I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

, CASTILLO

NATIONAL MONUMENTS/FLORIDA

I

i Oh MICROFILM

administrative history STORAGE

D-^3

Also CoQI^

Gtrt o( Pr Ff

/11an fn zu s

DE SAN MARCOS SAN MARCOS

FORT MATANZAS I

PLEASE RETURN T0

TEC: N,' INFORMATION CENTER

DENVER SERVICE CENTER

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

d

I

I

ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY OF

CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT

AND

FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT

by

Jere L. Krakow

July 1986

United States Department of the Interior / National Park Service

I
1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements / v

Chapter 1: War Department Administration, 1866-1914 / 1

Preservation Sentiment / 1

Growth of Tourism-Castillo / 4

Indian Incarceration / 6

Maintenance And Preservation / 7

Budget And Designated Appropriation / 8

Concern For Fort Matanzas / 9

Chapter 2: War Department Administration, 1914-1933 / 13

Government Initiatives / 13

First License-St. Augustine Historical Society / 14

Caretakers Brown And Davis / 16

Commercialization / 18

Surplus Forts / 21

Stabilize And Restore Fort Matanzas / 22

Declared National Monuments / 23

Quartermaster Department Management / 24

Management Controversy / 28

Competition For License, 1928 / 31

Final License, 1933 / 36

Chapter 3: The National Park Service: Administration 39

Tenure Begins / 39

Kahler Administration / 39

Freeland Administration / 51

Vinten Administration / 52

Roberts Administration / 59

Davenport Administration / 61

Schesventer Administration / 63

Aikens Administration / 65

Griffin Administration / 67

Chapter 4: The National Park Service: Programs and Relations / 69

Interpretation / 69

Special Events And Visitors / 79

Research / 83

History / 83

Archeology / 88

Natural Resources / 91

Race Relations / 91

Chapter 5: The National Park Service: Problems And Prospects / 95

Appendices / 101

A: Proclamation by President Calvin Coolidge Declaring National

Monument, October 15, 1924: Fort Marion, Fort Matanzas / 1.02

iii

I
B: Executive Order No. 6228: National Monuments to Be

Administered by the National Park Service, July 28, 1933 / 104

C: Name Change: Fort Marion to Castillo de San Marcos,

June 5, 1942 / 107

D: License to St. Augustine Historical Society and Institute

of Science, April 16, 1928 / 109

E: Superintendents, 1933 to Present / 113

F: Senior Historians, 1938 to Present / 115

G : Annual Visitation / 117

1. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument

January 1916 to July 1925 / 119

July 1935 to December 1984 / 119

2. Fort Matanzas National Monument

January 1937 to December 1984 / 123

H. Summary of Federal-City Relations 1819-1955 / 126

Bibliography / 135

Illustrations / 141

iv

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Returning to a place associated with pleasant memories after some twent.y

years is to raise forgotten and dormant feelings. Such has been the case

for the author who spent one summer as a Seasonal Ranger-Historian at

Fort Matanzas National Monument and through an unusual set of

circumstances, returned to write an administrative history of it and

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

In the course of research and writing a number of individuals and

institutions have contributed to the effort including: B. J. Griffin,

Superintendent of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national

monuments; Chief Historian Edwin C. Bearss and Bureau Historian Barry

Mackintosh, Washington, D.C. , National Park Service; first Chief

Historian of the National Park Service Verne E. Chatelain; first

Superintendent of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national

monuments Herbert E. Kahler; Martha B. Aikens, former Superintendent

of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments, National

Park Service, Washington, D. C.; Chief Librarian David Nathanson,

Harpers Ferry Center, National Park Service; Frederick C.K. Babb,

Chief, Branch of Planning, Eastern Team, Denver Service Center;

Jacqueline McCraw, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument; Robert M.

Kvasnicka, National Archives, Washington, D. C.; Jacqueline K. Fretwell,

St. Augustine Historical Society, St. Augustine, Florida; Ruth A.

Larison, Librarian, Rocky Mountain Region, National Park Service; David

Nolan, St. Augustine, Florida; Professor Thomas Graham, Flagler College,

St. Augustine, Florida; John C. Paige and Louis Torres, Historians,

Denver Service Center; Mary Lou Weakland, National Park Service,

Denver Service Center; and the staffs of Norlin Library, University of

Colorado-Boulder; the National Archives and Library of Congress,

Washington, D.C. ; and the St. Augustine Historical Society, St.

Augustine, Florida.

Two individuals who maintain high scholarly standards deserve special

thanks ^for their significant contributions to this study: Jerome A.

v

1
Greene, Supervisory Historian, Southeast/Southwest Team, Denver

Service Center, for support, advice and counsel from beginning to end;

and Luis R. Arana, venerable Staff Historian, Castillo de San Marcos and

Fort Matanzas national monuments, National Park Service, for arranging

work space, access to research files, editorial advice, encouragement and

in numerous other ways contributing to this effort.

At the suggestion of Superintendent B. J. Griffin a final chapter has been

included which seeks to identify problems foreseen by the turn of the

twenty-first century. The intent is to address concerns from the past so

to assist future management of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

vi I

I
1I'I1IIIIItIIIIII

TO JACKSONVILLE

r

ST. AUGUSTINE;

TO DAYTONA

BEACH

vii

ANASTASIA

N,1SLAND

TO MARINELAND

:^^ I
viii III1IIIIIIIIIIIIII
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

®

-^-www.w

LEGEND

PRESENT BOUNDARY

AREA TO BE ADDED

BY CA.NUNIoAN APRIL 10,19"

ix

T9S

TALLAHASSEE MERIDIAN

tooo 0 1000 :ooo 3000

SCALE IN FEET

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

FORT MATANZAS

NATIONAL MONUMENT

ST. JONMS COUNTY, FLORIDA

347-92,000

ON MICROFILM

in

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

The Castillo de San Marcos from the southwest, 1967.

Fort Matanzas, southeast quadrant, July 23, 1968.

xi

Courtesy of

Castillo de San Marcos

National Monument

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEII
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

CHAPTER 1: WAR DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION, 1866-1914

When the United States assumed control of military installations at St.

Augustine, Florida, during the summer of 1821, something over two

centuries had already been jointly logged by the venerable Spanish

fortifications of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas. Begun in 1672

and 1740 respectively, the coquina-walled structures symbolized the power

and influence of the Spanish empire. For Castillo the change in

management brought forth an effort to maintain and stabilize a structure

needing repairs. The fortress conveyed a sense of the past, unknown

and perhaps mysterious though it might be to the new managers. With

rainwater leaking through the terreplein into vaults used as quarters and

storage, cracks in the water battery wall and other aspects in need of

preventative maintenance, the War Department as new custodian found

much to occupy its attention .(1).

PRESERVATION SENTIMENT

Between 1821-1844 St. Augustine received varying amounts of monies

appropriated by Congress with some being used at the Castillo and much

going for repair on the city seawall. (2) At the same time the War

Department changed the name of the Castillo to Fort Marion and defined

through presidential order which specific buildings belonged to the city

1. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

"Conservation And Reutilization Of Castillo de San Marcos And Fort

Matanzas," by Luis R. Arana, (St. Augustine, Florida: Castillo de San

Marcos National Monument, 1984), (unpublished) pp. 2-3 (hereafter cited

as Arana, "Conservation And Reutilization"). A Spanish version of this

paper has been published in Puertos y Fortificaciones en America Y

Filipinas, Actas del Seminario 1984 (Madrid: CEDEX y CEHOPU, 1985),

pp - 171-182.

2. Ibid., pp. 4-6.

I
and to the Department. (3) Castillo belonged to the latter. From early on

an appreciation for aesthetics and historical significance of Castillo de San

Marcos captivated War Department officials and visitors alike. In 1833

Judge Robert R. Reid declared to Joseph M. White, the Florida

congressional delegate, that "No one can see the castle or fort, as it is

called . . . without admiration and regret. "(4) The construction followed

classic European fortification design but the whole entity seemed destined

to ruin because of neglect. Thus began an ongoing concern for

maintenance by federal managers from the nineteenth century to the

present.

During the Civil War Fort Marion. did not see action. In January of 1861

Confederate troops peacefully took possession of the post, however, in

March of the following year Union forces once again assumed command.(5 )

When the war ended Castillo did not fit into plans for the coastal defense

system. Authorities contemplated using it as a military prison; in time

American Indian tribal members from the plains and southwest found

themselves incarcerated there.

The companion fortification fourteen miles south at Matanzas Inlet suffered

far greater neglect. Fort Matanzas, visited by First Lieutenant Henry W.

Benham of the Engineers in 1842, had begun to return to dust. Several

cracks ran the length of the tower, tides undermined a portion of the

terreplein and most of the sentry box had disappeared. (6) The resulting

3. Ibid., pp. 2-3. Fort Marion was named for Francis Marion,

Revolutionary War General from South Carolina.

4. Ibid., p. 4.

5. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Historic

Structure Report For Castillo de San Marcos National Monument St. Johns

County, Florida by Edwin C. Bearss and John C. Paige, (Denver:

Denver Service Center, 1983), p. 256 (hereafter cited as Bearss and

Paige, "Historic Structure Report," CASA).

6. Luis R. Arana, "Notes On Fort Matanzas National Monument," El

Escribano, Volume 18 (1981), pp. 49, 52 (hereafter cited as Arana,

"Notes").

I

I

1

I

I

I

1

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

report by Benham did not result in any action; deterioration continued

until repairs began in 1916. By that time the old fort looked like a low

mass overgrown with vegetation. (7)

A lengthy record of observations about the historical significance of

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments exists for

the period 1821-1914. Many observers (local citizens, politicians and

military personnel) commented on the values associated with the two

military posts. Identified in the documents of the nineteenth century are

statements of tribute to the Spanish heritage in the New World. It began

with Judge Robert R. Reid in 1832 who advocated repairs for "the

preservation of this great work" (the Castillo) so that it would receive

the same attention as the Spanish crown devoted to it. (8) Likewise in

1834 the Florida Legislative Council on behalf of St. Augustinians sought

monies for "the repair and preservation of Fort St. Marks. "(9) After the

Civil War many individuals expressed their opinions about the historical

significance of the two military posts. By this period the War Department

had declared both as unimportant to coastal defense of the United States.

Often as not observers pointed out the need to preserve and restore the

structures so to prevent continued deterioration. However, several

military personnel, local citizens, politicians and tourists proclaimed in a

variety of ways the importance of saving the Castillo. They judged that

it held "great interest to our people," and should be preserved for its

historical value. (10)

7. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Photograph

on file at Castillo de San Marcos National Monument (hereafter cited as

CASA), 1912.

8. Ibid., p. 47.

9. Ibid, p. 82.

10. Arana, "Conservation And Reutilization," p. 9.

I
GROWTH OF TOURISM--CASTILLO

During the mid-nineteenth century tourism increasingly developed at St.

Augustine as more and more northerners for reasons of health and

recreation traveled to Florida. Another use for Castillo began to develop;

it attracted many visitors and this strengthened arguments for preserving

the structure. As early as 1848, Rufus K. Sewall writing for travelers

and Invalids, advised that, "The Castle is a place of chief and universal

attraction to the curious stranger. "(11) In a similar vein other writers

advocated visiting the fort. Wiliam Cullen Bryant complimented Lieutenant

Henry Benham for his desire to preserve the remains of the

structure. (12) Other travel accounts note stops made at the Castillo by

visitors to St. Augustine. (13) Several Florida guide books commented on

the general scene, the aesthetics of Fort Marion, its many embellished

stories and the guided tours through it. (14) From the mid-nineteenth

11. R. K. Sewall, Sketches Of St. Augustine (New York: George P.

Putnam; reprint ed., Gainesville: The University Presses of Florida,

1976), p. 15.

12. William Cullen Bryant, Letters Of A Traveler; Or, Notes Of Things

Seen In Europe And America (New York: George P. Putnam, 1850), p.

112.

13. Amelia M. Murray, Letters From the United States, Cuba And Canada

(New York: G. P. Putnam & Company, 1856), p. 224 ; A Winter From

Home (New York: John F. Trow, 1852), p. 24.

14. Ledyard Bill, A Winter In Flordia (New York: Wood and Holbrook,

1870), pp. 160-161; Daniel G Brinton, A Guidebook Of Florida And The

South, For Tourists, Invalids And Emigrants, With A Map Of The St.

John River (Philadelphia: George Maclean, 1869; reprint ed., Gainesville:

The Bicentennial Floridiana Facsimile Series, 1978), pp. 68-69; D. Egan,

The Florida Settler, Or Immigrant's Guide (Tallahassee: Office Of the

Floridian, 1873), pp. 115-116. Constance Fennimore, "The Ancient City,

Part I, Harper's New Monthly Magazine, December 1874, pp. 10-13;

"Rambler," Guide To Florida (New York: The American News Company,

1875, reprint ed., Jacksonville : Floridiana Facsimile and Reprint Series,

1964), pp. v, 107-115; Sylvia Sunshine (pseud):, [A.M. Brooks]. Petals

Plucked From Sunny Climes (Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing

House, 1880), pp. 188-189; George M. Barbour, Florida For Tourists,

Invalids, And Settlers (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882;

reprint ed. Jacksonville: Quadricentennial Edition of the Floridiana

Facsimile and Reprint Series, 1964, pp. 104-106.

4

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
E

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

century on visitors had the opportunity to take tours through the

Castillo. Scattered references document such services provided by the

War Department at St. Augustine, beginning in 1848 with Sewall, who

spoke of guide service. (15) Likewise, others including Bryant noted

being "taken into the ancient prisons of the fort--dungeons;" (16) Daniel

G. Brinton infers a tour guide pointing out an escape route for Seminole

prisoners;(17) Ledyard Bill, and the "Rambler" spoke of following a

military guide; (18) Harpers New Monthly reported "a wild melee of

information" by the "old sergeant in charge; "(19) Sylvia Sunshine

commented about being taken to view prison rooms and inscriptions on

walls;(20) and Thomas Graham's Anderson family history documents tours

led by Sergeants George M. Brown and McGuire. (21)

Caretakers at Fort Marion had a difficult time meeting demands placed on

them by visitors to the site. Wanting to permit entry, provide tours,

protect the resource and look after War Department property in the

casemates put much pressure on them, given other duties related to

maintenance and grounds. Scattered references to the number of

visitors, though overestimated, bespeak the popularity of the fort. (22)

15. Sewall, Sketches of St. Augustine, p. 15.

16. Bryant, Letters of a Traveler, p. 103.

17. Brinton, A Guidebook, p. 69.

18. Bill, A Winter, p. 161; "Rambler," p. 107.

19. Harpers, New Monthly Magazine, p. 11.

20. Sunshine, Petals Plucked, p. 189.

21. Thomas Graham, The Awakening Of St. Augustine: The Anderson

Family and the Oldest City 1821-1924, (St. Augustine, Florida: St.

Augustine Historical Society, 1978), pp. 198-199.

22. Captain, Corps of Engineers to Chief of Engineers, Washington,

D.C., June 17, 1910, Box 1-10, CASA, notes that perhaps 50,000 visitors

pass through the Castillo in 3-4 months; Chief of Engineers to Chief

Quartermaster Corps, March 19, 1913, reports 100 , 000 visitors each year;

5
The fact of tour guide availability, plus general access, provided by the

War Department as early as 1848, documents the historical significance the

Army gave to Castillo de San Marcos. Visitor demand and the historical

attractiveness of the fort in combination with commanders' proclivities

toward posterity set the stage for the eventuality of national monument

status. Much deliberation and decisionmaking remained to be accomplished

but the elements of preservation had been established well before the

turn of the century.

INDIAN INCARCERATION

Far to the west the last major group of American Indians surrendered to

American authorities in 1886. Transported to and incarcerated at Fort

Marion, the western Chiricahua Apaches became an object of curiosity.

The Castillo became a military prison once again. Tourists in St.

Augustine had not only the Spanish fort to visit but could view the last

remnants of a raiding band of American Indians. Because of heavy

demand, however, policy for admittance to the fort did change to one of

special permit only.(23) Likewise townspeople, particularly children,

became infatuated with Apaches. Often observed from a distance, the

Indians did, on occasion, peddle trinkets in St. Augustine or demonstrate

their proficiency with bow and arrow on the fort glacis. (24) According

to Captain Richard Henry Pratt, Army officer and educator, those in

22. (Cont. ) Ladue to Chief of Engineers, April 29, 1915, estimates

20-25 , 000 visitors since January 1, 1915. The figures when compared to

the visitor count begun by the St. Augustine Historical Society in 1916

are too high as the latter show incomplete tallies of 11,609-23,631 visitors

between 1916-1917 (see Appendix G). However, it is doubtful the Society

counted everyone, rather they recorded the number of visitors on tours

for which they charged 10^ each.

23. Omega G. East, "Apache Prisoners In Fort Marion, 1886-1887," El

Escribano, Volume 6 (1969), p. 10.

24. Ibid., pp. 48, 59-60.

6

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

charge of Fort. Marion encouraged white and Indian iriteraction Lhr•ouqh

visitation. (25) For Pratt it represented dispelling of prejudice and, at.

bottom line, the beginning of assimilation of the native. (26)

MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION

During the remaining third of the nineteenth century the War Department

came more and more to value the preservation of the Castillo de San

Marcos and, to a far lesser extent, Fort Matanzas. An examination

conducted by Captain William H. C. Whiting of the U. S. Engineer District

Office at Savannah led to a recommendation "to prevent any further

dilapidation of this venerable fortress ,... a relic of the most ancient

domination on this continent [and] . . . a place of much historic and

military interest. "(27) Whiting went on to add that, though natural

processes contributed, most serious deterioration occurred because of

human threats. Concomitant with a growing desire for preservation of

the two military posts there developed over the years a significant

facilities-maintenance program. With establishment of a military

reservation -in St. Augustine in 1821, which included Castillo de San

Marcos and the immediate surrounding land, administration by the War

Department began. Throughout the nineteenth and into the twentieth

century, upkeep and maintenance, though important, became as

significant as restoration and preservation. This transition from active

military post to national treasure began with extensive building of the

seawall in the 1830s, along with attention to cleanup and policing of the

structure and grounds. From 1833 to 1866 much needed maintenance

25. Richard Henry Pratt, Battlefield and Classroom: Four Decades With

the American Indian, 1867-1904, ed. by Robert M. Utley (New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1964), p. 120.

