eventually included an additional proposal to 

build and furnish a room designed to represent the type 

of cottage that the colonists might have actually 

inhabited. The park, however, has never pursued this 

proposal.207

Once the decision to provide the Hearst room to Fort 

Raleigh was made, Chief Ralph H. Lewis of the NPS 

Branch of Museums requested that Museum Curator 

Albert McClure of the Roosevelt- Vanderbilt NHS in 

New York travel to the Hearst warehouse to inspect the 

room in question. Besides discovering that sections of 

the room paneling were missing, McClure found out 

that the complete paneling from another larger room 

was present in the collection. Region One Archeologist 

and then Chief of Interpretation Jean C. Harrington 

recommended acquiring both rooms—the smaller one 

for use as a library at Fort Caroline and the larger one 

for use as an exhibit at the proposed Fort Raleigh visitor 

center. The Elizabethan Room was thus incorporated 

into Fort Raleigh’s interpretive prospectus, which was 

then being prepared.208

Before the Elizabethan Room paneling could be 

purchased, the appropriateness of the exhibit came up 

once again. Since Bennett’s gift was not enough to cover 

the purchase and shipping costs for both rooms, the 

NPS requested a donation from the Eastern National 

Park and Monument Association (ENPMA). At a March 

1962 meeting, ENPMA’s board of directors turned down 

this request largely because Region One Historian James 

W. Holland held that the room would mislead visitors. 

Concerned by Holland’s statement at the ENPMA 

meeting, the NPS Chief of History and Archeology in 

Washington, Herbert E. Kahler, subsequently contacted 

the Region One office. Acting Regional Director Ewell 

M. Lisle assured Kahler that Holland was speaking only 

as a director of the association and that both the 

regional office and the park remained committed to 

including the Elizabethan Room in the proposed visitor 

center. Using funding for 1963 construction projects, the 

Park Service purchased the Hearst paneling and placed 

it in storage at Colonial National Historical Park to await 

completion of Fort Raleigh’s Mission 66 visitor 

center.209

207. E.M. Lisle, Acting Regional Director, to Dennis C. Kurjack, Executive Secretary, Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 

February 29, 1962; Herbert E. Kahler, Chief, Division of History and Archeology, to Regional Director, Region One, March 29, 

1962; E.M. Lisle, Acting Regional Director, to Director, April 19, 1962; Jackson E. Price, Assistant Director, to Regional Director, 

Region One, May 18, 1962; all in Elizabethan Room Files, Library, FORA.

FIGURE 39. Sixteenth-century fireplace and paneling in the 

Elizabethan Room, February 1967

208. Ralph H. Lewis, Chief, Branch of Museums, to Regional Director, Region Five, May 17, 1961; Albert McClure, Museum Curator, to 

Superintendent, Roosevelt-Vanderbilt, June 2, 1961; J.C. Harrington, Regional Chief of Interpretation, to Superintendent, Cape 

Hatteras, August 29, 1961; E.M. Lisle, Acting Regional Director, to Director, December 21, 1961; Ralph H. Lewis, Chief, Branch of 

Museums, to Regional Director, Region One, December 29, 1961; E.M. Lisle, Acting Regional Director, to Dennis C. Kurjack, 

Executive Secretary, Eastern National Park and Monument Association, February 20, 1962; all in Elizabethan Room Files, Library,

FORA.

209. Dennis C. Kurjack, Executive Secretary, to E.M. Lisle, Acting Regional Director, March 3, 1962; Herbert E. Kahler, Chief, Division of 

History and Archeology, to Regional Director, Region One, March 29, 1962; E.M. Lisle, Acting Regional Director, to Director, April 

19, 1962; W.E. O’Neil, Jr., Acting Assistant Regional Director, to Superintendent, Cape Hatteras, July 11, 1962; Elbert Cox, 

Regional Director, to Dennis C. Kurjack, Executive Secretary, Eastern National Park and Monument Association, August 15, 1962; 

all in Elizabethan Room Files, Library, FORA.
National Park Service 65

When Fort Raleigh’s Interpretative Prospectus was 

completed in July 1963, the Elizabethan Room was 

designated to “function as a foyer for the audio- visual 

room and as a rest area.” The plan hoped to instill mood 

and historical orientation through music and portraits 

but also stated that “[it] will not be furnished, except for 

appropriately designed lighting fixtures, chairs, 

benches, and suitable floor covering.”210 David O. Smith, 

project architect for the Fort Raleigh Mission 66 visitor 

center, alerted the Eastern Office of Design and 

Construction that the Elizabethan Room could be 

installed in June 1965. This office sent Restoration 

Specialist Harry Martin to assist in the room’s assembly. 

The room was completed by February 1966.211

Furnishing the Elizabethan Room?

Those who created the Elizabethan Room engaged in a 

fairly straightforward project. Those who sought to 

furnish that room, however, embarked upon a saga, 

whose final chapter is still not written. NPS 

bureaucracy, contractor incompetence, insurmountable 

differences between the park and others regarding 

interpretative use of the room, concerns about the type 

and security of displayed items, and a lack of funds have 

all hampered the project’s ultimate completion.

Soon after the Elizabethan Room was installed at Fort 

Raleigh, the park asked Harpers Ferry Center (an NPS 

support office) to develop a furnishings plan. 

Completed in 1966 by the Chief of Museum Operations, 

this plan provided for simple period reproductions that 

visitors could use. Unfortunately, officials soon came to 

believe that it was as expensive and more difficult (at 

that time) to furnish accurate Tudor reproductions as 

genuine antiques. Since planners had designated the 

room as a visitor use area, the prospect that it would 

contain authentic pieces instead of reproductions led to 

some debate. The park argued that it could not accept 

responsibility for the security of valuable antiques in a 

room that had to be used as a foyer to the auditorium. 

Nevertheless, Harpers Ferry could not find affordable 

reproductions. Instead, it recommended acquisition of 

an incomplete list of genuine items available within the 

budget of $6,000. Harpers Ferry officials argued that the 

items were massive enough not to require special 

security precautions. In 1968, therefore, Fort Raleigh 

purchased four Tudor antiques: a trestle table, settle, 

cupboard, and one candlestick. These few items 

constituted the only approved period furnishings the 

Elizabethan Room has received. While they helped 

mitigate the room’s stark bareness, the antiques also fell 

short of conveying to visitors the sense of stepping into a 

sixteenth- century English gentleman’s room.212

In 1977, Fort Raleigh officials renewed efforts to 

complete furnishing of the Elizabethan Room. Harpers 

Ferry promised support and funding, although it asked 

the park if it still wanted only reproductions. According 

to a memo by Bebe Midgette (who later married Chief 

Interpreter Robert Woody), the park’s Cultural 

Resource Management Specialist, John Demer, who was 

Chief of Historic Furnishings at Harpers Ferry, visited 

Fort Raleigh and promised to commit $15,000 to update 

the furnishings plan and complete the project. 

According to Midgette, however, Harpers Ferry failed to 

follow through on Demer’s promise. Pressured by the 

park for the updated plan, Demer merely reissued the 

furnishings plan approved in 1966. As Midgette said, 

“after three and one- half years, the Park was right back 

where it had started.”213

Taking the issue into its own hands, park officials 

applied for an ENPMA donation. On November 17, 1981, 

ENPMA authorized an $18,000 grant, although the 

funds were not available for an unlimited time. The park 

immediately contacted Southeast Regional Curator Dale 

Durham for advice on updating and implementing the 

plan. At first Durham sided with Demer, who had 

informed him that the 1966 furnishings plan was 

adequate. Durham concluded that “we are wasting a 

tremendous amount of money to redo what has already 

been done.” However, Chief Interpreter Bob Woody 

replied to Durham in a detailed memo about Demer’s 

unfulfilled promises and “that significant advances have 

been made . . . in the area of historic furnishings since 

1966.” Woody undoubtedly hoped that less expensive 

210. Bebe Midgette, “Analysis of Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Elizabethan Room,” undated memo in Elizabethan Room Files,

Library, FORA.

211. Robert E. Smith, Chief Architect, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, to Superintendent, Cape Hatteras, June 3, 1965; and 

Donald S. Nutt, Supervisory Architect, to Chief Architect, Eastern Office of Design and Construction, February 17, 1966; both in 

Elizabethan Room Files, Library, FORA.

212. Superintendent, CAHA, to Regional Director, SERO, February 20, 1968; Chief, Branch of Museum Operations, to Regional 

Director, SERO, February 29, 1968; Chief, Division of Reference Services, Harpers Ferry Center, to Superintendent, CAHA, March 

30, 1977; all in Elizabethan Room Files, Library, FORA.

213. Chief, Division of Reference Services, Harpers Ferry Center, to Superintendent, CAHA, March 30, 1977; Bebe Midgette, “Analysis 

of Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Elizabethan Room,” undated; both in Elizabethan Room Files, Library, FORA. 
66 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

reproductions could now be obtained allowing visitor 

use of the room. According to Midgette, Durham then 

authorized the park to draft a new furnishings plan. To 

do this, Fort Raleigh officials contracted Audrey Michie, 

a consultant for the Museum of Early Southern 

Decorative Arts in Winston- Salem, North Carolina, to 

complete that plan, which was submitted to the 

Southeast Regional Office for review in April 1982. 

Regional Curator Durham forwarded the proposed plan 

to Sarah Olson, Chief, Branch of Historic Furnishings, 

Harpers Ferry, and F. Ross Holland (no relation to 

James Holland), Associate Director, Cultural Resources 

Management, Washington. Holland held the highest 

cultural resources management position in the Park 

Service.214

Unfortunately, the Michie proposal was not well 

documented, which left it open to the criticism of 

conjecture (a violation of NPS- 28 guidelines for 

refurnishing historic structures). The Michie proposal 

also poorly interpreted some basic facts that, 

unfortunately, reflected the position outlined by Fort 

Raleigh. Park officials understood the Elizabethan 

Room as an effort to illustrate “the sacrifices of the 

colonial undertaking by depicting a way of life that was 

given up for the purpose of creating a ‘new England.’” 

The room, however, represented the lifestyle of the 

upper- middle- class backers of the Raleigh ventures, 

and not the lifestyle of most of the colonists. The 

furnishings proposal was immediately criticized by 

Associate Director Holland, who seized upon the plan’s 

faults to argue not only against it but to question the 

very idea of furnishing the room. After asserting that the 

plan “smacks of elitism,” Holland suggested instead 

using the Elizabethan room’s panels as a backdrop for a 

didactic display that “allows the viewer to then imagine 

and compare the life- style in the old country and the 

colony.”215

An outside reviewer, commissioned by Harpers Ferry, 

later added that any “heroic sacrifice” of the elite 

members of the Raleigh expedition was mitigated by 

“their positions as courtiers and their hope to make a 

quick killing before returning to England.” This reviewer 

also criticized the attempt to furnish the Elizabethan 

Room with fragments of different rooms instead of as a 

single bed chamber or great hall, for example. On the 

other hand, he did see value in furnishing the room, but 

complicated the issue by touting its virtue as a great hall 

to be completed with an upholstered great chair placed 

upon a dais under a canopy of state. Fort Raleigh 

officials were discouraged by these comments. Given 

Associate Director Holland’s comments regarding 

elitism, Fort Raleigh resource manager Phil Evans 

remarked that “what we don’t need is a ‘canopy’ over a 

‘chair of state.’” The park was willing to consider 

furnishing the room as a bedroom, but was reluctant to 

use graphic displays that would make living history 

demonstrations impossible.216

In March 1983, based upon comments from Harpers 

Ferry and Associate Director Holland, Regional 

Director Carrol W. Ogle disapproved using the Michie 

report as the basis for furnishing the park’s Elizabethan 

Room. Having waited sixteen years to obtain funding, 

still smarting from delays caused by the fumbling of 

Harpers Ferry, Fort Raleigh officials were upset. 

Superintendent Hartman forwarded a “Briefing 

Statement” by Bebe Midgette. Her well- documented 

memo outlined the history of attempts to furnish the 

Elizabethan Room. It asserted that the Southeast 

Regional Office had disregarded approved planning 

documents, had demonstrated insensitivity to the 

historical integrity of the oak room, and had rejected the 

Michie furnishings proposal to support its own 

recommendation for a didactic exhibit. Midgette refined 

the park’s interpretative thrust by arguing that a 

furnished room would make it possible to demonstrate a 

way of life of the Elizabethan Period people [sic] that 

planned, financed and carried out the first English 

attempt at colonization of the New World. Their 

contributions were as significant as those who set foot 

on this soil, for without their efforts, there would have 

been no attempts.

She further argued that “the manner in which the room 

is exhibited cannot become a matter of preference if one 

follows the guidelines established in the Park’s approved 

Interpretative Prospectus, Furnishings Plan, Statement 

for Management and Statement for Interpretation.”217

214. Regional Curator, SERO, to Chief of Interpretation, CAHA, April 19, 1982; Chief of Interpretation, CAHA, to Regional Curator, 

April 21, 1982; Bebe Midgette, “Analysis of Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Elizabethan Room,” undated; all in Elizabethan 

Room Files, Library, FORA.

215. “Furnishings Plan: The Elizabethan Room, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site,” undated memo; Associate Director, Cultural 

Resources Management, to Regional Director, Southeast Region, February 2, 1983; both in Elizabethan Room Files, Library, 

FORA.

216. Phil Evans to Bob Woody, June 6, 1984; Robert Trent, the Connecticut Historical Society, May 30, 1984; both in Elizabethan Room 

Files, Library, FORA.
National Park Service 67

The differences between Fort Raleigh and other NPS 

officials over how to interpret the Elizabethan Room, 

whether as the setting for interpretive panel displays or 

as an accurate representation of a sixteenth- century 

Elizabethan room, came to a head in January 1984. Fort 

Raleigh staff met with regional and Harpers Ferry 

officials and agreed to abandon the Michie proposal 

while updating and implementing the original 1966 

furnishings plan with the help of Harpers Ferry.218 In 

July 1985, Harpers Ferry awarded a contract to produce 

the Elizabethan Room plan to Museum Consultant 

Susan Mackiewicz, who quickly set off to document the 

appropriate furnishings for the room by touring 

museums in Great Britain and Canada. Her finished 

plan, presented in March 1986, was far more extensively 

documented than the Michie proposal. Mackiewicz 

determined the Elizabethan Room’s class, type, and the 

context for its use as documented in probate records 

and through her museum visits. She determined that the 

room should represent the great hall of a minor 

nobleman. She suggested using Sir Francis Walsingham 

as a model occupant because his biography was suited to 

the site’s interpretative themes. A table, seating and 

cushions, drinking vessels and plates, cupboard items, 

wall treatments, fireplace furnishings, and floor 

coverings were described. Harpers Ferry backed the 

new plan, although in apparent deference to critics, it 

decided to label the report an “exhibit plan.”219 

As all draft review comments indicate, the new plan was 

well documented. Bill Harris, Chief of the Southeast 

Cultural Resources Preservation Center (now SERO 

Cultural Resources), supported the plan as “being wellwritten” and observed that it “serves the purpose of 

establishing a 3- dimension exhibit for the space.” 

However, despite the January 1984 entente among the 

park, regional NPS officials, and Harpers Ferry, other 

interested NPS officials remained critical. These officials 

were now forced to express opposition to the plan not 

on the basis of poor quality research, but over the 

underlying issue of whether or not the Elizabethan 

Room should be furnished. As Harris noted, the 

Regional Curator claimed that the Mackiewicz report 

was merely a “thinly disguised furnishing plan”; that the 

use of Sir Francis Walsingham as a model occupant 

poorly tied Elizabethan court life to the Roanoke 

colonies (“did he ever travel to the New World?”) and 

could be better and less expensively demonstrated by a 

graphic diagram; and finally that while the plan might 

resemble one for a museum period room, such rooms 

prohibit visitor entry to prevent vandalism, which was 

not possible at Fort Raleigh.220

In two memos to the Regional Director, the new 

Associate Director of Cultural Resources, Jerry Rogers, 

adopted the position of his predecessor F. Ross Holland. 

Rogers stated that Chief Curator Hitchcock and Chief 

Historian Edward Bearss found that the plan was still 

based upon conjecture “despite the depth and quality of 

the research” and could not thus justify any large 

expenditure of funds. Once again, the didactic exhibit 

idea was proposed. Later, the Regional Director asked 

Washington why reproductions could not be used in the 

visitor center. Associate Director Rogers responded 

with a personal memo that specifically referenced the 

February 2, 1983, memo by former Regional Director 

Holland, which was developed before the Mackiewicz 

plan had been written. Ignoring the Mackiewicz plan, 

Rogers re- emphasized the points Holland had made 

that furnishing the room was an exercise in conjecture 

“and would actually misinform the visitor.” Moreover, 

he expounded upon “the historian’s dedication to the 

truth” and the obligation not to convey stories about the 

past merely to “entertain the visitor.” In a hand- written 

comment below the text of his memo Rogers wrote, 

“This is not a staff memo, but mine. I hope you will give 

the subject very careful attention.”221 Obviously, 

Washington officials were not interested in whether or 

not an appropriate plan for furnishing the Elizabethan 

Room existed (whatever its name). They simply did not 

want to furnish the room. 

In retrospect, the Park Service approved the original 

“Elizabethan room” concept because Congressman 

217. Associate Regional Director, Operations, Southeast Region, to Superintendent, CAHA, March 14, 1983; Bebe Midgette, “Analysis 

of Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Elizabethan Room,” undated; Superintendent, CAHA, to Regional Director, Southeast 

Region, June 2, 1983; all in Elizabethan Room Files, Library, FORA.

218. Bebe Midgette, Resource Management Office, to Files, January 10, 1984, in Elizabethan Room Files, Library, FORA.

219. Manager, Harpers Ferry Center, to Regional Director, SERO, April 30, 1986; Susan Mackiewicz, “Elizabethan Parlor Exhibit Plan: 

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site,” Harpers Ferry Center, March 1986, both in “Furnishings for Elizabethan Room” folder, FORA

files, SERO.

220. Chief, Southeast Cultural Resources Preservation Center, to Interpretative Specialist, Southeast Region, June 17, 1986, in

“Furnishings for Elizabethan Room” folder, FORA files, SERO.

221. Associate Director, Cultural Resources, to Regional Director, SERO, November 24, 1986; Associate Director, Cultural Resources, to 

Regional Director, Southeast Regional Office, November 24, 1986; both in “Furnishings for Elizabethan Room” folder, FORA files,

SERO.
68 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Bennett went out of his way to make a personal 

donation, not because of any inherent professional 

desire or to appease public pressure. It simply would 

have been impolitic to reject such “generosity.” NPS 

officials also supported the original 1966 furnishings 

plan to divert local interest from more elaborate 

reconstructions. Simultaneously, other NPS officials, 

notably F. Ross Holland, cast the furnishing of the 

Elizabethan Room as a conflict between professionalism 

and the degree to which the agency is responsible for 

“entertaining” the public. These officials steadfastly 

opposed furnishing the Elizabethan Room because of its 

potential to confuse visitors. In 1983, well- placed as 

Associate Director for Cultural Resources, Holland was 

able to prevail. Not only did he prevent completion of 

the plan during his tenure, but his views formed the 

basis for decisions of succeeding WASO officials.

It goes without saying that Fort Raleigh officials were 

upset to learn about the memo by Associate Director 

Rogers. Superintendent Hartman wrote an impassioned 

response that conceded some points but maintained the 

park’s long- held position that the room should be 

furnished and interpreted as a representation of the type 

of “small wainscotted room” that sponsors of the 

Roanoke adventures could easily have afforded. He also 

pointed out that didactic displays would not be effective 

at Fort Raleigh, which lacked suitable artifacts, unlike 

Colonial Williamsburg. Moreover, Hartman wrote, the 

Williamsburg display “promotes conjecture far beyond 

what we propose.” He noted that the Holland comments 

did not address the new furnishings plan that was 

developed by the Historic Furnishing Branch at Harpers 

Ferry, whose professionals were obliged to minimize 

conjecture. Finally, Hartman offered that Fort Raleigh 

did not intend to implement the plan at full cost but to 

have it available to justify limited donations for 

acquisitions that would support the park’s living history 

program.222

Now caught between the intransigence of the 

Washington bureaucracy and the desires of a muchliked and a much- frustrated superintendent, the 

Regional Director had to make a tough call, whether or 

not to approve the Mackiewicz plan. Bill Harris made a 

final attempt to compromise with Washington officials, 

but failed. He advised the Associate Regional Director 

that there were three choices: (1) furnish the room with 

non- appropriated funds while ignoring the comments 

of Washington NPS officials, which might earn their 

enmity and provoke intervention by the Director, (2) 

abandon the furnishing plan and fit the Elizabethan 

Room with graphic displays, which the park disliked for 

various reasons, or (3) continue to use the room as it has 

been used since the visitor center was created, that is, do 

nothing. Harris was unwilling to jeopardize relations 

with national and regional officials and also noted that 

little private- sector interest existed to fund furnishings 

for the room. He recommended the third option.223

In spite of this recommendation, the Regional Director 

approved the Mackiewicz furnishing plan later in 1987, 

but no project funds were subsequently awarded. Fort 

Raleigh would have to obtain funding to implement the 

plan. In December 1987, Fort Raleigh again requested 

Harpers Ferry assistance. However, ENPMA funding 

had long since disappeared. Without project funding, 

and aware of the project’s “hot potato” status, Harpers 

Ferry was only willing to offer advice about how to 

obtain custom furniture reproductions. Park officials 

have continued to submit funding proposals to 

implement the furnishings plan, but to no avail. As late 

as 1992, Regional Curator Dale Durham commented on 

a draft Statement for Management that the “Elizabethan 

Room does not meet NPS furnishing criteria.” 

Therefore, he asserted, “why not call it an exhibit and 

get on with it”?224

In summary, several issues have plagued final 

implementation of the furnishings plan for the 

Elizabethan Room. First, the room is simply hard to 

appoint because it must serve as entry to the auditorium 

in the visitor center. Walling off the room behind a glass 

plate is difficult and goes against the originally approved 

notion of allowing visitor use of the room as a waiting 

area with a “warm” ambience. Second, early efforts to 

furnish the room were complicated by the difficulty and 

expense involved in acquiring either Tudor 

reproductions or the difficulty, expense, and security 

required for actual Tudor antiques. Third, cultural 

resource professionals outside the park never 

completely concurred with the original furnishing plan. 

Some NPS officials appear to have backed the plan 

simply to reduce public sentiment for reconstructions of 

222. Superintendent, CAHA, to Regional Director, SERO, January 7, 1987, in “Furnishings for Elizabethan Room” folder, FORA files, 

SERO.

223. Chief, Southeast Cultural Resources Preservation Center, to Associate Regional Director, Operations, Southeast Region, February 

27, 1987, in “Furnishings for Elizabethan Room” folder, FORA files, SERO.

224. Chief, Division of Historic Furnishings, to Superintendent, CAHA, December 30, 1987, in Elizabethan Room Files, Library, FORA; 

“Document on Review Notice,” May 5, 1992, FORA files, “FORA General” folder, SERO.
National Park Service 69

the type the Park Service had spent much effort to 

remove at Fort Raleigh. Subsequent efforts by park 

officials to implement the plan were complicated by 

administrative bungling at Harpers Ferry, an outside 

consultant’s poor revision of the plan, and the park’s 

own errors in trying to interpret the room. Finally, 

momentum to complete the plan suffered because of the 

drawn- out process in which authorized funds were not 

obligated, and were hence lost, and in which a onceapproved plan became so outdated that a new one was 

required. As it stands, the Elizabethan Room remains an 

incomplete exhibit, a disappointment to the 

expectations of its creators, its critics, and, no doubt, its 

visitors.

Interpretation and Visitor Services 

after Mission 66

The Lindsay Warren Visitor Center, including the 

Elizabethan Room, formed the cornerstone of Fort 

Raleigh’s interpretive improvements during the Mission 

66 era. Facility rehabilitation and exhibit modifications, 

however, have periodically occurred over the years. In 

1978, the visitor center acquired new audiovisual 

equipment. From 1984 to 1987, under the “Visually 

Impaired See Yesterday Today” initiative, the park 

installed special exhibits for visually impaired visitors. 

During 1989 and 1990, a new audiovisual program, 

Roanoke: The Lost Colony, was produced and a modern 

laser- disk system was installed to play the program.

As Fort Raleigh’s interpretive programs evolved, living 

history became a key feature. Living history 

interpretation within the Park Service began with 

weapon firing demonstrations at Chickamauga and 

Chattanooga National Military Park and Antietam 

National Battlefield in 1961. The first living history 

demonstrations by interpreters in period costume 

occurred at Fort Davis NHS in 1965. With the strong 

backing of NPS Director George B. Hartzog, Jr., living 

history programs became a standard part of 

interpretation at historical parks. As Fort Raleigh 

developed its living history programs during the 1970s, 

they included concerts of Elizabethan- era music with a 

harpsichord and other instruments along with 

additional demonstrations of sixteenth- century 

lifeways. The staff and volunteers involved in the 

programs wore period costumes, and some even learned 

Elizabethan dialect for first- person interpretation. 

Much of the reproduction equipment and costumes 

were funded by ENPMA donations. In 1985, living 

history participants recreated a sixteenth- century 

military encampment. A cooperative arrangement with 

RIHA in 1993 provided the park with actors from The 

Lost Colony to assist with living history programs. As an 

outgrowth of the park’s living history focus, an 

Elizabethan music program was performed at various 

schools in the area.225

Special events continued to play a role in Fort Raleigh’s 

interpretive mission. In 1977, after a period without 

anniversary observances, the park once again began 

sponsoring Virginia Dare birthday celebrations. It also 

added an annual August event, a picnic known as an 

“Elizabethan gossip feast” complete with living history 

activities, including period music and games led by 

costumed interpreters. Several hundred people were 

attracted to these festivities. In addition, Fort Raleigh 

staff cooperated with the America’s Four Hundredth 

Anniversary Committee. This committee was 

established in 1973 by the North Carolina General 

Assembly to plan and coordinate commemorative 

events for the four- hundredth anniversary of Raleigh’s 

colonies from 1984 through 1987. Events at the park 

included a 1985 reenactment of Lane’s 1585 landing on 

Roanoke Island, but the main event was a week of 

activities commemorating Virginia Dare’s birthday in 

August 1987. The grand finale occurred at Fort Raleigh 

and included the cutting of a twelve- foot- high birthday 

cake, the dedication of a marker at the park highlighting 

Virginia Dare’s birth, and an Elizabethan party.226

225. Mackintosh, Interpretation, 54-67; Annual Reports, 1975, 3, 1977, 3-5, 1978, 5-6, 1979, 5-6, 1980, 4, 1993, 3-4; “Militia Musters at 

Ft. Raleigh,” Outer Banks Current, July 4, 1985, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA.

FIGURE 40. Interpretative image by artist John Heinly, one of a 

series commissioned by the NPS that sought to illustrate the 

Raleigh expeditions, 1968
70 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

One event of importance both to Fort Raleigh officials 

and to managers of The Lost Colony production and the 

Elizabethan Gardens was the de facto resolution of the 

entrance fee issue that was a source of lingering 

contention between the parties during the preMission 66 era. In 1986, Congress passed the GrammRudman- Hollings Act that mandated budget cuts in an 

attempt to deal with the Reagan Administration’s 

ballooning federal deficits. As a result NPS budgets were 

slashed, including $150,000 for NPS operations on the 

Outer Banks. In response to the system- wide short- fall 

in funding, Interior Secretary Donald Hodel proposed 

to authorize NPS managers to raise entrance fees on a 

park- by- park basis. Congress had frozen such fees 

since 1972. Fees would not be collected at parks where it 

was impractical or politically sensitive, for example, the 

Lincoln Memorial, or at recreational areas. At the time 

only sixty of more than three hundred park units 

charged any such fees, none of which exceeded $2.00 

per vehicle. Senator James A. McClure (R- Idaho) 

introduced legislation to allow the NPS to initiate 

entrance fees at 337 parks. Unlike previous fees, 80 

percent of the new fees were to be returned to the parks 

themselves, instead of to the general budget. The 

maximum per vehicle entry fee was $5.00. The 

remaining 20 percent of the fees were to be used to 

reduce the federal deficit. The proposed per vehicle 

entrance fees were $3.00 at Cape Hatteras and Fort 

Raleigh, and $1.50 at Wright Brothers. Once the 

legislation was enacted, however, Hartman chose only 

to impose the $3.00 fee at Wright Brothers.227

Although many thought the proposed NPS entrance 

fees reasonable, many disagreed. John Bone, the 

executive director of the Outer Banks Chamber of 

Commerce, called the fees “immoral.” North Carolina 

Representative Walter B. Jones, Sr., wrote to NPS 

Director William Mott to complain “that taxpayers are 

being required to pay again for something for which 

they have already paid. This double charge is terribly 

unfair.” National environmental groups also criticized 

the fees as being too high and because they still returned 

20 percent to the treasury. Throughout 1986, 

Superintendent Hartman briefed local groups about the 

issue. “It has always been the intent of Congress,” he 

explained, “that the people who use the parks pay a little 

more.” He explained that the proposed fees were 

necessary to cover budget shortfalls. If Congress did not 

appropriate the funds, services had to be cut back. User 

fees would help the Park Service to maintain the 

parks.228

In addressing fears expressed by the Outer Banks 

Chamber of Commerce that entrance fees would reduce 

visitation, Hartman stated that Yellowstone National 

Park had charged fees for years while experiencing 

continuous growth in visitation figures. On the other 

hand, a different argument was offered by park officials 

to higher NPS authorities, who required parks to 

explain their plans to address the new legislation and 

who were eager to meet congressional revenue 

expectations during the first year of the program. In this 

case, Fort Raleigh officials justified their decision not to 

impose an entrance fee at Fort Raleigh because it 

“would have significant adverse effects on visitation at 

the Lost Colony outdoor drama . . . and at the 

Elizabethan Gardens.” Given that the former was an 

integral feature of Fort Raleigh, the park stated that it 

would be “counterproductive” to charge an entrance 

fee. Hartman was caught between his interests (and 

pressure from his superiors) to increase fees to generate 

revenue and those of local commercial interests who 

expressed considerable hostility to any new fees. 

Hartman had a fine line to walk. He chose not to impose 

fees at Cape Hatteras, whose multiple access points 

made it impractical. At Fort Raleigh and at Wright 

Brothers, however, access was completely under NPS 

control. Still, there was a key difference between these 

226. Annual Reports, 1977, 5, 1978, 5, 1979, 5, 1980, 3-4, 1984, 5, 1985, 5, 1987, 1; “‘Lost Colony,’ NPS Plan Virginia Dare Tribute,” 

Coastland Times, August 13, 1981, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “NPS, ‘Colony’ to Mark Birthday of Virginia Dare on 

Monday,” Coastland Times, August 17, 1986, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “NPS Hosts America’s Authentic Renaissance 

Feste,” Coastland Times, August 16, 1990, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Visitors Delighted by Virginia Dare’s Party,” 

Coastland Times, August 21, 1994, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Manteo to Celebrate 400 Years of History,” Daily Advance, 

February 7, 1982, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Poised for Departure,” Coastland Times, July 4, 1985, Newspaper Clipping 

Files, FORA; “Birthday Party for Virginia Dare Caps N.C. Anniversary Celebration,” News and Observer, August 19, 1987, 

Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA. 

227. Don Hodel, “Interior Secretary Hodel Asks NPS Fee Changes,” The Coastland Times, June 19, 1986, 9A; Jeffrey Smith, “Outer 

Banks Park Would Charge Fees under U.S. Plan,” The Virginian Pilot, June 25, 1986, D5, D5; “Hartman Tell NPS Need for Park 

Fees,” The Coastland Times, June 26, 1986, 1A; “Cape Hatteras Superintendent Backs Seashore Entry-fee Bill,” News & Observer, 

June 26, 1986, 8B; “Charging Visitors to Parks Makes Sense,” The Coast of the Virginian Pilot, July 3, 1986, 4; Entrance Fees at 

U.S. Parks to Rise Feb. 2,” News & Observer, December 17, 1986, 3A; Gene O’Bleness, “Opposition Grows to Possible Fees for 

Wright Visit,” Virginian Pilot, December 31, 1986, D1; “KDH Town Board Raps NPS Admission Fee Plan,” Coastland Times, 

January 13, 1987, 1A, 5A; “Hartman Tells Rotary Club about Fees,” Coastland Times, January 22, 1987, 1A.

228. Ibid.
National Park Service 71

two parks regarding entrance fees. Hartman realized 

that supporters of RIHA and the gardens would 

strenuously object to any new fees at Fort Raleigh, as 

they had done in the past. Moreover, these 

organizations were, in truth, integral to the park’s 

operations. There were no concessions at Wright 

Brothers and a cost- benefit analysis indicated that 

revenue from its fees would nearly cover the gap in Cape 

Hatteras Group funding caused by the GrammRudman- Hollings Act. Hartman took some heat from 

locals for the decision on Wright Brothers, but it was a 

balanced decision.229

“Roanoke Decoded”

Over the last two decades, Fort Raleigh staff has placed 

high emphasis on interpretive planning, research, and 

education. This emphasis is clear in the park’s 

statements for interpretation as prepared in 1978 and 

1989. In 1985, amid planning for the 400th anniversary 

celebrations of the exploration and attempted 

settlement of Roanoke Island, the park cooperated with 

Elizabethan Rendezvous Productions, Ltd., in a 

research project focused on John White. In 1989, a grant 

from the Outer Banks Community Foundation enabled 

the park to send a researcher to Great Britain for three 

months to gather information on Raleigh’s colonists. 

This data was then entered into a database designed by 

volunteer Wilbur Young.230

Spurred on by these developments and the renewal of 

archeological investigations by the Virginia Company 

Foundation, Fort Raleigh officials were encouraged to 

expand and invigorate private research and public 

interest in England’s sixteenth- century colonizing 

activities on Roanoke Island. In May 1993, after at least 

two years of planning, grant- writing by park 

supporters, and coordinating efforts, the park 

sponsored a major public symposium on the Roanoke 

voyages. This symposium assumed the name “Roanoke 

Decoded.” The symposium featured discussions 

provided by an international gathering of leading 

experts on the Roanoke voyages in combination with 

dramatic fare and living history presentations offered by 

park interpreters and associates of The Lost Colony

theatrical production. Three individuals closely 

associated with this endeavor were Fort Raleigh staff 

members Bob and Bebe Woody, and Lebame Houston, 

a park volunteer and independent Elizabethan 

scholar.231

While the symposium idea was being developed, the 

park became involved in the Elizabethan Research 

Project, an initiative to advance Roanoke colony- related 

research by developing a computer program to organize 

relevant historical material as a usable scholarly 

resource. The park became involved with the ongoing 

project in 1989 when Elizabethan Rendezvous 

Productions requested park assistance to enable the 

volunteer effort to survive. The park entered into a 

resource- sharing agreement with the non- profit 

organization, and Eastern National Park and Monument 

Association, which acted as repository for any private 

donations, until the organization’s president, Carolista 

Golden, died in 1991. By then almost all of the project’s 

work was symposium- related.232

Working with the Woodys, Houston drafted several 

successful grant proposals for Roanoke Decoded. They 

soon began to engage others in their plans. Local 

historian David Stick had doubted that anyone, even the 

National Park Service, could organize an international 

symposium on the Roanoke voyages, but he was 

eventually “pleasantly surprised at the success of the 

idea.” The four- day symposium’s costs were estimated 

at $200,000, but several private and public donations 

were pledged to cover the costs. The event was cosponsored by the National Park Service and Eastern 

National Park and Monument Association. It brought 

together numerous prominent historians, archeologists, 

and other scholars with expertise in sixteenth- century 

colonization, as well as teachers, college students, 

professors, and interested locals.233

229. Ibid.; Acting Director to Regional Directors and Superintendents, October 23, 1986; and CAHAOPNS, “Proposal to Initiate 

Current Recreation Fee Program,” no date, FORA files, “FORA General” folder, SERO.

230. Annual Reports, 1978, 5, 1989, 3, 1991, 4, 1993, 4, 6; Lebame Houston, comments on 2002 draft, SERO.

231. Nancy Williams, “Historians from Far and Near Take a New Look at Old Voyages,” The Coast, May 30, 1993, 46; Lebame Houston, 

comments on 2002 draft, SERO.

232. Thomas L. Hartman, Superintendent, to Lebame Houston, November 23, 1993, H30 FORA Correspondence folder, Resource 

Management Office, FORA; Lebame Houston, comments on 2002 draft, SERO. Abandoned in 1993, the Elizabethan Research 

Project’s research collection is now housed at the Outer Banks History Center.

233. Jon Glass, “Decoding the Lost Colony,” The Coast, May 9, 1993, 18; Williams; Lebame Houston, comments on 2002 draft, SERO. 

Grant providers included the North Carolina Humanities Council, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the May Duke 

Biddle Foundation, the Outer Banks Community Foundation, Carolina Telephone, Dominion Resources, East Carolina Bank, and 

local contributors.
72 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Roanoke Decoded sought to accomplish a number of 

goals. One of these was educational. Teachers could 

earn continuing education credits, and the symposium 

generated thousands of learning kits entitled “Roanoke 

Revisited,” which were distributed to schools 

throughout North Carolina.234 Foremost among the 

symposium’s goals was the development of a clearer 

context for understanding the role of the Roanoke 

colonies in America’s English heritage. Simultaneously, 

the conference sought to broaden public understanding 

of the colonies’ significance, and that of Elizabethan 

society, by way of the performing arts. Thus, not only 

did Roanoke Decoded offer scholarly discussions, for 

example, on Ivor Hume’s archeological work or recent 

biographical findings about the investors and colonists 

of the Roanoke expeditions, but it also offered theatrical 

fare. Theatrical events included living history 

presentations at Fort Raleigh, presentations on the 

history and production of The Lost Colony play, a 

concert of Elizabethan music, and especially the 

premiere of a one- woman play written and directed by 

Lebame Houston, who volunteered for the assignment 

when a contracted playwright failed to deliver a usable 

script.235 Originally, the play was conceived by park staff 

as an interpretive device and was named Elizabeth R. 

British actress Barbara Hird provided a solo 

performance in the role of Queen Elizabeth I, the same 

role she played in The Lost Colony.

Elizabeth R was a great success and played through the 

rest of the summer at Fort Raleigh. The performance, 

however, created some difficulties. The relationship 

between Fort Raleigh and Elizabeth R was unlike the 

cooperative arrangement with The Lost Colony, which is 

mandated by the park’s authorizing legislation and 

sponsored by RIHA. Elizabeth R began under NPS 

sponsorship with funding contributed through 

ENPMA. The dramatic license granted by NPS to its 

interpreters is constrained by the mission of the Park 

Service to provide accurate historical information. 

Elizabeth R, while it was unexpectedly popular with 

park visitors, may have fallen prey to its emphasis on 

dramatic effect. Superintendent Hartman felt that the 

various theatrical performances accompanying the 

symposium “were a tremendous success,” but that they 

also “diluted” the original research- oriented intent of 

the conference. He was also concerned with Elizabeth 

R’s logistical and funding arrangements. For example, 

with Hird playing Queen Elizabeth in both The Lost 

Colony and Elizabeth R, the play could not be performed 

in the evenings, nor did anyone want the performances 

to compete with one another. Blistering heat also 

prohibited use of the Waterside Theatre during the day. 

The park thus allowed the play to be performed in a 

shaded area, but necessarily limited seating to seventyfive. All summer, however, Elizabeth R drew daily 

crowds far in excess of these accommodations. Many 

who sought to attend the performance were thus turned 

away, which placed the park in an awkward position. 

Funding was another issue. Over the long- term the play 

could only be sustained by charging patrons regular 

ticket prices, which the park was not comfortable 

authorizing given the involvement of taxpayer dollars. 

At the end of the season, Hartman expressed sincere 

regret but determined that Elizabeth R “does not 

comfortably fit within the National Park Service 

mission.” With this decision, Hartman attempted to gain 

an alternative venue and arranged for the Roanoke 

Island Business Association to attend a performance to 

evaluate the play’s potential as a project it could sponsor 

off- site. Ultimately, Elizabeth R did gain backing from 

non- NPS sources and was produced in downtown 

Manteo for several years. The play now travels in the 

off- season and is currently performed at the 

Elizabethan Gardens, where it serves as a companion to 

The Lost Colony.

236

As the Roanoke Decoded symposium came to an end, 

participants expressed a strong desire to continue their 

collaboration. Accordingly, local attendees were 

charged with creating a post- conference mechanism 

that would allow the numerous researchers from 

different disciplines to remain connected with each 

other. The Park Service was fully involved in this 

endeavor, which led to the creation of the Roanoke 

Colonies Research Office as a cooperative venture with 

East Carolina University, in nearby Greenville, North 

Carolina. The office is a branch of ECU’s Institute for 

Historical and Cultural Research. The goals of the 

Roanoke Colonies Research Office included: (1) the 

establishment of a newsletter; (2) the creation of an 

inventory and annotated bibliography of past and active 

234. Doug Robertson, North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, to Thomas L. Hartman, CAHA, January 11, 1994, H30 FORA 

Correspondence folder, Resource Management Office, FORA.

235. Lebame Houston, comments on 2002 draft, SERO.

236. Thomas L. Hartman to Lebame Houston, November 23, 1993 and February 15, 1994, and Thomas L. Hartman, Superintendent, to 

Wynne Dough, The Outer Banks History Center, February 7, 1994, all in H30 FORA Correspondence folder, Resource 

Management Office, FORA; Elizabeth R brochure, Summer 2001, in possession of authors; Bob Woody (Chief Interpreter, ret., 

FORA), interview by Cameron Binkley, October 18, 2001; Lebame Houston, comments on August 2002 draft, SERO. 
National Park Service 73

research projects; (3) the provision of new information 

to the Park Service and state and local governments to 

allow them to update their interpretative programs and 

exhibits; and (4) the promotion of further research, 

especially efforts designed to confirm the colony site at 

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site. The new 

organization was formally announced on December 10, 

1993, by ECU Arts and Sciences Dean Keats Sparrow 

and Superintendent Hartman, both of whom expressed 

“high expectations” regarding the new partnership.237

Since that time, several volumes of the newsletter have 

been published, each highlighting ongoing research 

related to the Roanoke colonies, and the office has 

sponsored additional scholarly symposiums and 

archeological undertakings, including the Croatan 

Project near Buxton, where a sixteenth- century signet 

ring was found in 1998.238

Expansion of Fort Raleigh’s Purpose

In November 1990, Fort Raleigh’s interpretive mission 

branched into new directions after Congress passed 

legislation expanding the park’s boundary. As 

previously noted, the expansion legislation added 

significant new interpretive purposes. In addition to 

interpreting the English attempts at colonization in the 

New World, the park now sought to include “the history 

of the Native Americans, European Americans, and 

African Americans who lived on Roanoke Island, North 

Carolina.”239 Under the expansion legislation, the park 

especially began presenting information about the Civil 

War- era freedmen’s village on the northern end of 

Roanoke Island. It built new wayside displays along U.S. 

Highway 64/264 and then began forging a relationship 

with the local black community in an effort to preserve 

the island’s African- American history. General 

information about the island’s Civil War history and its 

later use by Reginald Fessenden for his radio 

experiments was also included.

Meanwhile, as discussed in the previous chapter, 

Archeologist Ivor Hume of the Virginia Company 

Foundation undertook major new investigations at Fort 

Raleigh. Hume’s investigations failed to uncover 

evidence of the “Cittie of Raleigh,” as had past efforts. 

Nevertheless, they did lead to the conclusion that 

Thomas Hariot and Joachim Gans had established a 

“scientific” laboratory on the site during the 1585 visit to 

Roanoke Island. Traditionally, the fort was viewed as a 

bastion to protect the colonists. The new discoveries, 

along with further failed efforts to find any evidence 

relating to the location of the “Cittie,” suggested to 

scholars that the fort was actually established to protect 

the laboratory, to protect the men left behind by Sir 

Thomas Grenville, or was a military construction of a 

much later period. Regardless of the outcome of the 

scholarly debate, these developments helped maintain 

NPS attention on the continuing preeminence of the 

Fort Raleigh’s Elizabethan- era themes. Indeed, new 

research and debate on the topic helped generate 

enthusiasm that led to the successful “Roanoke 

Decoded” conference. As discussed above, the 

international conference on England’s Elizabethan- era 

voyages to Roanoke Island turned out to be the most 

extensive educational outreach project ever undertaken 

by Fort Raleigh. The increased attention given to the 

Roanoke colonies came at an awkward moment, 

however, given the preceding mandate by Congress to 

shift the park’s interpretative focus. Indeed, renewed 

academic attention on the colonies probably helped 

delay efforts to implement the new mandate by several 

years.

In 1998, however, Fort Raleigh began to grapple with its 

interpretative dilemma by preparing a long- range 

interpretive plan. The park held a conference with 

various stakeholders. When the plan was completed in 

2001, it noted that archeological findings were yet 

insufficient to fully interpret the meaning and 

significance of the Roanoke colonies. It also proposed to 

shift the visitor center’s focus upon “one primary theme 

to one that incorporates all significant themes.” Finally, it 

called for a name other than “Fort Raleigh National 

Historic Site.” This latter goal was driven by the desire to 

better suggest the importance of the “the multiplicity of 

significant resources” at the park.240 As if to underline 

this goal, Patricia C. Click published a major study on 

Roanoke Island’s Civil War- era freedmen’s colony in 

spring 2001. Her work seemed to confirm the need to 

integrate more thoroughly all of the park’s themes into 

its interpretative program and to conduct additional 

research.241

237. John Patterson, “University Becomes Home of New Roanoke Colonies Research Office,” Cornerstone (East Carolina University 

newsletter), January 1994, 1, 5, ECU Newsletter Articles folder, FORA Resource Management Office, FORA.

238. Roanoke Colonies Research Newsletter, vol. 6, no. 1 (November 1998): 1, 6.

239. Public Law 101-603, 101st Congress, 104 STAT. 3065, 1990s Land Acquisition Files, FORA.

240. Annual Reports, 1996/1997, 1-2, 1998, 7, 11; Long Range Interpretative Plan, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site web page, 2001 

(www.nps.gov/fora/longrange2001.htm); John Beck to Cameron Binkley, August 1, 2001, in possession of author.
74 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Despite the long- range interpretative plan’s emphasis, 

redefining Fort Raleigh’s interpretative mission was and 

is a challenging task. Understandably, prior to 1990, the 

park had little incentive to interpret additional historical 

themes. Most park visitors came and continue to come 

to Fort Raleigh with the expectation of learning about 

early English colonizing efforts in the area. Moreover, 

although books on African- American and Native 

American history are sold in the bookstore, most sales 

are generated by interest in the “Raleigh” theme. Such 

interest is natural. Fort Raleigh has a clear centuries- old 

association with the Raleigh ventures, related 

commemorative efforts begun in the 1880s, and the 

park’s own Depression- era origins in partnership with 

the ongoing production, The Lost Colony, itself a living 

ethnographic resource deeply interwoven into the life of 

the local community. Moreover, the term “Fort Raleigh,” 

while not Ralph Lane’s term for the fortification he built 

in the sixteenth century, is the term most historically 

associated with the park and all commemorative efforts 

dating from the late nineteenth century, as outlined in 

Appendix 2. Scholars concerned with Roanoke Island 

have also traditionally focused upon the themes of the 

sixteenth century. As far as local sentiment is 

concerned, support for the park’s expansion in the early 

1990s was predominantly a factor of the community’s 

desire to restrain development on the north end of 

Roanoke Island and to ease financial pressure upon the 

Roanoke Island Historical Association. Park expansion 

boosters clearly demonstrated this intent in their 

written comments opposing NPS land acquisition 

priorities detailed in Chapter Four. Finally, archeologist 

Ivor Hume’s conclusive evidence indicating the site’s use 

as a sixteenth- century metallurgical laboratory, if not a 

sixteenth- century fort, and the lack of significant 

archeological findings relating to other park themes, 

also suggests the difficulty of significantly redirecting 

the park’s interpretative emphasis. At the very least, 

future changes in interpretative programs at Fort 

Raleigh need to consider this history carefully.

241. See Patricia C. Click, Time Full of Trial: The Roanoke Island Freedmen's Colony, 1862-1867 (Chapel Hill: University of North 

Carolina, 2001).
National Park Service 75

Chapter Seven: Fort Raleigh and the 

Roanoke Island Historical Association

The Early Years

Since its inception, Fort Raleigh NHS has maintained a 

close working relationship with the Roanoke Island 

Historical Association under a cooperative agreement 

allowing the association to produce The Lost Colony at 

the Waterside Theatre on park property. The first 

cooperative agreement between RIHA and the National 

Park Service was signed on March 29, 1939, two years 

before Congress authorized the creation of the historic 

site. More detail on the background of this development 

is provided in Chapter Three. Successful negotiation of 

the cooperative agreement was a key moment in the 

history of Fort Raleigh. One reason is that Governor 

Clyde Hoey would not deed the state- owned property 

to federal control until RIHA and NPS managers saw 

eye- to- eye on developmental and interpretative issues. 

Another reason is that, despite broad mutual accord, 

differences in understanding between the two parties 

regarding the cooperative agreement have at times 

arisen. More important, however, the agreement forged 

an enduring and ultimately successful relationship that 

embodies much of the public’s interest in the park. It 

therefore represents a key long- term concern of NPS 

management at Fort Raleigh.

Basically, the cooperative agreement has allowed RIHA 

to use park facilities to produce its play, but requires the 

association to seek NPS approval for changes to those 

facilities, stage settings, and any significant deviation in 

repertoire away from the Lost Colony theme. The play 

itself is protected by copyright and thus the Park 

Service, in the unlikely case that it so desired, cannot 

legally alter play content. On the other hand, park 

policies can and do prohibit RIHA from staging rock 

concerts, to use an extreme example. Above a threshold 

established as a working fund (the amount of net profit 

the nonprofit RIHA is allowed to keep), RIHA has also 

agreed to set aside proceeds from its Fort Raleigh 

activities to help fund NPS research and land 

acquisition efforts. This requirement has mandated 

careful NPS attention to RIHA’s accounting records, 

even though in most years the association has never 

done much better than break even and has remained a 

grant- dependent institution. Nevertheless, RIHA 

originally agreed to a confusing arrangement whereby 

ten percent of its gross profits, after the first twenty- five 

thousand dollars, would be contributed to the park 

fund. The Park Service could waive the requirement in 

years when the association experienced financial 

hardship.242 Almost at once, however, RIHA disputed 

NPS interpretations of the sales percentage due the park 

and subsequent agreements more carefully spelled out 

funding entitlements.243

In 1944, after three years of dormancy induced by World 

War II, the Park Service and RIHA began to renegotiate 

the cooperative agreement governing the production of

The Lost Colony. Officials from the NPS, RIHA, and the 

state of North Carolina, including Governor Joseph M. 

Broughton, met in September to work out the terms of a 

new agreement. When RIHA officials opposed such 

terms for taking away too much of their discretion, some 

association officials, including Paul Green, mentioned 

the possibility of seeking congressional action to return 

ownership of the theater property from the Park Service 

to the state. In response, NPS officials agreed to less 

intrusive requirements governing their oversight of 

RIHA activities, especially concerning theatrical liberty. 

In January 1945, hoping to assuage discontent even 

further, the Park Service temporarily suspended Fort 

Raleigh’s admission fee. Play supporters resented the 

fee, believing it drove down attendance. Frequent park 

users also objected. The new twenty- year cooperative 

242. Cooperative Agreement, National Park Service and Roanoke Island Historical Association, 1939, RIHA Files, FORA.

243. D.B. Fearing, RIHA, to Secretary, NPS, October 15, 1941, RIHA Files, FORA.
76 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

agreement was signed in April 1945. Despite a few 

contentious points, the revised agreement was similar to 

the original and continued to require RIHA to set aside 

proceeds above its working fund for NPS use, again 

mainly to fund new land purchases or research projects. 

Under the new agreement, the association also 

remained responsible for seeking NPS permission for 

alterations to its facilities, general repertoire, and fees.244

The rapport between the Park Service and RIHA 

gradually improved in the years following the 1945 

cooperative agreement, but not without some irritation. 

The association routinely gained NPS permission to 

alter facilities and submitted sundry required 

documents, including annual reports, admission fee 

schedules, and lists of sales items with prices. However, 

during the late 1940s, Superintendent Robert H. 

Atkinson complained about RIHA’s tardiness in 

submitting annual reports—the 1947 report was a full 

year late. The fire that year at the Waterside Theatre 

probably accounted for the delay, but this may also be 

the reason the park particularly wanted the report on 

time. Another early issue that caused a stir was a RIHA 

plan that NPS Director Newton B. Drury discovered in 

the park’s monthly narrative report for January 1950. 

Apparently taking up the suggestions of North Carolina 

Governor William K. Scott, RIHA’s board of directors 

was considering the possibility of bringing several 

Cherokee Indian families to live on Roanoke Island to 

take part in The Lost Colony. NPS saw no difficulty with 

this proposal, but the association was also considering 

using the Cherokees to establish an “Indian Village” on 

the west side of the park. Director Drury expressed his 

serious misgivings about any such proposal because it 

would encourage a “carnival atmosphere” and because 

Cherokee Indians were never associated with Roanoke 

Island. Upon further investigation by Superintendent 

Atkinson, however, it was learned that though the 

association had considered the proposal, it neither had 

available funding nor the approval of the Superintendent of the Cherokee Agency in the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs. RIHA continued to use local actors to fill 

the Indian roles in the play, and the Park Service never 

found it necessary to raise the delicate subject as a 

formal matter.245

Although the Cherokee Indian affair never materialized 

as a dispute, the Park Service did fret over RIHA’s plans 

regarding land acquisition and development. In 1946, 

the association purchased thirty acres along Roanoke 

Sound and across the state highway from the park. 

While temporarily using the land for play parking, the 

association planned to develop new facilities on the 

property. The Cherokee Indian Village was one 

possibility, but park officials were far more concerned 

that RIHA might try to relocate the entire play 

production off park property. In addition, NPS officials 

were upset that the association would purchase 

property while claiming that its net proceeds were 

below the cap requiring contributions to NPS land 

acquisition efforts as mandated under the cooperative 

agreement. Although RIHA might truthfully make such

claims, as it had income sources outside the agreement 

(charitable donations, for example), its actions seemed 

to indicate a lack of commitment to the park. Such 

perceived indifference concerned NPS officials already 

frustrated by a park site too small to accommodate their 

planning goals.246 In the end, however, funding 

shortfalls limited the scope of development for both 

RIHA and the Park Service. Part of the RIHA property 

was leased for the Elizabethan Gardens in the 1950s, and 

the NPS had to await Mission 66 for the full development of Fort Raleigh. 

244. Cooperative Agreement No. I-lp-187744, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and Roanoke Island Historical 

Association, Inc., Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, January 1, 1945, to December 31, 1964, RIHA Files, FORA; Wilson H. George 

to Director, September 9, 1944, RIHA Files, FORA; Herbert Evison to Director, September 11, 1944, RIHA Files, FORA; Horace A. 

Dough to Regional Director, September 12, 1944, RIHA Files, FORA; Ben Dixon MacNeill, “Move to Sever all Connection with Park 

Service Grows in Dare,” The Daily Advance, November 28, 1944, RIHA Files, FORA; “Collection of Entrance Fee at Fort Raleigh 

Suspended,” The Daily Advance, January 11, 1945, RIHA Files, FORA.

245. Director to Acting Regional Director, March 24, 1950; Acting Regional Director to Superintendent, FORA, March 27, 1950; 

Superintendent, FORA, to Regional Director, March 29, 1950; and Acting Regional Director to Director, April 11, 1950, all in RIHA 

Files, FORA.

FIGURE 41. A performance of The Lost Colony, late 1930s
National Park Service 77

RIHA’s major complaint during the early years was the 

NPS entrance fee, discussed both in Chapter Six and in 

an additional section below. The cooperative agreement 

was renewed for an additional twenty years in 1965 

without significant change, although RIHA did 

negotiate an increase in its working fund limit to 

$200,000. The fourth and current twenty- year 

agreement, again closely modeled on previous versions, 

was signed in April 1984, and is also discussed further 

below.

NPS Facilities Used by RIHA 

at Fort Raleigh

Usage of the Waterside Theatre by RIHA to produce 

The Lost Colony predates establishment of Fort Raleigh 

NHS. As noted above, guarantees not only made 

creation of the park possible in 1941, but also ensured 

that the association would have continued use of NPS 

facilities for the purpose of producing The Lost Colony. 

Unfortunately, World War II began soon after the NPSRIHA agreement was signed. Blackout requirements 

necessitated by German U- Boat activity and other 

issues forced RIHA to suspend its performances 

between 1942- 1945. The theater thus suffered from 

inactivity and was substantially damaged by a 1944 

hurricane. When RIHA decided to restart its play after 

the war, the theater was in a deteriorated condition. 

Thus, between 1945 and 1946, the facility had to be 

refurbished. Fortunately, Albert Bell, the theater’s 

original architect, agreed to the undertaking. Only a year 

later, in 1947 a fire of unknown cause damaged a large 

part of the facility in the middle of the play season. 

Neither the Park Service nor RIHA had funds to repair 

the damaged theater expediently. However, a crew of 

volunteers from the cast and local community, 

assembled under Bell’s direction, agreed to work a 

twenty- four- hour schedule to rebuild the stage and 

damaged sets so that the show could resume within a 

week’s time. Lumber was donated by local firms, though 

insurance eventually helped offset the costs of repair. 

The play resumed exactly six days after the theater was 

closed. The incident helped to forge a special bond with 

the actors, crew, and local community and is a noted 

event in the history of the production. In 1950, to better 

accommodate play patrons, the park created a new 

entrance into the outer palisade. Instead of using the 

park’s main entrance, the new entrance was cut through 

the palisade wall on the western side near RIHA’s 

parking lot. A new lighted trail led visitors from the 

park’s loop road to this new entrance.247

NPS upgraded facilities utilized by RIHA during the 

1960s after successful efforts by the association and 

other park supporters who lobbied to pass legislation to 

expand and modernize Fort Raleigh during Mission 66. 

(See Chapter Four.) After a period of lagging interest in 

The Lost Colony and the loss of state funding, RIHA and 

its supporters realized they needed to increase the scope 

of Fort Raleigh as a historic site. In league with the broad 

modernization goals of the Mission 66 program, they 

succeeded in securing legislation to expand the park 

and obtained a state grant of $125,000 for land acquisition. This success facilitated NPS planners who generated a draft Mission 66 development proposal for the 

park. Mission 66 plans included a new visitor center, 

Cape Hatteras Group Headquarters, and additional 

parking and space for use by the association at the park, 

but the plan could not be implemented because the state 

grant was not enough to cover the cost of land acquisition. However, these developments prompted RIHA 

enthusiasts Dr. and Mrs. Fred Morrison to make a major 

contribution matching the state’s land acquisition grant. 

The generous Morrison contribution was sufficient to 

enable the Park Service to begin the formal land 

246. Reports on the Operations of the Roanoke Island Historical Association, Inc., at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, 1947-1951, 

CRS Library, SERO; Monthly Reports, June 1946, December 1946, July 1954, August 1954, September 1954; Cooperative 

Agreement, U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and Roanoke Island Historical Association, Inc., Fort Raleigh 

National Historic Site, January 1, 1965, to December 31, 1984, RIHA Files, FORA.

247. Monthly Reports, October 1944, March 1945, August-November 1945, January 1946, April 1946, December 1946, July 1947, July 

1950; “History of the Production,” undated manuscript (ca.1992), 18-21, RIHA Files, FORA. 

FIGURE 42. Waterside Theatre fire damage, July 1947
78 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

acquisition process. On behalf of the National Park 

Service, Director Conrad Wirth acknowledged the 

nation’s “debt of gratitude to the Roanoke Colony 

Memorial Association of the 1890’s and to its successor, 

the Roanoke Island Historical Association, for 

preserving the Fort Raleigh area and for making its 

importance better known to the American people 

through the production of Paul Green’s play.” The 

Morrison gift, he said, “will make the enlargement of the 

Fort Raleigh area possible, so that development work 

and facilities suitable to present- day needs and 

conditions can be projected and realized.”248

Despite these careful efforts, Mission 66 modernization 

really got underway at Fort Raleigh on September 

11 and 12, 1960, when the park was struck by Hurricane 

Donna. Donna brought a tidal surge that caused severe 

damage to the Waterside Theatre and caused other 

damage at the park. Using NPS funds, an appropriation 

from the North Carolina General Assembly, and donations, especially from RIHA supporters, the Waterside 

Theatre was once again rebuilt. A similar layout was employed, but RIHA prudently acquiesced to NPS doubts 

about the historical accuracy of using log structures and 

abandoned this motif. Instead, it employed the NPSpreferred “wattle and daub” appearance to construct 

structure exteriors and used shingled roofs in place of 

thatched ones. In so doing, RIHA probably was motivated more by the desire to avoid a future source of 

friction than by acceptance of NPS views. Albert Bell, 

after all, was hired yet a third time to oversee the 

reconstruction. Bell had championed the theater’s 

original design when he constructed it during the 1930s 

and local nostalgia for the inauthentic but rustic log 

motif remained into the mid- 1960s when some locals 

even tried to resurrect the log chapel. Bell himself used 

the log design to rebuild the theater following both 

World War II and the 1947 fire even though NPS views 

about sixteenth- century English building styles were 

well established by that point. Clearly, however, the 

gradualist NPS policy of removing the cherished but 

inaccurate log structures, which was consistent with 

new scholarship, was successful in undermining RIHA’s 

objections to a redesign. Most of the work needed to 

complete the theater was accomplished before the play’s 

summer season in 1961. Secretary of the Interior Stewart 

Udall dedicated the new Waterside Theatre in July 1962. 