26. Ibid. p. 120.

27. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument,

Whiting to Lieutenant Colonel R.E. DeRussy, May 6, 1859. Box 25,

Corps of Engineers, War Department Records.

7
occurred under the direction of Lieutenants Stephen 'ruttle, Francis S.

Dancy, Henry W. Benham, Jeremy F. Gilmer, and Captain William H. C.

Whiting. This work included resurfacing the terreplein, repairing and

cleaning the casemates, constructing the water battery and shot furnace,

and extending and repairing the seawall. (28)

BUDGET AND DESIGNATED APPROPRIATION

Following the Civil War a rather lengthy period of inactivity passed before

additional projects received attention. In 1868 Major Quincy A. Gillmore

reiterated the attraction the site held for antiquarians and Senator

Thomas W. Osborn spoke of the "historical value" of the structure. (29 )

A similar theme received expression by Michigan Governor Charles M.

Crossland in 1877, and three years later by the commander of St. Francis

Barracks in St. Augustine. (30) Finally, Congress appropriated monies

for preservation and repair in 1884 and 1888 specifically for Fort Marion

and in 1890 for coastal fortifications in general, from which the post

received several thousand dollars. (31) Of all the congressional actions,

the most significant one occurred in 1884 when President Chester A.

Arthur signed into law an appropriation of $5,000 for restoration and

preservation of the Castillo. Preceding the Casa Grande preservation

action by almost five years, it established a little known precedent for

the expenditure of federal monies to preserve an historic structure. (32)

28. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report - CASA, pp. 63-261:

C. Craig Frazier (Denver: National Park Service), November 26, 1984,

unpublished time line.

29. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report - CASA, pp. 267-268.

30. Ibid., pp. 282-283.

31. Ibid., pp. 291-293, 327-329, 333-343.

32. Ibid., p. 293; Thomas F. King, Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary

Berg, Anthropology In Historic Preservation: Caring for Culture's

Clutter (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 15; Barry Mackintosh,

"Administrative History as. a Management Tool," Trends, Volume 20,

Number 2, 1983, p. 28.

8

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Not only money, but plans from the Spanish Archives, became available to

restore the structure to its condition when the Spanish left in 1821.(33)

Repairs to the Castillo from the appropriation included work on the ramp,

walls, southwest bastion and terreplein. (34) Out of the 1890 funding

came money for completion of repairs to the terreplein, walls and gun

platforms. These repairs and those of 1890-1891 when more terreplein

improvements and landscaping occurred, especially on the glacis, fell

within the category of preservation and restoration. This post-Civil War

action continued to gain momentum in the twentieth century.

CONCERN FOR FORT MATANZAS

Playing a subordinate role to the Castillo from inception, Fort Matanzas

nevertheless began to be noticed more as the nineteenth century came to

a close. A tourist brochure for St. Augustine included a photograph of

Matanzas and the accompanying text noted, "Its ruins are among the most

picturesque in Florida . . . [and] well worth the journey to behold. "(35)

In addition, the military reservation became something of an issue after

the United States assumed control because it lacked delineated

boundaries. A watchtower on sand banks served as a description of

Matanzas until First Lieutenant George P. Scriven's report in 1885.

Scriven determined the island belonged to Florida, but this interpretation

changed in 1893 when the Jacksonville District Engineer, Captain William

M. Black, received information that the land had never been

33. Arana, pp. 9-10.

34. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report - CASA, pp. 296-297.

35. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "The War

Department Years, 1821-1933," Historic Structure Report For Fort

Matanzas National Monument St. John's County, Florida by Edwin C.

Bearss (Denver: Denver Service Center, 1980), p. 92 (hereafter cited as

Bearss, "The War Department Years").

9
I

transferred. (36) The original land base incorporated into the reservation

consisted of "the entire group of marsh islands lying in portions of

Sections 14 and 23 in the Matanzas River. "(37)

At the same time, the state of disrepair of Fort Matanzas became a

concern because of several reports. The 1877 orders given by the

District Engineer to Captain James C. Post, referred to boundary

concerns; however, the report noted the fort is "rapidly passing into a

mass of ruins. "(38) The extensive survey by Lieutenant Scriven

documented conditions of the Matanzas watchtower and the report

provided architectural design and gave detailed measurements of the

entire structure. Notably, it gave an assessment of historical

significance, it being "a relic of the Spanish heritage" and by implication

worthy of being preserved. (39) Scriven also made recommendations for

minor repairs of its present form and stated that it no longer served any

military value. The most concentrated effort to preserve Fort Matanzas

occurred in 1890 when Representative Robert M.I. Bullock of Florida

introduced legislation for that purpose. District Engineer Black advised

the congressional committee that work on the structure needed to be done

soon or else it would be destroyed. It remained for twentieth century

managers to act on preserving Fort Matanzas; the committee did not

report out the bill.

During the first decade of this century Floridians advocated repair and

preservation of Fort Matanzas. In 1906 and 1909, respectively, Senators

James P. Taliaferro and Duncan Fletcher had their attention drawn to the

36. Arana, "Notes," p. 55.

37. Ibid., p. 59.

38. Post to Q. A. Gillmore. October 22, 1880. NA RG 77. Letters

Received, Chief Engineer.

39. Bearss,"The War Department Years," p. 101.

10

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

problem. (40) Both found that budgetary restraints and priorities for

needed defensive works superseded repair of obsolete military posts.

Matanzas again came up in 1910 when Florida Congressman Frank Clark

drew up a bill which sought to preserve the fort and provide for a

caretaker. Though the bill died, in 1911 Representative Clark again

submitted a draft bill to protect and preserve a structure "of considerable

historical and architectural interest. "(41) This, too, died.

During Woodrow Wilson's first term as president another bill to preserve

the fort surfaced. Sponsored by the Florida delegation, it met the same

fate as the others. Nationalistic arguments and the fact that it might set

the wrong precedent combined to still the effort once more. In 1915 Fort

Matanzas, clumped with Fort Marion and other obsolete defense

installations, obtained unauthorized historic monument designation by the

Secretary of War under the 1906 Antiquities Act.

40. Bearss ,"The War Department Years," pp- 105-106.

41. Ibid., p. 107.

11
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

CHAPTER 2: WAR DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATION, 1914-1933

During the period 1914-1933 the War Department continued to administer

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas, though effective day-to-day

operations for visitors at Castillo became the responsibility of the St.

Augustine Historical Society and Institute of Science. A steady flow of

visitors to Florida, and a boom of emigrants during the 1930s caused an

increase in tourists at St. Augustine, many of whom visited the Castillo

(see appendix G). For a fee, tour guides provided service at the fort,

and a souvenir shop operated by William J. Harris sold several different

items to visitors. As word about financial incentives spread around the

community several groups began to covet the arrangement the Historical

Society had with the War Department. The competition spawned

contentiousness and rancor. Meanwhile, preservation of the two military

posts continued to be espoused, notably in actions by the Congress, by

the Secretary of War in 1915, and by the President of the United States

who in 1924 declared them national monuments. Local residents and

townspeople alike lobbied effectively for preservation and restoration.

However, continued deterioration of Fort Matanzas prompted further

investigation and, finally, authorization of monies to restore the

structure. With a broader base and national monument status, interest

seemed more pronounced for the two forts. Castillo and Fort Matanzas,

significant principally for their Spanish heritage, would thus be

preserved and maintained for generations to come.

GOVERNMENT INITIATIVES

A variety of legislative actions and executive orders promulgated near the

turn of the century had significance for Castillo de San Marcos and Fort

Matanzas national monuments. These acts primarily concerned the Castillo

and involved boundary changes or right-of-way for railroad lines. In

July and September, 1890 the Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Halifax

Railway Company , and the St. Augustine Street Railroad Company,

13
respectively, received permission to cross federal lands in St.

Augustine. (1) In March of 1907, Congress granted the St. John Power

and Light Company right-of-way for a street railway; the same Congress

conveyed land known as "The Lines" to the city for school use. (2)

For purposes which served to assist in managing them, Matanzas and

Castillo benefited from the 1906 Antiquities Act. Circumventing the

sometimes cumbersome process of Congress, the act allowed the President

to set aside sites of scientific, prehistoric, and historic interest. The

two Florida posts made important gains toward restoration and

preservation under the 1906 Act. By proclamation, the Secretary of War,

acting beyond his authority, designated the two as national monuments on

July 17, 1915. This effectively recognized what had occurred during War

Department administration as various managers, visitors, and local

residents espoused the historical significance of the lengthy Spanish

presence in St. Augustine and vicinity. Though they remained national

monuments in fact, legally they obtained the status in 1924 when

President Calvin Coolidge declared them so; Fort Marion consisted of

18.09 acres and Fort Matanzas of one acre.(3)

FIRST LICENSE--ST. AUGUSTINE HISTORICAL SOCIETY

Prior to the national monument designation by the Secretary of War, the

St. Augustine Historical Society and Institute of Science in 1914 sought

permission to lease and manage the Castillo. A fire had decimated much

1. U. S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, "History of

Legislation Relating to the National Park System Through the 82nd

Congress," by Edmund B. Rogers, (Washington: 1958) pp. 1-2. The

Jacksonville, St. Augustine, and Halifax Railway Company subsequently

became the Florida East Coast Railroad.

2. Ibid., p. 2.

3. By the President of the United States of America: A Proclamation,

RG 92, NA, Quartermaster Department, CASA files.

14

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

of the city including the structure which housed the Society collections.

In seeking the arrangement with the War Department the President of t.hc

Society, DeWitt Webb, sought five rooms on the north side of the fort

including the chapel for storage and exhibits: permission to license

guides who would lead tours of the fort for a fee; the right to sell post

cards, photographs, and souvenirs; to exhibit specimens illustrating

resources of Florida; and to have the fort open from sunrise to

sunset. (4) In return for the privileges the Society agreed to maintain

that portion of the fort it occupied or had access to and devote energy to

enlightening the public about science, Florida history and resources.

Visitors, Webb added, would be "admitted free wherever it is safe to go

without guides. "(5)

After several exchanges of correspondence between the district engineer

in Jacksonville and the office of the Chief Engineer of the Army in

Washington the Society received the license. An agreement dated

November 20, 1914, between the parties specified responsibilities and

requirements. (6) The Secretary of War reserved several rights to insure

maintenance, open access and quality of guide service. For the latter the

Historical Society charged 10 cents per person for a tour of one-half hour

duration. The fee spawned criticism when it became known that the

guides received $1.50 salary per day and the rest of the proceeds

constituted income for the Society. (7) Part of the disenchantment

extended to the curator, William J. Harris, who received 20% of the

proceeds in return for his services on behalf of the Historical Society.

In addition, Harris received 75% of the proceeds from the sale of

4. DeWitt to Ladue (District Engineer, U.S. Engineer Office), June 17,

1914, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25.

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Ladue to Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., March 26, 1915, War

Department Records, CASA, Box 25.

I

15

I
postcards and other, items which he sold at the souvenir- stands in the

Society's exhibit rooms. (8) For Harris the arrangement complemented his

photographic enterprise which effectively monopolized sales at the Castillo

and also in the wider community of St. Augustine. This served as a

bone of contention for years.

CARETAKERS BROWN AND DAVIS

Other problems arose which related to the fees charged. Complaints

against tour guides cropped up because of their desire to lead all visitors

on tours so to enhance the visit and the coffers of the Historical Society,

their employer. The dispute gave rise to contentions with Sergeant

George M. Brown, caretaker, who had responsibility for security of

certain rooms, but who found keys to those rooms distributed to tour

guides who made them accessible to the public. The matter received the

attention of the District Engineer who decided that the keys would be

made available to guides or visitors who preferred to go through the fort

on their own. Keys to rooms of greatest interest could be checked out of

the caretaker's room (Sergeant Brown), and visitors who appeared

interested and honest could use the keys as could the guides. (9) This of

course reduced the potential hucksterism of the guides to pressure all

visitors to pay the fee in order to gain entrance to locked rooms.

Sergeant Brown became caretaker (custodian) of the Castillo and Fort

Matanzas in February 1908 replacing Ordnance Sergeant Robert E. Pate

who transferred to Habana. Assigned duties for this position principally

included caring for government property stored in the rooms (casemates)

of Fort Marion, securing the facilities at closing time, attending to

visitors and overseeing and reporting on maintenance needs at either Fort

8. Ibid.

9. Ladue to Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C., April 29, 1915, War

Department Records, CASA, Box 25.

16

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

t
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Marion or Fort Matanzas . Numerous duties and responsibilities kept him

busy and on occasion complaints surfaced and had to be addressed, such

as one from a Jacksonville resident to United States Senator James P.

Taliaferro. Sergeant Brown, said the complainant, needed to attend to

his duties better because to lock certain casemate doors kept visitors not

in a formal tour group from access to rooms such as the dungeon. (10) A

rather thorough investigation, including sending a staff member and his

family from the District Office in Jacksonville to Fort Marion for purposes

of clandestinely investigating Brown and tempting him with payment for

his services cleared the Sergeant of any wrongdoing. (11) The popularity

of the Spanish fort placed heavy demands on the caretaker who did not

always please visitors and whose duties included leading tours on

occasion . Brown did find time to author a popular historical guide to the

fort.

At the entry of the United States into World War I Brown died and the

fort closed because of lack of a caretaker. Public pressure on the

District Engineer reopened the fort, but because of perceived German

threats guards checked all visitors parcels, cameras and satchels upon

entry, and were ordered "to turn back any who appear ...

doubtful. "(12) Implementing the new policy as temporary caretaker,

William F. Brown, son of George M., carried it out until rescission in

August, 1917. (13) Brown, a veteran of the Spanish American War,

received the permanent appointment with compensation of $40 per month

and quarters in exchange for minor repairs, care and preservation of

10. Acheson to Taliaferro, undated (circa, 1910) War Department

Records, CASA, Box 1-10.

11. Captain, Corps of Engineers to Chief of Engineers, May 13, 1910,

War Department Records, CASA, Box 1-10.

12. Ladue to Chief of Engineers, Washington, D. C., April 11, 1917, War

Department Records, CASA, Box 1-10.

13. Ibid.

17
Fort Marion. (14) Last in a series of caretakers, Leslie L. Davis, served

in that capacity until the abolishment of the position in February

1929. (15) He, like Brown, had to share responsibility for the post

following the contract drawn up with the St. Augustine Historical Society

in November 1914. Contentions inherent in the arrangement arose

periodically for all parties concerned with the operation of the Castillo;

Fort Matanzas came exclusively under the domain of the caretaker.

COMMERCIALIZATION

Sergeant George W. Brown complained in 1915 following the contract with

the Society that commercialization had developed through selling of

souvenirs and the fee for tours. (16) The commercial activities produced

income for William J. Harris, Curator of the Historical Society, who

became the focus of much rancor through the duration of the Society's

management at the Castillo. Local residents added weight when they

complained of the commercialization of the fort, the quality of guides and

the competition souvenir shops in St. Augustine had with the sales outlet

of the Society. (17) Upon investigation by the District Engineer's office,

the conclusion reached supported the validity of the activities as drawn

up in the agreement with the Society. (18) Profits seemed the root of

14. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, Washington, D.C., April 27,

1917, October 19, 1917, War Department Records, CASA, Box 1-10.

15. Van Duyne to Davis, February 13, 1929, RG 79, NA.

16. Brady to Glenn, February 5, 1915, War Department Records, RG 79,

NA.

17. Ransom to Sackett, April 14, 1917, War Department Records, CASA,

Box 25; Usina to Fletcher, October 26, 1917, War Department Records,

CASA, Box 25: District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, November 20,

1917, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25.

1.8. District Engineer to Chief of, Engineers, November 10, 191.7, War

Department Records, CASA, Box 25.

18

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

D

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

much of the complaints. The issue would not die however, and again in

1922 another investigation occurred. Investigator First Lieutenant.

Herbert B. Loper of the District Engineer's office reported, "a certain

private party is obtaining the majority of the proceeds from the sale of

souvenirs at Ft. Marion, . . . [and] the Historical Society . . . derives

only a small portion of the proceeds therefrom. "(19) More complaints on

this occasion found their way to the War Department in the form of

individual letters and a petition from souvenir shop operators in St.

Augustine. These issues took much energy to hammer out as lines

seemed drawn and various individuals used as much influence as could be

mustered in supporting their position. Local attorney E. N. Calhoun

appealed to Senator Fletcher to seek an annual appropriation for upkeep

and thereby eliminate the commercialization which he observed at the

fort. (20) Seven individuals signed a petition sent to the Secretary of.

War seeking permission to sell merchandise at the Castillo because they

felt existing arrangements consisted of an "unfair trade abuse. "(21)

Harris, meanwhile, appealed to the District Engineer and had conferences

with the Secretary of War in order to preserve the existing license. He

took the high ground and spoke about the loss of revenue for the

Historical Society to the detriment of the Castillo and the work of the

Society there. (22) As a result of several months of exchange an

agreement secured most of what the major parties to the arrangement

sought, although the dissenters against Harris did not. Henceforth, the

19. Office, District Engineer to Adjutant General of the Army, August 5,

1922, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25.

20. Calhoun to Fletcher, December 8, 1922, War Department Records,

CASA, Box 25.

21. Petitioners to Weeks, no date, War Department Records, CASA, Box

25.

22. Harris to District Engineer, July 23, 1923, War Department Records,

CASA, Box 25; District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, July 28, 1923,

War Department Records, CASA, Box 25.

19
curator of the Society would continue his commercial advantage over

others in St. Augustine; all postcards for sale and display items needed

prior approval of the District Engineer; visitors would be permitted to

decide what to pay for a guided tour instead of the previous charge of

ten cents; the Society would pay $500 for the privileges of maintaining

"the entire reservation in a state of police and sanitation" and make some

minor repairs to the fort. (23) Promulgated in 1923, the agreement was to

run until December 31, 1925, and could be renegotiated for up to three

years.(24)

Combined in the assessment of agreements of this time, the St. Augustine

Golf Club consented to redraft the document (first drawn in 1902) which

permitted them to use the military reservation east of San Marco Drive

and north of Fort Marion Circle. In the agreement they would pay $200

per year for maintaining the grounds to the satisfaction of the District

Engineer and be permitted to construct three sand greens and three

tees. (25) This arrangement continued until the summer of 1925 when the

club disbanded and the maintenance of the grounds had to be assumed by

the caretaker, William F. Brown. (26) As part of the agreement the club

had to replace the greens, take out tee boxes and replant areas to grass.