Whatever his views about English building styles, both 

RIHA and the Park Service lost an important benefactor 

only two years later with the passing of Bell. In 1967, a 

monument was placed at the theater to honor the 

memory of the much- loved local, referred to by some as 

the “Dean of American Outdoor Theater Design.”249

The Park Service also provided additional facilities for 

use by RIHA during Mission 66. The park allowed 

RIHA to house the play manager and other staff in two 

former residences located on newly acquired land on 

the sound southeast of the theater. In 1965, as part of its 

development program, the park built the Lost Colony 

248. Conrad L. Wirth to Mr. and Mrs. Fred W. Morrison, October 13, 1961, Land Records, Vault, FORA.

FIGURE 43. Albert “Skipper” Bell standing before the Waterside 

Theatre, ca. 1961

249. Monthly Reports, September 1960, May 1961, July 1962, January 1963, March 1963, August 1964; “Dare Theater Being Rebuilt,”

Virginian Pilot, January 23, 1961, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “‘Lost Colony’ Gets Funds for Theater,” Virginian Pilot, March 

15, 1960, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “New Theater Rises on Old,” Virginian Pilot, October 6, 1961, Newspaper Clipping 

Files, FORA; “New Theater for Lost Colony Now Being Constructed,” Coastland Times, September 29, 1961, Newspaper Clipping 

Files, FORA; “Burial of Time Capsule Highlights Fort Raleigh Program Saturday Night,” Coastland Times, July 13, 1962, 

Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; “Dean of American Outdoor Theater Design,” Coastland Times, June 26, 1964, Newspaper 

Clipping Files, FORA; “Grandchildren Unveil Plaque to ‘Skipper Bell,’” Coastland Times, August 25, 1967, Newspaper Clipping 

Files, FORA; Narrative Reports, Waterside Theatre, Construction Records, Maintenance Office, FORA; Lost Colony Building file, 

Building Files, FORA; Prince House and Manager’s House files, Building Files, FORA; “History of the Production,” undated RIHA 

manuscript, 23-24, RIHA Files, FORA.
National Park Service 79

Activity Building, located near the Cape Hatteras Group 

headquarters, specifically for use by RIHA in its 

production of The Lost Colony. RIHA also sought and 

received additional parking space, the provision of 

which ended a minor source of contention.

Performances of The Lost Colony continued within these 

facilities for another generation. Only routine 

maintenance was conducted on the theater complex. By 

1990, however, the theater’s condition had entered a 

noticeable state of decline. In the spring of that year, 

RIHA Chairman William Friday requested the NPS to 

provide a cost estimate for the reconstruction of the 

Waterside Theatre. The park provided a “Class ‘C’ 

estimate” of $425,800. RIHA began an effort to raise 

funds for this renovation and later decided that a major 

upgrading of the Waterside Theatre was necessary as 

well. In August 1993, RIHA brought in a team of experts 

to assess work required to upgrade the amphitheater 

and related facilities to modern standards, but without 

loss to the theater’s naturalistic character. Major goals 

included improvements in visitor accommodation, such 

as improved stadium seating and higher capacity 

restrooms, as well as production enhancements. The 

team also sought to address building code changes, 

especially the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Avoidance of a possible lawsuit stemming from noncompliance with the act was certainly a motivation 

behind RIHA’s effort to modernize its facilities. Perhaps 

for that reason as well, the association chose to focus 

first on renovating those portions of the theater extending from the stage toward the audience. Those portions 

of the theater from the stage area to the shore, used by 

the performers and crew, were left for the second phase 

of the project. NPS monies were not available for a 

project of this scale, but with the help of North Carolina 

State Senator Marc Basnight, RIHA eventually secured a 

one million dollar appropriation from the North 

Carolina General Assembly after U.S. Senator Lauch 

Faircloth introduced a matching one million dollar line 

item into the Interior Department’s 1997 budget.250

After completion of this project, RIHA considered 

renovation of the Waterside Theatre’s stage area, 

probably the most needed undertaking. Early in 

September 1998, the stage area was inspected, and it was 

discovered that approximately 35 percent of the wood 

pilings used for support had failed, many being so rotted 

that they no longer touched the ground. Apparently, in 

the rush to rebuild the theater after the 1947 fire or the 

1960 hurricane, RIHA had acquired a number of its 

wood pilings from a telephone or power company. 

These recycled poles had climbing hook marks, old bolt 

holes and chamfered areas, and had not been pressure 

treated to deter termites. It was fortunate that the stage 

area had held up for so long without collapsing. This 

revelation may suggest a relative lack of attention by 

RIHA, and perhaps that the park should have attempted 

more frequent or thorough inspections over the years. 

At any rate, after appraising the situation, the park 

determined that it could refurbish the stage for less than 

the cost estimated by the contractor working for RIHA. 

The NPS thus conducted the renovation, which 

replaced the stage’s foundation pilings, its electrical 

circuitry, and other major elements. The cost was still 

nearly a million dollars.251

The RIHA Arts Center Plan

After some discussion during the 1970s, RIHA’s board of 

directors voted in 1980 to build a performing arts center 

that would focus on the Elizabethan era. The board 

favored the design for an eighty- thousand- square- foot 

FIGURE 44. The Mission 66 Lost Colony Building, 1966

250. William Friday, RIHA, to Sam Poole, Office of Senator Terry Sanford, April 10, 1990 (plus attachment), Vault, FORA; Jonathan E. 

Summerton, RIHA, to Thomas Hartman, FORA, June 9, 1994 and attachment “Waterside Theatre: Proposed Upgrading and 

Renovations,” report prepared by Arthur R. Coswell, et al (December 1993), Lost Colony folder (Proposed upgrading), Vault, 

FORA; Dwain Teague, “Waterside Theatre to Be Renovated,” Roanoke Colonies Research Newsletter, Vol. 4, No. 1 (November 

1996).

251. National Park Service, “Waterside Theater Stage Foundation Rehabilitation, 1999-2000” (October 1998), Resource Office Files, 

FORA; “Waterside Theatre Renovation on Go!,” The Croatoan, Volume 4, Number 1, RIHA Files, Concessions Office, FORA; 

Annual Reports, 1996/1997, 2-3; 1998, 4-5; and George Perrot (FORA), August 7, 2001, interview by Cameron Binkley.
80 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

all- weather facility with seating capacity two to three 

times greater than the Waterside Theatre. Because of 

excessive costs, however, and the unlikely prospect of 

NPS approval for such a large building, the association 

scaled back its design to twenty thousand square feet. 

This proposal was announced to the public in January 

1981. The facility included a three- hundred- seat theater, 

a children’s theater, rehearsal space for The Lost Colony, 

and offices for the association. To encourage NPS 

interest in the proposal, RIHA offered to return use of 

the Lost Colony Activity Building to the park after 

completion of the performance center and to remove 

from park property two “non- conforming” structures 

used to house cast members.252

An environmental assessment prepared by East Carolina University’s Regional Development Institute examined six proposed sites for the center, including park 

property between The Lost Colony parking lot and 

Roanoke Sound, three sites on the northern end of 

Roanoke Island near the park, a site near Manteo, and a 

site near the airport. RIHA preferred to build the center 

on the NPS- owned site to keep the facility near the 

Waterside Theatre and to avoid the financial difficulty of 

acquiring property. The problem with this option, Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore Superintendent Bill Harris 

noted, was that federal approval might be difficult to 

gain “since there are other sites outside the park which 

could be used.” However, an environmental assessment, 

completed in February 1982, found that the project 

would have no significant negative impact on the park. 

In October 1982, RIHA formally requested permission 

to build the Roanoke Island Center for the Arts on land 

within the park cleared for development by the 

environmental assessment. Harris’s replacement as 

super- intendent, Thomas Hartman, announced that the 

NPS would allow the center to be constructed on Fort 

Raleigh property.253

Although he gave his support to the project, Hartman, 

like Harris, was also skeptical. Hartman questioned 

whether it was appropriate for RIHA to engage in 

activities at Fort Raleigh unrelated to The Lost Colony

production, by producing Elizabethan- themed plays. 

The order creating the national historic site provided 

only for Green’s specific production. Nevertheless, 

vague doubts by park managers were diminished by the 

practical advantages RIHA’s art center plan offered. 

First, as RIHA suspected, the park was indeed interested 

in re- acquiring access to the Lost Colony Activity 

Building to use for its curatorial efforts. This reason 

alone was probably sufficient to merit Hartman’s acquiescence in the absence of a negative environmental 

assessment. Second, Hartman was also pleased at the 

chance to eliminate the non- historic houses. Moreover, 

by consolidating RIHA activities in one spot, Hartman 

believed that park management could be simplified. 

Finally, of course, by approving RIHA’s plans, the NPS 

was promoting continued good relations with an 

indispensable and long- term partner.254

The decision by the Park Service to allow RIHA to build 

an arts center at Fort Raleigh came with some protest. 

James Dough, whose family had transferred title over 

the Fort Raleigh site to the Roanoke Colony Memorial 

Association in 1894, was strongly opposed for preservation and environmental reasons. Dough tapped 

directly into Hartman’s concern. He argued that 

allowing RIHA to develop an arts center that would 

promote theatrical activities not directly associated with 

Fort Raleigh was “a continuation of the misuse of this 

site by the National Park Service over the years” and a 

violation of the acts governing the administration of 

historic sites. Moreover, construction of the facility on 

park property, he wrote, would do environmental harm 

to Roanoke Sound while also increasing residential 

congestion and traffic noise. He preferred that one of 

the alternative sites be used. As later events would 

demonstrate, Dough was not alone in these concerns. 

No immediate ground swell of discontent followed, 

however, and the National Park Service upheld its 

decision.255

252. “RIHA Seeks New Offices And Theater,” Coastland Times, January 27, 1981, 3, Clippings Files, FORA.

253. Ibid, 3; S. Richard Brockett, Environmental Assessment, Roanoke Island Center for the Arts, April 1981, RIHA Files, FORA; 

“Cultural Center Sites Assessed for RIHA,” Coastland Times, April 14, 1981, 1, Clippings Files, FORA; “RIHA Asks Permit To Build 

Center At Fort Raleigh,” Coastland Times, February 4, 1982, Clippings Files, FORA; “NPS Assessment Says Center Would Not Harm 

Fort,” Coastland Times, February 11, 1982, 5, Clippings Files, FORA; Environmental Assessment, Fort Raleigh National Historic 

Site, North Carolina, February 1982, RIHA Files, FORA; Mrs. J. Emmett Winslow, RIHA, to Tom Hartman, Cape Hatteras NS, 

October 26, 1982, RIHA Files, FORA.

254. Superintendent, Cape Hatteras, to Regional Director, Southeast, September 11, 1981, RIHA Files, FORA; Superintendent, Cape

Hatteras, to Associate Regional Director, Planning and Recreation, Southeast, January 14, 1982, RIHA Files, FORA.

255. James E. Dough to Southeast Regional Office, NPS, February 13, 1982, RIHA Files, FORA; Regional Director, Southeast Region, 

Finding of no Significant Impact, April 6, 1982, RIHA Files, FORA. Note, as discussed in Chapter 4, the Dough family was forced

off its land by the Mission 66 park expansion. Whether or not Dough was influenced by this history, his views were a harbinger 

of things to come.
National Park Service 81

With NPS approval, RIHA employed an architect and 

initiated the required archeological survey of the 

proposed construction site. The first draft of the 

architectural design submitted for NPS review failed to 

meet park expectations. Part of the problem was that the 

NPS had imposed a verbal ten- thousand- square- foot 

restriction upon RIHA. RIHA’s architects thus designed 

a taller structure to meet this restriction while trying to 

FIGURE 45. Land requested by RIHA for construction of the Roanoke Island Center for the Arts, 1982
82 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

accommodate the association’s space- use needs. The 

resulting building rose too far above the tree line and so 

failed NPS conformity standards. The Park Service then 

requested a less intrusive redesign based upon the 

original twenty- thousand- square- foot limit. After 

accounting for these concerns, the Park Service 

approved the architectural plans. Approval of the 

archeological survey was less complicated, as no 

substantive issues were raised. The Southeast 

Archeological Center signed off on the archeological 

survey in June 1984, clearing the site for construction.256

Another issue pertaining to RIHA and the Park Service 

was resolved the previous April when the two signed a 

new twenty- year extension of their cooperative 

agreement. The new agreement entailed a significant 

increase in the association’s working fund, from 

$200,000 to $500,000. RIHA requested the increase in 

light of its expected financial needs for the forthcoming 

arts center. By agreeing to this change, however, park 

officials accepted a potentially significant reduction in 

RIHA’s contributions to the special fund used to 

support park- related activities. Of course, RIHA 

contributions to the fund had never met NPS 

expectations, so this decision was probably not hard to 

make. The Park Service imposed no provision in the 

agreement to account for the possibility that the center 

might not actually be constructed.257

Finally, with the complex process of site selection, 

design, regulatory approval, and other administrative 

issues behind it, RIHA faced the most formidable 

challenge of all – raising funds needed to construct the 

arts center. By this point, considerable changes had 

taken place in the composition of RIHA’s board, an 

analysis of which is beyond the scope of this 

administrative history. In the end, however, the fundraising challenge was undertaken by John P. Kennedy, 

Jr., who assumed the chairmanship of RIHA’s board of 

directors late in 1982. Kennedy had recently moved to 

Stumpy Point, which is across the sound from Roanoke 

Island, after a successful legal and banking career and a 

stint with North Carolina’s public university system. The 

latter position involved him in the arts and the activities 

of RIHA. He was very enthusiastic about the potential 

that the arts center offered for increasing both 

commercial and cultural opportunities in Dare County. 

Indeed, he proved a more expansive visionary than 

previous RIHA members, including those who had 

originally hired Paul Green to draft The Lost Colony, but 

this turned out to be a liability.258

Under Kennedy, a fund raising campaign was 

announced and a steering committee appointed. Using 

the highly successful model of the Shakespeare- themed 

arts festival in Ashland, Oregon, the size of the proposed 

facility was increased to include a 640- seat main theater 

and a 170- seat chamber theater. With Ashland in mind, 

RIHA leaders now expected the arts center to attract 

three hundred thousand visitors a year and to extend 

the local tourist season from a few months to nine or ten 

months each year. By late 1986, the campaign had raised 

around 1.8 million dollars of the 4.7 million dollars 

required to construct the facility, but fund raising began 

to stagnate as major contributors objected to giving large 

sums to construct a facility on federally owned and 

regulated land.259

In response to fund raising difficulties, and perhaps a 

sense of urgency created by declining attendance for 

The Lost Colony, RIHA’s board of directors made a 

fateful decision in late 1986.260 The board decided to 

256. John P. Kennedy to C. W. Ogle, Acting Regional Superintendent, SERO, November 24, 1982, RIHA Files, FORA; Robert Knowles, 

RIHA, to Thomas L. Hartman, Superintendent, FORA, January 10, 1983, RIHA Files, FORA; “Briefing Statement: Roanoke Island 

Historical Association Performance Center,” July 26, 1983, RIHA Files, FORA; Chief, Southeast Archeological Center, to 

Superintendent, CAHA, June 13, 1984, RIHA Files, FORA.

257. Cooperative Agreement, United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, and Roanoke Island Historical 

Association, Inc., January 1, 1945 to December 31, 1964; January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1984; and January 1, 1985 to December 

31, 2004, RIHA Files, FORA; Warren Wrenn (Concessions Specialist, FORA), interview by Cameron Binkley, August 1, 2001. An 

operational plan for the association in regards to park property was approved that same year. A formal maintenance agreement 

was signed in 1995. See Operational Plan for Roanoke Island Historical Association, Inc., 1984, RIHA Files, FORA; Maintenance 

Agreement Between the Roanoke Island Historical Association, Inc., and Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 1995, RIHA Files, 

FORA.

258. John P. Kennedy, Jr. RIHA Chairman to C.W. Ogle, Jesse Portis Helm, Acting Regional Director, SERO, RIHA Files, FORA; “Kennedy 

and the Center,” The Outer Banks Current, July 11, 1985, 5.

259. “Kennedy And The Center,” The Outer Banks Current, July 11, 1985, 5, Clippings Files, FORA; Gene P’Bleness, “New Site 

Considered for Arts Center,” Virginian Pilot, November 16, 1986, b1; “Arts Center Cabinet Eyes Local Funds,” The Outer Banks

Current, August 8, 1985, Clippings Files, FORA; Gwen White, “Arts center organizers predict impact of $193 million benefiting 

Dare area,” The Daily Advance, November 19, 1985, 1, Clippings Files, FORA; Joe Fahy, “The vision: Roanoke Island performing 

arts center to celebrate Elizabethan era,” Virginian Pilot, May 25, 1986, 4, Clippings Files, FORA; Adam Seessel, “$1.8 million 

raised for arts center near Manteo,” The News and Observer, August 16, 1986, C1, Clippings Files, FORA. 

260. Attendance at “The Lost Colony” declined from ninety thousand in 1980 to seventy-eight thousand in 1985.
National Park Service 83

build the arts center off park property and to include 

residential and commercial developments to help fund 

the center. This decision essentially removed the arts 

center as an issue that NPS officials could influence. 

When made public in early December, RIHA’s plans 

called for the acquisition of three hundred acres of land 

along U.S. Highway 64 on the northern end of the island 

near Fort Raleigh, including the forty- five- acre 

Fessenden tract already owned by the association, the 

125- acre Pearce tract, the seven- acre Redding tract, and 

another 122- acre tract. The arts center’s size was once 

again increased to one thousand seats in the main 

theater and two hundred seats in the chamber theater. 

Over two hundred homes were planned in a residential 

subdivision on the Fessenden tract. A hotel and 

shopping area were included in the plan, and a golf 

course was a possibility if additional land could be 

acquired. The price tag of the arts center had ballooned 

from less than five million dollars to more than twelve 

million dollars. The total development was estimated at 

around forty- eight million dollars. The residential 

development sales and hotel and commercial area 

leasing would provide income to RIHA for the 

construction and operation of the arts center.261

Several reasons prompted RIHA’s radical decision to 

abandon the concept of an arts center on park property. 

Publicly, association leaders complained about the 

difficulty in getting major corporate donors to give 

funds for a project to be built on federal property. In 

addition, the association wanted full control of the arts 

center. If the center was built on park property, the NPS 

FIGURE 46. Proposed Performing Arts Center planned by RIHA, 1986
84 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

would have a voice in its design and operations. RIHA 

Executive Director Scott Parker even feared that the 

Park Service might dictate the content of arts center 

programs, such as requiring all programming to deal 

with the Roanoke Island colonists. RIHA also thought 

that the theater size allowable at the park was too small 

to be financially viable and thought residential and 

commercial development necessary to fund both the 

construction and operation of the arts center. Last, as 

discussed below, individual RIHA board members may 

have had private incentives.262

When RIHA’s plans were made public, many residents 

of Roanoke Island and Dare County turned against the 

proposed development. The Manteo newspaper, The 

Coastland Times, summed up the attitude of many 

residents when it editorialized “The Waterside Theatre 

has been on government property since its existence, 

and Dare County has gotten along just fine with the 

landlord.”263 Actor and island resident Andy Griffith 

withdrew his support from the project. The ladies 

garden club launched a petition drive. Opponents of the 

new plan objected to its size, the inclusion of residential 

and commercial developments that would fundamentally alter the rural character of the area, the 

promotion of undesirable growth, potential competition 

between the development and nearby downtown 

Manteo, and the dramatic increase in the price tag of the 

arts center. A number of long- time RIHA supporters 

also questioned whether the arts center would detract 

from The Lost Colony by drawing attendees away or by 

weakening the financial position of the association. 

Then the debate grew ugly as allegations arose that 

RIHA board members stood to gain financially from the 

new property- development scheme. Despite such 

criticism, RIHA’s board of directors pressed on with 

their plans and held two public meetings in late 1986 and 

early 1987. The meetings were not successful, however, 

in changing negative public attitudes toward the new 

project. Finally, in 1988, RIHA launched an effort to gain 

state funding, but few legislators were willing to support 

a bill opposed by many in Dare County, especially with 

competing but less controversial measures to consider. 

Even before this last- ditch effort, John Kennedy all but 

conceded his failure to achieve community support for 

an expanded commercially oriented arts center. He 

resigned as chairman of RIHA on April 1, 1987.264

Neither the original park- approved facility nor 

Kennedy’s visionary arts center was ever built.

With the failure of RIHA’s plans for an arts center, the 

association had no choice but to resume its relationship 

with the Park Service at Fort Raleigh. Preceding events 

had strained that relationship, but Kennedy’s 

resignation made it possible for the two organizations to 

resume cooperation. Superintendent Hartman and 

RIHA Executive Director Scott Parker successfully 

negotiated several minor changes to the theater in July 

1987, although Hartman prevented RIHA from reducing 

the height of the theater’s palisade to maintain the 

“historic integrity of the stage.” In 1994, the Park Service 

and RIHA cooperated to finance and construct a much 

needed new facility, the Mabel Basnight Box Office, 

which was named for a deceased RIHA ticket manager. 

Hartman was quoted as saying “this is another example 

of how partnerships are making a positive difference 

during these stained [sic] budgetary times.” The park 

worked with RIHA in developing the joint project to 

overcome mutual budget shortfalls. On behalf of RIHA, 

a benefit performance of Elizabeth R raised $9,000 for 

261. Gene O’Bleness, “New site considered for arts center,” Virginian Pilot, November 16, 1986, B1, B3, Clippings Files, FORA; Gene 

O’Bleness, “Expansion proposed for arts center,” Virginian Pilot, November 19, 1986, D1, Clippings Files, FORA; “’Dramatic’ Plan 

For Arts Center Is Unveiled To County By RIHA,” Coastland Times, December 2, 1986, 1A, Clippings Files, FORA; Gene O’Bleness, 

“Art center proposals presented,” Virginian Pilot, December 2, 1986, D1, Clippings Files, FORA.

262. Gene O’Bleness, “New site considered for arts center,” Virginian Pilot, November 16, 1986, B1, B3, Clippings Files, FORA; “Teresa 

Annas, “Residents debate merits of planned Lost Colony Arts Center in N.C.,” Virginian Pilot, December 21, 1986, G1, G3, 

Clippings Files, FORA.

263. “Not the Same,” Coastland Times, December 2, 1986, 4A, Clippings Files, FORA.

264. Gene O’Bleness, “Group Leaves Center Choice to Residents,” Virginian Pilot, B1, B4, Clippings Files, FORA; Teresa Annas, 

“Residents Debate Merits of Planned Lost Colony Arts Center in N.C.,” Virginian Pilot, December 21, 1986, G1, G3, Clippings Files, 

FORA; Jerry Allegood, “Arts-center Project in Dare Sparks Criticism,” The News and Observer, December 24, 1986, 1C, 2C, 

Clippings Files, FORA; “Andy Griffith Withdraws Aid To RIHA Plan,” Coastland Times, January 1, 1987, 1A, Clippings Files, FORA; 

Gwen White, “Dare Residents Worried about Outdoor Drama,” The Daily Advance, January 22, 1987, 1, Clippings Files, FORA; 

“Petition Filed Against RIHA Rezoning Plan,” Coastland Times, February 3, 1987, 1A, Clippings Files, FORA; Gnee O’Bleness, 

“Crowd Gathers to Debate Arts Center,” Virginian Pilot, February 6, 1987, D1, D6, Clippings Files, FORA; Gene O’Bleness, “Arts 

Center Leader is Leaving Post,” Virginian Pilot, March 1, 1987, B1; Charles Herndon, “Group Seeks State Help to Buy Land for 

Arts Center,” Virginian Pilot, June 14, 1988, D1, D3, Clippings Files, FORA; Lebame Houston, comments on August 2002 draft, 

SERO. According to Houston, RIHA board members with unhealthy financial ties to the development project would have 

“almost brought The Lost Colony to its knees” and the play was saved when Bill Friday assumed the chair of RIHA and asked for 

the resignation of all board members who also had affiliations with Arcle-Dare or who otherwise stood to gain from the 

development proposal.
National Park Service 85

materials and construction, which was supplemented by 

donations from some of Mrs. Basnight’s friends and 

family. The Park Service provided architectural design 

and work crews.265 Finally, improved relations made it 

possible for RIHA and the park to collaborate 

successfully on the late- 1990s renovation of the 

Waterside Theatre (discussed above under “NPS 

Facilities Used by RIHA at Fort Raleigh”). 

Impact of Park Service Policy on RIHA

RIHA has occasionally blamed declining attendance of 

The Lost Colony on Park Service policies. Such 

accusations were most pronounced during Fort 

Raleigh’s earliest years, but they also emerged during the 

late 1980s with regard to the performing arts center. 

Complaints have targeted park entrance fees, lack of 

effective mosquito control, and limitations upon the 

performance repertory.266 The latter complaint was 

used frequently to justify moving the play off park 

property in the late 1980s. No detailed analysis of these 

complaints is offered, but a few remarks seem 

appropriate. First, no single factor is responsible for the 

success of a play, as measured by attendance. Ticket 

price, weather, quality of the production, tradition, and 

parking availability are all important considerations. 

Certainly, park policy may have impacted play 

attendance, as in the case of entrance fees or the 

reluctance to employ chemical pesticides to combat 

mosquitoes. However, the need to pay parking fees or 

endure insects is a routine cost paid by many devotees of 

outdoor entertainment, which includes concerts, 

festivals, and ball games. Moreover, during the mid1980s, some credited RIHA’s focus on the arts center 

and lack of focus on the play as a reason for declining 

attendance. So, while park policies may have affected 

play attendance, their impact should be judged in view 

of other important factors. Ultimately, of course, Fort 

Raleigh officials abandoned fee collection and deliberately chose not to resume the practice again in the 

1980s when authorized by Congress and encouraged to 

do so by Washington officials. The park was well aware 

of the contention caused by fees, whatever their actual 

affect on attendance, and has wisely avoided their use.

Some complaints, however, clearly lack merit. One 

reason RIHA justified moving its production off NPS 

property was to escape limitations on its ability to stage 

plays not in keeping with the Lost Colony theme, a 

mandate of the cooperative agreement. Certainly, fears 

about the future sole reliance on Paul Green’s play were 

a legitimate concern for RIHA. Presumably, choice, 

variety, and potential commercial attractions would 

boost attendance over the long- term. On this issue, 

however, there is no reason to believe that the 

association’s decision to build an off- site performing 

arts center was necessitated by excessive park- imposed 

restrictions.267 Park policy did not prevent RIHA from 

presenting Elizabethan- themed plays. Indeed, even 

despite some initial reluctance by park superintendents, 

the park proved willing to accommodate a moderate 

expansion of RIHA’s activities on the Fort Raleigh site. 

Federal policies did prevent RIHA from constructing a 

non- conforming structure deemed excessive in size. 

However, these restrictions were justified by cultural 

and natural resource protection guidelines and by 

environmental impact regulations. 

To avoid federal restraints, RIHA sought to fund its 

performing arts center through grant opportunities 

from parties interested in commercial development. Its 

arts center effort was then sidelined by attempts to 

address the restrictions imposed by those sources, 

whose goals proved contrary to the interests of the 

wider community. Park Service policy cannot be held 

accountable for this course of events. Moreover, after 

the arts center project failed, The Lost Colony continued 

to be successfully staged by RIHA under NPS auspices. 

The performance did endure a few pre- Mission 66 

years “in the red,” but the only lapse in the play’s history 

was the war- related discontinuance of the early 1940s. 

Despite the performing arts center episode, and other 

minor clashes, NPS policies do not seem to have greatly 

impeded the play’s production, its producers’ solvency, 

or its reception by critics. Park policies have limited 

RIHA’s scope, but these policies have remained 

consistent with underlying NPS values and the NPSRIHA cooperative agreement.

265. Thomas L. Hartman, Superintendent, FORA, to Scott Parker, Executive Director, RIHA, July 30, 1987, RIHA Files, FORA; “Final 

Touches Prepare Lost Colony Booth,” The Coastland Times, May 24, 1994, 5A, and “Mabel Basnight Box Office Unveiled at ‘Lost 

Colony,’” The Coastland Times, June 21, 1994, 9A, Clippings Files, FORA; Lebame Houston, comments on 2002 draft, SERO.

266. Regarding mosquitoes, see “Mosquitos [sic] Bite ‘Colony,’ RIHA Board Complains,” The Coastland Times, October 7, 1981, 1, 

Clippings Files, FORA.

267. Note, in the late 1990s, the NPS even paid the Professional Theatre Workshop (PTW) to provide “interpretive” programs during 

the summer.
86 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Fort Raleigh NHS and the 

Elizabethan Gardens

The Roanoke Island Historical Association stages The 

Lost Colony production at the Waterside Theatre 

through a cooperative agreement with the National Park 

Service. The theater and property, however, are owned 

by the federal government. Northwest of the theater 

complex and the Thomas Hariot Nature Trail lie 

approximately ten acres of land that remain outside Fort 

Raleigh’s authorized boundary. This land is owned by 

RIHA but was leased by it on October 29, 1953, for a 

term of ninety- nine years to the Federation of Garden 

Clubs of North Carolina (GCNC), a women’s civic club 

interested in park affairs.268 This property was used to 

create a formal Tudor- style garden and memorial to 

Queen Elizabeth I under whose auspices Sir Walter 

Raleigh set out to establish an English colony on 

Roanoke Island. The grounds are known as the 

Elizabethan Gardens. 