President of the club J.L. Ketterlinus indicated a wilingness to pay

restoration costs on his own so that the grounds could be properly

maintained, and not be cared for by the city as some desired.(27)

23. Memorandum of Agreement, 1923, War Department Records, CASA,

Box 25.

24. Ibid.

25. License, St. Augustine Golf Club, 1923, War Department Records,

CASA, Box 25.

26. District Engineer to Brown, May 7, 1925, War Department Records,

CASA, Box 25.

27. Ibid.

20

1

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

ii

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

P

I

I

I

1

I

SURPLUS FORTS

Somewhat concurrent with the issues involved in the commercialization of

Castillo, an outside threat served to unify efforts and marshal support

for the two national monuments. In May of 1921 word got around that

Secretary of War John W. Weeks had declared several military posts

(including Castillo and Fort Matanzas) no longer of value and, by

implication, up for disposal. Vocal opposition came from many quarters

including the Florida chapter of the Colonial Dames of America who

lobbied Senator Fletcher to act on behalf of those who desired the posts

be preserved as "historical relics. "(28) District Engineer Major William C.

Lemen protested the recommendation, stating:

To allow a spot so intimately connected with the history of this

country to pass into the hands of private parties or to be

controlled by state or municipal authorities would, it is

believed, outrage public sentiment in a manner somewhat similar

to what would follow the suggestion that Washington's Monument

or Arlington Cemetery be disposed of. (29)

Subsequent testimony came from other War Department personnel who

cited the national monument status granted in 1915 to both forts and the

uniqueness of both in the history of the United States. A year later

while on a visit to St. Augustine the Secretary of War told St. Augustine

residents the Castillo and Matanzas (the latter by inference) would not be

disposed of but instead preserved for their historical value. (30)

28. The Florida Metropolis, June 11, 1921, CASA, Files.

29. District Engineer to Chief Engineer, July 15 , 1921, War Department

Records, RG 79, NA.

30. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, July 21, 1922, War

Department Records, RG 79, NA.

21
I

STABILIZE AND RESTORE FORT MATANZAS

Throughout the period 1914-1933 maintenance of the two Spanish forts

drifted along as a restrictive fiscal policy made such work difficult, since

neither any longer had military significance. Securing a land base and

restoring the structure became the most important objectives for Fort

Matanzas. In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson signed an executive order

that set aside lands south of the main channel of the Matanzas River;

most of the islands consisted of marsh.(31) The same year DeWitt Webb,

President of the St. Augustine Historical Society, successfully appealed to

the House Appropriation Committee to provide money to restore a

deteriorating Fort Matanzas. (32) Army Chief of Engineers Brigadier

General William M. Black, former District Engineer at St. Augustine and

preservation proponent of the Spanish forts in the 1890s, allotted $1,025

from a $25,000 appropriation to preserve obsolete coastal

fortifications. (33) During late 1916 and early 1917 a major effort to

stabilize and restore Fort Matanzas occurred; this included removal of

vegetation, rebuilding the arch, drawing the tower together with rods

and assorted other repairs. (34) World War I ended the expenditure for

several years but the restoration stabilized the structure for the time

being.

Preservation of Fort Matanzas surfaced again in 1922 when a requested

report from General Black recommended that the fort be preserved

because of its historical significance. (35) Estimates of the cost of

restoring the structure varied from $10,000-$25,000; however, the

31. Edwin C. B earss ,"The War Department Years," pp. 112-113.

32. Ibid., pp. 113-114.

33. Ibid., pp. 112-116.

34. Ibid., pp. 116-118.

35. Office of Chief of Engineers to District Engineer, July 26, 1922, War

Department Records, CASA, Box Fort Matanzas 2-3.

22

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

J

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

estimate in 1922 reported that repairs could be done for $4,200.(36)

Authorization to begin followed word of available funds in the fortification

section budget and local craftsman Bud Deyo, who had done the

restoration work in 1916, again received the contract. The work

consisted of rebuilding the south wall, adjacent gun platform, flooring of

the upper story and constructing a boat landing for visitors.(37) A final

task resulted in a layer of oyster shells being spread around the base of

the fort.

DECLARED NATIONAL MONUMENTS

During the fall of 1924, President Coolidge declared Forts Matanzas and

Marion, under authority of the 1906 Act, along with Forts Pulaski, Wood

and Castle Pinckney to be national monuments. Effective January 23,

1925 the administration of the two became the responsibility of the

Quartermaster General, however, from the Chief of Engineers. (38) The

new department did not have funds available to pay the caretaker's salary

until a transfer of funds could be made from the Corps of Engineers. (39)

During the course of changing the administration of the two monuments

the office of the Quartermaster General asked for a state of condition

report for Forts Marion and Matanzas.(40) District Engineer Gilbert A.

36. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, August 8, 1922, War

Department Records, CASA, Box Fort Matanzas 2-3.

37. Office of District Engineer to Deyo, March 14, 1924, War Department

Records, CASA, Box Fort Matanzas 2-3.

38. Chief of Engineers to the Adjutant General of the Army through the

Quartermaster General, August 3, 1925, War Department Records, RG 79,

NA.

39. Quartermaster Corps to Chief of Engineers, July 8, 1925, War

Department Records, RG 79, NA.

40. Office of Quartermaster General to Chief of Engineers, February 19,

1925, War Department Records, RG 92, NA; District Engineer to Chief of

Engineers, March 5, 1926, War Department Records, CASA, Box 25.

23
I

Youngberg provided some detail to the questions posed and recommended

additional items of maintenance to restore the posts; he also endorsed

Brown as a competent individual to continue as caretaker, including

supervision of the national cemetery. (41) The transfer became fully

complete on January 1, 1926, when Leslie L. Davis replaced William F.

Brown as Superintendent of Fort Matanzas, Fort Marion and the St.

Augustine National Cemetery.

The War Department, in meeting its responsibilities as manager of several

new national monuments, began to formalize procedures for maintenance

and upkeep . Cost estimates, budget considerations and private sector

support from the St. Augustine Historical Society served to underscore

budget planning efforts of the department. Typically, personnel costs

absorbed the major share of the budget; however, repair budgets

received a few hundred dollars each year which, when supplemented by

Society contributions, supported restoration and care of the two

posts.(42)

QUARTERMASTER DEPARTMENT MANAGEMENT

Certain changes effected by the War Department occurred in 1925 when

the Quartermaster Department became the manager of the national

41. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, March 11, 1925, War

Department Records, RG 92, NA.

42. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, May 21, 1925, War

Department Records, RG 92, NA; Office of Quartermaster General to

Commanding Officer Jeffersonville Quartermaster Intermediate Depot, June

2, 1926, National Park Service Records, RG 79, NA; L. L. Davis to

Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Intermediate Depot, June 7, 1926,

National Park Service Records RG 79, NA; Commanding Officer,

Quartermaster Intermediate Depot, June 26, 1926, National Park Service

Records, RG 79, NA; L. L. Davis to W. H. Mills, October 5, 1926,

National Park Service Records RG 79, NA; Commanding Officer

Quartermaster Depot to Quartermaster General, February 4, 1928, National

Park Service Records, RG 79, NA.

24

1

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

monuments. Redrawn legal documents between the Historical Society and

the War Department reflected the change and instead of a quarterly fee

being charged, the contract stated that the Society should expend for

maintenance the value of the former fee. (43) A summation of conditions

and past actions furnished by the District Engineer informed

Quartermaster Department officials about Fort Marion. (44) Staff,

contractual arrangements, management responsibilities, reservation

property lines and assessment of the management by the St. Augustine

Historical Society made up the bulk of the report.

The section on property lines detailed a variety of issues from the

nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, especially the matter of the

north boundary line encroachments by private owners and the proposed

establishment of Clinch Street from San Marco to the Matanzas River.

The Clement, Spalding, Post, and Black boundary surveys, as they bear

on the north boundary in particular, were laid out, and Youngberg cited

a publication which detailed licenses and leases for Fort Marion. (45) The

final section presented a rather objective view of the dissatisfaction

certain residents of St. Augustine held toward the licensing arrangements

between the War Department and the Historical Society; most of the

discontent was directed toward William J. Harris, curator and recipient of

most of the proceeds from the sale of postcards and other souvenirs. (46)

Because of superior quality postcards, even the other shopkeepers

competing with Harris stocked his line of cards, thus he controlled much

of the market. Youngberg concluded that, "Mr. Harris is deserving of

43. District Engineer to Chief of Finance, July 25 , 1925, War Department

Records, CASA, Box 25.

44. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, March 5, 1925, War

Department Records, CASA, Box 25.

45. Ibid. , p. 5. The document title : "United States Military

Reservations, National Cemeteries and Military Parks," prepared by the

Judge Advocate General, United States Army, 1916.

46. Ibid.

25
credit in that he has been extremely influential in arousing interest in

and preserving structures and places of great historic interest. "(47)

Nevertheless, he went on to recommend that Congress supply funds so

that the Castillo might be operated and cared for much like the

Washington Monument. (48)

Concomitant with the change from Engineers to Quartermaster Department

administration, the local Chamber of Commerce appointed a committee to

determine how the city might acquire control of the military reservation of

Fort Marion for a park and recreation facility because the golf club had

disbanded. Alerted by Curator Harris of the Historical Society, District

Engineer Youngberg recorded his opposition to anyone but the

government managing the two monuments. (49) He officially sidestepped

the issue when he replied to the city manager that the Quartermaster

General would assume "active charge of Fort Marion and Reservation on

July 1, 1925," and therefore "delay consideration . . . until further

detailed information" was received. (50) The request fell by the wayside

in the change of administration from one department to another. Davis

received the Quartermaster Department appointment as superintendent of

the monuments plus the cemetery and the Society successfully sought a

renewal of its contract with the government. (51) Challenges to the

Society increased in the next few years as various interest groups sought

the government contract to manage the monuments.

47. Ibid., p. 6.

48. Ibid.

49. Harris to Youngberg, May 1, 1925, War Department Records, Box

25, CASA; note of Youngberg, no date, War Department Records, CASA,

Box 25.

50. Youngberg to Masters, June 20, 1925, War Department Records,

CASA, Box 25.

51. Colee to Youngberg, May 25, 1925, War Department Records, CASA,

Box 25; Memorandum for files, August 13, 1925, War Department Records,

CASA, Box 25.

26

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

The new contract of July 1, 1925, carried out the requirement that. the

Historical Society not pay a fee but instead invest no more than $700 per

year in maintenance and upkeep of Fort Marion plus "keep the reservation

in a sightly condition at all times satisfactory to the Quartermaster

General. "(52) The fee arrangement changed due in part to increased

argument and contentiousness as profits of the Society, and especially

Harris, came more and more to the fore. Another factor that prompted

change related to the new administration of the areas and the combination

of factors complicated the role of the caretaker. Soon to be fired,

Caretaker Brown expressed uncertainty to the inspector as to his role in

spending money for maintenance and his increased responsibility delegated

by the Quartermaster General. (53) The latter problem turned more

complex since the Historical Society would henceforth spend money for

maintenance and its local manager, Harris, had some autonomy for

expenditures under the new contract. Many elements came into play in

implementing the new arrangements.

After more than a year on the job, Caretaker Leslie L. Davis reported

the inspector, had done a satisfactory job and judged both military posts

in a very satisfactory condition. The mixture of expenditures from the

Society and the government for maintenance seemed quite adequate and

the caretaker said "the agreement works satisfactorily and to the mutual

benefit of . . . the government, the Society, and the public. "(54)

Though the inspector believed the Society provided a considerable benefit

to the public he expressed reservations about the propriety of a group

profiting from a national monument, and advised that much thought be

given to the arrangement when considering a new license. (55)

52. Memorandum for files, August 13, 1925, War Department Records,

CASA, Box 25.

53. Office of the Inspector to Inspector General, November 13, 1925,

National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

54. Office of the Inspector to Inspector General, September 29, 1927,

National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

55. Ibid.

27
Management Controversy

Less than a month after the inspector's report, Davis expressed more

direct opinions about the management of the monuments. Echoing what.

previous caretakers expressed, he stated opposition to the matter of the

Castillo being operated "absolutely for profit. "(56) He wrote that

expenses totaled $5,290.00 while conservatively estimating gross receipts

of the Society at $15,739.50.(57) By canceling the agreement the tradeoff

would be a budget of about $9,000 which the federal government would

have to assume. Davis added that a transitional period might be tried

until federal budgeting was attained; his estimate of the shared cost

required $3,500 from the Society. (58) He added several other

suggestions for ostensibly improving the operation, among them improved

working conditions for guides who labored 365 days each year with an

occasional half day off or time without pay; benefits such as minimum

salary and paid vacation; and controls on depictions and format of

postcards, booklets and pictures. Further, he urged that "all trash,

such as human bones, stuffed cats, and birds and like materials and

curios, be removed from the museum. "(59) Davis also appealed for a

room in an east casemate equipped with benches, chairs and tables so

that older visitors might have a place to sit and write. (60) Concurring

with the recommendations of both the inspector and the caretaker,

Quartermaster Depot Commander John R. R. Hannay sought reconsideration

of the agreement when the contract expired on June 30, 1928. (61) At the

56. Davis to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot October 21, 1927,

National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

57. Ibid.

58. Ibid.

59. Ibid.

60. Ibid..

61. Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot to Quartermaster General,

October 28, 1927, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

28

I

I

I

D

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

request of the QuarLermaster General he sought and received from Uavis

detailed expenses for the Castillo from 1926-1928 and, based on them,

urged an expenditure of $3,000 per year be required in the new

license. (62) Hannay concluded that earning profits did not suit the

purpose for establishing national monuments. (63)

The entire situation at St. Augustine bore some resemblance to

deteriorating relationships between nations: a catalytic event set off

charges and countercharges or even hostile actions. A mix of dual

management, strong-willed personalities, rumors of profits made at the

Castillo, and the renewal of a license brought forth a storm beginning in

1928. The location of a tool house triggered events that led to Davis

being relieved of his duties and to a rise of competition between interest

groups for the management of the two national monuments. Davis' desire

to locate a tool house adjacent to the Castillo wall became the issue taken

up by the Colonial Dames. During the course of construction an article

appeared in the local paper which expressed opposition to the location of

the structure near the Spanish fortification. Motivation for this may have

come from the curator and the vice president of the Society who,

according to Davis, heard the new renewal contract would require $3,000

in maintenance annually. Angered, the two officers apparently influenced

an employee who followed through with the newspaper article and also

called an officer of the Colonial Dames. (64) The Dames investigated and

met with Davis who reported an inquiry about relocating.the tool house

and the commercialization of the fort by the Historical Society. (65)

62. Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot to Quartermaster General,

December 12, 1927, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

63. Ibid.

64. Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot to Caretaker, January 12,

1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Caretaker to Commanding

Officer, Quartermaster Depot, January 18, 1928, National Park Service,

RG 79, NA.

65. Caretaker to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Department,

February 16, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

29
Satisfied with the explanation of why the particular location, the

delegation from the Dames reported, "they had been used to pullinq

I-larris' chestnuts out ol* the fire."(66) A side issue in the c;onI.cnliOris

between the principals involved the firing of a tour guide by Harris who

gave as the reason the fact that she had supplied information about sales

to Davis; she also stated that the vice president of the Society told her

Davis would be fired too with the Colonial Dames as protagonists. (67)

Later in the spring a flurry of telegrams and letters exchanged hands as

Harris and Harold Colee, Vice President of the St. Augustine Historical

Society, sought a decision from the Quartermaster General about Davis'

requiring that doors be left unlocked at the Castillo. (68) Harris and

Colee represented the matter as harassment while Davis characterized it

as an experiment to permit visitors a leisurely examination of the

casemates and dungeon instead of seeing them in just a few brief minutes

each, since the entire tour took only 20 minutes. Davis saw the

complaint as vindictiveness motivated by profits since the unlocked rooms

could be visited free by those not on a guided tour; however, his

superiors countermanded the experiment. (69) In a letter Davis reported

that an olive branch was extended to him by Colee who, in front of two

witnesses, said, "that [Frederick S.] Vail and Harris had been submitting

[him] to a process of malicious persecution. "(70) Colee, said Davis,

66. Ibid.

67. Caretaker to Commanding Officer, January 18, 1928, National Park

Service, RG 79, NA.

68. Harris to Quartermaster General, May 17, 1928, National Park

Service, RG 79, NA; Colee to Quartermaster General, (telegram and

letter) May 19, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Commanding

Officer, Quartermaster Depot to Caretaker, May 21, 1928, National Park

Service, RG 79, NA.

69. Caretaker to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Depot, May 25,

1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

70. Ibid.

30

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

would retract "all complaints heretofore made regarding me," a fact that

Colee denied in the investigation conducted by the Inspector General's

Department during the fall of 1928. (71)

COMPETITION FOR LICENSE, 1928

The skirmishes noted above in part preceded and ran concurrently with

the main focus of 1928, the application for and negotiation of the

management of the two national monuments. Davis, in a communique to

the quartermaster in March, wrote that the Spanish-American War

Veterans Organization in which he held a membership had applied to

manage the monuments. (72) The situation appeared rife with conflict and

is precisely what happened as events played out with the Historical

Society, Quartermaster Department, Harris, and Davis.

During the summer the Quartermaster Department awarded a five-year

license to the St. Augustine Historical Society to manage Fort Matanzas

and Fort Marion. Because their application had been passed over, the

United Spanish War Veterans meeting in state convention in late June,

passed a resolution criticizing the Society as a commercial enterprise

controlled largely by one person, curator William J. Harris. They further

resolved to seek the support of the national organization at their meeting

in Habana.(73 ) Because of previous clashes between Davis and Harris a

variety of obstacles had to be overcome by the Quartermaster Department

through the summer and fall. Caretaker Davis framed a variety of

questions for the Quartermaster staff seeking clarification of, and in some

instances being obstructionist to, the Society's management as outlined in

71. Ibid. ; Inspector to Commanding General Fourth Corps Area,

November 27, 1928, p. 3, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

72. Caretaker to Commanding Officer, February 16, 1928.

73. Ibid.

31
the license.(74) The new license required more of the Society:

maintenance of the grounds, minor repairs, at an annual expenditure not

to exceed $3,000. As caretaker, Davis had few responsibilities, requiring

inspection duties, serving as an extra guide when necessary and

providing access to the Castillo at all times (see Appendix D). The

license, as had the previous ones, lacked clarity pertaining to the

responsibilities between the caretaker and the curator.