The notion to establish the Elizabethan Gardens was 

first announced in February 1951 after an executive 

meeting of RIHA. During the meeting RIHA offered the 

GCNC land for the development of an Elizabethan- era 

garden, which the women’s group accepted. Apparently, 

the idea of a memorial project first arose from two 

women. One was Mrs. Charles A. Cannon of Concord, 

Massachusetts. Cannon was president of the North 

Carolina Society for the Preservation of Antiquities, a 

member of the GCNC, and chairman of RIHA. Her 

society was then also providing funds to RIHA to 

renovate the Waterside Theatre to reflect more 

accurately sixteenth- century architecture. The second 

woman was novelist Inglis Fletcher, who was probably 

the main instigator. Inglis was a friend of the influential 

Cannon and also a member of the GCNC. Two years 

later, RIHA arranged a lease agreement with the GCNC 

for the ten- and- a- half- acre tract with the 

understanding that the GCNC would develop a twoacre garden at the site. The garden was then designed by 

Umberto Innocenti and Richard Webel, two wellknown landscape architects from New York, and was 

built by E.W. Reinecke of Fayetteville with the help of 

Albert Bell of Manteo. The women obtained funding for 

the project by soliciting an annual donation of one 

dollar from each Garden Club member and by 

obtaining a major gift of English statuary of the 

Elizabethan period from orange juice magnate John Hay 

Whitney.269

The GCNC facility included a formal garden of the type 

that existed in England during the sixteenth century and 

a wild garden to represent the environment that the 

colonists lived in on Roanoke Island. The garden 

became self- supporting in 1959 through the collection 

of admission fees. Although the NPS was given some 

design review role in the development of the 

Elizabethan Gardens, its control was limited by the 

garden’s location on nonfederal land.270

The Elizabethan Gardens also contain a famous 

nineteenth- century statue of Virginia Dare imagined as 

she might have looked as a young woman in the 

wilderness. The statue has a well- known story. The 

work was designed and sculpted in 1859 by Maria Louis 

Lander, an American living in Europe who became 

infatuated with Virginia Dare. Unfortunately, upon its 

completion in 1860, her statue was lost at sea while being 

shipped from Italy. Two years later, however, it was 

recovered from the Atlantic and sold to a man in Boston 

whose home burned down before he paid the artist. The 

268. Lease between Roanoke Island Historical Association and Garden Club of North Carolina, October 29, 1953, FORA Vault, 

Elizabethan Gardens folder, FORA.

269. Monthly Reports, February 1951; “Elizabethan Gardens Dedicated By State Garden Clubs at Ceremony In Manteo,” The New 

and Observer (Raleigh) August 19, 1955, and Carole Thompson, “Elizabethan Gardens Splendor,” The Coastland Times (April 13, 

1986), 1B; both in FORA Museum Resource Center Clippings files, FORA. A general history of the Elizabethan Gardens can be 

found in Chapter 15, “History Transplanted: The Elizabethan Gardens,” Angelis Ellis Khoury, Manteo: A Roanoke Island Town

(Virginia Beach: Donning Company Publishers, 1999), 215-223.

270. William S. Powell, Paradise Preserved: A History of the Roanoke Island Historical Association (Chapel Hill: University of North 

Carolina Press, 1965), 185-189.

FIGURE 47. Statue of Virginia Dare in the Elizabethan Gardens, 

1990
National Park Service 87

statue was then recovered unharmed a second time and 

the artist reclaimed her unlucky work. Years later, 

Lander willed the statue to the state of North Carolina 

after several entreaties by Sallie Southall Cotton, who 

began the campaign in 1892 to gain national recognition 

for Virginia Dare. In 1926, the statue was then placed on 

display in the Hall of History in Raleigh until complaints 

about the bare- breasted figure resulted in its removal. A 

decision was made to send the statue to Roanoke Island. 

While en route, the statue was once again lost at sea. The 

piece was then salvaged unharmed yet again and finally 

acquired by playwright Paul Green for his personal 

garden. Eventually, Green donated the piece to the 

Elizabethan Gardens.271

Although the Elizabethan Gardens were not yet 

completed, they were dedicated on the 368th

anniversary of the birth of Virginia Dare, August 18, 1955, 

during the annual board meeting of the GCNC, which 

was opened to the public. Frank Graham, a diplomat 

and former president of the University of North 

Carolina, delivered the main address. Reflecting the 

temper of the day, Graham said that the gardens 

represented “the spirit of the women who, in their 

gardens and in their lives, grow the fairest flowers of our 

civilization.” Cast members of The Lost Colony also 

reenacted scenes from the play in which Captain 

Barlowe and Amadas claimed possession of Roanoke 

Island in the name of Queen Elizabeth for whom the 

gardens are named. Mrs. George Little of the GCNC 

then dedicated the garden to the citizens of the state and 

compared the planting of the garden to the efforts of 

those first colonists who attempted to plant a settlement 

on the island.272

The dedication ceremony was a major achievement of 

the GCNC and RIHA. Neither of these organizations, 

however, sought to undertake the long- term 

administration of the project. Historically, the role of 

women’s civic organizations has been to promote civic 

work, education, and appropriate social and political 

change. Rarely have women’s groups elected to run 

organizations for the long haul. They have typically 

preferred to transfer the parks, playgrounds, libraries, or 

businesses that have resulted from their work to 

government stewardship. RIHA was also not interested 

in managing this enterprise, considering that historic 

preservation and civic promotion were its chief aims 

beyond administering theatrical productions. Events 

related to its performance arts center of the mid- 1980s 

notwithstanding, RIHA has traditionally sought 

property to hold for later purchase by the state or 

federal government, and the most involvement in the 

project it probably ever contemplated was to hold the 

property under long- term lease to the GCNC.

Indeed, there is some evidence that the GCNC always 

expected to turn administration of the Elizabethan 

Gardens over to the state or the National Park Service. 

The club’s first offer was, in fact, made in February 1951 

to park officials to establish the garden at Fort Raleigh 

itself. The preliminary idea was referred to a committee 

to develop a serious proposal, including a topographical 

layout and site plan. The NPS considered the issue and 

the plans for some time, but ultimately the GCNC 

decided to build the garden on land owned by RIHA. 

Once the Elizabethan Gardens were created, members 

of GCNC’s executive committee began to explore anew 

the proposition of turning the property over to the Park 

Service. Certainly, Inglis Fletcher expressed this 

outlook. In a letter to NPS Director Conrad Wirth dated 

February 25, 1960, Fletcher raised the prospect of her 

desire to see the Park Service acquire the Elizabethan 

Gardens, once all members of the club were “ready to 

give it up.” She explained to Wirth that the GCNC had 

rules against running a business, which the Elizabethan 

Gardens were soon to become.273

By 1962 Josie D. Bennett, Chairman of the Elizabethan 

Gardens committee of the GCNC sought a conference 

with Director Wirth to discuss the matter. Apparently, 

the director was reluctant to make a commitment. In 

September 1963, Bennett contacted the director once 

again, this time explaining that while development of 

the Elizabethan Gardens was still not completed, the 

club was thinking about its “ultimate future.” RIHA had 

asked the GCNC to donate the garden to the Park 

Service and the full club had obviously accepted that 

proposition. Since at least February 1960, the Garden 

Committee of the Elizabethan Gardens possessed 

architectural scale drawings of Hayes Barton, Sir Walter 

Raleigh’s home in England. Harkening back to a 

proposal first made by Fletcher, Bennett suggested that a 

Hayes Barton- style building could serve as the new 

administrative building being planned for the park as 

part of its Mission 66 development. She suggested that 

271. Thompson, 1B.

272. “Elizabethan Gardens Dedicated By State Garden Clubs . . . ”.

273. Monthly Reports, January 1951, June 1952, November 1952, May 1953; Inglis Fletcher to Conrad Wirth, February 25, 1960, FORA 

Vault, Elizabethan Gardens folder, FORA.
88 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

the Elizabethan Gardens could actually serve as the 

garden for that structure.274

NPS officials debated this proposal for another year 

until a consensus was reached. The proposal was 

rejected. Unfortunately for the GCNC, design work for 

Fort Raleigh’s visitor center and administrative offices 

was already underway. Moreover, NPS officials, 

typically exuberant in support of the new “Park Service 

Modern” style of architecture, were in no mood to 

introduce a Tudor- style facility under their jurisdiction, 

especially after spending years to eliminate the park’s 

historically inaccurate WPA- constructed log structures. 

Official comments from the regional director to the 

director, however, describe the need to maintain a clear 

distinction between Fort Raleigh activities and those of 

the Elizabethan Gardens. Housing NPS personnel in a 

“Hayes Barton” home at the garden would not serve 

that purpose. Additionally, NPS officials felt it necessary 

to maintain separate entrances to the two facilities. 

Separate entrances helped to maintain a clear 

distinction to visitors between the events and activities 

of the two similarly themed institutions. NPS officials 

were obviously concerned that the credibility and 

interpretative clarity of the Park Service be maintained. 

A final NPS concern was simply the expense associated 

with maintaining the formal and labor- intense garden. 

One NPS official offered his opinion that the Garden 

Club was perhaps finding the cost of operating the 

Elizabethan Gardens a financial liability and was seeking 

to free itself of the burden of “a doubtful asset.” In the 

end, regional officials recommended that the director 

accept the GCNC’s offer only on condition that the club 

continued to maintain and operate the Elizabethan 

Gardens under a cooperative agreement.275

In January 1964, George B. Hartzog, Jr., the new NPS 

director, replied to Bennett and explained that a Tudorstyle building could not be built because of pre- existing 

plans and that the Park Service could not assume the 

heavy financial burden of maintaining the garden in an 

attractive condition. He offered to accept the property, 

in league with an agreement with RIHA, as long as the 

GCNC continued to fund its current maintenance, 

which was not an attractive offer to the club. Nevertheless, Hartzog expressed that the well being of the 

Elizabethan Gardens was a matter of great importance 

to the National Park Service and offered to work with 

the club to “re- orient the development of the Garden 

tract so as to integrate its development with that of the 

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site.”276

From 1959 until his retirement in 1988, Louis Midgette, 

son of garden club member Elma Midgette, managed 

the Elizabethan Gardens. Gradually, the women of the 

GCNC gave him their full confidence and, after the 

failure of the club’s overtures to the NPS, he settled in to 

run their garden and to promote its horticultural 

accomplishments.277 Since that time, the Elizabethan 

Gardens and Fort Raleigh have maintained a cordial 

relationship, one less prone to stress than that shared 

between NPS and RIHA. Because the Elizabethan 

Gardens are privately held and outside the park’s 

boundary, there are fewer issues to implicate park 

policy. As discussed more thoroughly in Chapter Four, 

Marie Odom, Chairman of the Garden Club of North 

Carolina, even helped lead the campaign to expand the 

park’s boundary in 1990. When funds were not 

sufficient, however, to purchase all the land that was 

threatened by development within the new authorized 

boundary, the Elizabethan Gardens quickly sided with 

RIHA, and not Fort Raleigh, in a dispute over land 

acquisition priorities. Financially strapped, RIHA could 

not afford to continue holding parcels it had acquired 

for the failed performing arts center. The park, however, 

planned to purchase the land most threatened by 

development, which happened to be owned by a 

developer accused by many of speculating. In this case, 

the Elizabethan Gardens joined with many others to 

bring overwhelming public pressure in support of 

274. Josie D. Bennett to Conrad Wirth, September 22, 1963, Land Records, Vault, FORA.

275. Acting Regional Director to Director, November 13, 1963, Land Records, Vault, FORA.

276. George B. Hartzog, Jr., Director, to Mrs. J. R. Bennett, Trustee, Elizabethan Gardens Club, January 21, 1964, FORA Vault, 

Elizabethan Gardens folder, FORA.

277. Khoury, 221.

FIGURE 48. Sunken Garden at the Elizabethan Gardens, 1990
National Park Service 89

RIHA’s position, which convinced Superintendent 

Thomas Hartman to rethink park policy to avoid a 

public- relations disaster.

Beyond supporting Fort Raleigh by commemorating the 

Elizabethan era, the Elizabethan Gardens have also 

provided an additional venue over the years supporting 

NPS meetings, and conferences, and have even served 

as a separate staging area for theatrical events, such as 

Elizabeth R, that complement The Lost Colony. Indeed, 

after a successful opening season at Fort Raleigh in 1993, 

the one- woman show about Queen Elizabeth starring 

British actress Barbara Hird was relocated. It has now 

played the summer season at the Elizabethan Gardens 

for several years. 

RIHA and Fort Raleigh NHS

The National Park Service has cooperated with the 

Roanoke Island Historical Association in promoting and 

producing Paul Green’s famed play about the Lost 

Colony in the government- owned Waterside Theatre 

for more than sixty years. The relationship stands as one 

of the most successful examples of a long- term 

cooperative venture between the Park Service and a 

cooperating partner in the agency’s history. From this 

cooperative arrangement, both Fort Raleigh and RIHA 

have gained significantly, although that gain has not 

come without strain. 

Mundane issues, such as entrance fees or RIHA’s 

parking and space requirements, among other concerns, 

have tested the parties’ relations. More contentious 

issues have included RIHA’s fear of potential NPS 

theatrical restrictions, the demolition of the park’s 

locally cherished but inauthentic log structures, related 

disputes over the historical accuracy of the Waterside 

Theatre’s design, and perhaps NPS refusal to absorb the 

Elizabethan Gardens as proposed by the GCNC. RIHA’s 

efforts during the 1980s to build a performing arts 

center, and the priority of NPS land acquisition plans 

during the 1990s were sources of friction in recent years. 

Moreover, until Mission 66, the cooperative 

arrangement did not fulfill NPS expectations about 

RIHA’s ability to help Fort Raleigh fund major land 

acquisitions or the park’s research program. 

Despite these problems, Fort Raleigh gained 

considerably from its partnership. During the Mission 

66 period, park expansion was made possible because 

of RIHA. Well- connected RIHA supporters helped 

push the needed expansion legislation through 

Congress, secured a grant from the state of North 

Carolina for land purchases, and then capped the 

exercise by providing a matching private donation from 

a generous board member. Similarly, the park’s second 

expansion in 1990 was again much the result of local 

well- connected enthusiasts with interests in promoting 

The Lost Colony production. Over the long- term, the 

Park Service has garnered enormous publicity as The 

Lost Colony production drew thousands and thousands 

of play patrons to the site. A similar, if lesser, benefit has 

resulted from the proximity of the Elizabethan Gardens. 

Indeed, unlike other historical parks of similar size and 

geographic remoteness, Fort Raleigh has enjoyed far 

greater opportunities to educate the public about its 

unique cultural resources because of these nearby 

attractions. Moreover, as The Lost Colony became an 

icon of American popular culture, the Park Service 

shined by association with the play and those who 

staged it. 

RIHA’s gains from the relationship are more subtle but 

still significant. These gains include the use of a bona 

fide historical setting to perform a historical play.278

Today, that setting would simply not exist had locals not 

sought to allow the Park Service to step in and shield the 

area from private development. Moreover, the 

association’s own goal to preserve and promote the site 

is furthered by the fiscal, administrative, and technical 

arrangements of a national organization that has the 

ability to maintain and manage the Waterside Theatre, 

the fort reconstruction, and other features of the area 

over the long term. That arrangement has also allowed 

RIHA to focus upon theatrical and broader policy issues 

ultimately to the greater benefit of both parties. The 

exception to that statement was the 1980s, when RIHA’s 

board departed from that arrangement with a 

consequent and nearly disastrous result.

Yes, conflicting interests have sometimes created 

dissonance between RIHA and Fort Raleigh. Overall, 

however, the unique relationship between the park and 

its cooperating partner has endured, because 

cooperation has consistently benefited each 

organization more than any burden fostered by one 

upon the other, whether creative limitation or 

administrative challenge. And, again laying aside the 

1980s performing arts center controversy, the virtue of 

the park- RIHA association is a fact not lost on the local 

278. RIHA also derives considerable benefit from the low overhead made available by working from government-provided facilities.
90 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

community. Fort Raleigh and RIHA share stewardship 

of a unique resource that represents the cultural and 

historical legacy of Sir Water Raleigh’s sixteenthcentury colonizing endeavors in the New World. In view 

of this analysis, it makes eminent sense for each 

organization to remain cooperative to nurture and 

protect Fort Raleigh for future generations. Indeed, 

there seems to be no other choice
National Park Service 91

Chapter Eight: General 

Preservation and Protection

Resource Management

The basic management goals for both cultural and 

natural resources at Fort Raleigh are outlined in the 

park’s Statement for Management. For cultural 

resources, those goals are to identify, protect, and 

preserve the park’s historical and archeological 

resources, including the reconstructed earthwork, the 

park’s Native American or Civil War- era archeological 

sites, and any recovered artifacts. The park must also 

protect its historic setting from intrusions, which mainly 

concerns development threats. For natural resources, 

the main goal is to manage the park’s natural and 

historic setting in keeping with the time of settlement, 

allowing natural processes to continue without 

intervention. Fort Raleigh has had to deviate in some 

cases, however, from this goal. For example, the park 

protects the area from fire and certain pests, and also 

involves itself actively in shoreline erosion mitigation 

efforts, as discussed further below. These policies have 

not significantly changed since the creation of the park. 

General resource management plans were prepared in 

1977, 1983, and 1997.279

The standard dichotomy of dividing resource 

management into cultural and natural areas, as 

described in the park’s resource management plans, 

does not in general work well at Fort Raleigh. Most 

preservation activity at the park concerns cultural 

issues. Thus, this study has instead divided the park’s 

resource management into three broad categories. The 

first category concerns archeology. The second category 

concerns The Lost Colony production, which is certainly 

a type of resource for its interpretative, commemorative, 

and ethnographic aspects. The third category concerns 

general preservation and protection and might be called 

“Everything Else,” which is true except that everything 

else ultimately relates to one of the first two categories. 

However, under general preservation and protection are 

important issues relating both to cultural and natural 

resource management. Cooperation between Fort 

Raleigh and various interested parties is the glue that 

links all of these categories together. The park’s major 

partnership, of course, is with the Roanoke Island 

Historical Association, the organization that produces 

The Lost Colony. Other cooperating partners include the 

Elizabethan Gardens and the now defunct Friends of 

Roanoke Island, but there are several others. Many of 

these groups played key roles in the effort to promote 

the park’s expansion in 1990 as a means to protect 

Roanoke Island’s threatened natural landscape and to 

safeguard Fort Raleigh itself as a suitable venue for the 

production of The Lost Colony. Chapters Five through 

Seven discuss these issues extensively. The remainder of 

this chapter, therefore, discusses more general resource 

management at Fort Raleigh.

Fort Raleigh as a National Historic Site

In 1966, Congress passed the National Historic 

Preservation Act (NHPA), legislation that affected all 

historical parks, including Fort Raleigh. The NHPA 

created the National Register of Historic Places. The 

listing of historic buildings, structures, or sites on the 

National Register bestows special significance and is an 

important aid for those interested in promoting historic 

preservation. For example, listing on the National 

Register may encourage local governments to recognize 

historic properties through the establishment of local 

zoning regulations and ordinances limiting the rights of 

279. “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Statement for Management,” March 5, 1981, FORA; “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site 

Resource Management Plan,” 1983, FORA; National Park Service, “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Historic Resource 

Management Plan,” 1977, revised 1979, FORA; National Park Service, “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Resource Management 

Plan,” 1983, FORA; National Park Service, “Resource Management Plan, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site,” 1997, FORA.
92 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

property owners to modify or destroy historic buildings. 

One feature of the NHPA is that it placed on the 

National Register all previously designated historic sites, 

including Fort Raleigh. However, the act also requires 

park officials to document and list on the National 

Register all historically significant structures and objects 

within the boundaries of such parks. 

In the early 1970s, to meet NHPA requirements, Fort 

Raleigh cultural resource officials began to compile 

National Register documentation for the park’s historic 

structures, mainly the earthwork and commemorative 

monuments. Although parks are required to file 

documentation to support the listing of their sites on the 

National Register, NHPA’s automatic designation 

removed a motivation for immediate action. By 1976, 

park staff believed that they had identified all known 

cultural resources and so attempted to update the park’s 

National Register nomination. Unfortunately, the 

NHPA created some confusion through its automatic 

designation of a park boundary as the same boundary as 

the historic zone. Section 106 is the specific element of 

the NHPA that mandates federal officials to consider the 

impact of federal undertakings upon historic structures. 

Section 106 has greatly aided the cause of historic 

preservation by requiring parks to consult with 

stakeholders and to mitigate potential negative effects of 

their activities on historic park structures. However, 

parks also include non- historic areas within their 

boundaries. To avoid the need for Section 106 

compliance for routine activities in non- historic areas, 

such as employee housing, rest rooms, campgrounds, 

etc., park managers have generally sought to exclude 

non- historic areas of their parks from National Historic 

boundaries.280

When Fort Raleigh officials filed to update the National 

Register listing for the park in 1976, higher authorities 

with an interest in NHPA standards interceded. Harry 

Pfanz, Acting Chief, Cultural Resources Management, 

in Washington, returned comments on the nomination 

pointing out several problems. The park, he stated, 

needed to reduce to a minimum the boundary of the 

nomination subject to National Register designation. 

The park had sought to list the entire site, then 159.66 

acres. However, in its description, park officials 

indicated that most of the area except for the fort 

reconstruction was a “development zone.” Pfanz also 

called into question the thinking of park officials 

regarding the historical significance of Fort Raleigh. The 

park had focused on the significance of the fort, itself 

only a reconstruction, instead of upon the overall 

significance of the colony. Additionally, Pfanz noted that 

the National Register nomination lacked 

documentation to show a clearly designated boundary. 

Moreover, the nomination utilized a 1953 USGS 

(Geologic Survey) map showing an outdated NPS 

boundary. While the State Historic Preservation Office 

was satisfied with the park’s nomination, the Southeast 

Regional Office concurred with Washington that only 

those portions of the historic site that still retained their 

historic integrity should be listed on the National 

Register. In response, Fort Raleigh revised its 

nomination. On November 16, 1978, the National 

Register documentation was accepted, with a boundary 

enclosing 16.45 acres, essentially a historic subzone 

surrounding the earthwork. In this subzone, the only 

remaining non- historic modern structures were a few 

paved walkways and historic trail signs. However, the 

revised nomination did impact an erosion control 

proposal then being developed by the Denver Service 

Center. Apparently, the subzone’s more clearly 

designated boundary now required a Section 106 

compliance statement for shoreline stabilization 

projects.281

Fort Raleigh has submitted minor adjustments to its 

National Register nomination since 1978. During the 

1970s, the fort reconstruction and other eligible 

structures were also placed upon the NPS List of 

Classified Structures (LCS), an inventory of culturally 

significant resources used for internal management 

purposes. LCS listings generally derive from and overlap 

with similar listings for the National Register. This list 

was updated again in 1980 and periodically, thereafter, 

every few years. In 1980, Fort Raleigh completed a 

Historic Resources Management Plan. The document 

included, among other issues, details concerning the 

planned reconstruction of “Lane’s Fort.” The Advisory 

Council on Historic Preservation accepted the park’s 

plan by default—it failed to reply within the thirty days 

required by the NHPA. The North Carolina’s State 

280. “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (FR-H1),” National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form, 1972, FORA;

Annual Report, 1977, 4, FORA.

281. Acting Chief, Cultural Resources Management, Washington, to Regional Director, Southeast Region, October 28, 1977; Larry E. 

Tise, State Historic Preservation Officer, to Joe Brown, Regional Director Southeast Region, April 4, 1978; Superintendent, CAHA, 

to Associate Regional Director, Planning and Assistance, SERO, February 9, 1978; “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (FR-H1),”

National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination Form,” November 20, 1976; all in FORA Correspondence folder, 

National Register Files, SERO.
National Park Service 93

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), however, made 

specific request to be provided detailed plans for any 

future modification not provided for by existing studies. 

The planned (and not then funded) undertakings of 

SHPO concern included reconstruction of the 

storehouse, guardhouse, the outwork, and possibly the 

mounting of ordnance at the earthwork. For various 

reasons, none of these projects has come to pass either 

because of funding constraints, archeological concerns, 

or to prevent resource damage (as would likely occur by 

visitors attracted to any firearm displays on the 

earthwork). In 1992, a draft historic resource study 

prepared by a contractor for Fort Raleigh was reviewed 

by the Acting Chief of Registration, National Register 

Branch, in Washington. This study included data to 

update the Fort Raleigh National Register nomination 

form. As part of the review, it was recommended that 

Fort Raleigh prepare a “multiple property 

documentation form” that could replace the existing 

1978 nomination form. This suggestion was intended to 

obviate the need to file new nomination forms for every 

update. The reviewer specifically noted that at some 

future date the park would need to nominate additional 

structures for listing on the National Register as they 

became eligible, especially the Waterside Theatre and 

perhaps the Elizabethan Gardens. Later, markers placed 

to commemorate President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s visit 

in the 1930s and Ivor Noel Hume’s archeological 

discoveries in the 1990s were added to the National 

Register nomination form as significant contributions to 

the historical site. However, the Elizabethan Gardens 

were specifically excluded, being outside the park’s 

authorized boundary.282

In 1999, Southeast Regional Office staff completed a 

field survey of park resources while conducting 

additional substantial new research to revise the 

aforementioned draft historic resource study. With its 

publication, this project finally fulfilled the need to 

increase staff understanding of the historic importance 

of Fort Raleigh’s cultural resources, especially beyond 

the main theme of colonization between 1584 and 1590. 

This task was accomplished when the study defined two 

historic themes (contexts): the Settlement and 

Development of Roanoke Island, 1650- 1900, and 

Preservation and Recognition, 1860- 1953. With the 

wealth of information generated from this study, the 

park’s LCS was again updated and new National 

Register documentation was prepared. Continuing 

efforts of this type, as well as cooperation with the 

SHPO, demonstrate Fort Raleigh’s commitment to abide 

by regulatory requirements that both protect and 

strengthen the legal basis for safeguarding park 

resources. At the same time, the park’s understanding of 

the nature and status of its cultural resources is 

deepened by compliance with the NHPA. However, 

records also suggest that park officials need specific 

FIGURE 49. Marker commemorating spot where President Franklin 

D. Roosevelt spoke in 1937

282. Annual Report, 1977, 4, FORA; Acting Chief of Registration, National Register Branch, Washington, to Deputy Associate 

Regional Director Hartwig, Southeast Region, December 3, 1992, and Kirk Cordell, Chief Cultural Resources Stewardship, SERO, 

to William Chapman, University of Hawaii, July 9, 1997, both in FORA Correspondence folder, National Register Files, SERO; 

Christine Trebellas and William Chapman, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Historic Resource Study (Atlanta: National Park 

Service, 1999); James L. Bainbridge, Acting Regional Director, to Dr. Larry E. Tise, State Historic Preservation Officer, June 14, 

1979, Larry E. Tise to James Bainbridge, July 18, 1979, and Acting Regional Director, SERO, to Superintendent, CAHA, July 11, 

1980, all in park files, FORA.

FIGURE 50. Marker commemorating spot where President 

Roosevelt viewed The Lost Colony in 1937
94 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

training to ensure a fully professional ability to meet 

those compliance needs.283

This administrative history adds yet another required 

study that gives park staff a better understanding of Fort 

Raleigh’s management needs. Nevertheless, the park 

still does not have all the baseline reports required by 

Director’s Order #28, which provides guidelines for 

cultural resource management within the National Park 

Service. There is a need, for example, for further 

archeological evaluations in the new lands acquired by 

the park in the 1990s. Ethnography is another area of 

scholarship that has been under- investigated at Fort 

Raleigh, although that case is probably true at many 

other parks as well. However, there is clear, long- term 

ethnographic relationship between The Lost Colony

theatrical production, its traditionally associated 

participants and local supporters, and the Fort Raleigh 

site. Many local residents of Roanoke Island have 

involved themselves in some aspect of the play 

throughout their lives, as have many of their children. As 

other chapters in this study reveal, Park Service 

management of Fort Raleigh is historically tied to The 

Lost Colony, the activities of RIHA, and the character of 

the cooperation of these entities with the park. Any 

enterprise that casts new light upon the nature of these 

relationships will benefit the National Park Service. 

Hence, it is probably appropriate for park staff to 

consider the need for a major ethnographic overview or 

cultural affiliation study.

Collections Management

Planning for the administration of archival records and 

museum objects began at Fort Raleigh during the late 

1930s, albeit somewhat reluctantly. In 1936 NPS historian 

Roy E. Appleman questioned the need for a museum, 

given that there were no existing relics and little material 

relating to the Roanoke colonies to display, although he 

was probably more upset by the condition of the 

existing museum rather than the idea itself. NPS officials 

always intended that the park should construct an 

appropriate museum facility, following archeological 

surveys, along with parking and contact stations for 

visitors. Fort Raleigh’s first museum, however, was built 

under the auspices of the Works Progress 

Administration during the mid- 1930s while the site 

belonged to the state of North Carolina. The museum 

was built in the same style as the other log structures at 

the site, which supposedly represented dwellings of the 

Roanoke colonists. The Park Service had already 

concluded that these reconstructions were historically 

suspect. Nevertheless, the site held sufficient national 

value that the NPS accepted short- term administration 

of these reconstructions with the long- term view of 

eventually removing them. The building that became the 

first museum was the largest of these reconstructions. 

After an inspection of the structure in 1936, Appleman 

summed up NPS views by stating that an authentic 

historic structure “certainly would not be made of 

horizontally laid logs, shingled of asphalt, or have a 

double layer shingle roof.”284

Despite such misgivings, the Park Service inherited the 

WPA structures and was forced to make do with its 

“rather gloomy” log museum for a few years. At first, the 

Roanoke Island Historical Association ran the museum 

and owned the exhibits, but the organization consented 

gradually to cede authority over the exhibits as the NPS 

reorganized the museum between 1947 and 1949. 

Unified management brought less friction with the 

association and less confusion for visitors. Indeed, as the 

Park Service assumed control over the museum it 

moved deliberately to distance itself from the more 

carnival- like practices of the 1930s. To this end it sought 

the removal of a concession authorized by RIHA, which 

was operated by Jeff Hayman to the west of the museum. 

Hayman was previously the caretaker at Fort Raleigh, 

but lost that position when the park was transferred to 

the federal government. Hayman was well liked, and 

Representative Bonner even wrote Interior Secretary 

Harold Ickes in 1941 in an attempt to find a position for 

him on the park’s “laborers roll.” Unfortunately, funding 

was not available. Eventually, RIHA allowed Hayman to 

set up a soft- drink concession. By 1947, Hayman’s 

concession had become an “eye- sore.” Both the Park 

Service and RIHA wanted Hayman, who had become 

quite elderly, and his family members, who helped him 

run the business, to close the concession. RIHA felt an 

obligation, however, to take care of the old caretaker and 

even paid him a small wage. Nevertheless, Regional 

Archeologist Jean C. Harrington, reporting on RIHA’s 

283. “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (FR-H1),” National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form, 1972, FORA;

Christine Trebellas and William Chapman, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Historic Resource Study (Atlanta: National Park 

Service, 1999). Note, the Trebellas and Chapman study was adapted to provide background material contained in Chapter Two 

of this administrative history.