With the return of Harris to St. Augustine from his summer home in New

Jersey, acrimony and back-biting resumed more directly with Davis.

However, the major development concerned the alleged involvement of

Davis in the attempt by the United Spanish War Veterans to oust the

Historical Society as managers of the two monuments. (75) Appointed

investigator, Colonel Henry S. Wagner carried out the charge between

November 9-26, for the Commanding General, Fourth Corps Area, Fort

McPherson, Georgia. (76) During the investigation Wagner called several

witnesses from the Historical Society including Colee and Harris; the past

and present commanders of the United Spanish War Veterans; and, of

course, Davis. The rancor between Davis and Harris evidenced in the

investigative report illustrates the depth to which the affair had fallen

once the Society got word of the increase in fees required of it in the

new license. At the request of the department, Davis sleuthed out

information on financial returns to the Society and Harris; however, his

methods and subsequent statistics lacked credibility, though that remained

unknown until the investigator actually examined the books. ( 77 ) Of note,

74. Caretaker to Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Intermediate Depot,

July 23, 1928, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Caretaker to

Commanding Officer, Quartermaster Intermediate Depot, August 20, 1928,

National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

75. Inspector to the Commanding General, November 27, 1928, National

Park Service, RG 79, NA, p. 1.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid., pp. 2-7.

32

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

the department did base the increase from $700 to $3,000 on figures

supplied by Davis. In February, the Quartermaster Department ignored a

request of the caretaker to make "a complete investigation of the

disagreement between himself and the officers of the Society. "(78) The

impasse worsened and reached the nadir in November as the two principal

figures sought support for their positions and opportunities to denigrate

each other. Unfortunately for Davis, he possessed neither the political

power base nor the will to refrain from entangling himself. This

ultimately resulted in the investigation.

Conclusions reached in the report show that Davis unequivocally used his

position as a member of the United Spanish War Veterans to oust the

Historical Society from management of the national monuments, so to

secure it for the veterans organization. (79) Wagner, the investigator,

pointed out the caretaker allowed "personal animosities" to cloud his

judgment and serve to strain relations; and on a positive note, included

Davis' recommendation of the Society being required to submit a financial

report annually to the War Department. (80) A final conclusion took note

of the care given the monuments and grounds by Caretaker Davis and the

Historical Society, a revealing insight of the importance each attached to

the resources in their joint care and responsibility. Wagner closed with a

statement recommending that Davis be informed of the conclusions reached

and that the books of the society and Harris be audited by a certified

public accountant and both file a report "for each fiscal year. "(81) For

Harris it represented weathering yet another storm of criticism without

being washed out of the operation of the Castillo. As for Davis, he

found himself relieved of duties as caretaker of the monuments effective

March 1, 1929. The War Department concluded the position unnecessary

78. Ibid., p. 4.

79. Ibid., p. 11.

80. Ibid.

81. Ibid.

33
and therefore reduced the position to only superintending the St.

Augustine National Cemetery. (82) Accordingly, the Quartermaster

Department adjusted the lease with the Historical Society to reflect that

Curator Harris managed the entire operation subject to regulation and

review by the department. The arrangement served throughout the

remaining years of the War Department administration until the National

Park Service assumed full responsibility in 1935.

Under the new lease arrangement with the St. Augustine Historical

Society, annual reports had to be filed from audits made of receipts and

disbursements pertaining to income on sales and tour fees at the Castillo

and expenditures for maintenance at both national monuments. Income

came from the sale of postcards, photos and souvenirs which the Society

and Harris split 20 percent and 80 percent respectively. (See Table 1. )

In addition the Society and Harris divided up the receipts from the Guide

Service, 75 percent and 25 percent, respectively, to the Society and

Harris, if the vistors desired tours. As the trend shows in Table I, the

severe drop in travel to the St. Augustine area worsened because of the

Great Depression which prompted Harris to ask the Quartermaster General

for permission for "the organization to commercialize a little further than

82. Assistant Quartermaster Corps to Assistant Chief Clerk, War

Department, January 26, 1929, Quartermaster Department., RG 92, NA;

Commander, Jeffersonville Quartermaster Depot to Caretaker Davis,

February 13, 1929, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

34

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Table I

A Comparison of Receipts and Expenses for the

Operation of Guide Services and Souvenir Sales at Fort Marion

and Fort Matanzas Florida, 1929-1934(83)

Year

1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934

Receipts

Gross--Guide Services $10,325 $11,816 $10,136 $ 7,299 $ 3,777 $ 6,553

Gross--Souvenir Sales 9,708 9,781 7,745 5,146 3,424 4,129

Total Gross Receipts 20,033 21,597 17,881 12,445 7,201 10,682

Expenses

Guide Salaries--Society 3,399 3,220 3,662 3,293 2,224 2,090

Miscellaneous- -Society 290 884 493 463 936 873

Maintenance--50/50 1,224 1,479 1,440 1,081 839 787

Wholesale price--curator 5,825 5,869 4,647 3,088 2,054 2,477

Clerk--curator 1,440 1,440 1,440 1,260 1,260 728

Fort Matanzas--maintenance -- 370 12 12 10

Net Receipts

Historical Society 5,383 5,974 4,275 2,206 - 63 2,382

William J. Harris, Curator 2,470 2,730 1,922 1,053 - 50 1,342

83. Statement of Operation, 1929-1934, I.L. Clarke, Public Accountant,

National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

35
before, because at the present time they were running behind. (84) The

reply noted "the main reason for the government giving the lease to their

organization was to keep away from commercializing a government

activity. ..."(85) Of course, given the arrangement of sharing income

and expenses, Harris stood to gain from any revisions which would

increase receipts.

FINAL LICENSE, 1933

The renewal of the lease for administering the two national monuments

continued, beginning with direct lobbying of the Quartermaster

Department in early 1932. Expiration of the lease with the St. Augustine

Historical Society would occur June 30, 1933, and direct efforts to obtain

the lease would begin by at least March of 1932. (86) A conference that

month hosted by the Assistant Secretary of War initiated by the chairman

of the Republican Party in Florida, R. E. L. Pryor, lead off lobbying

efforts to secure the lease. Several Florida politicos accompanied Pryor

but the key figure at the conference, J. Ray Arnold, Florida

entrepreneur, directed the discussions. He proposed "to organize a

corporation for the development and exploitation of historic points in

Florida, the first one being Fort Marion. "(87) Arnold did not want St.

Augustinians to know of his intent until after he had already secured

control of the fort. (88) Having done so, it would represent the first

step and cornerstone of an effort to control several other historic sites in

84. Quartermaster General to Fourth Corps Area Commander, June 9,

1933, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

85. Ibid.

86. Construction Division, Quartermaster General Department to

Quartermaster General, March 18, 1932, Quartermaster Department, RG

92, NA.

87. Ibid.

88. Ibid.

36

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

D

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Florida, all for commercial purposes. During the summer of 1932 a

variety of proposals submitted to the Quartermaster Department reflected

once again the competition for and contentiousness of various groups in

St. Augustine. By far the most professional package received came from

Arnold who proposed restoring of the Castillo to the seventeenth century

period, floodlighting the monument at night, and placing exhibits in the

various casemates, all with the intent of enticing many more tourists to

St. Augustine and returning a profit from admission fees of at least six

percent for the investor group. (89) Several other groups also sought the

license for the two national monuments including the St. Augustine

Chamber of Commerce. For them administering the sites held promise for

attracting more tourism to St. Augustine and the Castillo which served as

a focus for local pride. To the Quartermaster Department the request

had all the trappings of a commercial venture, particularly because it

inferred subletting the administration to a second party. Once again the

United Spanish War Veterans requested the license on grounds that

revenue belonged to a patriotic organization. State Republican Chairman

Pryor had been active in earlier requests for the veterans organization,

though in 1932 he supported Arnold's request. The Spanish War

Veterans directly indicated that if they obtained the license it would mean

additional votes for the Hoover administration. (90) The American Legion

actively pursued the license, though they indicated a willingness to sublet

from the St. Augustine Chamber of Commerce should the latter obtain

it. (91)

Of course the most controversial applicant and longtime licensee sought a

renewal: The St. Augustine Historical Society and Institute of Science.

The Society had a lengthy and satisfactory reputation for administering

89. Quartermaster General to Assistant Secretary of War, September 22,

1932, Quartermaster Department, RG 92, NA, p. 2.

90. Ibid., p. 3.

91. Ibid.

37
the monuments though their major focus had always been on Fort Marion.

Although they and the curator made a profit each year with the exception

of 1933, the resources had been rather well taken care of and visitors

continued to seek out the Spanish fort. Nevertheless, many complaints

surfaced year after year synonymous with Curator Harris and

commercialization. As the Great Depression worsened some felt the

Society did not exercise enough social consciousness, given its savings

account and that it had too exclusive a membership.(92 ) Upon the

recommendation of the Quartermaster General, Assistant Secretary of War

Frederick H. Payne approved the renewal of the existing lease during the

fall of 1932 in favor of the Historical Society. (93)

For the Society it would be the final lease on the monuments because the

National Park Service fell heir to them in 1933 and began exclusive

operations in 1935. William J. Harris, very nimble and adept, survived

the change and retained the souvenir shop at the Castillo in the change

from the War Department to the National Park Service.

92. Ibid.

93. Ibid., p. 4.

38

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

CHAPTER 3: THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: ADMINISTRATION

TENURE BEGINS

Unlike the initial establishment of federal presence in a community, the

transition in agencies administering the national monuments of Fort

Matanzas and Castillo de San Marcos went quite smoothly. Prompted by

Executive Order 6166, a transfer of administrative responsibilities from

the War Department to Interior Department occurred August 10, 1933, for

national monuments, military parks, battlefield sites and cemeteries. The

National Park Service became new custodian of the various areas including

those in Florida. For St. Augustinians national presence did not create

conditions to which adjustments had to be made; from the very beginning

with the establishment of the Spanish outpost the community had related

and adjusted to government policies and a certain decentralization of

decisionmaking.

Kahler Administration

President Franklin D. Roosevelt sought a variety of ways to stimulate the

American economy during his first term in office. These included broader

powers for the Executive Branch, which Congress provided in March

1933, and subsequently in Executive Order No. 6166, consolidation of

administrative functions for National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations,

dated June 10, 1933.(l) Scheduled to go into effect in sixty-one days,

the order obtained specificity on July 28, when Executive Order 6228

interpreted that cemeteries and parks should be included. (2)

1. Executive Order, Organization of Executive Agencies, (Washington:

Government Printing Office, 1933)., pp. 203-205.

2. Ibid., pp. 205-207.

39
I

Forts Marion and Matanzas thereby came under jurisdiction of the National

Park Service which assumed responsibility on August 10 of that year.

The Historical Society Curator, William J. Harris, continued on as

custodian as he had done since the termination of Leslie L. Davis in 1929,

and formalization of the arrangement commenced in December with Harris'

remuneration set at $12 a year. (3) At this same time Verne E. Chatelain,

first chief of the Historical Division of the Park Service had charge of the

transfer papers between the War Department and National Park Service.

He assigned Herbert E. Kahler from Chickamauga and Chattanooga

National Military Park to St. Augustine as the first Park Service

representative. (4)

Chatelain recalls that Chickamauga Superintendent Richard B. Randolph

needed personnel with secretarial skills at the time and since Kahler could

not type the other "historical technician" remained at Chattanooga. (5) To

facilitate administrative organization Randolph found himself in charge of

not only the Tennessee-Georgia battlefield but some ten other federal

holdings, including Matanzas and Marion, after the parks and monuments

transfer took place. (6) Therefore Kahler continued to be supervised by

Randolph but at a distance. More directly his supervision came from

Chatelain, with whom he shared graduate history training at the

University of Minnesota, study which served both of them well in the

history-rich area of St. Augustine.

3. Ibid., Arana,"Notes On Fort Matanzas," p. 68.

4. Interview with Verne E. Chatelain, February 26, 1985; U. S.

Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Tape Number 232,

Transcript of Oral History Interview of Herbert E. Kahler by Albert

Manucy, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services,

July 1, 1971, pp. 12, 19.

5. Interview with Chatelain.

6. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, An

Administrative History of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military

Park, by John C. Paige and Jerome A. Greene, (Denver: Denver Service

Center, 1983), p. 89.

40

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Kahler did not take long to size up the situation al. St. AugusLirw,

though certainly Chatelain, who had traveled the park circuit and visited

there in 1931, had some insights about the situation which he shared.

Writing late in December, Kahler laid out a rationale for why the National

Park Service should assume full control: the lengthy and significant

history of the area including the valuable links which the two forts

provided; the potential for increased travel and visitation to the east

coast of Florida and the opportunity to interpret the past to visitors in

more than "antiquarian details"; and the opportunity to mitigate the

intense local rivalry that spawned many disputes and much negative

comment about Harris and the commercialization of the Castillo. (7) Kahler

concluded by recommending the museum exhibits of "Hindoo gods raw silk

displays [and] Filipino War instruments" be removed since they "detract

from its prime interest. "(8) He urged placing interpretive signs on

casemate doors so visitors might have information should guides not be

available, and recommended maintenance of a leaky terreplein (an habitual

problem) at the Castillo and foundation repair and accessibility at Fort

Matanzas. (9)

Previously kept in confidence, this information served to indicate that the

National Park Service planned to administer the monuments and not share

management as predecessor agencies had done. Both Chatelain and

Kahler recalled not wanting to upset the local populace by moving too

precipitously toward change. Chatelain noted that Kahler had directions

to steer clear of local politics with respect to groups seeking a license to

manage the monuments and to move slowly and build rapport. (10)

Concurrently, the officers of the St. Augustine Historical Society received

word from Chief Historian Chatelain that the National Park Service would

7. Kahler to Chatelain, December 30, 1933, RG 79, NA.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Interview with Chatelain.

41
terminate its license upon expiration in June, 1934 and administer the

monuments. This culminated an agreement between the Historical Society

and the Department of Interior for joint administration begun July 1, 1933

to run one year or until June 30, 1934.

During the first several months Kahler headed a staff which conducted

historical research under a New Deal program, Civilian Works

Administration (CWA) (later changed to Works Progress Administration

[WPA]). Projects included studies on the Fountain of Youth, the oldest

house and the measured drawings for the Historic American Buildings

Survey (HABS). One local research staffer, Albert Manucy, launched

what became a long, very productive career associated with the two

national monuments and the National Park Service. As the research

projects reached conclusion during the spring of 1934, Kahler became

more and more aware of the political climate of St. Augustine and the role

he had assumed in the community as a government representative.

When Judge David R. Dunham and X. L. Pellicer, officers of the Society,

became aware of the threat of revenue loss they made a concerted effort

to lobby the community groups for support. Kahler recalls he wrote

articles "pointing out the advantages of the federal administration of this

area," (aided by Nina Hawkins of the St. Augustine Record) and he

spoke to many clubs and organizations, often on the same program as

Judge Dunham. (11) It became clear that Kahler's job took on the

objective of establishing the National Park Service administration rather

than CWA/WPA research projects which lasted only a few short months.

As the picture cleared, Kahler came to realize the split in the community

over the management of the Castillo and secondarily, Fort Matanzas. At

the time St. Augustine's Mayor, Walter B. Fraser, operated the Fountain

of Youth tourist attraction and developed a point of view favorable to the

11. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Transcript

of Oral History Interview of Herbert E. Kahler and Albert C. Manucy by

Luis Arana, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library

Services, January 20, 1975, pp. 5-7.

42

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Park Service. His motives revolved around the commercial potential of

St. Augustine, given the national appeal which the Park Service could

draw upon, and his exclusion from membership in the St. Augustine

Historical Society. (12) Fraser stood to gain from the new management

and as mayor, plus active business man, he and the city commission

threw support to the Park Service. A lobbying campaign followed which

focused principally upon the Florida congressional delegation and,

depending upon the point of view, the issue became renewal or

nonrenewal of the license to administer the forts.

With Kahler doing yeoman work as eyes and ears of the Park Service plus

public relations efforts in the divisive atmosphere of St. Augustine, the

Washington office joined the fray. During the summer of 1934 Kahler

received the appointment as acting custodian in the absence of Harris who

annually spent summers in New Jersey.(13 ) Instead of tour guide W. H.

Gillette who acted in the capacity from 1931-1933, Kahler now held a

position from which even more direct observation of operations at the

Castillo might be made. From that proximity Kahler noted several

problems and made several recommendations in a communique to

Chatelain. (14)

Specific items addressed included visitor complaints about the guide

service, the admixture of museum items, many of which did not relate to

the Spanish period, sales pitches by the guides directing visitors to the

souvenir items, distribution of literature at the fort entrance, soliciting

visits to the oldest house and schoolhouse (owned by the Society and

Harris respectively), certain maintenance items related to the Castillo and

12. Ibid., p. 5.

13. Harris to Chatelain,. May 31, 1934, National Park Service, RG 79,

NA.

14. Kahler to Chatelain, September 25, 1934, National Park Service, RG

79, NA.

43
I

the extremely low wages paid the guides (average of $525.00 per year

working a 48-hour week).(15)

As the year closed and the approaching end of the Historical Society

tenure came in sight a maelstrom developed in St. Augustine. A steady

stream of correspondence flowed between St. Augustine, the Washington

Office and the Florida congressmen, especially Representative William J.

Sears, all of which bespoke of intense local efforts to win groups to one

point of view or the other. Judge Dunham, president of the Society

maintained a steady communication drive to win over public opinion and

the Park Service to renewing the license which provided an operating

budget for the organization. His basic appeal and that of Sears

characterized the longstanding arrangement of the Society and the War

Department as very successful; he pointed out maintenance completed,

visitor services provided, and what he believed to be saving the forts

from certain abandonment had the Society not been involved; and he

expressed serious concern over expenditures of the federal budget at a

time of national calamity--the Great Depression. (16)

Countering the arguments of Dunham, Sears and others, the National

Park Service espoused a position which held that under the Executive

Orders of 1933 a national system of historical parks provided for an

effective program, better planning and improved interpretation of the area

by trained staff within a national historical context. The fractiousness of

competing groups in St. Augustine which hindered proper focus and

management of the resources by a local organization would be eliminated

and local expenditure of money would stimulate employment at a time when

the nation desperately needed such. Wider exposure of the area to the

American public through Park Service publicity, preservation and

15. Ibid.

16. Sears to Demaray, January 23, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79,

NA; Sears to Demaray, February 1, 1935, Ibid.; Sears to Demaray,

February 7, 1935, Ibid.; Sears to Cammerer, March 25, 1935, Ibid.

i 44

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

protection of the monuments, and availability of a free guide service

would serve the public better. And finally development of the two areas

including at Fort Matanzas a caretaker's residence and office, docks,

restoration work on the fort, access to the historic structure and the

beach would improve and enhance the resources. Development plans at

Fort Marion included cleaning the moat, rebuilding the flood gates,

restoring the drawbridges, repairing visitor facilities, terreplein and

quarters for the caretaker. (17) Basically it came down to the policy of

agency management developed by the National Park Service in the early,

large western parks and followed in the new historic parks and

monuments.

As spring wore on it became apparent that the expected strength from

lobbying local groups and the state congressional delegation had not been

effective. Public opinion in St. Augustine and the firmness of key

administrators in the National Park Service precluded renewal of the

license to the Historical Society to manage the monuments. In April the

Society received notification of the. license termination effective June 30,

' 1935. (18) Writing to the president of the Historical Society, National

Park Service Director Arno B. Cammerer stated, "in order to maintain

consistently the policy of education and development which this service

has established at the national historical parks and monuments . . . it

will be necessary to bring the two forts at St. Augustine under our

direct supervision and control following the expiration of the lease. "(19)

He added that equipment, stock and other items needed to be moved out

17. Demaray to Sears, January 25, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79,

NA; text of speech given to mayor and City Commissioners of St.

Augustine, no date or author though probably Kahler during February

1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Secretary Ickes to Senator

Trammell, April 3, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Kahler to

Cammerer, March 22, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

18. Cammerer to Dunham, June 7, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79,

NA.

19. Ibid.

45
by July 1 so that the Park Service might assume possession. In a return

message, Dunham reported that Harris had nearly completed the moving of

exhibits and he indicated a formal resolution of thanks for the use and

custody of Fort Marion would be forthcoming. (20) As acting custodian,

Kahler took up the many duties and responsibilities for launching the new

administration and building the many bridges necessary between the

various constituencies of the St. Augustine community. Gradually,

diplomatically and inexorably he increased the role of the National Park

Service as administrator of the national monuments.

Late in the fall Cammerer notified Kahler that effective December 16, 1935

he would become acting superintendent of Fort Marion and Fort Matanzas

national monuments and administrative coordinator of Castle Pinckney and

Forts Pulaski and jefferson. (21) For nearly two years he had served in

a management capacity and forged a reputation as a sensitive,

hardworking individual who got along with people and at the same time

accomplished what needed to be done. A knowledge of and appreciation

for history complemented his many skills and helped establish a very

significant foundation and tradition for such an historically significant

locale. Over the years, through competence and longevity, the tradition

remained intact at both national monuments. In August 1936 Kahler

became superintendent of Forts Marion and Matanzas and early the

following year the Director designated him coordinating superintendent

over the Southeastern Monuments of Fort Marion, Fort Matanzas, Fort

Pulaski, Castle Pinckney, Ocmulgee, Fort Jefferson and Fort Frederica.

Responsibilities included review of all planning and programs and routing

of correspondence through the superintendent; ostensibly this formalized

20. Dunham to Cammerer, June 18, 1935, National Park Service, RG 79,

NA.

21. Cammerer to Kahler, December + 6, 1935, National Park Service, RG

79, NA.

46

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

and made more effective the earlier attempts at coordination over Florida

parks from inception in 1933 at Chickamauga and Chattanooga. (22)

A myriad of decisions faced Kahler during his nearly six-year tenure in

St. Augustine. As the first to oversee research, restoration, repair,

construction, office and parking facilities, property acquisition and public

relations plus coordinating development for several other National Park

Service areas, he stayed very busy and involved. Major projects at Fort

Matanzas included the acquisition by gift from Ada D. Corbett of 17 . 34

acres near the south end of Anastasia Island in 1935, which gave road

access and land for construction of park facilities in 1936. (23) Docks

completed on both Anastasia and Rattlesnake Island in 1935 made it

possible for visitors to reach Fort Matanzas. New Deal funding through

the Public Works Administration (PWA) also provided for construction of a

building for a visitor center office and caretaker's residence, water and

sewage system on the newly acquired land in 1936; major work on the

foundation of Fort Matanzas through installation of a steel bulkhead

occurred the same year. Further construction included an entrance road

and parking area which completed a significant amount of work in the

development of the area. On October 12, 1937, the National Park Service

hosted the dedication of the area with several dignitaries delivering

speeches, among them Governor Frederick P. Cone, Senator Claude

Pepper and Mayor Walter B. Fraser. (24) A part of the activities included

reenactment of certain highlights of Fort Matanzas history and boat

service from Anastasia Island to the fort proper. (25)

22. Kahler to Director, January 13, 1937, National Park Service, RG 79,

NA; Director to Washington Office Files, January 21, 1937, National Park

Service, RG 79, NA; Kahler to Regional Director, December 15, 1937,

National Park Service, RG 79 NA.

23. Rogers, "History of Legislation" p. 2.

24. The St. Augustine Record, October 11, 1937.

25. Ibid.

47
One other major project concluded during Kahler's tenure at Matanzas

involved reconstructing the fort's arch which culminated early in 1939.

Anticipating future development, Kahler envisioned "a fine beach park

near Matanzas," which might be obtained through purchase by local

citizens and donated to the Park Service. (26) Much activity had occurred

and groundwork laid for future progress at Fort Matanzas. During this

period of considerable activity Edward J. Eaton, who had served a,few

months as a guide at Fort Marion, transferred to Matanzas in 1936 to

become the first permanent park custodian to reside in the new quarters.

He served there until his retirement in December 1959.

A large variety of maintenance, restoration and construction projects at

the Castillo kept Kahler busy given his responsibilities at Matanzas and

coordinator of several Florida and Georgia parks. A project implemented

the year after the Historical Society lease expired (1935) focused on

providing office space for the staff, and remodeling and repairing of the

public restrooms. In 1937 the moat had fill removed so that some

semblance of authenticity might be observed. A long-standing problem

involved the leaking terreplein which, after test pit studies, had concrete

and a layered membrane placed over it. (27) Kahler, though gone when

the formal change took effect, lobbied from 1934 to change the name of

Fort Marion to one more historically appropriate. In a letter to the

director, Kahler pointed out his success when he noted the Daughters of

the American Revolution requested him to make recommendations for the

change in 1936 as did X. L. Pellicer of the Rotary Club. (28) As an

26. Kahler to Coe, June 24, 1936, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

Coe, Executive Chairman of the Everglades National Park Association, was

making promotional tours on behalf of establishing a park in south

Florida; while visiting Matanzas he sized up and recommended to Arno B.

Cammerer that the southern tip of Anastasia Island be acquired by the

National Park Service.

27. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Terreplein

Construction Fort Marion Notations on Its Original Character, by Albert

C. Manucy (St. Augustine, Florida; Fort Marion National Monument,

1939), pp. 1-19.

28. Kahler to Director, January 22, 1937, National Park Service, RG 79,

NA.

48

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

r

I

I

1
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

advocate of the name change, Kahler received support from several other

community groups, and based on historical research, presented a strong

case for a change to Castillo de San Marcos in recognition of the founding

and lengthy occupation by the Spanish. Though questioned by the

director, Kahler won him over and subsequently secured memorials

favorable to the change from the Florida legislature in the spring of

1939. (29) With considerable support the bill began making its way

through Congress during the summer of 1940 and subsequently attained

passage into law on June 5, 1942. (30)

A variety of other challenges vied for Kahler's attention while in St.

Augustine. As far back as 1914 fees had been collected on a voluntary

basis for a tour of the Castillo and in 1938 the Director, persuaded by

Kahler and approved by the Secretary of the Interior, instituted a fee of

ten cents for adult admission. Park staff observed a more attentive frame

of mind by visitors and guides alike engendered by the fee. (31) Ever

the promoter and booster, Mayor Fraser managed to interest key Carnegie

Institution officials, including John C. Merriam, to assess St. Augustine

as being worthy of a major historic preservation project. Antecedent to

the Carnegie expression, the mayor succeeded in molding local opinion

sufficiently well enough to form the St. Augustine Restoration Committee,

the purpose of which served to guide the direction of an enlarged Fort

Marion National Monument. (32) It entailed the expenditure of sizeable

amounts of money that St. Augustine did not have but might raise from

29. Kahler to Director, July 5, 1937, National Park Service, RG 79, NA;

Kahler to Director, March 8, 1939, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

30. Ibid., Rogers, History of Legislation, p. 4.

31. Associate Director to Secretary of Interior, February 26, 1938,

National Park Service, RG 79, NA; Kahler to Regional Director,

September 19, 1938, National Park Service, RG 79, NA.

32. Kahler and Smith to the Director, September 4, 1936, National Park

Service, RG 79, NA.

49
outside sources such as the Carnegie Institution. Of necessity would be

the acquisition of property in the historic core of the community plus the

monies to restore and/or reconstruct historic structures. For Fraser it

took on a Williamsburg quality that had potential for tourism development,

thereby increasing profits for his and other enterprises in St. Augustine.

To Carnegie officials it represented an opportunity for planned

development based upon a good bit of historical and archeological

research, with the research a very important part of the effort.

The Institution chose former Chief Historian Chatelain to head the

research efforts in St. Augustine; this presented Kahler a unique set of

conditions since Chatelain previously served as his superior. By 1938 a

determination of the area to be developed identified a core of restoration

"from Orange Street to Cuna Street and from Cordova to the Bay. "(33)

From Cuna south to St. Francis Street would be an area designated for

retention of the Spanish influence. However, the idea faded as sustained

interest and funding never materialized and Merriam's interests diminished

too. In short, the Carnegie group spent little money on reconstruction

and restoration and the effects proved minimal as only a few balconies

and other visible architectural features resulted, though it accumulated a

good bit of useful historical and archeological data. Albert Manucy, long

time historian at the monuments, believed a significant contribution of the

effort turned out to be the consciousness raising of local residents who

"came to understand a little better and appreciate perhaps some of the

qualities . . . [of] their history. "(34)

33. Kahler to the Director, October 28, 1938, National Park Service, RG

79, NA.

34. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Transcript

of Oral History Interview of Herbert E. Kahler by Albert C. Manucy,

Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services , July 1,

1971, p. 37.

50

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

F

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Freeland Administration

During the late winter of 1939 Kahler received word of his transfer to

Morristown National Historical Park effective in April, and in May Edward

D. Freeland, superintendent of Wind Cave National Park, replaced him.

In a policy statement that summer, the new superintendent set forth his

priority as "restore some of the former Spanish atmosphere," through

inspiring and educating the visitor. (35) Concentration and focus of plans

and development, said Freeland, would be 1565-1715 and all modern

developments held to a minimum. (36) Major projects at the Castillo

included installation of floodlights, a self-guided tour complete with

interpretive signs and the installation of temporary exhibits. Little other

than routine maintenance occurred at Fort Matanzas until after World War

II; however, access improved somewhat as rowboats could be rented for

transportation across the Matanzas River, though it proved to be a low

profit enterprise as well as risky for visitor safety. (37) Superintendent

Freeland attempted to establish motorized service but concession

restrictions and management policies stymied him. (38) During 1939 he

moved the park administrative offices to the remodeled Old Governor's

House or post office building in St. Augustine. (39)

Shortly after the bombing of Pearl Harbor Freeland accepted a transfer to

Shenandoah National Park as superintendent and C. Raymond Vinten came

to St. Augustine in the same capacity. His tenure proved to be the

35. Press Release, July 24, 1939, files, CASA.

36. Ibid.

37. "Inspection Report, Interpretive Program Fort Matanzas National

Monument," Fort Matanzas National Monument, RG 79, NA, p. 3.

38. Demaray to Freeland, October 2, 1941, National Park Service, RG

79, NA.

39. Superintendent's Monthly Report, October 1939, National Park

Service, RG 79, NA.

51
longest of all managers before or since (January 1942-July 1961) and his

familiarity with Park Service areas in Florida proved invaluable in the

capacity of coordinating superintendent. (40) Prior to being named

superintendent, Vinten served as field supervisor for the Civilian

Conservation Corps (CCC) in Florida for eight years. In that capacity

he often became involved in Park Service operations with Kahler because

emergency funding stemmed from CCC sources. During his administration

two additional Park Service areas, Fort Caroline and the Everglades,

became responsibilities within the Southeastern Monuments group.

Vinten Administration

Superintendent Vinten presided at a time when funding, in short supply

during the Great Depression, continued at a low level during World War II

but turned upward thereafter. Major projects and developments at Fort

Matanzas included repairing the southeast corner of the fort and replacing

and repairing groins to prevent erosion, all of which suffered damage in

a severe hurricane during 1944. Early in the next decade some additional

rock work on the west side of the structure occurred.

A clarification of land ownership on Rattlesnake Island and a sizeable

donation of land on neighboring Anastasia Island came about during and

after World War II. Land on Rattlesnake Island that had been transferred

to the Department of Agriculture in 1927 as a bird refuge reverted to the

State of Florida in 1943 as tidal lands. (41) In 1944 Trustees of the

40. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Centennial

Edition National Park Service Officials March 1, 1972, by Howard W.

Baker, (Washington, 1972), pp. 45-46, U.S. Department of the Interior,

National Park Service; Transcript of Oral History Interview of C.

Raymond Vinten by S. Herbert Evison, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of

Archival and Library Services, April 6, 1971, pp. 42-44 (hereafter cited

as Vinten-oral history).

41. Arana,"Notes On Fort Matanzas ," pp. 70-71.

52

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Internal Improvement Fund deeded some 1.20 acres of tideland adjacent: in

Rattlesnake Island to the United States and four years later this and an

additional 89.42 acres became, through Presidential Proclamation 2773,

part of Fort Matanzas National Monument. (42)

Just after Vinten retired the present boundaries changed a final time

because of the generosity of Howard M. and Tressa Yeager Johnson who

donated the southern tip of Anastasia Island to Fort Matanzas National

Monument. In keeping with a desire of the National Park Service since it

acquired Fort Matanzas, Vinten recommended expansion of the boundary

to Regional Director Thomas J. Allen in 1945, who disagreed though

overruled by Director Newton B. Drury the same year. (43) The Director

went on to urge that Vinten speak confidentially with the Johnsons and

also seek the support of Governor Millard F. Caldwell and former

Governor Spessard L. Holland before approaching the Secretary of the

Interior about a proclamation from the President. (44) Very early in 1946

Vinten met with Johnson about donating the land and continuing to reside

there; he also spoke of the need to preserve the character of the land

and the historical significance of an area in which the Spanish halted

expansion of France (the Huguenot slaughter) in North America. (45)

However, the Johnsons did not act due to "somewhat adverse feeling

about this possibility in the past because of certain personality conflicts,"

42. Ibid., p. 71; Proclamation 2773, March 24, 1948, National Park

Service, RG 79, NA.

43. Kahler to Chief of Lands, Wirth, August 4, 1944, National Park

Service, RG 79, NA; Allen to Director, September 5, 1944, National Park

Service, RG 79, NA; Boundary Status Report, April 4, 1948, Boundary

Adjustments Fort Matanzas Lands files, CASA; Drury to Allen, November

29, 1945, Boundary Adjustments Fort Matanzas Lands files, CASA.

44. Ibid.

45. Vinten to Johnson, January 4, 1946, Boundary Adjustments Fort

Matanzas Lands files, CASA.

53
though they always had an interest in the National Park Service.(46) In

1962 the Johnsons wished to formalize an agreement to donate the land in

three parcels and for tax purposes, spread over three years.(47) In

exchange they desired a life tenancy with the right to rebuild in case of

fire, Park Service maintenance of lane and grounds and consideration of

employing their caretaker if he met Civil Service requirements. (48)

Superintendent Bertrum C. Roberts urged expedient handling of the

request which subsequently occurred and the Park Service met the

desires of the donors including employment of their caretaker, James

Shope. (49) The property, valued in excess of $300,000, amounted to just

over 70 acres which raised the landed area of the monument to 298.51

acres. With the death of Tressa Johnson in 1974 (Howard died in 1971)

life tenancy requirements expired and the Park Service assumed

responsibility for the entire complex.

Vinten's superintendency began just after the outbreak of World War II

and the war had an immediate impact on his administration. From the

latter half of 1942 until March 1944 the United States Coast Guard made

use of the Castillo for training. In particular Vinten offered the north

grounds for drill, four rooms for classes and the terreplein and parking

lot for mounting of guns; all provisions stipulated protection of the

historic resources and lives of visitors and park staff. (50) The troops

confined their use principally to the north grounds and classroom.

Postwar maintenance projects included surfacing of the banquette, repair

and cleanup of the City Gate, repair of the Castillo foundation,

replacement of several interpretive markers, installation of new sluice

46. Superintendent-Castillo de San Marcos National Monument to Regional

Director, Southeast Region, October 10, 1962, CASA.

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report - CASA, pp. 438-440.

54

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

J

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

gates, and installation of exterior floodlights. (51) In 1952 work

commenced on rehabilitating the courtyard for the first time since the

1920s. During rains the interior became a lake and slick walkways made

hazardous conditions for visitors; when it dried the surface deteriorated

into dusty, loose footing so repair needed to be accomplished. (52) Park

staff raised concerns about the courtyard for several years and planned

the work so that a comprehensive archeological dig might take place at

the same time. (53) Regional Archeologist Jean C. "Pinky" Harrington

headed the project which sought to identify period levels and, ancillary to

that purpose, served to introduce field archeology to several thousand

visitors during the course of the work in 1953. (54) When completed, the

courtyard had a sand based coquina concrete tile walkway on the

perimeter which could be relatively easily removed for future archeological

investigation, and a grassed center area. (55) In 1952 and 1954 doors,

door frames, window frames and window bars received attention and

rehabilitation while from 1958-1960 the drawbridges and floor grades of

guardroom and offices had restoration and construction work completed on

them. (56)

Parking and highway alignment concerns, a perpetual problem at the

Castillo, arose several times during the Vinten years. In 1951 the city

changed the traffic lights at the City Gate and widened the street east of

the gate to the pleasure of Vinten. He, however, requested the mayor to

seek city commission approval to illumine the gate at night to prevent

51. Ibid., pp. 443-448.

52. Albert Manucy, "Historian's Monthly Narrative Report," January

1948-June 1953, CASA.