284. Charles W. Porter, Historian, to Regional Director, SERO, October 18, 1938, Correspondence folder, Box “CHNS Papers on 

Proposal, Land Tracts, CCC Reports, and Others,” Vault, FORA; Roy Edgar Appleman, Historian, Region I, to Herbert Evison, 

Regional Officer, Region I, September 15, 1936, 3-4, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.
National Park Service 95

operations in 1947, noted that “the biggest improvement 

[at the park] would come with the abolishment of the 

Hayman soft- drink stand and reorganization of the 

museum.” According to Harrington, Hayman and his 

associates were “dirty in appearance,” sold 

unauthorized items, and failed to pass Public Health 

Service and NPS inspections. Moreover, the 

concession’s proximity to the museum made visitors 

associate it with the Park Service, a practice not 

tolerated in major parks. In October Regional Director 

Thomas J. Allen wrote RIHA Chairman J. Melville 

Broughton. Both agreed that the situation was 

intolerable. Superintendent Horace Dough then closed 

the concession, after giving Hayman a few weeks to 

expend his stocks.285

By 1948, the “temporary” museum, which also housed 

the superintendent’s office, contained ten table cases, 

three aisle cases, one upright wall case, and seventeen 

exhibit panels that displayed mainly maps, letters, 

drawings, and engravings. Having an office, especially 

the main one, in the museum was not a preferred 

arrangement, but was considered necessary until the 

park could construct a museum- administration 

building. The items displayed were mostly “photostatic” 

reproductions of early maps and De Bry engravings, 

watercolor copies of John White paintings, and a few 

original period items, such as halberts and helmets, and 

even a small number of artifacts found during a 1947 

excavation at the park. Region One Museum Curator J. 

Paul Hudson made several recommendations for 

improving the conditions of the museum’s interior in 

early 1948. Among these, he advised covering the log 

walls with wall board, painting the exhibits with light 

colors (to off set the room’s gloomy qualities), covering 

the asphalt floor with linoleum, and installing 

fluorescent lights, possibly obtained from the War 

Assets Administration or by purchase. Superintendent 

Atkinson and Coordinating Superintendent Dough 

agreed with the recommendations and believed they 

could make most of the changes expediently using park 

labor, although an architect was also needed. Acting 

Regional Director Elbert Cox fully supported the 

recommended changes. During the process of 

upgrading the museum exhibits, the wording of the 

displays was carefully vetted. The museum was 

remodeled, relighted, and reopened in June of that year. 

Regional Director Allen, following a tour of the new 

facility, stated “From a gloomy, crowded, and 

unattractive layout, the Fort Raleigh Museum has leapt 

into a sparkling, spacious, well- lighted, and clever 

presentation, easy to absorb, and interesting to 

study.”286

In July 1949, J. Paul Hudson completed a report to the 

regional director on NPS museums in the Southeast 

Region. He commended staff efforts at Fort Raleigh but 

noted that the park’s exhibits were of a temporary 

nature and required much additional work. He 

particularly noted a lack of metal storage equipment for 

holding pictures, maps, manuscripts, specimens, and 

archeological items. He also noted that the park needed 

to reduce the predominance of its flat work, that is, 

drawings, maps, etc., as opposed to sixteenth- century 

museum objects. In 1949 there was also no museum 

exhibit prospectus or exhibit plan. Worst of all, the 

museum building was not fireproofed. Hudson felt that 

potential donors would be reluctant to give original 

objects until a modern fireproof facility was constructed 

at Fort Raleigh. His concerns reflected a growing sense 

within the Park Service of the system- wide need to 

preserve the growing collection of historic objects, 

285. Reports on the operations of the Roanoke Island Historical Association, Inc., at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, 1947-1951,

September 1947, April 1948, April 1949, binder of separate reports, Cultural Resource Library, SERO; and Herbert C. Bonner to 

Harold L. Ickes, August 26, 1941; J. Atwood Maulding to Herbert C. Bonner, September 10, 1941; Thomas J. Allen to J. Melville 

Broughton, October 14, 1947, J. M. Broughton to Thomas J. Allen, October 17, 1941; Horace A. Dough to Jeff D. Hayman, 

November 21, 1941; all in park files, FORA.

286. J. Paul Hudson, Museum Curator, to Regional Director, Region One, January 28, 1948; Elbert Cox, Associate Regional Director, to 

Custodian, FORA, February 3, 1948; J. Paul Hudson, Museum Curator, to Robert Atkinson, Custodian, February 20, 1948; 

“Remodeled Fort Raleigh Museum to Reopen Soon,” The Daily Advance, June 19, 1948; Regional Director Allen to Fort Raleigh 

NHS, July 14, 1948; all in FORA General Folder, Curatorial Files, SERO.

FIGURE 51. Thatched loghouse museum at Fort Raleigh, ca. 1937
96 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

furnishings, and other objects in historic houses and 

museums.287

After the museum’s reorganization and throughout the 

1950s, Park Service officials continued to focus effort on 

improving the conditions and exhibits on display in the 

museum building. Oil paintings of both Walter Raleigh 

and Queen Elizabeth were still needed as were historical 

objects and modern display cases and storage units able 

to secure them properly. A matchlock musket, a cabasset 

(helmet), a swept hilt rapier, a period cannon, a 1617 

edition of Sir Walter Raleigh’s Historie of the World, and 

paintings of figures associated with Raleigh’s colonies 

were sought. Because funding was typically unavailable 

for these acquisitions, even senior NPS officials eagerly 

involved themselves in corresponding with cooperating 

groups whose support might further the needs of Fort 

Raleigh. For example, the North Carolina chapter of the 

National Society of the Daughters of Colonial Wars 

expressed a desire to contribute to the museum 

programs at Jamestown and Fort Raleigh. When alerted 

to this interest, both Regional Director Thomas Allen 

and Director Newton B. Drury wrote the daughters to 

encourage their support. They were at least partially 

successful, for the daughters ended up contributing 

several items to the museum, such as an old English flag 

donated in January 1952.288

While the daughters were encouraged to support Fort 

Raleigh’s museum program, others were dissuaded. In 

1950, Inglis Fletcher, a Garden Club of North Carolina 

member and a well- connected historical novelist who 

had written about Roanoke Island, proposed to senior 

Interior Department officials that the next museum at 

Fort Raleigh should be modeled as a replica of “Hayes 

Barton” in England, the birthplace of Sir Walter Raleigh. 

Regional Archeologist Harrington, expressing a 

common NPS view, did not appreciate the idea, which 

seemed to recall the type of sensibilities that had 

originally encouraged the construction of the park’s 

historically inaccurate log- cabin style buildings. 

Harrington did express a favorable view of presenting 

houses the colonists might have lived in themselves. 

This divergence of opinion foreshadowed later attitudes 

regarding Fort Raleigh’s Elizabethan Room, the foyer in 

the audio- visual room of the Mission 66- era visitor 

center fitted with sixteenth- century paneling from 

Henrodon Hall, a manor house in Kent, England (see 

Chapter Six for a discussion of the Elizabethan 

Room).289

With the help of park supporters and through other 

means, Fort Raleigh made incremental improvements in 

its museum program. In August 1953, Superintendent 

Robert Atkinson had the distinct pleasure of moving his 

office out of the museum building and into the “John 

White” House. Of this event, he mused, “I am beginning 

to feel, like I imagine, a park superintendent should feel. 

It is the first time since Fort Raleigh entered the 

National Park System that there has been an office for 

the superintendent. It was terrible trying to concentrate 

on anything while we were in the museum. I do not 

know what I can blame for my errors from now.” By 

June 1958 Fort Raleigh’s rustic museum had 

accumulated a sufficient inventory of exhibits and 

records to require Louise Meekins to complete a 

“museum records project.” That same month, a contract 

was given out to remodel the museum, pump house, 

stockade, and other structures at the park. The work, 

which included new lighting fixtures in the museum, 

was completed in October and was the last major effort 

to refurbish the museum until construction of the 

Lindsey Warren Visitor Center began in the early 196os 

(see Chapter Four). In July 1961 a master planning study 

team visited Cape Hatteras and Fort Raleigh and drew 

several conclusions. One of them was the need to 

remove the log museum building, which would make 

possible “a pleasing landscaped approach and entrance 

to the amphitheater.” In due course, the old museum 

was removed from the park. The new visitor center was 

dedicated July 13, 1966. Meanwhile, construction of new 

administrative offices for Cape Hatteras Group 

Headquarters at Fort Raleigh signaled growing 

interrelations between the two parks, which, from a 

287. “Excerpt from report date July 7, 1949, on National Park Museums in southeastern states, to Regional Director, Region One, by 

J. Paul Hudson,” July 7, 1949; and “Region One Circular” (Elbert Cox, Acting Regional Director, to parks), July 13, 1949; both in 

FORA correspondence files, FORA.

288. Monthly Reports, January 1952; A. E. Demaray, Acting Director, to C. Crittenden, Director, North Carolina Department of 

Archives and History, September, 13, 1949; Newton B. Drury, Director, NPS, to Mrs. Ernest A. Branch, State President, North 

Carolina Society, Daughters of Colonial Wars, January 26, 1950; Thomas J. Allen, Regional Director, to Mrs. Ernest A. Branch, 

State President, North Carolina Society, Daughters of Colonial Wars, February 8, 1950; all in Museum Correspondence files, 

FORA.

289. Thomas M. Spaulding, to Jean C. Harrington, October 4, 1949; Inglis Fletcher, to Jean C. Harrington, October 31, 1950; Jean C. 

Harrington, Regional Archeologist, to David B. Quinn, November 17, 1950; all in Vault, Box “Special Events 1960s,” FRNHS 

Miscellaneous folders, Museum Reports and Letters, FORA.
National Park Service 97

museum and archival management standpoint, brought 

increasing benefits to Fort Raleigh.290

Over the years, Fort Raleigh museum officials have 

consistently addressed issues relating to damage from 

insect infestations or humidity. Naturally, termites were 

a serious worry while the museum and its artifacts were 

housed in the early log- cabin- style structure. 

Infestations were detected periodically throughout the 

1940s and 1950s, with an outbreak of flying termites in 

1953 that caused considerable damage and required 

expensive repairs. A full week was devoted to repairing 

and replacing damaged portions of the difficult- tohandle log walls and supports.291

Pest control and other problems were not eliminated, 

however, when the museum was transferred to the new 

visitor center. In 1980, Cape Hatteras Superintendent 

Bill Harris contracted a private consultant and, 

separately, two experts from the Department of 

Agriculture to tour the seashore and provide advice on 

the state of park- wide conservation efforts, especially 

related to pest management. These consultants were 

also able to provide advice on how to improve care for 

the Elizabethan Room. The inspectors found that the 

room’s four- hundred- year- old oak paneling had begun 

to split as a result of humidity and temperature changes 

brought about by park staff turning off the airconditioning and leaving the visitor center doors open 

to save energy. Visitors, lacking even the restrictions of 

stanchions and felt ropes, had also worsened old insect 

damage. Humidity and insects were causing serious 

long- term damage to some of the visitor center’s other 

museum artifacts as well. Thomas A. Parker of Pest 

Control Services, Inc., chided NPS officials for failing to 

protect “national treasures” and that “one does not 

preserve and maintain a historic collection of artifacts 

with a half- hearted approach.” He strongly 

recommended that park officials seek funding to 

properly house the existing collections, including 

separate storage areas located away from offices and 

everyday staff work that promoted resource damage. He 

advised that staff should be hired who were specifically 

trained in conservation techniques and who should also 

have a say in decisions guiding the disposition of the 

collections and exhibits at Fort Raleigh and Cape 

Hatteras National Seashore. Perhaps as a result of such 

comments, Fort Raleigh and Cape Hatteras managers 

began to focus more intently on the protection of their 

museum and archival collections. Successful efforts 

were later made to secure funding for the project 

outlined by Parker.292

 Indeed, in 1987 construction began at Fort Raleigh on a 

resource management museum storage facility. 

Completed in 1988, the 1,550- square- foot facility was 

designed to serve as a repository for cultural resource 

artifacts and natural resource collections for the entire 

Cape Hatteras Group.293 In 1990, the FORA museum 

collection included some 826 accessioned historic and 

aboriginal artifacts. The facility’s capacity, however, was 

quickly utilized, and plans were drafted to expand the 

structure to accommodate additional artifacts as well as 

an office and work space area. In 1996, the Cape 

Hatteras Group obtained funding to begin construction 

of this larger and more sophisticated facility, now called 

the Museum Resource Center. Completed in 1997, the 

Museum Resource Center is a 2,800- square- foot 

building that provides a highly secure environment to 

protect and preserve group museum collections. The 

facility utilizes three individual storage areas, each with a 

separate climate control system that allows records and 

artifacts to be sorted and stored under optimal 

temperature and humidity conditions. These excellent 

storage facilities have particularly benefited Fort 

Raleigh, which, had it been an isolated park, might not 

have obtained the needed preservation funding.294

Several museum and records management reports have 

been completed over the years for Fort Raleigh. A 

combined Cape Hatteras/Fort Raleigh Scope of 

Collections Statement was approved in 1986. This 

document establishes the general framework and 

criteria for NPS acquisition of museum objects. 

Combined Fort Raleigh/Cape Hatteras collections 

management plans were completed in 1978 and 2000. In 

1990, after park collections were moved to the new 

storage building, Harpers Ferry Center prepared a new 

290. Monthly Reports, August 1953, June 1958, October 1958, July 1966; Superintendent, CAHA, to Regional Director, Region One, 

July 7, 1961, FORA correspondence files, FORA.

291. Monthly Reports, April 1944, March and April 1946, May 1953, April 1954.

292. Thomas A. Parker, Pest Control Services, Inc., to Bill Harris, Superintendent, CAHA, September 17, 1980 and William H. Sites, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, to Bill Harris, Superintendent, CAHA, December 2, 1980, both in “FORA Building Records” folder, 

Resource Office, FORA.

293. Draft “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Cultural and Natural Resource Management Plan,” September 30, 1990, 9, FORA files, 

“FORA – General” folder, SERO.

294. Annual Reports, 1984, 7, 1987, 1, 5, 11, 1988, 1, 8, 1995, 3, 1996/1997, 4, 1998, 6; “NPS Housing Project Attracts Top Officials,” 

Coastland Times, January 12, 1995, A-1, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA.
98 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

collections storage plan for the group’s museum 

collections. A collection survey was completed in 

1994.295

In league with requirements set out in some of the 

reports above, Fort Raleigh resource managers have 

worked consistently over the years to accession the 

park’s entire museum collection. This goal was 

completed by 1983 when the resource management plan 

reported that all park artifacts were accessioned, except 

for the Elizabethan Room paneling and nine 

reproduction John White watercolors in the Visitor 

Center. Accession work was often completed by 

summer interns or seasonal museum technicians. Later, 

the park entered into an arrangement with East Carolina 

University to catalog and research park archeological 

artifacts.296

An additional cataloging goal, noted in Fort Raleigh’s 

1992 Statement for Management, was for the park’s 

collections data to be entered into the Automated 

National Catalog System (ANCS). After this task was 

accomplished, however, the park’s 1997 resource 

management plan determined that many of the park’s 

ANCS entries were incomplete or inaccurate, were 

entered without reference to available accession 

documentation, and required a thorough recataloging. 

The RMP also noted that baseline photo 

documentation of the museum’s collection was 

needed.297

Beyond accessions, Fort Raleigh officials consulted with 

the Southeast Archeological Center (SEAC), which 

conducted an inventory of the park’s museum records in 

1991. The inventory was intended to be useful to Ivor 

Hume, among others, because much of the resulting 

information related to the previous and extensive 

archeological work by Harrington. SEAC reviewed 

accession records, inventoried and completed a 

preliminary reorganization of the collection, arranged 

artifacts from Harrington’s projects, and recommended 

conservation methods for Harrington’s photos. SEAC 

discovered that most of the accessions to the inventory 

lacked legal documentation relating to the objects. Most 

accessions were gifts, which SEAC determined by 

finding a large number of thank- you notes to donors 

scattered through park records. (Accessions need to 

have formal documentation signed by the donor 

transferring ownership to the park, but this was rarely 

done. A potential problem with lack of such legal 

documents is that a future relative or estate heir of the 

donor may challenge the park’s ownership or copyright 

use of an artifact.) SEAC also found archeological 

materials in the FORA collection loaned from other 

parks (or SEAC itself) that were undocumented and had 

apparently not been returned to their owners. Overall, 

SEAC concluded that “the FORA collection requires a 

substantial amount of work to bring it up to standard.” 

However, SEAC did not view this finding as a major 

problem because the park’s collection was small. 

Obviously, the presence of a full- time park museum or 

archival specialist would help alleviate some of the 

problems noted in the long- term management of park 

records and museum collections.298

In 1989 park resource managers worked out a useful 

temporary agreement between Cape Hatteras National 

Seashore and the Outer Banks History Center to create 

a Cape Hatteras National Seashore Library in the 

history center. This arrangement provided better 

storage for some 1,165 non- official park materials 

(published books, pamphlets, manuscripts, and 

periodicals) and better accessibility to researchers at the 

Outer Banks History Center. This temporary 

arrangement proved successful for both parties and was 

made permanent in 1994. Currently, some 1,500 items 

are held by the history center. The agreement also made 

the group’s library available for use as office space. 

Technical resource data, historic photographs, and 

current periodicals, however, continued to be 

maintained at park headquarters.299 Around this time 

the park also agreed to participate in a project to 

develop a pilot computerized bibliographic program 

that would standardize the management of Cape 

Hatteras Group and North Carolina state archives. After 

two years, Superintendent Hartman determined 

“reluctantly” that the computer program was hopelessly 

ineffective and failed to function at all most of the time. 

The park apparently believed that the software for this 

program was fully tested when it entered into the 

agreement to use it. The software was not proven, 

295. Superintendent’s Annual Narrative Reports, 1978-2000, Park files, FORA.

296. Ibid.

297. “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Resource Management Plan,” December 1997, 5-6, park files, FORA. 

298. Chief, SEAC, to Superintendent, CAHA, December 16, 1991; Museum Technician, SEAC, to Curator, SEAC, September 10, 1991; 

both in “FORA – General folder,” SERO office files.

299. Superintendents Directive R-9, September 23, 1990; Thomas Hartman to Wynne Dough, June 6, 1990; and Wynne Dough to 

Thomas L. Hartman, September 27, 1993; all in Outer Banks History Center box, FORA Resource Center, FORA. Doug Stover (Chief 

of Cultural Resources, FORA), communication with Cameron Binkley, February 15, 2002.
National Park Service 99

however, and by late 1993 the park began to transfer its 

data from the “HICATS” program to “Procite,” a 

commercially proven online bibliographic software 

program.300

Law Enforcement and Fire Protection

While essential security precautions are important at all 

parks, law enforcement has not generated many highprofile issues in the protection of resources at Fort 

Raleigh, although fear of potential theft or vandalism 

was one reason the Elizabethan Room was never 

adequately furnished. Since the early days of NPS 

management, illegal activities at the park have generally 

involved vandalism, illegal hunting or site “looting,” and 

minor thefts. In the 1940s, Superintendent Robert 

Atkinson reported that squirrel hunters were coming 

onto park property after hours. The first major incident 

act of crime occurred in 1948 when several items were 

stolen from the museum. In August 1951, a much more 

serious event occurred that involved two escaped 

convicts from a local prison camp who slipped away on 

July 7. During a performance of The Lost Colony, the 

convicts were discovered beneath the women’s dressing 

room behind the stage. No doubt in an act that 

contributed much to his local fame, Albert “Skipper” 

Bell, the theater manager and builder, employed a stageproperty flare gun and personally apprehended the men 

who were then turned over to state troopers. 

Superintendent Atkinson reported that the incident 

caused some commotion backstage but the audience 

was left unaware of the drama that took place behind 

the drama. Less spectacularly, in 1952, petroleum was 

siphoned off from a new underground storage tank. In 

1965, during the Mission 66 construction at the park, 

night patrols were instituted because of the theft of 

building materials. Most of these problems, of course, 

were mere crimes of opportunity, and probably 

attributable to insufficient security. Less routine events, 

such as the visit in July 1984 by Princess Anne for the 

400th anniversary celebration, required a heavy law 

enforcement presence. In recent times, park security has 

been reinforced during summertime showings of The 

Lost Colony. In general, however, law enforcement issues 

at Fort Raleigh have proven to be routine. Currently, the 

park’s protection ranger provides security for the park, 

the Waterside Theatre, and the adjacent Elizabethan 

Gardens.301

Besides occasional acts of vandalism and theft, park staff 

have also faced the threat of fire, a serious issue given the 

large number of wooden structures associated with the 

theater complex and the park’s wooded environment. 

Fire extinguishers were placed at the various park 

facilities after World War II and checked regularly. In 

1942 and 1960, NPS staff helped to extinguish parkthreatening fires on adjacent land. The worst fire at the 

park was the 1947 blaze at the Waterside Theatre. The 

following year, the park installed fire- fighting 

equipment near the theater to pump water from the 

sound in case of fire. In 1960, however, Hurricane 

Donna destroyed the fire pump house, associated water 

lines and hydrants at the same time that it destroyed 

much of the rest of the theater complex. The ten- yearold Chrysler- Hale pump had to be salvaged from the 

sound and completely rebuilt as a standby unit while a 

new pump was ordered. In the meantime, Albert Bell 

rebuilt the pump house along with the rest of the 

theater. The new pump was installed in the pump house, 

and the reconstructed fire control system was fully 

operational by the end of June 1961. While fire- fighting 

equipment is located nearby, the Waterside Theatre 

itself lacks a fire suppression system. In 1965, a firetraining school was held for Cape Hatteras Group 

employees at a house on newly acquired park land. 

Security and fire monitoring systems were installed at 

the visitor center and headquarters building, and 

curatorial storage facility in 1988.302

Natural Resource Management

Managers at Fort Raleigh have focused their attention 

upon the park’s cultural resources, but a few natural 

resources issues have arisen from time to time. These 

resources were mainly related to the park’s intensively 

managed landscaped grounds, although later land 

300. Thomas L. Hartman, Superintendent, to Larry G. Misenheimer, Assistant Director, June 23, 1993, “ECU Institute Research” folder, 

FORA Resource Office files, FORA.

301. Monthly Reports, May 1942, October-November 1943, November 1944, February 1947, March 1948, May 1948, March 1949, May 

1949, May and August 1951, October 1952, June 1960, August 1961, February 1965, September 1965; Annual Report, 1988, 5, 7; 

Doug Stover, communication with Cameron Binkley, January 16, 2002.

302. Monthly Reports, May 1942, October-November 1943, November 1944, February 1947, March 1948, May 1948, March 1949, May 

1949, May 1951, October 1952, June 1960, August 1961, February 1965, September 1965; Completion Reports on Construction 

Projects (Hurricane Donna), FORA; Annual Report, 1988, 5, 7; Doug Stover, FORA, comments to Cameron Binkley, November 5, 

2002.
100 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

acquisitions have more recently increased the park’s less 

intensively managed forest and wetland holdings. 

During the early years, NPS regional tree preservation 

crews made occasional visits to the park to trim trees 

and remove those killed by pests or disease. In 1960, 

Albert Bell, deeply involved in Waterside Theatre 

activities, was also operating the Roanoke Island Garden 

Nurseries. The park contracted him to plant one 

hundred small plants and oaks around Fort Raleigh. 

Later, the park developed a tree care/hazard reduction 

program for frequently visited areas of the historic site in 

an attempt to help ensure that specimen trees survive as 

long as possible. This program also sought to remove 

any potential visitor hazards. Fire suppression, of 

course, has long been mandatory to protect the park’s 

treasured cultural resources. Land acquired during the 

1990 expansion has not been developed except for 

clearing of an abandoned, unpaved roadway, now used 

as a visitor trail.303

Around 1950, Dr. O.F. McCrary conducted a brief 

inventory of trees and other plants at the park. Other 

inventories followed, including a 1977 mushroom survey 

and a 1997 survey for plants, birds, insects, reptiles, and 

amphibians that could qualify as threatened and 

endangered species under federal law. Although no 

endangered species have been found at Fort Raleigh, the 

park has also never systematically investigated or 

monitored existing wildlife, a goal of the 1992 Statement 

for Management. Besides these treatment and inventory 

efforts, the park has had to deal with pest problems like 

termites and mosquitoes. The latter have long been a 

particular summertime annoyance for crowds attending 

The Lost Colony, causing the park to institute a policy of 

pesticide spraying on occasion. Of course, Fort Raleigh 

officials apply such pesticides reluctantly, knowing that 

these chemicals often have deleterious effects and 

sometimes an unpredictable impact on other species 

beyond mosquitoes. Park reluctance to use pesticides 

has been an occasional but reoccurring source of 

friction with producers of The Lost Colony as noted in 

Chapter Eight. By the early 1990s, park officials were 

also seeking to develop an action plan to manage a 

potential gypsy moth infestation, because the larvae of 

this insect can greatly harm living trees and had been 

found in the park. However, to date this issue has not 

become a problem. Obviously, while the park’s 

management goal has long been to maintain Fort 

Raleigh’s landscape in a state of nature reminiscent of 

the time of the original colonies, concessions have been 

made to address visitor needs and to emphasize the 

park’s scenic qualities.304

Erosion Control Efforts

As are other coastal areas, Fort Raleigh is affected by 

erosion. Shoreline erosion is not a threat to natural 

resources but instead a natural process that threatens 

the park’s cultural features. In the case of Fort Raleigh, 

the fear of losing important archeological data has 

greatly increased the issue’s significance. In 1972, a study 

by Robert Dolan and Kenton Bosserman suggested that 

the shoreline on the northern end of Roanoke Island 

receded by as much as 928 feet between 1851 and 1970 

because of erosion, with 158 feet of loss occurring 

between 1903 and 1971. Recognizing erosion as a major 

issue, both RIHA and the park constructed jetties with 

pilings. In 1941, RIHA built two fifty- foot jetties behind 

the stage and dressing rooms at the Waterside Theatre in 

an effort to stem the erosion; RIHA replaced these 

jetties with thirty- foot ones five years later. Beginning in 

1949, the park constructed four jetties along its 1,090-

foot beach on Roanoke Sound. These jetties were 

constructed from salvaged material that the park 

obtained from local bridges that were being demolished 

by the state. A study by Robert Atkinson in 1950 

reported that the jetties recovered fifteen feet of land 

within just six months305

With the Park Service acquiring additional land for 

Mission 66, Fort Raleigh placed a breakwater of 

sandbags along its property line in the sound. In 1966, 

303. Monthly Reports, February 1942, June 1942, July 1943, April 1944, March 1946, November 1948, November 1949, July-August 

1951, October 1952, March-April 1953, November 1953, April 1954, November 1955, July 1956, August-September 1957, 

December 1958, October 1959, February 1960, June 1960, April 1961, March 1963; Annual Report, 1996/1997, 4; National Park 

Service, “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Resource Management Plan,” 1983, 13-16, and Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, 

“Statement for Management,” 1992 and 1994, FORA.

304. Monthly Reports, February 1942, June 1942, July 1943, April 1944, March 1946, November 1948, November 1949, July-August 

1951, October 1952, March-April 1953, November 1953, April 1954, November 1955, July 1956, August-September 1957, 

December 1958, October 1959, February 1960, June 1960, April 1961, March 1963; Annual Report, 1996/1997, 4; Enviro-Sciences, 

Inc., “Special Status Insect Survey, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site,” September 1997, FORA; John Fussell, “Survey for Special 

Status Plants Within Fort Raleigh National Historic Site,” October 18, 1997, FORA; Dr. Kent McKnight, “List of Mushrooms 

Collected,” 1977, FORA; Dr. O.F. McCrary, “Plants Found and Identified,” circa 1950, FORA; National Park Service, “Fort Raleigh

National Historic Site Resource Management Plan,” 1983, 13-16, and Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, “Statement for 

Management,” 1992 and 1994, FORA.
National Park Service 101

park officials commissioned a study by consultant Per 

Bruun to update this approach. After discussing 

different possibilities, including jetties, seawalls, and 

beach nourishment, he recommended the construction 

of two 250- foot groins. Although the park made the 

project a top priority, it was unable to secure funding for 

any such major erosion control project. In the 

meantime, RIHA expressed its own concerns about the 

problem, especially regarding the Waterside Theatre, 

and park officials grew worried about the sound’s 

gradual encroachment on the Dough Cemetery (at the 

northern end of the island). Consequently, Fort Raleigh 

mounted a second effort to acquire funds for its erosion 

control efforts. In 1978, NPS’s Denver Service Center 

published a study that outlined the erosion problem and 

various options. As a result of the study, the park opted 

to place granite block revetments along two areas of the 

sound adjacent to important features—the Dough 

Cemetery and the Waterside Theatre. With funding 

available, the Denver Service Center contracted the 

work in 1979, and the revetments were completed in 

1980 at a cost of $640,284.306

The problems of erosion control have not abated, 

however. When the RIAL Corporation completed 

development of its “Heritage Point” residential area and 

sound- side marina in the early 1990s matters worsened. 

The development’s construction caused erosion on the 

adjacent park land. In the park’s 1992 Statement for 

Management, it was noted that areas along the shoreline 

not protected by rip rap or groins were rapidly eroding. 

A major goal of the statement was “to develop and 

implement a method, or methods of protecting eroding 

sections of the historic site’s shoreline that will be 

effective, economically and legally feasible, and will have 

as little visual impact as possible.”

In 1993, erosion was one of the topics discussed by 

scholars who attended the various presentations at the 

park’s “Roanoke Decoded” symposium on the Roanoke 

Colony voyages. Many attendees expressed a sense of 

urgency over the continued erosion of the northern end 

of the island. A special “Fort Raleigh Shoreline Erosion 

Conference” was also held in December of that year to 

focus upon the specific threat that erosion presented to 

the park’s archeological resources. East Carolina 

University professor David Phelps stated that “We’re at a 

crucial point. What we’re worried about is the need to 

get as much [archeology] as we can before it’s all gone.” 

Other researchers agreed that the rapid rate of erosion 

along the north shore would destroy the useful context 

of even those artifacts that were not lost to the sea. All 

urged accelerated research to address the issue. 