53. Coordinating Superintendent, Southeastern National Monuments to

Regional Director, October 5, 1950, CASA.

54. Manucy, "Historians Monthly Narrative Report."

55. Bearss and Paige, Historic Resource Report - CASA, p. 449.

56. Ibid.

55
accidents there. (57) Attempted street widening by the city at the

expense of monument lands had to be guarded against quite often.

Vinten also attempted to complete intermediate steps to alleviate traffic

problems through increased parking space. (58)

Again in 1957 Vinten wrote that pressures from city fathers resulted from

a State Road Department proposal to build a four lane highway between

the City Gate and the Bridge of Lions. He did not accept their

disclaimer that it would be four lanes only on Bay Street directly south of

the Castillo, rather he saw the Fort Marion Circle (now Castillo Drive)

also getting the "big wide four-lane turnpike type of treatment. "(59)

Land would of course come from the park. Later in the year he appealed

for a comprehensive planning effort for the best interests of the

community. (60) In 1959 the widening project occurred with land

acquisition agreements drawn up in a memorandum of agreement which

promised the Park Service any residuals of land on the monument side of

Fort Marion Circle. (61) Some 0.15 acres reverted to the United States

under the agreement. Congress enacted legislation in 1960 permitting the

acquisition of land totaling 1.185 acres for relocating of the drive, which

was completed in 1965. (62)

On and off again over the years discussion took place about the need for

office space, maintenance shops, and storage facilities, located near but

57. Vinten to Mayor Brett, January 26, 1951, CASA.

58. Superintendent to Regional Director, January 7, 1954, CASA;

"Annual Report of the Superintendent," June 10, 1954, CASA.

59. "Annual Report of the Superintendent," June 5, 1957, CASA.

60. Vinten to Andreu, City Attorney, December 16, 1957, CASA.

61. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Notes On

Castillo de San Marcos," by Luis R. Arana, (St. Augustine: Castillo de

San Marcos National Monument, December 28, 1981), pp. 8-9.

62. Ibid.

56

I

I

I

I

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

not in the Castillo. Though Superintendent Freeland moved his office

out, the desire to have separate facilities never abated, especially as

more and more Americans had discretionary income and vacation time

available following World War II. Acquisition of land for headquarters and

maintenance facilities began through planning efforts during the decade of

the 1940s, including attempts to purchase Warden Castle (Ripley's Believe

It or Not) in 1941. (63) In 1951 Vinten took an active role in securing

congressional support for a bill permitting the purchase of land for a

multipurpose building near the Castillo. (64) Though the bill never

passed, it nevertheless served as an initial attempt to provide necessary

land for development purposes. Undaunted, Vinten pushed forward a

plan three years later in which he argued for improved administration and

operation of the Castillo, and less directly, Fort Matanzas and the other

park areas for which he served as coordinator.(65) The key

recommendation of the report called for the purchase of the rundown

Herbert J. Drew property on the north boundary of the monument, at an

appraised cost of $10,000.(66) In closing, Vinten appealed to the fact

that the budget could absorb the cost of acquiring the property,

constructing the facility and operating the monument because collected

revenues per year totaled $100,000.(67) His argument carried weight

thereby setting off a process which included donation of money and

initiation of condemnation proceedings in order to buy the

63. Freeland to Director, December 6, 1940, National Park Service, RG

79, NA; Freeland to Director, December 21, 1940, National Park Service,

RG 79, NA; Freeland to Director, April 2, 1941, National Park Service,

RG 79, NA; Cammerer to Freeland, April 24, 1941, National Park Service,

RG 79, NA.

64. Herlong to Vinten, April 25, 1951, CASA.

65. Memos from Superintendent, "A Plan For Increasing the Efficiency Of

Administration And For The Orderly Operations Within Castillo de San

Marcos," October 5, 1954, CASA.

66. Ibid., p. 4-6.

67. Ibid., p. 6.

57
I

property. In the proceedings, however, the court found in favor of the

Drew family, thus delaying acquisition. Inclusion of the acquisition of

the land and construction of the building appeared wit.h approval in the

MISSION 66 Prospectus (revised June 25, 1957) for Castillo. (68) Sever-ill

years passed before completion of the facilities in 1965, and when

constructed they contained administrative offices as well as maintenance

facilities, archival storage and parking.

Illustrative of the importance for park managers to interact with the

public to foster good public relations is the effort of Vinten, who added

to the important foundation laid by Kahler. Though functioning in

contrasting historical periods (the Great Depression and World War II)

and different stages of park history, both superintendents related as

needed with the local populace. Vinten, however, could afford to be

more demanding and aggressive. Writing in 1950 he expressed that a

corner had been turned in gaining local support and cooperation for the

national monument; the "gimee approach of past years" had been left

behind. (69) Vinten had been solicited by several local leaders who

inquired how they might help out regarding various aspects of managing

the Castillo. (70) By the middle of the decade Vinten, the beleaguered

administrator, expressed dismay over what to him appeared a one-sided

argument by St. Augustine city government: the Castillo should provide

the land for bay-front parking and the widening of Fort Marion Circle for

traffic purposes. (71)

68. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "MISSION 66

Prospectus," (CASA, April 10, 1956), p. 16.

69. Vinten to Regional Director, April 12, 1950, CASA.

70. Ibid.

71. Vinten to Regional Director, June 6, 1955, and attached document,

"A Summary of Federal-City Relations and Recommendations Concerning

City and Federal Cooperation St. Augustine, Florida," by C.R. Vinten

Superintendent, CASA (see Appendix H).

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

58
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

A lack of sustained, long-range planning distressed him more, as he

expressed it:

An investment in an adequate long-range plan for the City is

the foundation upon which to build a zoning ordinance, a long

range plan for utilities, and a plan for preserving and

interpreting Colonial St. Augustine as an important milestone in

the history of the entire western hemisphere. There will never

be a better time nor a cheaper time to start such a constructive

and far-seeing program. (72)

His overall assessment of St. Augustine planning came down to

"Hit-and-Miss," which accrued to the detriment of a very historically

significant community. (73) In contrast Vinten felt efforts at planning by

the National Park Service through the years had been solid but often

rebuffed by city officials. (74) Despite his expressed concerns, Vinten

developed and maintained good working relations most of the time though

by the end of his tenure rifts and strain surfaced with the local

community. After retiring Vinten contracted as a planner with Florida

State Parks and later accepted reappointment as Safety Officer for the

Southeast Region of the National Park Service. (75)

Roberts Administration

Following the retirement of Vinten in July of 1961 Bertrum C. Roberts,

assistant superintendent at Mammoth Cave National Park arrived as

superintendent of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas. In the

nearly five years Roberts served as superintendent a number of projects

culminated that had been moving forward for several years. The major

72. Ibid., p. 7.

73. Vinten to Wolfe, July 26, 1955, CASA.

74. Vinten to Regional Director, June 6, 1955, CASA, p. 2, 4-6.

75. Vinten-oral history.

59
I

ones included the Cubo Line, road relocation, parking facilities and new

administration building at the Castillo. Dock rehabilitation (1963), a

sizeable land donation (see above, 1962-1964), storm cleanup from

Hurricane Dora in 1964, and a rehabilitated but temporary parking area

for sixty cars (1962) comprised the major project developments at Fort

Matanzas. Accomplished through archeological and historical research and

completed in time for the four hundredth anniversary celebration, the

reconstruction of a portion of the Cubo Line defenses helped define for

visitors the important role played by adjacent fortifications. The

techniques employed in simulating the logs and laying them up exemplified

the quality engineering and workmanship of Park Service staff at the

Castillo. (76)

Worthy of note, the Cubo Line project had no priority status whatsoever

in Park Service planning documents, rather it developed because of the

untiring efforts of Earle Newton, Executive Director of the St. Augustine

Historical and Preservation Commission. The commission, a

state-appointed group with little financial backing, lobbied assiduously for

reconstructing various earthwork lines extending west of the City Gate to

Cordova Street and south to the national cemetery then back to the

bay. (77) By late fall the decision had been made to include a portion of

the historic defense line at the expense of the National Park Service.

76. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report - CASA, p. 458. See

also excellent photo documentation in photographic files, Administration

Building, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

77. Vinten to Regional Director, December 31, 1959, National Park

Service, CASA; Vinten to Regional Director, June 17, 1960, National Park

Service, CASA; Newton to Kahler, May 31, 1960, National Park Service,

CASA; Scoyen to Newton, August (no date), 1960, National Park Service,

CASA; Newton to Scoyen, September 6, 1960, National Park Service,

CASA; Burns to Vinten, September 27, 1960, National Park Service,

CASA; Vinten to Regional Director, October 5, 1960, National Park

Service, CASA.

60

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

An especially vexing problem associated with the Cubo Line which Roberts

addressed involved restoring the City Gate, including the removal of

vehicular traffic passing through it. This permitted some sense of the

historic scene to be conveyed to the public even though the relocated

Fort Marion Circle separated the gate, associated moat, and short portion

of the Cubo Line from the longer portion of the reconstructed line. In

1965 the new highway, Castillo Drive completed the revamped western

boundary of the monument.

A major celebration and a significant building project also characterized

Roberts' years in Florida. Perhaps the most significant event at the

Castillo in many years happened in 1965, the four hundredth anniversary

of the founding of the outpost by Spanish Admiral Pedro Menendez de

Aviles in 1565. Roberts recalled his years in St. Augustine as being

particularly challenging in that residents, though aware of the rich

historical resources, seemed intent on commercializing everything. (78) At

another point he referred to the battle to keep residents, "as honest as

we could keep them, and at the same time, stay friendly, "(79) A

longstanding problem of office arrangements for park administrative staff

reached solution during this period with the completion of a new

administration and maintenance building. Located on the northwest corner

of the monument grounds the structure provided much needed space for

staff and park functions beginning in January 1965.

Davenport Administration

When Roberts left in late 1965 to become superintendent of Assateague

Island National Seashore the Park Service chose L. Theodore Davenport

78. U. S. Department of Interior, National Park Service, Transcript of

Oral History Interview of Bertrum C. Roberts by Herbert Evison, Harpers

Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services, March 26, 1971,

p. 5.

79. Ibid.

61
J

as his replacement. He reported in February from Ozark National Scenic

Riverways where he served as first superintendent. Davenport arrived

at a time of relative calm as the staff caught its collective breat.h

following several years of considerable activity leading up to the

celebration of founding four hundred years before. Major activity at Fort

Matanzas consisted of stabilizing the shorelines of Rattlesnake and

Anastasia Islands preventing erosion on the perimeter of Fort Matanzas,

and struggling to maintain accessibility for the visitors by

concession-operated boat service from the visitor center to the fort.

Intermittent service had been provided from the early 1940's but always

at the prospect of losing money and needing a subsidy; in the fall of 1970

service stopped entirely. As the decade of the sixties came to a close it

became clearer that commercial development, pushing southward on

Anastasia Island, portended change and probable adverse impact on Fort

Matanzas. By 1969 a pompano fish hatchery complex including canals

threatened the immediate boundary near the visitor center. (80) Castillo

on the other hand, given all the attention devoted to it prior to the

celebration, had only routine maintenance performed on it during these

years. For Davenport, managing the three historical areas of Matanzas,

Caroline and Castillo represented a change since all of his assignments

had been in natural areas. He sought to cooperate with the local

community by providing "a unified program wherein we tell not just the

story of Castillo but the story of St. Augustine. "(81) As a contextual

approach, it is reminiscent of Kahler's attempts upon his arrival as the

first superintendent.

80. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Black and

white photo, photo file, M485, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

81. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Transcript

of Oral History Interview of L. Theodore Davenport by Albert Manucy,

Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services,

February 15, 1971, p. 39.

62

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

F

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

Schesventer Administration

With a variety of background in parks emphasizing natural, archeological,

and historical resources, most recently at the Mound City Group, George

F. Schesventer became superintendent in March 1971. In the ensuing

nine years a variety of planning documents, maintenance projects,

encroaching development and community relations activities kept him

occupied. The year after arrival new and lasting ferryboat service

became available at Fort Matanzas under the auspices of Richard Orsini on

a continuing and full-time basis. (82) Initially under a concession

arrangement the operator collected a fee, however in September 1973, the

Park Service placed it under a contract arrangement and the operation

became free to the visitor. (83)

Encroachment toward Fort Matanzas continued, and in February 1972

developers met with Schesventer in regard to a twenty-acre site

immediately north of the boundary on the ocean. The regional staff,

ignoring frequent pleas of the superintendent, chose not to exert

pressure to influence zoning; by a vote of three to two the St. John's

County Zoning Commission favored a condominium development which in an

unplanned way projected to a capacity of 750,000 people. (84) Within a

decade much of the monument surroundings would become another urban

park; in July of 1980 construction of the Summerhouse condominiums

began on the shore adjacent to Matanzas beach.

82. Superintendent's Monthly Report, December 1972, CASA.

83. "The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and

Fort Matanzas National Monuments For The Year 1973,11 CASA, p. 9.

84. Ibid. ; U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

Transcript of Oral History Interview of George F. Schesventer by Herbert

Evison, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of Archival and Library Services,

November 8, 1973, p. 32; Telephone interview with Robert C. Amdor,

National Park Service; Whitman Mission National Historic Site, March 19,

1986.

63
A potential threat addressed in 1974 focused on the buildup of a shoal

from Anastasia Island across the Matanzas River to the boundary on

Rattlesnake Island, where a breakthrough occurred from a hurricane ten

years earlier; land access to Fort Matanzas from Anastasia Island could

possibly be effected by nature. Should that be the case, the human

threat to the historic resource would increase considerably, thus at the

request of the Park Service the Corps of Engineers agreed to close the

breakthrough which they completed in January 1977. (85)

Concern over the deteriorating condition of Fort Matanzas found its way

into reports beginning in the mid-seventies as woodboring insects

attacked major floor supports. (86) After securing monies for historic

resource studies, work on such got underway in 1978 to be completed in

August of 1980. Simultaneously planning for stabilizing the fort

proceeded at the Denver Service Center and work commenced late in

1979. (87) The project included replacement of the roof deck, terreplein

deck, and metal tie rods plus masonry repair to the subgrade scarps;

reconstruction of the tabby floor of the second story; building and

installation of stairs, scupper, and cannon carriages completed the

project. New docks on both Anastasia and Rattlesnake islands, finished

the previous year, provided important facilities for visitors and personnel

of the stabilization project.

85. St. Augustine, Florida, "The National Park Service History of

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments For The

Year 1974," CASA, p. 15 (hereafter cited as "The National Park Service

History of" et al.).

86. St. Augustine, Florida, "The National Park Service History of

Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments For The

Year 1976," CASA, p. 54; Interpretive Specialist - History to

Chief-Interpretation and Visitor Services, August 18, 1977, CASA.

87. The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort

Matanzas National Monuments for the Year 1978," CASA, pp. 34-36, 52;

"The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort

Matanzas National Monuments For The Year 1979," CASA, p. 62.

64

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

During the Schesventer years changes took place at the Castillo which

reflected certain management points of view. A substantial commitment to

living history programs gained much momentum during this period with

demonstration firing of cannon and firearms by staff dressed in period

costume. Celebrations (see following chapter) commemorated the three

hundredth anniversary of the building of the Castillo and the one

hundredth birthday of the national parks in 1972, and several events

associated with the bicentennial of the United States in 1976. A museum

conservator from Harpers Ferry Center examined artifact storage and

conditions; cataloging, cleaning and storing of objects got underway in

1976. The same year park staff removed several trees to return the

glacis to something of an historical setting. Redesigned, repaved, and

restriped, the Castillo parking lot functioned better after the improvement

in 1978.

A variety of planning projects took shape. These included historic

structure reports for both monuments, a natural resource management

plan, review of the master plans and an interpretive prospectus. Other

special studies involved archeology, sea oats, waves, currents and

sediments. In February 1979 the Department of Transportation of the

state of Florida ceded 0.141 acres of land to Castillo de San Marcos which

by virtue of the relocated Fort Marion Circle (now Castillo Drive)

reverted to the federal government. In 1978 Superintendent Schesventer

redressed an encroachment made prior to 1933 on government property on

the south side of the City Gate. Schesventer, very much a staunch

proponent of resource protection and alert for threats to the resources,

on the other hand seemed not to reflect the same concern for staff and

community relations. In 1980 an Operations Evaluation Team report led to

his transfer to Fort Caroline National Memorial.

Aikens Administration

Following Schesventer, Martha B. Aikens assumed the superintendency in

December, 1980 after completion of the Departmental Management

65
I

Development Program. As the first double minority superintendent (black

woman) Aikens recalled the community reaction of "wait and see," or a

kind of guarded acceptance. (88) With park experience as unit manager at

Gateway/Breezy Point and in Everglades National Park she addressed a

number of issues in need of resolution at St. Augustine. A source of

irritation for the park maintenance staff and law enforcement rangers

concerned the after hours use of the parking area by patrons of nearby

local businesses, who used the monument as a meeting place and

repository for much litter. The decision to place gates across the

entrance and exit and close them each day met with much opposition, but

received acceptance when management agreed to make the lot available for

special events. Staff morale also improved due to the transfer of the

Ranger office from damp, leaky Casemate #1 to Casemate #23.

At Fort Matanzas the County Zoning Board agreed to requests from

Superintendent Aikens to provide for special zoning regulations so that

developers would be required to plant shrubbery to soften some of the

visual impact of the condominiums hard by the park boundary.(89)

During this time a donation box (part of the management efficiency) on

board the ferryboat to the fort served to defray costs of the contracted

service. An awareness of protecting natural resources resulted in an

active dunes stabilization program involving snow fence installation and

vegetation plaitings. Sea turtle and Least Tern programs received special

emphases too. Emphasis placed on park maintenance resulted in

replacement of the drawbridge and rejuvenation of grounds at the

Castillo, and rewiring of facilities at Fort Matanzas. Several changes in

the interpretive program included construction of a boardwalk nature trail

at Fort Matanzas, staffing coverages at both monuments, rehabilitation of

museum exhibits and torchlight tours at the Castillo. At the latter, new

regulations permitted under the Code of Federal Regulations in 1983,

88. Telephone interview with Martha B. Aikens, National Park Service,

Washington, D. C., August 12, 1985.

89. Ibid.

66

I

I

1

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1
I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

allowed restrictions on several forms of recreation on the green. Pet.s,

food, and beverages, no longer allowed inside the Castillo, also reflected

management concerns for increased recreational pressures. Seemingly in

part because of community attitudes toward minorities and a lack of social

contacts, Aikens left in November of 1983 for a position of Interpretive

Specialist in the Washington Office, National Park Service.