Reinterpretations of the nature of “Lane’s Fort” and 

new conjectures about the location of the Lost Colony 

305. Robert Dolan and Kenton Bosserman, “Shoreline Erosion and the Lost Colony,” reprint, Annals of the Association of American

Geographers, Volume 62, Number 3, September 1972, 424-426, FORA; Monthly Reports, January 1943, June 1944, January 1946, 

September 1946, February 1949; Robert H. Atkinson, “Combating Erosion at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site,” May 24, 1950, 

Cultural Resources Stewardship Library, Southeast Regional Office, Atlanta, Georgia.

306. Per Bruun, “Erosion and Protection of Fort Raleigh,” September 1964, FORA; Superintendent to Regional Director, January 30, 

1974, shoreline stabilization records, FORA; Acting Superintendent to Director, Southeast Region, February 16, 1971, shoreline 

stabilization records, FORA; Denver Service Center, National Park Service, “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Shoreline 

Stabilization,” March 1978, shoreline stabilization records, FORA; Denver Service Center, “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, IFB 

5185-78A-R, Shore Stabilization,” November 5, 1978, shoreline stabilization records, FORA; Annual Report, 1980, 11. 

FIGURE 52. Evidence of erosion off N.C. highway 345, on north end 

of Roanoke Island, ca. 1950

FIGURE 53. Jetty under construction east of Fort Raleigh, ca. 1950
102 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

village during the 1990s drove this reinvigorated fear that 

shoreline erosion would destroy any remains of 

Raleigh’s colony. Of course, many believe that any such 

remains are already located beneath the sound and not 

on the island itself. In the long term, the most serious 

threat of shoreline erosion to Fort Raleigh’s archeological resources is the prospect of projected sea- level 

rise because of global warming. The revised 1994 

Statement for Management forecasts that this event will 

cause “an accelerated erosion rate of shoreline that is 

not protected by rip rap or groin.”307

Trends in General Resource 

Management

The most significant trend that arises from the narrative 

history concerning general resource management at 

Fort Raleigh is that interaction with park supporters and 

partners is unavoidable, essential, and problematic. 

These constituents have not always set the goals of 

cultural resource management as their first priority. In 

the early years, for example, Fort Raleigh managers had 

to reorient the park away from the era of historically 

inaccurate log- cabin reconstructions, which included 

acquiring administration of the park’s museum from 

RIHA, and eliminating RIHA’s unwholesome food 

concession. The task required finesse and time and 

certainly encumbered the relations of the partners. 

Once museum management belonged to NPS, worthy 

items had to be obtained for display. This task was 

facilitated by donations received from cooperating 

groups, such as the North Carolina chapter of the 

National Society of the Daughters of Colonial Wars. 

High- ranking NPS officials sought the aid of such 

partners, whose donations have in general greatly 

benefited the National Park Service but whose 

contributions, on occasion, have had a downside. Park 

partners, for instance, are not above using their 

connections to tout their own pet projects. The park’s 

relationship to the Garden Club of North Carolina, 

which administers the Elizabethan Gardens, is a case in 

point. In the 1950s, club member Inglis Fletcher, and 

later others in the GCNC, began to promote the 

creation of a “Hayes Barton” replica at Fort Raleigh. 

This notion raised the ire of NPS professionals, for 

example Regional Archeologist Harrington, who viewed 

such efforts as a throwback to the days when the park’s 

historically inaccurate “log- cabin” buildings were 

constructed. 

There were other points of contention, of course, as 

with the reluctance of park officials to spray insecticides 

with the frequency urged by RIHA to control the 

mosquitoes that plague spectators of The Lost Colony. 

Nevertheless, despite the tension that sometimes has 

occurred between the park and its supporters and 

partners, cooperative relationships have generally 

furthered NPS resource management goals. One 

example from this chapter would include how park 

management of its museum and archival collections has 

clearly benefited from assistance provided by East 

Carolina University, the Outer Banks History Center, 

and other NPS units, including SEAC and the Southeast 

Regional Office. Another example concerns the issue of 

erosion control, an area in which there has never been 

serious tension between the park and its supporters. 

RIHA was no doubt pleased when Fort Raleigh began to 

assume the burden of constructing jetties to protect the 

Waterside Theatre from 1949 on. Certainly, the threat of 

erosion, worsened by the negative impact of the RIAL 

Corporation’s development of Heritage Point in the 

1990s, illustrates how mutual concerns have united 

RIHA and the park, as well as the community of 

archeologists and other scholars interested in protecting 

Fort Raleigh’s cultural resources. Surprisingly, Fort 

Raleigh has even gained some extra degree of protection 

through its partnership arrangement in the aspect of law 

enforcement. At least that was true when RIHA’s 

legendary “Skipper” was on duty to apprehend the 

occasional escaped convict!

307. “Erosion Threatening Artifacts,” Virginian Pilot, December 11, 1993, Newspaper Clipping Files, FORA; Revised Statement for 

Management: Basic Operations Statement, August 1994, FORA, 12.
National Park Service 103

Conclusion

Between 1585 and 1587, Sir Walter Raleigh established 

two main colonies on Roanoke Island in present- day 

North Carolina. This enterprise proved a disaster for 

many of the colonists. Indeed, the second colony, the 

famed “Lost Colony,” simply vanished, and its fate 

remains one of the great mysteries of American history. 

Nevertheless, Raleigh’s investment- backers still 

managed to turn a profit because Sir Richard Grenville 

was successful in his privateering escapades. Moreover, 

England gained from its first colonizing effort on 

Roanoke Island the crucial experience later successfully 

distilled by the founders of Jamestown. Thus, the 

Raleigh colonies mark the beginning of England’s rise to 

dominion over much of North America. In recognition 

of this significance, serious efforts to validate and 

preserve the settlement site have continued for more 

than a century even though the colonies themselves 

lasted no more than half a decade.

North Carolina officially began seeking to preserve and 

commemorate the site of the Lost Colony in 1884 when 

the state’s U.S. Senator, Zebulon B. Vance, introduced 

an unsuccessful bill in Congress to establish a 

monument at Fort Raleigh. His effort failed, but others 

soon followed. Beginning in 1892, Sallie Southall Cotten, 

a prominent women’s leader, initiated efforts to 

recognize the importance of Virginia Dare, the first 

child born in the Roanoke Colony and thus the first 

English child born in North America. In 1894, the 

Roanoke Colony Memorial Association (RCMA) was 

incorporated and purchased more than 260 acres from 

the Dough family, including the fort site. Between 1894 

and 1931, the association held sporadic annual 

observances of Virginia Dare’s birth. In 1895, RCMA 

began making improvements to Fort Raleigh, including 

placing granite slabs along the fort’s outline, erecting a 

granite tablet to Virginia Dare’s birth and christening, 

constructing an access road to the site, and enclosing 

the property with a fence. After prolonged enthusiasm 

by locals, national recognition finally arrived in 1926 

when President Calvin Coolidge signed into law a bill, 

introduced by North Carolina Congressman Lindsay C. 

Warren, appropriating federal funds for the erection of a 

monument at Fort Raleigh. In 1930, the appropriation 

was used to construct two entrance posts with 

commemorative tablets. 

The modern history of Fort Raleigh begins with the 

creation, in 1932, of the Roanoke Island Historical 

Association (RIHA), which was incorporated to 

revitalize the commemoration of the Raleigh colonies. 

In 1934, the faltering RCMA donated its interest in Fort 

Raleigh to the State of North Carolina. Then, as part of a 

larger New Deal relief project on the Outer Banks 

promoted by Frank Stick, RIHA members, and others, 

workers erected log cabins as a conjectural 

reconstruction of Raleigh’s sixteenth- century 

settlement, including a chapel that became highly 

popular as a wedding venue. These reconstructions, 

however, soon were understood to be inaccurate 

representations of sixteenth- century English building 

techniques. 

In 1936, RIHA and the North Carolina Historical 

Commission, which now held title to Fort Raleigh, 

formally petitioned the National Park Service to take 

over the property. When the Park Service began to 

consider accepting the administration of Fort Raleigh as 

a national park, it had to contend with the discrepancy 

between its professional obligation to interpret history 

accurately and its mission to please the public, which 

had fallen in love with the historically inaccurate 

reconstructions. The basic tension of this situation 

reflects a pattern in the relations between NPS officials 

and RIHA supporters that has endured for decades. 

RIHA supporters and public enthusiasm for the park, 

especially after the first performances in 1937 of The Lost 

Colony by Pulitzer Prize- winning playwright Paul 

Green, have remained critical to Fort Raleigh for the 

success of numerous endeavors, but that support has 

not come without complications.
104 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

In 1939, the Park Service officially recognized the 

historical importance of the Fort Raleigh site, despite its 

dubious log cabin- style constructions. In preparation 

for NPS administration, a cooperative agreement was 

signed between the Park Service and RIHA, allowing for 

the continued production of The Lost Colony at the site. 

Disagreements between the parties over the terms led 

some to reconsider the decision to hand Fort Raleigh 

over to the federal government. A major concern of 

RIHA was the extent of NPS control over the play’s 

theatrical “license” as well as monetary arrangements. 

The dispute was resolved, however, and the State of 

North Carolina agreed to deed the property to the 

United States. In 1941, Acting Secretary of the Interior 

Alvin J. Wirtz issued an order declaring Fort Raleigh a 

national historic site under the 1935 National Historic 

Sites Act. The Park Service assumed administration of 

the property that same year, which then became Fort 

Raleigh National Historic Site. Unfortunately, World 

War II essentially closed the new park for the duration 

of that conflict. In 1945, NPS and RIHA completed a 

new cooperative agreement that addressed further 

disputes arising from the first agreement, mainly 

continuing concerns over theatrical liberty and 

finances. The new agreement would be renewed 

thereafter every twenty years for the remainder of the 

century.

During the 1940’s, the first NPS master plan 

acknowledged the important cooperative relationship 

with RIHA, but also focused upon NPS efforts to 

maintain and restore Fort Raleigh’s historical integrity. A 

major park goal was to remove the locally cherished but 

inauthentic Depression- era reconstructions. Serious 

archeological investigations also began in 1947 with the 

arrival of Jean C. Harrington, whose work continued 

periodically until 1965. Between 1947 and 1948, 

Harrington reconstructed an earthwork at the site based 

upon archeological evidence. At this time, the Park 

Service also began to assume responsibility for beach 

erosion control.

In the 1950s, Fort Raleigh’s relationship with the local 

community inextricably deepened after the Garden 

Club of North Carolina (GCNC) acquired a lease from 

RIHA and began development of the Elizabethan 

Gardens adjacent to the park. The Elizabethan Gardens 

would increase both the tourism and educational 

potential of the northern end of Roanoke Island while 

making NPS relations with RIHA and other community 

boosters more complicated and more stressful, but 

ultimately more mutually advantageous.

During the 1960s, Fort Raleigh experienced significant 

change, beginning with the destruction of park facilities, 

especially the Waterside Theatre, by Hurricane Donna. 

One benefit, however, was that RIHA rebuilt the theater 

using designs more in accord with current NPS views 

about the building techniques and styles of Raleigh’s 

colonists. Such interpretive influence went in both 

directions, however, as the park decided to rename its 

new nature trail in honor of naturalist Thomas Hariot, 

who accompanied Raleigh’s first colony. The suggestion 

was made by Albert Bell, builder of the Waterside 

Theatre. Bell’s death in 1964 was a great loss to the 

community and to the park. 

During Mission 66 at Fort Raleigh, 125 acres of land 

were acquired for park expansion using a combination 

of state funds and a private donation. The park’s 

Mission 66 expansion was due in large part to the 

concerted effort of RIHA and its supporters. By 1966 the 

park’s new facilities included a visitor center, the Cape 

Hatteras Group headquarters, the Lost Colony building, 

a utility building, and four residences along with park 

roads and parking areas. While the Mission 66 

expansion was broadly supported, it came with a local 

cost to the families whose property was bought out. The 

park also achieved a long- sought goal of removing the 

last of the park’s historically inaccurate log cabin- style 

structures, although officials also pushed too far. In the 

absence of National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) 

guidelines, Fort Raleigh unfortunately eliminated the 

commemorative gateposts authorized by Congress in 

1926, which, had they been left in place, would today 

help tell the story of how the park was itself created. On 

the other hand, property wisely not acquired during the 

expansion included the Elizabethan Gardens, for which 

the GCNC had wanted the Park Service to assume 

management. The GCNC also wanted the Park Service 

to construct a “Hayes Barton”–style administrative 

building, an idea that NPS planners firmly refused to 

consider because of the idea’s association with the 

park’s “log cabin” era and the interpretative confusion it 

would create among visitors. On the archeological front, 

NPS archeologist Harrington made a second major find 

in 1965 when he excavated structural remains at the fort 

site, which he called an “outwork.” The find helped 

make later discoveries by Ivor Noel Hume possible.

In 1978, National Register documentation for Fort 

Raleigh was accepted following the administrative 

listing accomplished by the NHPA of 1966. In the 1970s, 

new evidence also emerged about the extent of natural 

threats to those historic resources. A study by Robert 
National Park Service 105

Dolan and Kenton Bosserman, for example, indicated 

that the shoreline on the northern end of Roanoke 

Island had receded more than nine hundred feet 

between 1851 and 1970 because of erosion. In 1978, 

another study by the Denver Service Center renewed 

concern about erosion. As a result, the park secured 

funds to build revetments to help protect the Dough 

Cemetery and the Waterside Theatre. But the park’s 

struggle with the sea is ongoing.

On the interpretive front during the 1970s, Fort Raleigh 

developed a living history program, which included 

concerts of Elizabethan- era music and demonstrations 

of sixteenth- century lifeways. Park staff and volunteers 

involved in the programs wore period costumes, and 

some even learned Elizabethan dialect for first- person 

interpretation. Much of the reproduction equipment 

and costumes were made possible by Eastern National 

Park and Monument Association donations. Another 

activity of the period was an attempt to renew the 

Virginia Dare birthday celebration. Finally, the first 

efforts were made to complete the furnishings plan for 

the Elizabethan Room. Eventually, funding limitations, 

internal NPS disputes over the authenticity of the 

Elizabethan Room’s furnishing plans, and a limited 

constituency among park supporters resulted in no 

action on this last issue to the present time. To some 

extent, the incomplete state of the Elizabethan Room 

stands as a counterpoint to the main theme of this study. 

That is, despite some tension, the National Park Service 

has succeeded in its cooperative relations with RIHA 

and others in managing Fort Raleigh better at times than 

the NPS bureaucracy has succeeded in managing the 

park’s resources on its own, at least this observation 

seems true for the Elizabethan Room. 

Of course, the same might be said of RIHA’s effort to 

build a performing arts center. As the 1970s came to a 

close, RIHA’s board of directors considered a proposal 

to build such a center that would focus upon the 

Elizabethan era. In 1980, the board voted to proceed. 

Several sites were examined, but RIHA preferred to 

construct the facility at Fort Raleigh for reasons of 

finance and historical association with the Fort Raleigh 

site. To gain NPS approval, RIHA offered several 

enticements aimed to ease park administration. In 1982, 

NPS gave RIHA the green light to develop the Roanoke 

Island Center for the Arts on land within the park 

cleared for development. Park Service concerns about 

the size of the facility necessitated several design 

modifications, but an approved design was achieved. 

Fund- raising for the project, however, soon became an 

issue. In 1986, John P. Kennedy assumed the 

chairmanship of RIHA and persuaded the board to 

build its arts center off park property so as to include 

residential and commercial developments to help fund 

the center. The main complaint of the new board 

became that private investors were unwilling to fund a 

project developed on public land. RIHA’s fateful 

decision undermined community support for the 

project that now threatened to transform the rural 

character of northern Roanoke Island. A protest 

movement was thus launched with many expressing 

support for past NPS administration of the site. Clearly, 

the community did not trust the new chairman’s plans. 

RIHA’s effort to move the arts center off park property 

stalled and the beleaguered Kennedy resigned in 1987. In 

the end, the failure of RIHA to work with the park on 

the performing arts center assured that no such center 

was ever built. Lack of funding may have prevented the 

arts center from becoming reality even had the parties 

maintained close cooperation, but their relations were 

strained severely for no good cause.

Meanwhile, archeologists from the Southeast 

Archeological Center conducted extensive explorations 

at the park in the 1980s in the hope of finding the bastion 

of a large fortification. Instead, they found the remains 

of a 1921 dirt road. Ivor Noel Hume, under sponsorship 

of the Virginia Company Foundation, obtained better 

results during his excavations at Fort Raleigh between 

1991 and 1993. Findings from Hume’s investigations 

questioned the standard interpretation of the fort site 

and demonstrated positive evidence for the existence of 

a scientific research laboratory at the site of the 

reconstructed fort that predated the fort. Based on this 

information, Hume argued that the fort could not be 

Ralph Lane’s main fort at the settlement site. Nicholas 

Luccketti later conducted archeological investigations at 

the site that essentially confirmed Hume’s work. These 

findings prompted important changes in the park’s 

interpretive program but also helped to energize a major 

conference at Fort Raleigh in 1993 that brought together 

prominent international scholars of the sixteenth 

century to discuss a variety of issues pertaining to the 

Raleigh colonies. The conference also resulted in the 

birth of the Roanoke Colonies Research Office, a 

cooperative venture with East Carolina University 

designed to promote further scholarship related to the 

park, and a new theatrical performance, Elizabeth R,

starring The Lost Colony actress Barbara Hird. A Fort 

Raleigh volunteer wrote and later directed the play. The 

play was so successful that its management became 

unwieldy. Reluctantly, the park moved the play off Fort 
106 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Raleigh. Accommodations were eventually found, 

however, at the Elizabethan Gardens where the play’s 

proximity to Fort Raleigh continues to be a bonus for 

park visitors.

One of the most important events in the history of Fort 

Raleigh National Historic Site took place in 1990 when 

President George H. W. Bush signed into law a bill 

authorizing the addition of 335 acres. By 1994, the park 

had acquired approximately 210 of these acres. The 

expansion was championed by major park supporters, 

including RIHA, the GCNC, and other prominent state 

officials and local community members, and could not 

have taken place without their concerted efforts. The 

intent of these park supporters was to protect the rural 

character of the northern portion of Roanoke Island, to 

preserve the historic setting for The Lost Colony

production and the fort site, and to help RIHA, the 

play’s sponsor, to balance its books. However, to justify 

park expansion and to entice a greater variety of 

tourists, park boosters backed an expansion of the 

park’s interpretive mission to include events relating to 

the Civil War, Native American habitation of the Island, 

and early radio experiments conducted in the area. 

Efforts by the park to acquire all of the land authorized 

by the legislation were not completely successful. With 

insufficient funds available to buy all of the land, the 

park announced its intent to purchase the most 

threatened property first. This land was owned by a 

speculative private developer. Necessarily, this plan 

meant postponing the purchase of land owned by the 

financially strapped RIHA, which had first launched the 

campaign to expand the park. Feelings were hurt, but 

after carefully reviewing a range of public comments, 

the park reconsidered its plans and funded the purchase 

of RIHA- owned land instead. This decision greatly 

helped to put The Lost Colony back upon firmer 

financial ground. Unfortunately, the RIAL corporation 

then proceeded with its private development and some 

potential park land was lost. However, in contrast to 

relations between the park and RIHA during the 1980s, 

the best possible outcome was probably achieved. The 

episode demonstrated how mutually important each 

organization had become to the success of the other’s 

goals. 

One result of the park’s expansion in 1990 was that it 

created the need for a new long- range general 

management plan, research for which began in 2002. 

Certainly, Fort Raleigh should more thoroughly 

integrate into its interpretive program the additional 

resources that the park’s expanded boundary and 

authorizing legislation created. On the other hand, 

caution is also warranted because, as this history has 

documented, the overriding focus at Fort Raleigh is in 

telling the story, preserving the resources, and 

commemorating the events associated with sixteenthcentury English colonizing activity. No less important is 

the need to preserve the park’s critical rapport with local 

supporters and those who manage The Lost Colony

production. In both regards, Appendix 2 (“Fort 

Raleigh”: The Mystery of the Name), suggests that 

changing the park’s designation is entirely problematic. 

“Fort Raleigh” is the most historically appropriate name 

for Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, suggesting, as it 

does, both the park’s focus and how it came to be.

This administrative history has sought to document how 

Fort Raleigh was created and later managed by the 

National Park Service. It has discussed how NPS 

managers have accommodated commercial and 

community interests while maintaining their own basic 

allegiance to the standards of professional scholarship 

and the directives of the NPS Organic Act. To manage 

these often- contending forces successfully, park 

officials have had to cultivate a patient long- term focus, 

a willingness both to experiment and to correct 

missteps, and an understanding of the importance of 

good communication and the need for negotiation with 

important stakeholders. Of key concern to all managers 

at Fort Raleigh has been the park’s relationship with 

Roanoke Island’s historical society. Indeed, it can be said 

that cooperation with major and minor partners of all 

types has been a key element of Fort Raleigh’s success in 

protecting the park resources while facilitating visitor 

enjoyment and education. Still, Fort Raleigh managers 

have often had to step gingerly to maintain the fine 

balance between the interests of preservation and those 

of their constituents. Their decisions have frequently 

skirted genuine controversy and have not always 

resulted in the preferred outcome. However, NPS 

officials have consistently worked with park supporters, 

cooperating associations and civic groups, and other 

interested parties to minimize conflict while making the 

best decisions possible under existing constraints. The 

bottom line is that the park’s mission could not have 

been accomplished without the aid of such partners, a 

conclusion that will likely remain true into the future.

During six decades of management at Fort Raleigh, the 

Park Service has transformed what was originally a 

sixteen- and- a- half- acre state park into a 355- acre 

national historic site. Through funds made available 

during Mission 66, NPS superimposed a new site layout 
National Park Service 107

with full visitor facilities. As researchers pursued 

archeological investigations at the park, NPS 

understanding of the site’s history evolved. Today, the 

Park Service continues to focus on learning more about 

Raleigh’s colonies and sharing that information with the 

public. As a result of these physical and interpretive 

changes, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site has 

confronted a number of complex challenges. 

Management issues of the past – site planning and 

development, land acquisition and preservation, 

funding gaps, controversial archeological findings, 

changing perceptions of the site’s history, and its 

cooperative relationship with groups like RIHA and the 

Elizabethan Gardens – will undoubtedly resurface in the 

future. Managers at Fort Raleigh may look increasingly 

to decisions of the past to formulate creative solutions 

for future challenges. The research presented in this 

administrative history, and the context in which it has 

been presented, is intended to help make such reflective 

decision- making possible.
108 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History
National Park Service 109

Appendices

Appendix One: Chronology

1578: Queen Elizabeth of England grants Sir 

Humphrey Gilbert a charter to settle 

unclaimed areas of the New World.

1584: After Gilbert’s death at sea, Elizabeth 

grants a charter to Sir Walter Raleigh, 

who fosters an expedition under Philip 

Amadas and Arthur Barlowe. The expedition explores the Outer Banks of 

the future North Carolina, including 

Roanoke Island.

1585: Raleigh sends an expedition under Sir 

Richard Grenville to establish a settlement in the New World. More than one 

hundred colonists are left on Roanoke 

Island when Grenville returns to England. The expedition includes military 

fortifications expert Ralph Lane, artist 

John White, scientist Thomas Hariot, 

and metallurgist Joachim Gans, who 

construct a rudimentary “science center” used to evaluate local plants and 

mineral discoveries.

1586: Raleigh’s first settlement is abandoned 

when the colonists return to England 

with Sir Francis Drake’s fleet. 

1587: Raleigh’s second colony is established 

on Roanoke Island during the summer 

under John White. Virginia Dare is born 

in August thereby becoming the first 

English child born in the New World. 

White sails for England to represent the 

colony, but his return is delayed, especially by threat of war with Spain. 

1588: Fierce weather and English seamanship 

defeat a huge Spanish armada as it sails 

against England, marking both the decline of Spain’s empire and the rise of 

England’s.

1590: White returns to Roanoke Island in August to find a deserted settlement. In the 

face of a storm, he is unable to convince 

worried ship commanders to conduct a 

sustained search. 

1607: Jamestown is founded, marking the establishment of the first permanent English colony in North America. 

Eventually, these settlers, and others, 

make attempts to find Raleigh’s lost colony, but all subsequent efforts end in 

failure. The fate of the “Lost Colony” 

remains a mystery to the present time.

1819: President James Monroe visits the Fort 

Raleigh site.

1849: Thomas A. Dough’s ownership of the 

fort tract is recognized by a grant from 

the State of North Carolina. The property remains in the Dough family until 

preservation efforts begin during the 

1890s.

1861: Confederate States of America are 

formed after seven Southern states secede from the Union, beginning the 

American Civil War. The South immediately recognizes the strategic importance of the Outer Banks and adjacent 

sounds, including Roanoke Island, and 

tries to fortify them. 

1862: Hatteras Island falls to Union forces. 

Slaves on nearby Roanoke Island are inspired to flee and soon provide impor-
110 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

tant intelligence about Roanoke Island’s 

defenses. On February 8, Union forces 

easily overcome Confederate resistance. 

The island remains in Union hands 

throughout the war. By April, hundreds 

of former slaves, now refugees, flock to 

the northern end of Roanoke Island. 

Union commanders realize the need to 

establish and oversee a refugee facility 

to tend to their needs as well as the families of black men enlisted with or 

working for the Union Army.

1862- 1867: A freedmen’s colony exists on Roanoke 

Island through these years. Horace 

James is appointed superintendent of 

refugees in eastern North Carolina in 

August 1863 and tries to establish a permanent settlement on Roanoke Island 

that is economically self- sufficient. 

New England evangelical missionaries 

arrive to teach the newly freed slaves. 

Their correspondence is the major 

source of knowledge about the colony. 

After 1865, attempts are made to induce 

members of the colony to return to the 

mainland. President Andrew Johnson’s 

Amnesty Proclamation of May 29, 1865, 

ensures that no land will be handed over 

to the colony, despite previous promises. White landowners soon return to 

repossess their holdings and the colony 

is officially ordered closed in May 1867.

1870: Census figures show that about 60 black 

families remain on Roanoke Island, including 14 landowners.

1884: North Carolina Senator Zebulon B. 

Vance introduces a bill in Congress to 

establish a monument site at Fort Raleigh. Though the bill dies in committee, 

it is the first legislative attempt to gain 

federal improvements for the site.

1892: Under the leadership of Sallie Southall 

Cotten, the Virginia Dare Columbian 

Memorial Association is incorporated 

for the purpose of erecting a building 

for North Carolina at the 1893 World’s 

Columbian Exposition in Chicago. The 

building is to be relocated to North 

Carolina after the exposition as a memorial to Virginia Dare’s birth and Raleigh’s colonies. However, the 

association is unsuccessful in its efforts.

1894: The Roanoke Colony Memorial Association is incorporated by a group of 

native North Carolinians living in Baltimore. After selling shares, the association purchases more than 260 acres 

from the Dough family, including the 

fort site. The association holds the first 

annual observance of Virginia Dare’s 

birth in August; the observances continue sporadically under the association 

until 1931.

1895: Talcott Williams of the University of 

Pennsylvania conducts the first major 

archeological investigation at Fort Raleigh.

1896: The Roanoke Colony Memorial Association begins making improvements to 

Fort Raleigh, including placing granite 

slabs along the fort’s outline, erecting a 

granite tablet to Virginia Dare’s birth 

and christening, constructing an access 

road to the site, and enclosing the property with a fence. The developed site is 

dedicated on November 24.

1901- 1902: Reginald Aubrey Fessenden conducts 

several radio transmitting and receiving 

experiments between the north end of 

Roanoke Island and Cape Hatteras.

1910: In an attempt to clear some of its debt, 

the Roanoke Colony Memorial Association sells 246 acres to William J. Griffin, 

leaving the association with only the 

16.45- acre fort site.

1924: While constructing a highway through 

the Fort Raleigh property, the state 

damages the archeologically sensitive 

site.

1926: On June 11, President Calvin Coolidge 

signs into law a bill introduced by North 

Carolina Congressman Lindsay C. 

Warren, appropriating federal funds for 

the erection of a monument at Fort Raleigh. In 1930, the appropriation is used 

to construct two entrance posts with 

commemorative tablets.
National Park Service 111

1932: The Roanoke Island Historical Association (RIHA) is incorporated in January 

to undertake commemorative efforts for 

Fort Raleigh.

1934: The Roanoke Colony Memorial Association donates Fort Raleigh to the State 

of North Carolina. As part of a larger 

New Deal relief project on the Outer 

Banks, workers erect log cabins as a 

conjectural reconstruction of Raleigh’s 

sixteenth- century settlement, including a chapel that becomes popular as a 

wedding venue. The site is under the 

general supervision of the North Carolina Historical Commission.

1936: RIHA and the North Carolina Historical Commission formally petition the 

National Park Service to take over Fort 

Raleigh. NPS expresses interest but also 

doubt about the historical accuracy of 

the reconstructed settlement buildings. 

1937: Sponsored by the Roanoke Colony Memorial Association of Manteo, Paul 

Green’s outdoor drama The Lost Colony

is produced at Ft. Raleigh. President 

Franklin D. Roosevelt attends the play 

on the birthday of Virginia Dare on 

August 18.

1938: RIHA takes over the production of The 

Lost Colony after a successful first season the previous year.

1939: The Park Service recognizes the historical importance of the Fort Raleigh site, 

despite its dubious reconstructions. In 

preparation for NPS administration, 

NPS and RIHA sign first cooperative 

agreement on March 29, 1939, that allows the association to continue producing Paul Green’s The Lost Colony at 

the site. As a result, the State of North 

Carolina agrees to deed the property to 

the United States. This precondition 

met, the state of North Carolina deeds 

the property to the U.S. on July 14, 1939.

1941: Acting Secretary of the Interior Alvin J. 

Wirtz issues an order on April 5 declaring Fort Raleigh a national historic site 

under the 1935 National Historic Sites 

Act. The order is based upon a study by 

Dr. Frederick W. Tilberg and a favorable 

opinion from the Advisory Board on 

National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments. 

On July 21, the National Park Service assumes administration of site.

RIHA builds two jetties to protect the 

Waterside Theatre from erosion.

1942- 1946: With blackout measures and German 

U- boats operating off the coast, RIHA 

suspends production of The Lost Colony 

for the duration of World War II.

1944: A hurricane damages the Waterside 

Theatre and the outer palisade, and uproots numerous trees. 