Griffin Administration

Barbara J. Griffin of the Southeastern Regional Office staff assumed the

superintendency in March of 1984. A former Programs Officer in the

region, she became superintendent during a period of routine activities at

the two national monuments. During the remainder of 1984 small

construction jobs completed included resurfacing roads at Fort Matanzas

and placing lightweight wooden rails along the east parapet and on

particular firing steps for preservation and safety purposes at the

Castillo.

Griffin's administration attempted to seek more ways of cooperating with

the community through participating in events such as Special Olympics,

preservation activities, sharing of visitor survey information and

heightening community awareness for protecting park resources. (90) In a

community whose economic base is tourism Griffin reported numerous

requests (e.g., ticket sales for tour trains or added products at the gift

shop) for utilizing portions of the Castillo . grounds for commercial

purposes. (91) As urban parks, it seems quite likely that the two

monuments increasingly will face various pressures in a region that is

growing; vigilance of resources remains constant though threats change

as the twentieth century nears a close.

90. Telephone interview with Barbara J. Griffin, CASA, August 14,

1985.

91. Ibid.

67
IIII1IIIIIIIIIIIInI
I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

CHAPTER 4: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: PROGRAMS AND RELATIONS

INTERPRETATION

From the sometimes imaginative guided tours of Sergeant George M. Brown

to the costumed Park Service Rangers and volunteers presenting living

history, interpreting the past to the visitor has been an important

function at Fort Matanzas and Castillo de San Marcos national monuments.

During years of War Department management the Castillo had an

increasing number of visitors meandering through the fortification on

their own or being led through by military personnel or caretakers such

as Brown. Interpretation, a term which came into usage during the

1930s, meant providing the visiting public with information about an area

through a variety of techniques and mediums. From the beginning of

visitation to the Castillo the spoken word became the common form of

presenting historical information and the guided tour the format. Form

and format continued with little change until 1935 when the National Park

Service assumed management of the two areas. Variances from this

approach included a guidebook authored by Brown and an exhibit initiated

in 1914 when the St. Augustine Historical Society began to place museum

objects in the casemates of the Castillo. Apparently, few exhibits

pertained to the history of the area or linked together the structures,

historical past or exhibit cases. In short, the guided tour served as the

dominant medium with the setting and structures conveying the remainder

of the interpretive story.

During the late autumn of 1934 Historical Technician Herbert Kahler

remarked to Chief of the Historical Division Chatelain that the revisions to

the museum would permit irrelevant materials to be removed and placed in

storage. (1) He believed the story of the Castillo should be presented

1. Kahler to Chatelain, December 10, 1934, National Park Service RG

79, NA.

69
I

through relevant exhibits and descriptive materials, including photographs

of the monuments and personages associated with them. (2) To his credit,

Kahler's particular emphasis focused on the Spanish past:

Fort Marion's chief historical significance lies in the period of

exploration, colonization and colonial rivalry in the Caribbean

area . . . The fortifications were at their height of glory

toward the end of the first period of Spanish occupation. (3)

To restore the Spanish atmosphere, as Kahler put it, should be the

interpretive focus of the two national monuments. To accomplish this, he

believed:

Three or four casemates in the fort should be used as a

museum for displaying maps, graphic devices, dioramas and

such materials as will help the visitor to interpret the rich

cultural complex and realize the tremendous fascinating story

associated with Fort Marion. (4)

He added that guide service provided by intelligent and well trained staff

plus readable, accurate and illustrated literature should be available to

the visitor. (5)

The major enhancement of the interpretive program by Kahler emanated

from his choice of Albert C. Manucy as junior Research Technician.

Manucy, a St. Augustine native, had completed a graduate degree at the

University of Florida and secured a position in 1934 as researcher with

the Civil Works Administration at Fort Matanzas and Castillo de San

Marcos under the supervision of Kahler. With an academic background in

2. Ibid.; Kahler to Director, February 10, 1936, National Park Service,

RG 79, NA.

3. Kahler to Director, October 28, 1938, National Park Service, RG 79,

NA.

4. Ibid.

5. Ibid.

70

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

English, Fine Arts and Spanish, Manucy proved very capable; however,

because of the depression he accepted short term employment for a few

years with various Relief Administration projects, including research on

Fort Jefferson at Key West and supervision of the Federal Writers Project

in St. Augustine. (6) When the Carnegie Institution began its project in

St. Augustine under the direction of Verne E. Chatelain, former Chief

Historian of the National Park Service, it used members of the writers

project staff. (7) In time Chatelain placed them on his payroll and Manucy

accomplished historical research, photography and translation of Spanish

documents.

Then in November of 1938 he joined the National Park Service for what

became a long and distinguished career, some twenty-eight years in St.

Augustine. If timing counts in the launching of a managing bureau then

the timing of career launching in the bureau does too. Hard times and

small budgets proved to be fertile ground for talented and skilled

individuals such as Manucy. He variously completed historical research,

architectural research and drawing, photography, graphics for exhibits,

historic site archeology, construction and maintenance supervision,

planning and interpretive displays, in addition to overseeing interpretive

programs, not only at the Castillo and Fort Matanzas, but at other parks

in the cluster of Southeastern National Monuments. Region One Historian

Roy E. Appleman summed up Manucy in complimenting the interpretive

program of the monuments when he wrote, "He has performed at one and

the same time the function of an historian, museum technician, artist, and

model builder. "(8)

6. U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Transcript

of Reminiscences by Albert C. Manucy, Harpers Ferry Center, Branch of

Archival and Library Services, November 11, 1972, pp. 1-2.

7. Ibid., pp. 2-5.

8. Appleman to Regional Director, September 15, 1946, CASA, p. 1.

71
Changes in the interpretive program included two innovations that

reflected the efforts of Manucy to educate the public about the historical

past through a radio program and a newspaper column. Radio station

WFOY in St. Augustine carried scripts written by him, Rhoda Emma Neel

and F. Hilton Crowe for several months in 1939. For purposes of public

information and enlightenment, beginning in 1942 Manucy wrote a

newspaper column that ran ten years under the titles "With the Park

Ranger" and "The Castillo Sentry." Historical accuracy and context

guided the efforts to give visitors insights into the past at St.

Augustine. Instead of discrete bits of information the interpretive effort

for the public sought to bring together historical data, historic structures

and setting, plus audio and visual mediums in a unified presentation. To

achieve part of the interpretive program the Park Service needed trained

guides to lead tours every half hour; Castillo guides in 1939 numbered

ten "carefully selected and trained in both local and national history. "(9)

Supplementing tours, the program also included museum exhibits such as

a display of coquina to illustrate building properties, and the

aforementioned radio broadcasts. (10)

At Fort Matanzas in 1940 interpretation consisted of a guide who gave a

brief orientation talk in the passageway of the administration building

near a "crude model" of the fort. Near the wharf, from which the fort

may be viewed, "about a five minute historical talk" was given. (11) The

inspection report added, "The visitor, no doubt, goes away entirely

dissatisfied," as powerboat transportation is unavailable; it added that

such should be made available "without delay." Rowboats, the report

9. Press Release, "Freeland Discusses Development Program at Fort

Marion National Monument," July 24, 1939, CASA, p. 5.

10. Ibid.

11. Lattimore, "Inspection Report, , Interpretive Program, Fort Matanzas

National Monument, July 13, 1940, CASA, p. 3.

72

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

noted, though available, were rather dangerous. (12) Those visitors who

reached the fort conducted themselves through it. Ronald F. Lee, then

National Park Service Supervisor of Historic Sites, recommended guided

tours for information and to prevent defacement of the resource should

visitors wander through on their own. (13) To inform park staff, the

historian prepared notes on museum exhibits and placed them on file at

Fort Matanzas, where a small exhibit in the visitor center-office conveyed

information for the 1565-1740 period. (14) A variety of documents

generated by Park Service researchers through the years (see following

section) served to fill in gaps and details of the archeological and

historical record at both monuments.

Kahler inaugurated colored slide presentations to give visitors an

historical overview of the Castillo. Through trial and error, management

discovered that visitors preferred to walk around the fort for a time

before sitting through a slide show. During the Vinten years a number

of color films, many on National Park Service areas, supplemented the

interpretive program for community groups and organizations. (15) A

Children's Hour program inaugurated at the time proved very popular at

the Castillo on Saturday mornings. Upon admission a slide show of

fifteen to twenty minutes presented local history topics, then the children

participated in a tour to certain parts of the Castillo. As local history

topics wore thin a number of slide shows with scripts from other Park

Service areas, especially in the southeastern states, found usage. (16)

12. Ibid.

13. Lee to Director, September 17, 1941, National Park Service RG 79,

NA.

14. Historian to Administrative Aid, March 21, 1955, CASA.

15. "Narrative Report of Historian Albert C. Manucy, Southeastern

National Monuments for March, 1949,11 CASA, p. 1.

16. Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, Vinten to Coordinating

Superintendent, November 25, 1943i, Harpers Ferry Center: Branch of

Archival and Library Services, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument

and Fort Matanzas National Monument Correspondence files.

73
The first Saturday attendance reached "close to 150 children," and park

staff soon came to realize the potential of educating children about the

national parks, and not just local history. (17) Another aspect of the

interpretive program provided visitors with a folder about the monuments,

while the concessioner sold copies of Manucy's The Building of Castillo de

San Marcos and The History of Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas

from Contemporary Narratives and Letters, along with Castillo, a booklet

prepared by the concessioner. (18)

During the latter 1950s into the 1960s problems developed with the quality

of guided tour experiences at the Castillo. Some rangers lacked initiative

and gave perfunctory walk-throughs of the fort; they tended to

sensationalize the past and gave talks with little historical substance and

no historical context. (19) Management promoted the easy answer couched

in an entertaining style while the supervisor encouraged educating the

public through solid historical content and context. (20) Equivocating,

the park historian urged the supervisor to do as he saw fit. (21)

Advances in technology made appearances at Matanzas and the Castillo

through the years . An audio station system beginning in 1959 provided a

taped message at nine locations at the Castillo. The stations frustrated

staff because of malfunctions : "often we have two or three speakers out

17. Ibid.; Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, Harper Ferry Center: Branch

of Archival and Library Service, Regional Director to Superintendent,

Morristown National Historical Park, October 15, 1943, Castillo de San

Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument

correspondence files.

18. Narrative Report of Historian, March 1949, CASA p. 2.

19. Telephone interview with Edwin C. Bearss, National Park Service,

Washington, D. C., November 15, 1985.

20. Telephone interview with Luis R. Arana, National Park Service,

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, November 12, 1985.

21. Ibid.

74

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I
I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

of commission at the same time, the superintendent reported. (22)

MaLanzas had one audio station near the visitor center pier which "is used

by practically every visitor to the park. "(23) Perhaps the biggest.

investment in an interpretive program began in 1962 with a concessioner

owned and operated program known as Sound and Light. A success with

European audiences and sponsored by the Washington Office of the Park

Service, the presentation used special effects--lighting and stereophonic

sound to convey to the audience a sense of the history associated with

the Castillo and St. Augustine. (24) To be pioneered at the Castillo (and

Independence National Historical Park), the investment by Marineland of

the Pacific (associated with Marineland of Florida) totaled something over.

$400,000 for purposes of testing the American Market. (25)

The project consumed much time and effort because of the need to

construct a permanent installation of technical equipment and seating

which occupied the southwest terreplein in a somewhat obtrusive manner.

A flurry of letters and memoranda flowed to and from St. Augustine as

various installation requests and change orders came forth. (26) The

bleachers had to be set up and taken down each performance and one

casemate had to be specially equipped and air conditioned to handle the

electronic equipment. On August 2-3, 1962, the first showings presented

to a private audience experienced several technical problems but generally

22. Superintendent's Annual Report, July 1, 1958-May 31, 1959, CASA.

23. Ibid.

24. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service,

News Release, CASA, April 28, 1965; Oral History Transcript, Roberts

pp. 7-8.

25. Ibid.

26. Nutt to Chief Architect, Eastern Office of Design and Construction,

March 27, 1962, CASA; Superintendent to Regional Director, June 15,

1962, CASA.

75
I

the reaction proved favorable. (27) Superintendent Roberts, not an

advocate of the new presentation, noted that the contract. expired al Ler

five years, or sooner if desired. (28) As an evening drama depicting the

conflicts of Spain, France and Great Britain, the production lagged in

attendance and by late April of 1965, management decided to terminate the

contract. (29) Sound and Light Corporation of America petitioned to have

the contract revoked and no other contractor could be assigned the

unexpired portion, according to Roberts. (30) Clearly it came down to a

financial disaster as ticket sales never paid the expenses despite the

promise of many more tourists during 1965 because of the 400th

anniversary of the founding of St. Augustine. Severe attendance drops

in 1964 due to racial unrest hampered receipts, too.

Through the years initial contact with the public began at the sallyport

or perhaps the drawbridge, however, in the mid-sixties visitor contact in

the parking lot gained support. Superintendent Roberts expressed

concern for improved contact and quality of tours plus revised scripts for

the audio stations. (31) After a survey, a decision to put one interpreter

in the parking lot addressed some public contact problems and a close

observation of ranger-interpreters brought out "a lack of warmth" and

listlessness "when greeting visitors. "(32 ) Audio station scripts

underwent revision and rewriting with more emphasis placed on Spanish

terminology and names, while additional staff received training in repair

and upkeep of the audio units. (33)

27. Superintendent to Regional Director, August 5, 1962, CASA.

28. Ibid.

29. News Release.

30. Ibid.

31. Notes of Employees Meeting, July 15, 1965, CASA, pp. 1-2.

32. Ibid., p. 1.

33. Ibid., p. 2.

I

76

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

With the advent of the Schesventer administration, which became more

sensitive to interpretation than previous ones, a considerable increase in

living history demonstrations began in 1973; most took the form of cannon

and matchlock musket firings at the Castillo. In that year alone 865 more

cannon and twelve more musket firings occurred than during the previous

year, while at Matanzas 104 firings plus 3,786 talks reflected new

emphases in the interpretive program. (34) This pattern continued and

raw numbers of firings and programs increased in 1974, especially with an

emphasis on "living history" of the British period and uniforms and

accouterments of the Spanish and United States periods. (35) Museum

exhibits at the Castillo took on a decidedly British flavor as the nation's

bicentennial approached. For the mid seventies period heavy emphasis on

living history continued (more than 1200 cannon and 600 musket firings

annually) with an interpretive activity every half hour. (36) Rehabilitated

and new museum exhibits arrived at Fort Matanzas, where installation

required eight months to complete. In 1976 weapons demonstrations

increased in number, though fewer cannon firings underscored

precautions taken in the heavy use of black powder and the deterioration

of the cannon tubes. Interpretive activities at the Castillo took place

every twenty minutes as visitation climbed some fifty-two percent over

1975.(37) Interpreters kept the Matanzas visitor center open each day

and a costumed interpreter detailed to the fort proper presented a

number of talks and interacted informally with visitors.

In 1971 a planning team visited the monuments and local area in an

attempt to develop an interpretive prospectus. Their procedures and

process, plus the identified interpretive theme, left much to be desired

34. "The National Park Service History of CASA," 1973, CASA,

8-10.

35. Ibid., 1974, pp. 11-13.

36. Ibid., 1975, pp. 12-14.

37. Ibid., 1976, pp. 18-19.

77

PP.
I

and illustrated the need for a fundamental and necessary step in the

planning process: park staff involvement. A know-it-all attitude

precluded dialogue and focus. Thus, the interpretive prospectus

languished until the latter seventies. (38) The need to focus on the

Spanish presence in Florida (the borderlands) as opposed to the whole

Spanish colonial system in America escaped the planners and to some

extent may yet be lacking today. (39)

Adjustments in the interpretive program made in 1977 included an

emphasis on safety, protection of historic resources and change due to

differing patterns of visitation. Eliminated for safety reasons, cannon

firings totaled zero and reduction of musket firings begun.(40) Visitation

dropped significantly at the Castillo so the staff offered fewer tours and

began to schedule many more school groups oriented by "off-site

materials, pre-visit, and on-site visitation materials. "(41) Also, tours on

the green around the Castillo seemed relaxing to interpretive staff

members and the setting permitted more remarks to be directed toward

the Castillo in the world and the development of historical context. (42)

At Fort Matanzas a repeater message on the ferryboat gave an orientation

en route to the fort and the interpreter, in eighteenth century Spanish

or English uniform, "stressed the life of the soldier in the outpost rather

than stressing weapons firing. "(43)

38. Staff Historian to Associate Regional Director, August 11, 1975,

CASA; Associate Regional Director to Superintendent, August 25, 1975,

CASA; Luis Arana,"One Who Wasn't Pillaged," undated, CASA.

39. Ibid.

40. "The National Park Service History of CASA," 1977, CASA, pp.

18-22, 24-25.

41. Ibid., p. 21.

42. Ibid., p. 22.

43. Ibid., p. 25.

78

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

U

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

For the years 1978-1979 firings of cannon (a reproduction model) and

musket continued to increase, particularly at the Castillo, despite

adherence to safety regulations and limits on living history programs. (44)

Between 1980-1984 the Volunteer In The Parks (VIP) program increased

significantly, especially in the living history program which had in excess

of 150 individuals. Changes during this time sought to vary interpretive

talks with other mediums including museum exhibits (permanent and

temporary), different levels of interpretation through visitor profiles and

candlelight tours of the Castillo twice a year. (45 ) Interpretive personnel

rotated during the week from Castillo to Fort Matanzas and return, and

reported the variety to be a welcome change while staffing both areas

seven days a week. (46) In 1984 an approved statement for interpretation

and visitor services addressed management influences and concerns;

summarized program constraints, themes and objectives including intended

audience for both national monuments ; and gave an overview of the

program. (47) In sum, the program consists of guided walks, roving

contacts, firing demonstrations, living history focused on daily life,

museum exhibits and special events such as tours, celebrations or

commemorative activities. (48)

SPECIAL EVENTS AND VISITORS

A long tradition of special events and commemorative celebrations dating

to the nineteenth century exists for the two national monuments,

44. Ibid., 1978, pp. 17-19, 21-22; 1979, pp. 16-17, 20-21.

45. Aikens, telephone interviews ; Griffin, telephone interviews.

46. Aikens, telephone interview.

47. St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument,

"Statement for Interpretation and Visitor Services for Castillo de San

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments," by Chief of Interpretation

and Resource Management, July 12, 1984, CASA.