1944: NPS and RIHA begin to renegotiate the 

cooperative agreement governing the 

production of The Lost Colony in September to address disputes arising from 

the first agreement. RIHA officials oppose NPS terms as taking away too 

much of their discretion and some 

called for ownership of the theater 

property to be returned to the state. In 

response, NPS agrees to less intrusive 

oversight of RIHA activities.

1945: NPS temporarily suspends fee collection at Fort Raleigh to assuage discontent by locals and RIHA members, who 

felt the fees drove down attendance at 

play.

The National Park Service and RIHA 

sign second cooperative agreement in 

April. The duration of the agreement is 

twenty years. Despite a few contentious 

points, the revised agreement was similar to the original.

1946: The park begins controversial efforts to 

remove Depression- era reconstructions. A blockhouse and small palisade 

at the archeologically sensitive fort site 

are demolished.

1947: NPS prepares its first master plan that 

deals exclusively with Fort Raleigh.

A fire destroys the Waterside Theatre in 

mid- July. Volunteers rebuild the theater 
112 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

in a week’s time, allowing the performance to go on.

1947- 1965: Jean C. Harrington conducts archeological work at Fort Raleigh.

1949: Construction begins on four jetties in an 

attempt to control erosion along the 

sound.

1950: The park purchases the 0.25- acre Ward 

tract.

The earthwork is reconstructed based 

on archeological evidence uncovered 

by Jean C. Harrington in 1947 and 1948.

1951: The 1.8- acre Meakin tract is acquired 

for addition to the park. 

The Garden Club of North Carolina 

(GCNC) proposes to build an “Elizabethan garden” on RIHA land adjacent to 

Fort Raleigh. GCNC also provides 

RIHA funds to transform Waterside 

Theatre stage buildings from a log appearance to “wattle and daub” (completed by 1955).

1952: After closing the dilapidated log chapel 

for safety reasons, the park finally has 

the structure demolished. Local protest 

is experienced, but not as much as expected.

1953: The park office is relocated from the 

museum building to the John White 

House.

Fort Raleigh becomes a unit in the Cape 

Hatteras Group on October 16.

The GCNC acquires a lease from RIHA 

and begins development of the Elizabethan Gardens adjacent to the park.

1960: A nature trail is placed at the northwestern end of the park. Originally 

named the Dogwood Trail, it is later renamed the Thomas Hariot Nature Trail 

at the suggestion of Albert Bell.

Hurricane Donna damages park facilities, especially the Waterside Theatre. 

RIHA rebuilds it using designs in accord 

with current NPS views about the 

building techniques and styles of Raleigh’s colonists. 

1961: Land acquisition efforts begin for the 

Mission 66 expansion. Funds for the 

land purchases come from a state appropriation and RIHA enthusiasts Mr. 

and Mrs. Fred W. Morrison. Approximately 125 acres are eventually acquired 

for addition to the park. Some property 

must be acquired by condemnation.

1962: The rebuilt Waterside Theatre is formally dedicated in July.

1963: GCNC proposes that NPS assume 

management of the Elizabethan Gardens while using them as the garden for 

a “Hayes Barton”–style administrative 

building. The offer is rejected.

1964: Waterside Theatre builder, rebuilder, 

and former manager, Albert “Skipper” 

Bell, dies. A memorial plaque is placed 

at the theater in 1967 in his honor.

NPS and RIHA sign third cooperative 

agreement for another twenty- year period.

1965: Jean C. Harrington excavates apparent 

structural remains at the Fort Raleigh 

site and calls them an “outwork.”

1966: Mission 66 facilities at Fort Raleigh are 

formally dedicated on July 13. The new 

facilities include a visitor center, the 

Cape Hatteras Group headquarters, the 

Lost Colony building, a utility building, 

and four residences along with park 

roads and parking areas.

1972: Dolan- Bosserman study suggests 

shoreline on the northern end of 

Roanoke Island receded more than 900 

feet between 1851 and 1970 because of 

erosion, with 158 feet of loss occurring 

between 1903 and 1971.

1975- 1978: Fort Raleigh develops a living history 

program, including Elizabethan- era 

music and demonstrations of sixteenthcentury lifeways. Park staff and volunteers begin to wear period costumes.

1977: Fort Raleigh officials renew efforts to 

complete furnishing of the Elizabethan 
National Park Service 113

Room. Professional disputes within the 

agency prevent completion of this 

project.

Fort Raleigh renews sponsoring Virginia Dare birthday celebrations.

1978: Denver Service Center study heightens 

concern about erosion and outlines options. The park secures funds to build 

concrete block revetments to help protect the Dough Cemetery and the Waterside Theatre. The revetments are 

completed in 1980 at a cost of $640,284.

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site is 

documented on the National Register of 

Historic Places following administrative 

listing by the 1966 National Historic 

Preservation Act.

1980: RIHA’s board of directors votes to build 

a performing arts center that will focus 

on the Elizabethan era. Several sites are 

examined but RIHA preferred to construct the facility at the park for reasons 

of finance and historical association 

with the Ft. Raleigh site. To gain NPS 

approval, RIHA offers several concessions that appeal to park managers.

1981- 1985: After using remote sensing, aerial photography, and soil resistivity techniques, 

SEAC archeologists excavate an area at 

the park in hopes of finding a bastion of 

a large fortification. Instead, they find 

the remains of a 1921 dirt road.

1982: RIHA formally requests permission to 

build the Roanoke Island Center for the 

Arts on land within the park cleared for 

development. 

1984: NPS and RIHA sign fourth cooperative 

agreement for another twenty- year period.

The SEAC approves an archeological 

survey of the RIHA arts center site. The 

NPS then approves the site for construction.

1986: John P. Kennedy assumes chairmanship 

of RIHA’s board of directors and persuades the board to build its arts center 

off park property so as to include residential and commercial developments 

to help fund the center. The main complaint by fund raisers was that private 

investors would not fund a project developed on public land.

A protest movement is immediately 

launched. Many Dare County residents 

feel slighted by this sudden change in 

RIHA’s plans and because of concerns 

about the project’s impact.

Congress authorizes plan to raise entrance fees at 337 NPS units, with 80 

percent of revenue returned to parks. 

Cape Hatteras Group Superintendent 

Hartman imposes fees only at Wright 

Brothers NM.

1987: Facing unrelenting opposition to his 

development proposal, Kennedy resigns from RIHA board. The performing arts center is never built.

1987: The park completes a visitor center exhibit for visually impaired visitors.

Virginia Dare’s four hundredth birthday 

is celebrated in August with a large party 

and the dedication of a marker.

1988: A metal curatorial storage building is 

erected in the park’s utility area.

1990: On November 16, President George H. 

W. Bush signs into law a bill authorizing 

the addition of 335 acres to the park. By 

1994, approximately 210 acres have been 

acquired. The law also expands the 

park’s interpretive mission at Roanoke 

to include events relating to the Civil 

War, Native American habitation of the 

Island, and early radio experiments 

conducted in the area.

A laser- disk system is installed in the 

visitor center to play the park’s new audiovisual program, Roanoke: The Lost 

Colony.

1991: Ivor Noel Hume, sponsored by the Virginia Company Foundation, begins archeological excavations at Fort Raleigh. 

1993: Ivor Noel Hume completes his archeological investigations at Fort Raleigh.
114 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

1993: The three- year project reveals a scientific research laboratory at the site of the 

reconstructed fort—a laboratory that 

predated the fort. Based on this information, Hume questions the standard 

interpretation of the fort site and argues 

that the fort could not be Lane’s main 

fort.

A conference entitled “Roanoke Decoded” brings together prominent 

scholars of the sixteenth century to discuss the Raleigh colonies. As a result of 

the conference, the Roanoke Colonies 

Research Office, a cooperative venture 

with East Carolina University, is established.

Successful one- woman show about 

Queen Elizabeth, Elizabeth R, starring 

British actress Barbara Hird, an outgrowth of park- sponsored Roanoke 

Decoded symposium, plays summer 

season at park. Play is then relocated, 

eventually assuming residence at the 

Elizabethan Gardens.

1994- 1995: Nicholas Luccketti conducts archeological investigations that confirm work 

by Hume. Suggests earthwork not built 

for 1587 Lost Colony, but most scholars 

still believe that earthwork is associated 

with one or more of Raleigh’s expeditions.

1995: The North Carolina Home Builders Association donates the materials and labor to build a park residence as a 

replacement for an aging trailer.

1997: The park completes a museum resources center for the Cape Hatteras Group 

that is located in the Ft. Raleigh maintenance area.

1998- 2001: Major renovation of Waterside Theatre 

is undertaken to rehabilitate theater’s 

stage pilings, decking, breezeways, seating, stage, and convenience areas.

2002: New GMP for Fort Raleigh begins.
National Park Service 115

Appendix Two: “Fort Raleigh” – 

The Mystery of the Name

The fate of the Lost Colony remains a mystery after 

more than four centuries, but there is also a lesser 

mystery at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, the 

mystery of how the fortification at that location, and the 

site itself, became known as “Fort Raleigh.” Most 

scholars believe that Fort Raleigh’s earthwork was built 

by military engineer Ralph Lane, who was the governor 

of the first settlement established on Roanoke Island in 

1585 under the auspices of Sir Walter Raleigh. Lane, 

however, was only associated with this phase of the 

colonization effort. Contemporaries commenting upon 

the Raleigh expeditions refer to the “new Fort in 

Virginia,” which was Lane’s term, or they used “the 

Cittie of Ralegh,” which was written into Raleigh’s 

charter from Queen Elizabeth. How did the site become 

known, therefore, as “Fort Raleigh”?

The following information is not an exhaustive survey. 

Much additional research could be done and a few 

suggestions are offered in the notes. However, several 

conclusions can be drawn from the references cited in 

the narrative below.308

One of the earliest sources about the Raleigh 

expeditions, and English colonizing efforts more 

generally, is Richard Hakluyt. Hakluyt publicized Lane’s 

1585 letter to him from “the new Fort in Virginia.”309

Hakluyt was a very early and particularly influential 

commentator. Use of the “fort” term in reference to the 

site of Raleigh’s colonizing activity thus dates from the 

time that the events themselves took place and was 

probably widely propagated because of Hakluyt. 

After the successful establishment of the Jamestown 

colony in 1607 unsuccessful attempts were made to find 

the lost colonists. The site of their supposed activities 

thus became a subject of interest. On May 8, 1654, 

Francis Yeardley, of Virginia, wrote to John Farrar, about 

a report he received from four traders who had visited 

Indians on Roanoke Island. The traders told Yeardley 

that the natives “showed them the ruins of Sir Walter 

Raleigh’s Fort.” Yeardley may not have been the first to 

reference the fortification in conjunction with Raleigh’s 

name, but his letter clearly dates such a conjunction to 

the mid- seventeenth century.310

The letters above demonstrate two points. First, the 

original participants, as well as later commentators, have 

referenced the Fort Raleigh site in association with an 

earthwork. Over time, as further examples below 

illustrate, this tendency was reinforced because that 

structure was understood to be the only surviving 

edifice of the Raleigh expeditions. Moreover, the fort 

site was well known to natives and outsiders alike and its 

location never disappeared from memory. The site was 

also relatively well known and visited throughout the 

nineteenth century with accounts in the literature to 

that affect.311 In fact, trace surface remains of the 

earthwork were still evident as late as the first 

archeological investigations of the site conducted by 

Talcott Williams in 1895.312 Second, Sir Walter Raleigh’s 

name has been explicitly associated with the earthwork 

from an early date. Commentators have long found it 

useful to associate the earthwork with Raleigh’s name 

because of his singular prominence in backing early 

English colonizing expeditions to Roanoke Island.

Detail can be added to this simple argument. William 

Powell’s work, Paradise Preserved (1965), on the history 

of the Roanoke Island Historical Association, offers the 

most complete record documenting the history of the 

origins of the name “Fort Raleigh.”313 Powell’s study, 

however, was not intended to accomplish that aim and 

its use for that purpose is the result of a careful reading. 

308. Sources that could shed further light on this issue include: Directors’ correspondence and reports concerning the transfer of Fort 

Raleigh to National Park Service, State Department of Archives and History, Raleigh; Raleigh-related collections at the University 

of North Carolina; Files of the Roanoke Island Historical Association, Manteo, Roanoke Island; Roanoke Colony Memorial 

Association, University of North Carolina; and Papers of the David Stick collection, Outer Banks History Center, Manteo. 

309. Richard Hakluyt, The Principall Navigations, Voiages and Discoveries of the English Nation, vol. VIII (London: George Bishop and 

Ralph Newberie, 1589). The letter is available from many sources and can easily be found by searching the www.

310. Quoted in Charles W. Porter, III, Adventures to a New World, The Roanoke Colony, 1585-87 (NPS, 1972), 46; Original in Colonial 

Records of North Carolina, vol. I, 18.

311. See, for example, “Loungings in the Footprints of the Pioneers,” Harper’s New Monthly Magazine, vol. XX, no. 120 (May 1860): 

777-776.

312. Talcott Williams, “The Surroundings and Site of Raleigh’s Colony,” Annual report of the American Historical Association for 1895

(Washington: GPO, 1896), 59-60.
116 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Christy Trebellas and William Chapman, in their 

historic context report for Fort Raleigh (1999), did 

remark on the origin of the name. They found several 

nineteenth- century references to the site, including “Sir 

Walter Raleigh’s fort,” “Lane’s fort,” “Master Ralph 

Layne’s stronghold and the City of Raleigh,” as well as 

“Raleigh’s ‘New Fort in Virginia.’” They concluded that 

“Fort Raleigh” was a late nineteenth- century term.314

Currently, the earliest known reference to the term 

“Fort Raleigh” occurred in the Elizabeth City Economist

on February 10, 1884. On that date letter- writer J.E. 

Goodwin of Manteo recounted his journey “to see what 

could be seen of the old Fort Raleigh.” Implied in both 

newspaper editor’s and the writer’s comments, however, 

is the notion that the term was already in common use 

by the mid- 1880s. Undoubtedly, even older recorded 

references could be found with further research.315

In 1892, Sallie Southhall Cotten launched the Virginia 

Dare Columbia Memorial Association for the purpose 

of commemorating and perpetuating the memory of the 

birth of the first English child in North America. This 

effort inspired a group of men to organize an association 

to purchase and preserve the historic site of Raleigh’s 

colonies. On March 25, 1893, this group printed a threepage prospectus entitled Raleigh’s Colony on Roanoke 

Island, 1585- 1590. They proposed to create a company 

that was to sell stock “for the purchase and preservation 

of Raleigh’s fort on Roanoke Island.”316 To drum up 

enthusiasm and financial support, one of the organizers, 

Dr. Edward Graham Daves, gave a series of public 

lectures. On the handbills promoting these lectures, the 

headline announced: “Purchase of Old Fort Raleigh,” 

after which followed:

Prof. Daves represents an incorporated Company of

North Carolinians who are endeavouring to rescue

from oblivion, and preserve as a memorial in an

appropriate way, the site of “OLD FORT RALEIGH”

on Roanoke Island.317

A year later, on March 4, 1894, the Roanoke Colony 

Memorial Association (RCMA) was organized. In its 

charter, the company again stated that it was “organized 

for the benevolent and patriotic purpose of reclaiming, 

preserving, and adorning Old Fort Raleigh.”318

Curiously, late nineteenth- century scholarly articles 

discussing Raleigh’s colonies do not appear to use the 

term “Fort Raleigh.” Even Edward Graham Davies, who 

became the first president of RCMA, did not use the 

term in his own scholarship even after beginning the 

campaign to save “Old Fort Raleigh.” However, Graham 

did clearly tie Raleigh’s name to “fort” in his scholarly 

work and made extensive use of the term in RCMA 

literature, which was designed for a wide audience. This 

observation would again imply that “Fort Raleigh” is a 

term arising from popular use and that sponsors of the 

early commemoration movement adopted it to broaden 

their appeal.319

The question of how “Fort Raleigh” acquired its name 

concerned Jean C. Harrington, the well- known 

archeologist. Writing in 1962, but with limited 

knowledge of the RCMA, Harrington remarked that the 

first use known to him of the term “Fort Raleigh” was on 

April 30, 1894. On that date the name “Fort Raleigh” 

formally appeared on the deed for the sale of the tenacre tract purchased by the RCMA from Walter T. 

Dough.320 In the deed, the site is referred to as “the old 

Fort Raleigh Tract.”321 Given RCMA’s emphasis on 

commemorating “Old Fort Raleigh,” it is not surprising 

that this specific name would then materialize on the 

deed.

After the RCMA was incorporated and had purchased 

the Fort Raleigh tract, it set out to commemorate the 

site. In 1895, RCMA arranged for Talcott Williams to visit 

Fort Raleigh to mark the outlines of the earthwork. The 

association then erected a modest memorial to Virginia 

Dare and the Raleigh colonists in 1896. RCMA was not 

313. See William S. Powell, Paradise Preserved: A History of the Roanoke Island Historical Association (Chapel Hill: University of North 

Carolina, 1965).

314. Christine Trebellas and William Chapman, Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Historic Resource Study (NPS, 1999), 1, ftnt. 1.

315. Powell, 42. Much of the information contained in Powell’s work is also summarized in Trebellas and Chapman, Chapter 3.

316. Powell, 67-68.

317. Powell, 70-71.

318. Powell, 73.

319. See, Edward Graham Daves, “Raleigh’s ‘New Fort in Virginia,’ –1585,” Magazine of American History, vol. 29 (May/June 1893): 

459-470.

320. Jean C. Harrington, Search for the Cittie of Ralegh: Archeological Excavations at Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (NPS, 1962), 

v (ftnt †); The sale is also described in Frederick Tilberg, Report on the Fort Site Known as For Raleigh, Roanoke Island, N.C.: 

Observations and Sketches Relating to the Fort Raleigh Area (NPS, 1936), 2-3, 12. According to Tilberg, the RCMA deed is the first 

upon which the term “Fort Raleigh” appears. See also Powell, 75.

321. See, Record of Deeds, Dare County, Book D, 332.
National Park Service 117

the only local user of the term. In 1899, an inhabitant of 

Roanoke Island wrote an article in The Trinity Archive

entitled “Fort Raleigh- Its History.”322 Spurred by local 

enthusiasm for commemorating Raleigh- related activity 

in North Carolina, the state’s congressional representatives made attempts to acquire commemorative funds. 

In April 1900, a bill was submitted in Congress “to 

provide for the erection of a monument on the site of 

Fort Raleigh, on Roanoke Island.”323 The bill did not 

pass, but it marked the first time the name “Fort 

Raleigh” was used in congressional legislation. 

The RCMA continued to promote the Fort Raleigh site 

and interest in the area grew. According to William 

Powell, RCMA President Robert B. Drane was hopeful 

by 1912 that the “State Government, and National 

Government will, sooner or later, seek to share with us 

in the preservation of old Fort Raleigh.”324 Curiously, 

Drane capitalized both “state” and “national” in 

reference to the government, but failed to capitalize 

“old” in reference to Fort Raleigh in the same sentence. 

In other references, the commonly used “old” is 

sometimes dropped from the name. Finally, on May 29, 

1926, President Coolidge signed an act authorizing the 

appropriation of $2,500 to erect a monument to 

commemorate Virginia Dare “at Sir Walter Raleigh Fort 

on Roanoke Island.”325 This Congressional effort was 

successful. While Congress adopted a variation of the 

“Fort Raleigh” designation in reference to the site on 

this occasion, it clearly continued the strong trend of 

connecting “fort” with “Raleigh.” Soon after this occurrence, RCMA organized a one- day celebration at the 

site, perhaps the largest annual Virginia Dare celebration ever held. The day’s events were published in a 

brochure entitled, Virginia Dare, Annual Celebration By 

the Roanoke Colony Memorial Association, Old Fort 

Raleigh, Roanoke Island, North Carolina, August 18, 1926.

326

During the time of RCMA’s ownership of the site, the 

name “Old Fort Raleigh” appears to be the term most 

frequently used to identify the site. RCMA members did 

themselves occasionally use alternative references, such 

as “the Old City of Raleigh.”327 Apparently, however, 

RCMA always formally employed the term “Old Fort 

Raleigh” or “old Fort Raleigh” in its official papers. 

RCMA’s use of such terminology further popularized 

what was probably already a term of local expression. 

Without question, during the RCMA period, “Fort 

Raleigh” became the most widely used and accepted 

term for referring to the old fortification.

In 1934, RCMA’s aging members decided to retire their 

organization and to hand over their Fort Raleigh 

property to the State of North Carolina. The North 

Carolina Historical Commission (NCHC) assumed 

responsibility for the deed and established “Fort Raleigh 

State Park,” probably so named because the tract was 

labeled “old Fort Raleigh” on the deed, RCMA used this 

expression, and, again, because “Fort Raleigh” had 

become the most common form of identifying the 

property.328 The reason that the term “old” was formally 

dropped in the state park’s appellation is unknown. The 

site was recognized as the location of the earliest English 

colonizing activities in North America. Hence, the fort 

was automatically understood to be quite old, making 

further reference to the site’s age redundant.329

In 1936, the NCHC proposed that the National Park 

Service assume responsibility for Fort Raleigh. Between 

1936 and 1939, the NPS considered the issue. NPS 

researchers, who often referred to the site “known as 

Fort Raleigh,” were interested in determining the 

authenticity of claims that Fort Raleigh was indeed the 

spot where Raleigh’s colonists established their 

settlement.330 Serious concerns were also raised about 

the authenticity of the state park’s “reconstructions” 

that later proved quite accurate. Initially, NPS historians 

determined that “the fort may be that of Raleigh’s 

colonists; it may be an Indian mound; or it may be an 

18th Century fort.” They recommended that NPS accept 

the NCHC property but without making any promise 

about designating the site as “Fort Raleigh” until 

appropriate studies had been conducted to establish the 

veracity of that association. In discussing the issue, 

however, no hint of displeasure with the term “Fort 

Raleigh” can be detected, only whether the site bearing 

that name was authentic. In fact, NPS historians used 

322. Powell, 35. Williams did not use the term “Fort Raleigh” in his scholarship.

323. Edmund B. Rogers, “History of Legislation Relating to The National Park System Through the 82nd Congress” (NPS, 1958).

324. Powell, 95.

325. Rogers.

326. Powell, 89, ftnt 46.

327. Powell, 77.

328. Arno B. Cammerer, to Lindsay C. Warren, April 10, 1939, File 0-35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.

329. Note, the term “old” was not capitalized in the deed, again implying that “old” was more of a quaint modifier than a formal 

part of the name. Moreover, there was only one Fort Raleigh, again making it unnecessary to use an adjective in the title.

330. See, for example, Tilberg.
118 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

the terms “Fort Raleigh” and “Raleigh’s fort” themselves 

in discussing the merits of the site.331

In the meantime the Roanoke Island Historical 

Association was formed to promote the Lost Colony 

theme. Under the NCHC’s auspices, associates of RIHA 

approached playwright Paul Green who agreed to write 

a play based upon the Lost Colony. The opening of The 

Lost Colony in 1937 was so successful that President 

Franklin D. Roosevelt attended a performance of the 

play that summer on Virginia Dare Day (August 18) at 

Fort Raleigh State Park. No source cited in this 

administrative history suggests that consideration was 

ever given by anyone to any other term than “Fort 

Raleigh” for use as the site’s name. By 1939, the Park 

Service had made a favorable judgment about the site of 

The Lost Colony production and the old earthwork. 

Despite what NPS considered probably inauthentic 

reconstructions, the site appeared to be at or near the 

location of Raleigh’s settlements. In 1941, the site was 

designated as “Fort Raleigh National Historic Site.” NPS 

papers relating to the creation of the park do not suggest 

the existence of any significant controversy or even 

debate in choosing the site’s formal name. By 1941 the 

site was widely known as “Fort Raleigh,” the “old” tag 

having completely fallen from use. The State of North 

Carolina called the site “Fort Raleigh” and the deed 

listed “Fort Raleigh” on the tract conveyed to the federal 

government. Again, this is not an exhaustive accounting, 

but it does not appear that any other name than “Fort 

Raleigh” was ever considered by NPS for the site. 

Moreover, local Fort Raleigh enthusiasts, never reticent 

in their willingness to complain about NPS policies, 

surely would have made their opinions known had the 

Park Service considered a designation not deemed by 

them appropriate. 

In summary, the factual record listed in the account 

above makes possible several conclusions regarding the 

designation “Fort Raleigh”:

• “Fort” is a term used since the late sixteenth century 

to identify the location of Sir Walter Raleigh’s 

colonization effort on Roanoke Island, that is, 

contemporaneous to the events and by the 

participants themselves (although other terms have 

also been used).

• “Raleigh” is a term used in conjunction with the term 

“fort” to identify the location of Raleigh’s 

colonization effort on Roanoke Island since at least 

the mid- seventeenth century, while the origins of 

the modern construction (“Fort Raleigh”) date from 

the late nineteenth century, if not earlier.

• Ralph Lane’s earthwork on Roanoke Island 

remained visible to the time of the first archeological 

investigations and is the only structural remnant of 

sixteenth- century English colonizing efforts in 

North America. Naturally, references to the site 

typically include “fort” rather than “city” or “cittie,” 

or some other less concrete designation.

• The most prominent individual whose name can be 

clearly associated with all of the events concerning 

sixteenth- century English colonizing efforts in 

North America is Sir Walter Raleigh, hence frequent 

association of his name with the fort site.

• Recorded references to “old Fort Raleigh” begin as 

early as 1884. Apparently, the term arose from 

popular use.

• The Roanoke Colony Memorial Association used 

the term “old Fort Raleigh” in its formal papers from 

1893 onward.

• The deed acquired by RCMA from Walter T. Dough 

in 1894 for the Fort Raleigh site refers to the “old Fort 

Raleigh Tract.”

• Congressional legislation refers to “Fort Raleigh” in 

1900 and to “Sir Walter Raleigh Fort” in 1926. 

Although the exact formulation was not set in stone, 

official Congressional sanction for the conjunction 

between “Raleigh” and “fort” is clear.

• Under the North Carolina Historical Commission, 

1934- 1939, Fort Raleigh was known as “Fort Raleigh 

State Park.” In 1937, The Lost Colony play began its 

historic run. NCHC and RIHA apparently approved 

of the park’s name.

• National Park Service concern about the 

authenticity of the Fort Raleigh site was related to the 

validity of the site as the actual location of the events 

associated with sixteenth- century English 

colonizing efforts. Once established, no contention 

seems to have surrounded NPS selection of “Fort 

331. Roy E. Appleman and Charles W. Porter to Director, March 13, 1937, File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79, MAR.
National Park Service 119

Raleigh” as the designation for the new national 

historic site.

• “Fort Raleigh,” or “old Fort Raleigh,” is the term 

most historically associated with the modern 

commemoration of the Fort Raleigh site. As 

extensively documented in the literature, use of this 

term predates NPS use by at least fifty- seven years 

(1884 to 1941). Use of the term also predates similar 

use both by the state park of the 1930s and by RCMA 

from the early 1890s. These facts indicate, of course, 

that national, state, and local authorities have all 

preferred to use the term “Fort Raleigh” both to 

commemorate and to perpetuate the memory of Sir 

Walter Raleigh’s colonizing expeditions on Roanoke 

Island from at least the late nineteenth century to the 

present time.
120 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Appendix Three: A List of Superintendents

The NPS took over the management of Fort Raleigh on July 21, 1941. From this date through October 15, 1953, the park 

was administered by an on- site superintendent under a coordinating superintendent at Wright Brothers NM, then 

named Kill Devil Hills NM. Between 1945 and 1949, the superintendent and coordinating superintendent were known as 

the custodian and coordinating custodian.

Superintendent:

Robert H. Atkinson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .July 21, 1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 25, 1942

Robert H. Atkinson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .September 30, 1945 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .October 15, 1953

Note that Atkinson was on a military furlough to the U.S. Coast Guard between 1942 and 1945. During these years, 

Coordinating Superintendent Horace A. Dough acted as superintendent. 

COORDINATING SUPERINTENDENT:

Horace A. Dough. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .July 21, 1941 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .October 15, 1953

On October 16, 1953, Fort Raleigh was placed under the administration of the Cape Hatteras NS superintendent as part 

of the Cape Hatteras Group.

CAPE HATTERAS GROUP SUPERINTENDENTS:

A. Clark Stratton, Acting . . . . . . . . . . .October 16, 1953 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .February 13, 1954

Allyn F. Hanks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .March 5, 1954 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 2, 1957

Robert F. Gibbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .November 3, 1957 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 7, 1962

H. Reese Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .April 8, 1962 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . February 2, 1963

James B. Myers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .March 3, 1963 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May 30, 1964

Karl T. Gilbert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .August 2, 1964. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January 14, 1967

Kittridge A. Wing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .August 13, 1967 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . December 27, 1970

Bertram C. Roberts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .January 24, 1971 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 2, 1972

Robert D. Barbee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .April 16, 1972 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 15, 1973

Jimmie L. Dunning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .November 11, 1973 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 1, 1975

William A. Harris. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .November 2, 1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 20, 1981

Thomas L. Hartman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .November 15, 1981 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November 12, 1994

Russell Berry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .November 13, 1994 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . October 4, 1997

Suzette Kimball (Acting) . . . . . . . . . . .October 4, 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .January 10, 1998

Robert Reynolds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .January 11, 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 30, 1999

Chris Bernthal (Acting) . . . . . . . . . . . .September 30, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . December 18, 1999

Francis Peltier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .December 19, 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .July 31, 2001

Lawrence A. Belli. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .August 1, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . to . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Present
National Park Service 121

Appendix Four: Annual Visitation Statistics

Year Visitation Year Visitation

1956 122,206 1979 308,753

1957 99,349 1980 354,063

1958 86,067 1981 302,752

1959 99,114 1982 303,953

1960 90,820 1983 363,361

1961 102,807 1984 391,915

1962 110,592 1985 275,419

1963 136,712 1986 261,870

1964 145,490 1987 284,288

1965 176,726 1988 288,723

1966 321,349 1989 281,321

1967 256,510 1990 290,755

1968 234,776 1991 283,812

1969 215,520 1992 290,705

1970 287,352 1993 328,794

1971 325,377 1994 325,523

1972 323,176 1995 290,018

1973 305,501 1996 309,692

1974 336,308 1997 356,321

1975 348,008 1998 359,272

1976 335,554 1999 306,649

1977 375,832 2000 246,094

1978 349,224 2001 268,808

FIGURE 54. Fort Raleigh statistical visitation data, 1956-2001

Fort Raleigh Visitation 1956 - 2001

0

50000

100000

150000

200000

250000

300000

350000

400000

450000

195619591962

1965

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

Year

Number of Visitors

FIGURE 55. Chart showing visitation trends at Fort Raleigh, 1956-2000
122 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Appendix Five: Federal Legislation and Orders

F.R. 2441, Issued April 5, 1941

Order Designating the Fort Raleigh National 

Historic Site, Roanoke Island, N.C.

WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has 

declared it to be a national policy to preserve for the 

public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of 

national significance for the inspiration and benefit of 

the people of the United States; and

WHEREAS, certain lands and historical remains on the 

northern end of Roanoke Island, Dare County, North 

Carolina, have been declared by the Advisory Board on 

National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and 

Monuments to be of national significance as a portion of 

colonial settlement or settlements established in 

America by Sir Walter Raleigh, 1585- 1587; and

WHEREAS, title to the above- mentioned lands and 

historical remains is vested in the United States, having 

been donated by the State of North Carolina; and

WHEREAS, an agreement has been made between the 

Roanoke Island Historical Association and the United 

States for the annual presentation of Paul Green’s 

celebrated pageant- drama, “The Lost Colony,” in the 

open- air amphitheater on the above- mentioned 

property;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, Alvin J. Wirtz, Acting Secretary of 

the Interior, under and by virtue of the authority 

conferred upon the Secretary of the Interior by Section 

2 of the Act of Congress approved August 21, 1935 (49 

Stat. 666), do hereby designate the following described 

lands, with the historical remains thereon, to be a 

national historic site having the name “Fort Raleigh 

National Historic Site”:

All of that certain tract or parcel of land located on the 

northern end of Roanoke Island, Dare County, North 

Carolina, and bounded as follows, viz:

Beginning at a concrete monument in the Southwest 

Corner of the A.P. Meakin tract of land and in the North 

edge of the right of way of N.C. State Highway 34 on the 

North end of Roanoke Island; running thence North 69 

deg. 30 min. West along said Highway 554.0 feet to a 

concrete monument in the Southeast line of the Dough 

heirs’ tract; thence along the line of said Dough heirs’ 

tract North 7 deg. 15 min. West 786.0 feet to a stake in the 

edge of Roanoke Sound; thence following the various 

courses of said Sound in an Easterly direction 

approximately 1090.0 feet plus or minus to a stake in the 

Northwest corner of the A.P. Meakin tract of land, said 

stake being 40.5 foot North of an iron pipe in the A.P. 

Meakin line; thence along said A.P. Meakin line South 

29 deg. 00 min. West 951.0 feet to point of beginning. 

The above described tract being known as the Fort 

Tract.

The administration, protection, and development of this 

national historic site shall be exercised by the National 

Park Service in accordance with the provisions of the 

Act of August 21, 1935, supra.

Warning is expressly given to all unauthorized persons 

not to appropriate, injure, destroy, deface, or remove 

any feature of this historic site.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and 

caused the office seal of the Department of the Interior 

to be affixed, in the City of Washington, this 5th day of 

April 1941.

A.J. Wirtz, Acting Secretary of the Interior.

75 Stat. 384, Approved August 17, 1961

An Act to revise the boundaries of the Fort 

Raleigh National Historic Site in North 

Carolina, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 

of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

That in order to preserve, as a part of the Fort Raleigh 

National Historic Site, lands historically associated with 

the attempt to establish an English colony on Roanoke 

Island, the boundaries of such site are hereby revised to 

include the following described lands:

EASTERN AND SOUTHERN EXTENSION

Beginning at the southwest corner of the present Fort 

Raleigh National Historic Site, which is on the northerly 

right- of- way line of North Carolina State Highway 

Numbered 345, said point bearing south 7 degrees 45 

minutes east, 35 feet, more or less, from a concrete 

monument on the existing west boundary of the said 

national historic site;

Thence south 72 degrees 00 minutes east, 537 feet, more 

or less, following everywhere the said northerly right-
National Park Service 123

of- way line of North Carolina State Highway 

Numbered 345, which line is also the south boundary of 

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, to a corner on the 

said south boundary of the national historic site;

Thence south 68 degrees 30 minutes east, 70 feet, more 

or less, following everywhere the said northerly rightof- way line of North Carolina State Highway 

Numbered 345, which line is also the south boundary of 

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, to the southwest 

corner or land now or formerly owned by the W.O. 

Dough estate;

Thence north 29 degrees 30 minutes east, 992 feet, more 

or less, along the westerly property line of lands now or 

formerly owned by the said W.O. Dough estate and of 

the W.J. Griffin subdivision which line is also the east 

boundary of the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, to a 

point on the high water line of Roanoke Sound, said 

point being the northwest corner of the said W.J. Griffin 

subdivision;

Thence south 83 degrees 00 minutes east, 728 feet, more 

or less, along the high water line of Roanoke Sound to 

the point of intersection with the westerly line of Dare 

Avenue, or the extension thereof, in the W.J. Griffin 

subdivision;

Thence south 29 degrees 30 minutes west, 1,230 feet, 

more or less, along the said westerly line of any 

northerly extension of Dare Avenue and/or the westerly 

line of Dare Avenue, and crossing on a prolongation of 

said line the 60- foot right- of- way of North Carolina 

State Highway Numbered 345 to a point on the 

southerly right- of- way line of said highway;

Thence south 69 degrees 00 minutes east, 115 feet, more 

or less, following everywhere the said southerly rightof- way line of North Carolina State Highway 

Numbered 345 to the point of intersection with the 

easterly property line of land now or formerly owned by 

Essie Payne; thence south 27 degrees 00 minutes west, 

910 feet along the said easterly property line of land now 

or formerly owned by Essie Payne to a point;

Thence south 7 degrees 45 minutes east, 790 feet, 

crossing the 100- foot right- of- way of the United States 

highway bearing numbers 64 and 264, to a point located 

on land now or formerly owned by Ralph Umphlett; 

thence south 73 degrees 30 minutes west, 640 feet, more 

or less, to a point on the easterly property line of land 

now or formerly owned by Essie Payne;

Thence south 27 degrees 00 minutes west, 175 feet, more 

or less, along the said easterly property line of land now 

or formerly owned by Essie Payne to a point on the 

easterly property line of land now or formerly owned by 

Willis Pearce;

Thence north 7 degrees 45 minutes west, 1,430 feet, 

more or less, along the said easterly property line of land 

now or formerly owned by Willis Pearce crossing the 

said 100- foot right- of- way of the United States highway 

bearing numbers 64 and 264, to a point on the southerly 

property line of land now or formerly owned by Alma 

Reich and Alton Aydlett;

Thence south 67 degrees 00 minutes west, 1,100 feet, 

more or less, along the said southerly property line of 

land now or formerly owned by Alma Reich and Alton 

Aydlett to a point on the easterly right- of- way line of 

the Old Ferry Road; thence north 32 degrees 00 minutes 

east, 1,530 feet, more or less, following everywhere the 

said easterly right- of- way line of Old Ferry Road, to the 

point of intersection with the southerly right- of- way 

line of North Carolina Highway Numbered 345.

Thence northwesterly 60 feet, more or less, crossing the 

right- of- way of said North Carolina State Highway 

Numbered 345, to the point of beginning but excluding 

therefrom the right- of- way of the United States 

highway bearing numbers 64 and 264. The tract as 

described contains approximately 73 acres.

WESTERN ADDITION

Beginning at a point on the high water line of Roanoke 

Sound which marks the northwest corner of land now 

or formerly owned by the Roanoke Island Historical 

Association, said point being located about 450 feet 

westerly from the northwest corner of the existing Fort 

Raleigh National Historic Site;

Thence south 35 degrees 15 minutes west, 1,356 feet, 

more or less, along the west property line of said lands 

now or formerly owned by the Roanoke Island 

Historical Association crossing the 60- foot right- ofway of North Carolina State Highway Numbered 345, 

and along the west property line of a second tract of 

land now or formerly owned by the Roanoke Island 

Historical Association, to the most westerly corner of 

the said second- named tract of land now or formerly 

owned by the Roanoke Island Historical Association;

Thence south 69 degrees 00 minutes west, 100 feet, 

more or less, to a corner on the easterly property line of
124 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

land now or formerly owned by Jerome Griffin; thence 

north 76 degrees 00 minutes west, 2,500 feet, more or 

less, across land now or formerly owned by Jerome 

Griffin, to a point 3,450 feet, more or less, along the high 

water line of Roanoke Sound to the point of beginning, 

the tract as described containing approximately 52 acres.

SEC. 2. The Secretary of the Interior, in furtherance of 

the purposes of this Act, is authorized to procure, in 

such manner and subject to such terms and conditions 

as he may deem to be in the public interest, lands and 

interests in lands described in section 1 hereof. In 

acquiring such additional lands and interests therein for 

the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, the Secretary is 

authorized to use any funds now or hereafter made 

available for the acquisition of lands in the national park 

system. When so acquired, they shall be administered as 

a part of the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site in 

accordance with the provisions of the Act of August 25, 

1916 (39 Stat. 535), as amended.

Public Law 101-603, 104 Stat. 3065, 

Approved November 16, 1990

An Act To authorize the Secretary of the 

Interior to acquire certain lands to be added to 

the Fort Raleigh National Historic Site in North 

Carolina

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 

of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PURPOSE OF FORT RALEIGH 

NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

The purpose of Fort Raleigh National Historic Site 

(hereinafter in this Act referred to as the “historic site”) 

shall be the preservation and interpretation of—

(1) the first English colony in the New World; and

(2) the history of the Native Americans, European 

Americans, and African Americans who lived 

on Roanoke Island, North Carolina.

SECTION 2. ADDITION OF LANDS TO FORT 

RALEIGH NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

(A) AUTHORITY FOR ACQUISITION.—The Secretary 

of the Interior may acquire through purchase, 

donation, or exchange all right, title, and 

interest in and to the lands described in 

subsection (b). Upon acquisition, the lands shall 

be added to and administered as part of the 

historic site.

(B) DESCRIPTION OF LANDS.—The lands referred to 

in subsection (a) are the approximately 335 

acres depicted on the map entitled “Fort 

Raleigh National Historic Site Expansion”, 

numbered 383/80,001A, dated October 1990, 

and on file with the Director of the National 

Park Service.

SECTION 3. RESEARCH

The Secretary, in consultation with scholarly and other 

historic organizations, shall undertake research on the 

history and archaeology of the historic site, and the 

associated peoples and events.

SECTION 4. AUTHORIZATION OF 

APPROPRIATIONS

There is authorized to be appropriated such 

sums as may be necessary to carry out this Act.
National Park Service 125

Bibliography

Aitken, Hugh G. T. The Continuous Wave: Technology and 

American Radio, 1900- 1932. Princeton: Princeton 

University Press, 1985.

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge web page. [http://

www.fws.gov/r4eao/alframe.html]. July 14, 1998. 

Cape Hatteras Group Headquarters. Fort Raleigh National 

Historic Site. Manteo, North Carolina.

Chapman, William R. and Jill K. Hanson. Wright Brothers 

National Memorial Historic Resource Study. Atlanta: 

Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service: 1997.

Click, Patricia C. Time Full of TRIAL: The Roanoke Island 

Freedmen's Colony, 1862- 1867. Chapel Hill: University of 

North Carolina, 2001. 

Colyer, Vincent. Report of the Services Rendered by the Freed 

People to the United States Army, in North Carolina. New 

York: By the author, 1864.

Cultural Resources Stewardship Library. Southeast Regional 

Office. National Park Service. Atlanta, Georgia.

Daves, Edward Graham. “Raleigh’s ‘New Fort in Virginia,’ –

1585.” Magazine of American History 29 (May/June 1893): 

459- 470.

De Bry, Theodore. Thomas Hariot’s Virginia (1590). Reprint, 

Readex Microprint Corporation, 1966.

Dolan, Robert and Kenton Bosserman. “Shoreline Erosion 

and the Lost Colony.” Annals of the Association of 

American Geographers, vol. 62, no. 3 (September 1972): 

424- 426.

Dunbar, Gary S. Historical Geography of the North Carolina 

Outer Banks. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University 

Press, 1958.

Durant, David N. Ralegh’s Lost Colony. New York: Atheneum, 

1981.

Graham, Matthew J. The Ninth Regiment New York Volunteer. 

New York: By the author, 1900.

Hakluyt, Richard. The Principall Navigations, Voiages and 

Discoveries of the English Nation, vol. VIII. London: 

George Bishop and Ralph Newberie, 1589.

Harrington, Jean Carl. Archeology and the Enigma of Fort 

Raleigh. Raleigh: America’s Four Hundredth Anniversary 

Committee and North Carolina Department of Cultural 

Resources, 1984.

—. Search for the Cittie of Ralegh: Archeological Excavations at 

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina. 

Washington: National Park Service, 1962.

Hewes, Andrew M. Wright Brothers National Memorial: An 

Administrative History. Washington: National Park 

Service, 1967.

Hume, Ivor Noel. Roanoke Island: America’s First Science 

Center. Reprint. Colonial Williamsburg: The Journal of the 

Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, Spring 1994.

—. The Virginia Adventure, Roanoke to James Town: An 

Archeological and Historical Perspective. New York: 

Alfred A. Knopf, 1998. 

James, Horace. Annual Report of the Superintendent of Negro 

Affairs in North Carolina, 1864. Boston: W. F. Brown & 

Co., Printers, 1865.

Khoury, Angelis Ellis. Manteo: A Roanoke Island Town. 

Virginia Beach: Donning Company Publishers, 1999.

Kupperman, Karen Ordahl. Roanoke: The Abandoned Colony. 

Torowa, New Jersey: Rowman and Allanheld, Publishers, 

1984.

Lautzenheiser, Loretta and Thomas Hargrove. “‘ . . . The 

Bright Glittering Sand,’ Archeological Survey and Test 

Excavations, Site 31DR61, Roanoke Island, Dare County, 

North Carolina.” Report prepared for Rial Corporation/

W.M. Meekins Jr. Tarboro, NC: Coastal Carolina 

Research, Inc., June 1991.

Lee, Ronald F. Family Tree of the National Park System. 

Philadelphia: Eastern National Park and Monument 

Association, 1972.

—. The Origin and Evolution of the National Military Park Idea. 

Washington: National Park Service, 1973.

“Loungings in the Footprints of the Pioneers.” Harper’s New 

Monthly Magazine, vol. XX, no. 120 (May 1860): 773- 786.

Luccketti, Nicholas M. “Fort Raleigh Archeological Project: 

1994- 1995 Survey Report.” A report of the Virginia 

Company Foundation and the Association for the 

Preservation of Virginia Antiquities, December 1996.

Lyon, Edwin A. A New Deal for Southeastern Archaeology. 

Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1996.

Mackintosh, Barry. The Historic Sites Survey and National 

Historic Landmarks Program: A History. Washington: 

National Park Service, 1985.
126 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

—. Interpretation in the National Park Service: A Historical 

Perspective. Washington: National Park Service, 1986.

—. The National Parks: Shaping the System. Washington: U.S. 

Department of the Interior, 1991.

Meinig, D.W. The Shaping of America: A Geographical 

Perspective on 500 Years of History, Volume 1: Atlantic 

America, 1492- 1800. New Haven: Yale University Press, 

1986.

Paige, John. The Civilian Conservation Corps and the National 

Park Service, 1933- 1942: An Administrative History. 

Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1985.

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge web page. [http://

www.pinn.net/~hatteras/peaisland]. April 1, 1998.

Porter, III, Charles W. Adventures to a New World, The 

Roanoke Colony, 1585- 8.7 NPS, 1972.

—. Fort Raleigh National Historic Site, North Carolina.

Washington, DC: NPS, 1952.

Powell, William S. North Carolina Through Four Centuries.

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1989.

—. Paradise Preserved: A History of the Roanoke Island 

Historical Association. Chapel Hill: University of North 

Carolina Press, 1965.

Quinn, David Beers, ed. Roanoke Voyages 1584- 1590: 

Documents to Illustrate the English Voyages to North 

America Under the Patent Granted to Walter Raleigh in 

1584. Vols. I and II. London: The Hakluyt Society, 1955.

—. Set Faire for Roanoke: Voyages and Colonies, 1584- 1606. 

Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985.

Rogers, Edmund B., compiler. History of Legislation Relating to 

the National Park System Through the 82d Congress, Fort 

Raleigh. Washington: National Park Service, 1958.

Smith, Samuel D. A Bibliographic History of Historical 

Archeology in Tennessee. Nashville: Tennessee Department 

of Environment and Conservation, 1996.

Stick, David. Dare County: A History. Raleigh: North Carolina 

State Department of Archives and History, 1970.

—. Fabulous Dare: The Story of Dare County, Past and Present. 

Kitty Hawk, North Carolina: The Dare Press, 1949.

—. The Outer Banks of North Carolina, 1584- 1958. Chapel Hill: 

University of North Carolina Press, 1958.

—. Roanoke Island: The Beginnings of English America. Chapel 

Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1983.

Stick, Frank. Fort Raleigh Restoration: Authorization and a 

Brief Description. Works Progress Administration, 1939. 

Cultural Resources Stewardship Library, Southeast 

Regional Office, National Park Service, Atlanta, Georgia.

Sullivan, Thomas Alan, compiler. Laws Relating to the National 

Park Service, Supplement I, July 1933 through April 1944. 

Washington: Government Printing Office, 1944.

—, compiler. Proclamations and Orders Relating to the 

National Park Service up to January 1, 1945. Washington: 

Government Printing Office, 1947.

Tolson, Hillory A., compiler. Laws Relating to the National 

Park Service, Supplement II, May 1944 to January 1963. 

Washington: Government Printing Office, 1963.

—, Howard W. Baker, and Harold P. Danz, compilers. Historic 

Listings of National Park Service Officials. Washington: 

National Park Service, 1991.

Torres, Louis. Historic Resource Study of Cape Hatteras 

National Seashore. Denver: National Park Service, 1985.

Trebellas, Christine and William Chapman. Fort Raleigh 

National Historic Site Historic Resource Study. Atlanta: 

National Park Service, 1999. 

Unrau, Harlan D. and G. Frank Williss. Administrative History: 

Expansion of the National Park Service in the 1930s. 

Washington: National Park Service, 1983.

Williams, Talcott. “The Surroundings and Site of Raleigh’s 

Colony.” Annual report of the American Historical 

Association for 1895. Washington: GPO, 1896: 59- 60.

ADDITIONAL SOURCES

In addition to the references cited above, the following 

collections, newspapers, and other sources were cited:

Periodicals:

The Coast

Coastland Times

Roanoke Colonies Research Newsletter

The New York Times

The Outer Banks Current

The Virginian- Pilot

Cultural Resources Stewardship (CRS) Division, 

Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service, 

Atlanta, Georgia:

Annual Reports, CRS Library

“FORA General” folder, FORA files, CRS Library

“Furnishings for Elizabethan Room” folder, FORA 

files, CRS Library

“FORA Correspondence” folder, National Register 

files, Inventory and Research

“FORA General” folder, Curatorial files, Museum 

Services

Fort Raleigh National Historic Site (FORA), Manteo, 

North Carolina. Files at the park have a tendency to 

move about, but can generally be found at one of the 

three general locations below:
National Park Service 127

Museum Resource Center:

Clippings files

Map Cabinet

Mission 66 Plans

Outer Banks History Center box

Shoreline Stabilization Records

Vertical Files

Outer Banks Headquarters/Resource Management 

Office:

Completion Reports on Construction Projects

Correspondence files

“H30 FORA Correspondence” folder

“ECU Newsletter Articles” folder

Elizabethan Room files

“ECU Institute Research” folder

“FORA Building Records” folder

Interpretive Activities Reports

Museum Correspondence files

Roanoke Island Historical Association 

(RIHA) files (Concessions)

Superintendent’s Monthly and Annual 

Narrative Reports

The Vault (at park headquarters)

Land Records

“FRNHS Miscellaneous” folder

FORA Expansion Bill files

“Lost Colony” folder

“Elizabethan Gardens” folder

Record Group 79. Records of the National Park Service, 

Central Classified Files, 1936- 1952. National Archives 

and Records Administration. Mid- Atlantic Branch 

(MAR), Philadelphia:

File 0- 35, Box 48, Entry 81, RG 79

File 000 (1), Box 72, Entry 81, RG 79
128 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History
National Park Service 129

Index

A

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge, 47

Archeology, 3, 7, 15, 21–22, 25, 27, 29–31, 33, 38–

40, 42, 47, 49, 51–61, 63–64, 71, 73, 81, 91, 93–

96, 98, 100–101, 104–105, 107, 110–116, 118

Arts center, 47, 79–85, 105, 113

Atkinson, Robert H., 37, 41–42, 62, 76, 95–96, 99–

100, 120

B

Bell, Albert Q., 26, 28, 31, 40–41, 77–78, 86, 99, 104, 

112

Bonner, Herbert C., 44, 94

Bridges, 23–24, 47, 100

C

Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 23, 28, 32, 34, 37, 

39, 41, 44–47, 63–64, 70, 77, 79–80, 96–99, 

104, 112, 114, 120

Cape Lookout National Seashore, 37

Chapel, 27, 30, 40, 61–62, 78, 103, 111–112

Civil War, 3, 12–15, 109–110

Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC), 25–26, 33, 41, 53

Click, Patricia, 48, 73

Collections management, 3, 94, 97

Congress, 1–2, 20–21, 24–25, 28, 33, 43, 46, 48, 50–

51, 70, 73, 75, 85, 89, 91, 103–104, 110, 113, 

117–118, 122–124

Cooperative agreement, 3, 25, 31–32, 34, 75–77, 82, 

85, 88, 104, 111, 113

Cotten, Sallie Southall, 20–21, 103, 110, 116

Crittenden, Christopher, 26, 29–30, 34

D

Dare County, v, 3, 18, 23–24, 27, 33–35, 45, 48, 82, 

84, 113, 122

Dare, Virginia, 8–9, 20–22, 28, 61–62, 69, 86, 103, 

105, 109–110, 113, 116–117

Dogwood Trail, 41, 112

Dough Cemetery, 101, 105, 113

Dough Homestead, 44–45

Drake, Sir Francis, 6, 8, 109

E

Earthwork, 3, 15, 20–21, 41, 44, 54–55, 57, 59, 63, 

91–92, 104, 112, 114–116, 118

Eastern National Park and Monument Assn., 64, 71

Elizabeth R, 72, 114

Elizabethan Gardens, 43–45, 48, 63, 70, 72, 76, 86–

88, 91, 93, 99, 102, 104, 106–107, 112, 114

Elizabethan Room, 43, 63–68, 96, 98–99, 105, 112

Entrance fees, 70–71, 75, 85

Erosion, 3, 26, 34, 53, 91–92, 100–101, 104, 111–

112

Exhibits, 61, 63, 69, 73, 94–97

F

Fessenden, Reginald A., 18–19, 34, 47, 59, 73, 83, 

110

Fletcher, Inglis, 42, 86–87, 96, 102

Fort, see Earthwork

Fort Caroline, 63

Fort Raleigh State Park, 2–3, 26, 106, 117–118

Freedmen, 15–17, 47, 59, 73, 110

Freedmen’s Colony, 15–18, 47, 59, 73, 110

Furnishings plans, 65–67

G

Gans, Joachim, 7, 73, 109

Garden Club of North Carolina, 43–45, 47–48, 86–

89, 96, 104, 106, 112

Green, Paul, v, 28, 31, 75, 78, 80, 82, 85, 87, 89, 103, 

111, 118, 122

Grenville, Sir Richard, 6–9, 58–59, 64, 103, 109

H

Hanks, Allyn F., 37, 120

Hariot, Thomas, 7, 10, 41, 58, 62, 73, 86, 104, 109
130 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History

Harrington, Jean Carl, 40, 42, 53–56, 64, 94, 96, 98, 

102, 104, 112, 116

Hartman, Thomas L., 47–50, 66, 68, 70, 72, 80, 84, 

89, 98, 113, 120

Highways, 22–24, 39–41, 44, 47, 49–50, 73, 83, 110, 

122–123

Hird, Barbara, 72, 89, 105, 114

Historical Archeology, 53–54

Houston, Lebame, xvii, 71

Hume, Ivor Noel, 7, 54, 57, 72–74, 93, 98, 104–105, 

113

Hurricanes, 8, 40, 77–79, 99, 104, 111

I

"Indian Village," 76

Interpretation, 2–3, 25, 42, 55, 59, 61–75, 105, 114, 

124

J

Jamestown, 2, 9, 11, 22, 53–54, 96, 103, 109, 115

John White House, 37, 40, 96, 112

K

Kill Devil Hill National Monument, 24, 26, 33, 37, 120

L

Land acquisition, 3, 25, 31, 33–34, 40, 44–46, 49–51, 

74–77, 88, 99, 107, 112

Lane, Ralph, 7–8, 10, 55, 57, 59, 64, 69, 74, 92, 101, 

105, 109, 114–116, 118

Law enforcement, 99, 102

Legislation, 3, 24, 28, 33–35, 38–39, 44, 47–48, 54, 

59–60, 70, 72–73, 77, 89, 91, 106, 117–118, 

122–124

List of Classified Structures (LCS), 92–93

Living history, see Reenactors

Log structures, see Reconstructions

Lost Colony (play), 3, 28, 31, 33, 42, 44–45, 47–49, 

61–62, 69–70, 72, 74–77, 79–80, 82, 84–85, 87, 

89, 91, 94, 99–100, 102–103, 105–106, 111, 

118, 122

Lost Colony (story of), 2, 9, 20–22, 103, 109, 115

Lost Colony Activity Building, 79–80

Luccketti, Nicholas M., 59, 105, 114

M

Mackiewicz, Susan (Furnishing Report), 67

Manteo, 7–8, 21–22, 61

Michie, Audrey (Furnishing Report), 66

Mission 66, 37, 40–41, 43–46, 56, 61, 63–64, 69, 

76–78, 85, 87, 89, 96, 99–100, 104, 106, 112

Monument

Entrance pillars, 22, 46, 104

Virginia Dare, 20–21, 54, 117

Morrison, Dr. and Mrs. Fred W., 44, 46, 77–78

Museum, 3, 25, 27–28, 37, 40–42, 46, 61–63, 65, 67, 

94–98, 102, 112, 114

Museum storage facility, 97

N

National Historic Preservation Act, 44, 46, 54, 91–93, 

104, 113

National Historic Sites Act, 29, 32, 104, 111

National Register of Historic Places, 21, 91, 113

Nature trail, 3, 41, 63, 86, 104, 112

North Carolina, 2–3, 6–7, 9, 11–15, 19–23, 26–27, 

30–34, 37, 39–40, 42, 44, 46–48, 61, 66, 70, 72, 

76, 79, 82, 86, 88, 92, 102–104, 109–110, 112, 

114, 117, 122–124

North Carolina General Assembly, 18, 33, 44, 69, 78–

79

North Carolina Historical Commission, 25, 103, 111, 

117–118

North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, 92–

93

North Carolina, State of, 12, 20–21, 24–25, 33, 57, 

75, 87, 89, 94, 103, 109, 111, 117–118, 122

P

Parking, 44, 57, 76–77, 79, 85, 89, 94, 104, 112

Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge, 35, 47–48

R

Radio experiments, see Fessenden, Reginald A.

Raleigh, Sir Walter, 2, 6–9, 20–22, 27–28, 31, 33, 42, 

47, 55, 57–58, 60, 66, 69, 71, 74, 86–87, 90, 96, 

102–105, 109–110, 114–117, 122

RCMA, see Roanoke Island Historical Association

Reconstructions, 2–3, 29, 31, 39, 42, 56, 63, 68, 78–

79, 89, 92, 94, 102–104, 111, 117–118

Reenactors, 69, 87

Resources Management, 2–3, 38, 66, 91–92, 94, 97, 

99–102

RIHA, see Roanoke Island Historical Association

Roads, 21, 24, 33, 39–40, 44, 57, 77, 100, 103–105, 

110, 112

Roanoke Colony Memorial Association, v, 2, 21–22, 

25–28, 78, 80, 103, 110, 115–118
National Park Service 131

"Roanoke Decoded", 71–72, 74

Roanoke Island Historical Association, v, 2–3, 28, 30–

32, 40–42, 44–49, 61–63, 69, 71–72, 74–80, 82, 

84–89, 91, 94, 100, 102–106, 111, 113, 115, 

118, 122–123

Roosevelt, Franklin Delano, 25, 28, 33–34, 93, 111, 

118

S

Saunders, W.O., 23–24, 28

Science Center, 7, 59, 109

SEAC, see Southeast Archeological Center

Southeast Archeological Center, 57, 82, 98, 102, 105, 

113

Stick, David, 71

Stick, Frank, 23–24, 26–27, 29, 33, 103

T

Theater, see Waterside Theatre

Thomas Hariot Nature Trail, 62, 86, 104, 112

Trails, 3, 41, 63, 77, 86, 92, 100, 104, 112

V

Vance, Zebulon B., 20, 103, 110

Virginia Company Foundation, 57, 59, 71, 73, 105, 

113

Virginia Dare Memorial Association, 20–21, 110, 116

Virginia Dare Monument, see Monument

Visitation, 4, 27, 43, 61, 70, 121

Visitor center, 3, 39, 44–46, 56–57, 63–64, 67–68, 

73, 77, 88, 96, 98–99, 104, 112

W

Warren, Lindsay C., 22–24, 26, 28–29, 31, 33, 35, 44, 

46, 63, 69, 96, 103, 110

Waterside Theatre, v, 3, 40, 42, 61, 72, 75–80, 84, 

86, 89, 93, 99–100, 104, 111, 113–114

White, John, 7–9, 62, 64, 71, 95, 98, 109

Williams, Talcott, 21, 53–54, 110, 115–116

Works Progress Administration (WPA), 26–28, 30–31, 

53, 88, 94

Wright Brothers, 24, 32

Wright Brothers National Memorial, 24, 37, 45, 70, 

113, 120
132 Fort Raleigh National Historic Site Administrative History
As the nation’s principal conservation agency, 

the Department of the Interior has responsibility 

for most of our nationally owned public lands 

and natural resources. This includes fostering 

sound use of our land and water resources; 

protecting our fish, wildlife, and biological 

diversity; preserving the environmental and 

cultural values of our national parks and 

historical places; and providing for the enjoyment 

of life through outdoor recreation. The 

department assesses our energy and mineral 

resources and works to ensure that their 

development is in the best interests of all our 

people by encouraging stewardship and citizen 

participation in their care. The department also 

has a major responsibility for American Indian 

reservation communities and for people who live 

in island territories under U.S. administration. 

NPS D- 433 January 1997

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICA T M

1401 National Park Drive

Manteo, NC 27954-2708

www.nps.gov/fora