48. Ibid.

79
I

especially the Castillo. Proximity of a community to a military installation

from the early Spanish period forward lent itself to a socialization process

including public use of military facilities. Within the purview of this

history numerous requests to use the Castillo have been considered and

permitted by the various government departments administering it.

Usages have run the gamut from Ministerial Alliance-sponsored Easter

sunrise services on the terreplein to Business Men's League-sponsored

Ponce de Leon celebrations complete with costumes and pageantry during

the first third of the twentieth century. Other events of a random

nature have included Labor Day (1913), Chamber of Commerce band

concert (1913), Power Boat Club grandstand (1914), Armistice Day (1926)

and Order of Elks Industrial Exposition (1926).(49)

After the two areas came under management of the National Park Service

in 1935 fewer such events took place, although the largest and most

significant ones have been since then. At Fort Matanzas the single major

celebration commemorated the French-Spanish conflict in the southeast and

took place at the dedication of the newly completed caretaker residence

and office complex, October 12, 1937. Several major celebrations took

place at the Castillo but the two which stand out happened during the

entire years of 1965 and 1972. These were the 400th anniversary of

founding St. Augustine; the 300th anniversary of the construction of the

Castillo; and the centennial observance of the establishment of Yellowstone

National Park. By coincidence, only two years separated the St.

Augustine Quadricentennial in 1965 from the expected completion of both

fort's MISSION 66 projects in 1967. As a gesture of Park Service

cooperation toward the local celebration, Director Wirth moved up funding

so that all work could be finished, if possible, in 1965 (50).

49. Scattered references of celebrations are reported in many files at

CASA and RG 79, NA.

50. Conversation with Luis Arana, September 11, 1985.

80

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Progressively, the British room rehabilitation, the Cubo Line

reconstruction, the administration building, cashier booth, latrine

stabilization, City Gate improvements, the road relocation and new

parking area, the southwest glacis restoration and new museum exhibits

became realities. But a limited terreplein waterproofing, sprinkler system

installation and cannon carriage construction drawings did not see

completion until 1966. And Matanzas made ready for the 400th through

land acquisition, dock renovation, shoreline stabilization and intermittent

ferryboat service by a concessioner.

Visitors to St. Augustine during 1965 discovered many extra events

scheduled to coincide with certain key anniversaries. A partial list

includes: Opening Day Ceremony, January 1 (special visitors from Spain,

torchlight parade and cannon salute); Fiesta de Menendez, February 13-14

(street dances, pageant, descendants of early Spanish families to be

hosts); Fiesta of Flags, February 27-28 (commemoration of various flags

flown over Castillo); re-creation of historic Ponce de Leon celebration,

blessing of fleet and Easter sunrise, April; celebration of 400th

anniversary of Menendez landing, September 8; dedication of anniversary

monument and formal ending of celebration. (51) Substantially greater

numbers visited Fort Matanzas and Castillo during the celebratory year

with July attendance at the latter breaking the 100,000 mark, a record

not reached again until July, 1971 (see Appendix G). For comparison

purposes, a caveat to be noted is the racial tension and civil rights

activities during the summer of 1964 that significantly reduced the number

of tourists in St. Augustine and at the Castillo in particular (see

Appendix G). All in all the sixties prior to the anniversary proved to be

a very energized period of park improvements, restoration, construction

and general readiness for the main event in September 1965.

51. St. Augustine, Florida, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument,

"Schedule of Events for 400th Anniversary celebration," unpublished,

CASA.

81
Some seven years later townspeople, park staff and visitors participated

in celebrations for two anniversaries, the National Parks centennial

(1872-1972) and the tricentennial of the building of the Castillo de San

Marcos itself. Similar to those in 1965, a series of special events

celebrated the year and included an art show/open house in March; an

investiture of the Spanish Royal Family pageant in April; a summer

historic recreation site oriented program for children in June; a program

recalling Menendez's founding of St. Augustine in September; a bronze

plaque at the City Gate placed by the Florida chapter of the Colonial

Dames of America; and several journal articles published by the St.

Augustine Historical Society. (52)

Over the years several special visitors have come to the Castillo and to a

much lesser extent, Fort Matanzas; many in association with special

events or celebrations. Numerous Spanish officials scheduled stops at the

monuments and in St. Augustine too, including Ambassadors Jaime

Arguellas, Angel Sagaz, Jaime Alba, Jose Llado; then Prince Juan Carlos

de Borbon; Spanish Consuls General Jose Luis de la Guardia, Jose Luis

Litago, and Don Vicente Ramirez -Montesinos; Jaime Pinies, Spanish

Ambassador to the United Nations; Prince Alphonse de Borbon, Duke of

Cadiz; Lieutenant General Camilo Alonso, Minister.of the Interior; Admiral

Luis Aravalo, Spanish Chief of Naval Operations Minister of the Army;

Manuel Fraga Iriborne, Minister of Tourism and Information; Manuel de

Prado and Colon de Carvajal and Luis Yanez, presidents of the

Iberoamerican Institute for Cultural Cooperation; and the Grupo de

Danzas de Aviles. Other visitors have included Governors Romero

Barcelo, Puerto Rico and Bob Graham of Florida; former Secretary of the

Interior Stewart L. Udall; Prince Andrew of Great Britain; Consul General

of Great Britain Michael Hewitt; and Prince Sanidh Rangst and Princess

Christine of Thailand. (53) The importance of bilingual Park Service staff

52. St. Augustine, Florida, "Castillo de San Marcos National Monument

Centennial/Tri-centennial Calendar 1972," unpublished, CASA.

53. Superintendent's Monthly Repotts and Annual Reports, 1960-1984,

CASA.

82

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

at the fortifications is apparent to assist the many Spanish-speaking

visitors each year.

RESEARCH

History

A long and rather distinguished history of research may be identified at

the Castillo de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments. Twin

goals have guided the research program: data on which to base

preservation of the resources and interpretation of the resources to the

public. Most likely, the first significant effort to produce information

from research to guide restoration goes back to 1884 when the War

Department sought information through the State Department from the

United States Minister in Madrid. (54) From various archival sources

copies of two original plans of Castillo and one of St. Augustine produced

the information desired for guiding restoration of the Castillo. (55) The

search for archival data in Spain has not only the significance of

establishing a long and continuing tradition of research at the two

monuments, but the singular importance of being initiated by an 1884

congressional appropriation of $5,000 specifically for preservation. (56)

This came almost five years before the more widely acclaimed preservation

efforts for Casa Grande ruins. Two products of lesser quality but

nevertheless in keeping with the provision of information for use in

interpreting the Castillo are the guidebooks for visitors written by

Sergeant George M. Brown and William J. Harris.

When the National Park Service accepted responsibility for administering

the forts coordinating Superintendent Richard B. Randolph of

54. Bearss and Paige, Historic Structure Report-CASA, pp. 294-295.

55. Arana, "Notes," footnote 7, pp. 72-73.

56. Ibid., p. 293.

83
I

Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park designated Herberl.

Kahler as custodian and Civil Works Administration (CWA) representative.

Kahler supervised a small cadre of researchers including Albert Manucy

who worked on local history topics and completed measured drawings of

Matanzas, Castillo and other local structures for the Historic American

Buildings Survey. (57) This effort launched an ongoing research focus by

National Park Service managers from the beginning.

Identification of the need for research and the special problems it

presented came early in the Park Service years. Junior Research

Technician Manucy and Superintendent Kahler quickly sized up the

paucity of information to guide interpretive programs and preservation of

resources. A lack of Spanish source material in local repositories

generated concerns that per diem and travel expenses must be found to

provide for research trips to obtain materials at the North Carolina

Division of Archives and History, the Stetson Collection at the University

of Florida and in time, at the Archives of the Indies plus several other

repositories in Spain. (58) The assessment also pointed up the timeless

problem of a staff consumed with administrative and public contact duties

to the neglect of the central purpose for the existence of the parks and

the park system: preservation of the resources. (59) Manucy in time

capitalized on the advocacy of managers such as Appleman in the form of

research support, and it took a person of his enormous energies and

abilities to accomplish these duties and responsibilities. Writing some

twenty-eight years later, he observed that "Most of our projects have

grown out of the need of the moment. "(60)

57. Fagg to Randolph, January 18, 1934, CASA; Kahler Interview by

Albert Manucy, pp. 20-23.

58. Appleman to Regional Director, December 18, 1939, National Park

Service, RG 79, NA.

59. Ibid.

60. Manucy to Superintendent, March 2, 1966, CASA.

84

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

In 1952 the Castillo Master Plan Development Outline contained a section

on status of research which stated that the first ten years should be

used in building a study collection.(61) Results of the effort produced

some "1800 books and pamphlets; and 8,000 Spanish, French and English

documents mostly on microfilm. "(62) Additionally, the park historian

assembled a large number of note cards, maps and photographs and

cataloged approximately one half of the manuscripts. Research voids yet

to be filled included the 1700-1763 Spanish period; 1763-1783 English

period; 1784-1821 second Spanish period; construction history; and a

visitor handbook. (63) Fort Matanzas-related research was insufficient and

what existed coincided with that secured for the Castillo. (64) Suggested

research topics included sixteenth century source material, an historical

base map, study of the events in 1565 and a narrative history

handbook. (65)

What research existed in a preliminary way served to suffice and

recommendations for MISSION 66 received little support, as

Superintendent Roberts reported in 1962. He lamented that Civil War

areas preparing for centennials had "comprehensive research programs

and massive interpretive construction plans" and even Forts Caroline and

Frederica had "extensive research programs."(66) For a park about to

celebrate 400 years, the lack of research appeared to be unjustified

though some inferred "there is enough information already on hand to

61. St. Augustine, Florida, "MISSION 66 Prospectus Castillo de San

Marcos National Monument," April 10, 1956, CASA, p. 32.

62. Ibid.

63. Ibid.

64. St. Augustine, Florida, "MISSION 66 Prospectus Fort Matanzas

National Monument," April 19; 1956, p. 24.

65. Ibid.

66. Roberts to Regional Director, February 28, 1962, CASA, pp. 1-2.

85
satisfy the visitor, and therefore research is useless. "(67) Regional

Director Elbert Cox replied that the research concerns expressed

represented "excellent thinking" but lacked specificity and

recommendations from the superintendent; he encouraged planning, staff

review and programming to secure needed commitment to research. (68)

The problem remained as reflected in a communique from Manucy to

Superintendent Davenport as the former departed for the regional office

in Richmond. Writing in 1966 Manucy straightforwardly laid out the state

of historical research as 1) goals: comprehensive history of the Castillo

for the interpretive program, "constructional history" (historic structures

reports) to guide preservation and restoration, and publications for

interpretive purposes; and 2) limitations to achieving goals: lack of

historical records and the low priority given research as qualified

personnel have no time for it, though availability of historical records had

greatly improved. (69) Personnel otherwise available to do research often

found their time taken up with "minding the store" and junior historians

often received transfers to other Park Service assignments before

completing research projects. In the crush of the 400th anniversary

activities interpretive supervisor and historian Luis R. Arana moved from

the fort to the administrative office at the post office in order to focus on

research to guide certain park development; again it pointed up a need at

the moment.

Arana, a native of Puerto Rico, began his career at San Juan National

Historic Site as a tour leader and in 1955 accepted a transfer to Castillo

de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas as chief of visitor services. Bilingual,

possessing much competence in old Spanish archival research, he became

the second important link for historical research at the monuments.

67. Ibid., p. 2.

68. Regional Director to Superintendent, March 13, 1962, CASA.

69. Manucy to Superintendent, March 2, 1966, CASA, p. 5.

86

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Learning from Manucy and completing a graduate degree in history, Arana

matured as a scholar into one with an international reputation in

fortifications. (70) Knowledgeable about every facet of history associated

with Matanzas and Castillo and serving as staff historian the last eleven

years, Arana has provided thirty years of professional service which

when linked to Manucy's career represents a continuum of nearly fifty

years.

A listing of research studies through 1966 reveals that topics on sites and

structures predominate to guide stabilization, restoration and

reconstruction. (71) The studies reflect problem-specific concerns that

provide little value to a comprehensive interpretive program because of

discretionary treatment of topics having modest relationship to one

another, and thus only identify a modicum of the human side of history.

In short, little has been done "beyond political, architectural, and

constructional history. "(72) Seven additional studies listed in 1967 as

ongoing reflect the problem-specific type while another fourteen made the

approved list by 1972. (73) Of course, being on a completion list and

being completed are two different things, as time has indicated. From

the mid-sixties forward a concerted effort to raise the issue and plan for

historical research has resulted in the completion of several important

studies for various facets of park operations and functions.(74 )

70. Arana interview by Herbert Evison; Conversations with author,

January, February and March 1985.

71. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Castillo de

San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument and

Fort Matanzas National Monument Historical Research Management Plan, by

Luis R. Arana et al. (Washington D.C.: National Park Service, 1967),

pp. 34-41.

72. Ibid., p. 41.

73. Superintendent's Annual Report, 1977, CASA.

74. Most notably (all U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park

Service publications) Arana, et al. Historical Research Management Plan;

Ricardo Torres-Reyes, Historic Resource Study The British Seige of St.

87
Completed principally by Historian Arana since 1976 are several lesser

known, problem-specific studies for guiding interpretation, maintenance

and construction.

Archeology

Similar in purpose to historical research at the parks, archeological

research dates to the early years of National Park Service management.

Under auspices of the Carnegie Foundation, W. Jack Winter explored

portions of the moat, glacis and Cubo line (1937-1940); between 1939-1960

Manucy reported on several construction-related archeological

investigations, including the colonial floors of the guardroom and sallyport

areas. (75) Investigations in 1941 by Thor Borrensen examined

foundations of the moat and fort on which he and Manucy reported. (76)

In scope and design, the first major archeological investigation took place

in the Castillo Courtyard (1955) under the supervision of Jean C. "Pinky"

Harrington assisted by Manucy and John Griffin. Prompted by

maintenance/construction needs to eliminate hazardous footing, water

puddles or blowing dust, the investigation uncovered a stratigraphy of

74. (Cont.) Augustine in 1740, 1972; Ricardo Torres-Reyes, Historical

Base Maps, 1972; Ricardo Torres-Reyes, Historic Resource Study British

Garrison of St. Augustine 1763-1784, 1972; Historical Resource

Management Plan, xeroxed copy, April 1977; The Fort Matanzas

Stabilization Team, Historic Structure Report for Fort Matanzas National

Monument St. John's County, Florida, 1980; Edwin C. Bearss and John

C. Paige, Historic Structure Report For Castillo de San Marcos National

Monument St. Johns County, Florida, 1983.

75. Kathleen A. Deagan, Excavations at the Castillo de San Marcos St.

Augustine, Florida: Archeological Data in Support of Architectural

Stabilization, (Tallahassee: Florida State University, December 1980),

pp. 6-7; U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Notes

On The Excavation of Colonial Floors In The Sally Port And Guardroom

Area At Castillo De San Marcos," by Albert C. Manucy, (St. Augustine:

CASA, 1960), pp. i-ii.

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

76. Ibid., p. 7. ,

I

88

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

the mid-1700's, remnants of a 1674 structure and an Indian midden lying

some two feet below the surface. (77) Prior to the partial reconstruction

of the Cubo Line, Griffin investigated the site and as above, carried it

out as a response to a problem-specific management concern. (78) In 1966

a survey of the land area at Fort Matanzas resulted in the identification

of several midden sites on Rattlesnake Island but few on Anastasia

Island. (79)

An assessment of the archeological collections at the Castillo by Kathleen

A. Deagan concluded that most objects lacked information about

provenience and thus had limited research potential. (80) Additionally,

she reported useful information associated with nineteenth century

architecture, the courtyard investigation and Fort Matanzas materials, but

the collections needed thinning out, deaccessioning, cataloging and better

security control. (81) A rather extensive set of investigations during the

summer of 1975 at Fort Matanzas unearthed little information about the

aboriginal occupation of the area or the watchtower and massacre sites; it

did provide good information regarding eighteenth century military life,

especially from the excavation of the shell middens on Rattlesnake

Island. (82) The report recommended careful archeological monitoring of

any construction projects on the monument grounds.

77. "Historian's Monthly Report," January 1953, CASA; "Historians

Monthly Report," June 1953, CASA.

78. ibid., p. 8; Unpublished Report, 1978, CASA.

79. Gluckman, Stephen J. ,"An Archeological Survey Of Fort Matanzas

National Monument," Unpublished, 1966, pp. 7-8.

80. Kathleen A. Deagan, "An Assessment Of Archeological Collections At

The Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine, Florida," (Tallahassee,

Florida: Florida State University, October 1975), pp. 10-15.

81. Ibid.

82. Kathleen A. Deagan, "Archeological Investigations At Fort Matanzas

National Monument," (Tallahassee: Florida State University, February

1976), pp. 112-117.

89
I

Deagan conducted three other archeological research efforts in 1.978 and

1980, the first of which sought to determine information about military life

at Fort Matanzas. This investigation focused on the interior room for

evidence of built-in furniture, colonial period grade(s) and fireplace; the

terreplein for information on fill, grade and flooring; and the exterior for

determining data about the palmetto piling and foundation works of the

fort. (83) She and Maurice Williams monitored stabilization work on Fort

Matanzas in 1980, some of which turned into salvage work. (84)

To guide future stabilization work at the Castillo, the Park Service

contracted with Florida State University which conducted an archeological

survey in 1979 under the supervision of Deagan. The project sought

information about the conditions of the foundations and wall footings; the

moisture level of subsurface features; the number, location and

composition of floor plans; historic data on the pre-1738 floor plan;

location of the wall partitions and doors; the location of interior wells and

built-in furniture; and the functions that occurred in various rooms. (85)

From 1937-1980 a sizeable amount of archeological baseline data amassed

for the two national monuments shared the same impetus as historical

research, namely problem-specific studies, a response to a somewhat

narrow concern.

83. Kathleen A. Deagan, "Archeological Investigation of the Fort

Matanzas Interior--1978," (Tallahassee: Florida State University, 1978),

pp. 2-4.

84. Maurice Williams, "Report on Monitoring of Architectural Stabilization

Procedures at Fort Matanzas," (Tallahassee: Florida State University,

1980); Deagan, Kathleen A. ,"Report on Monitor/Salvage Activities During

the 1980 Architectural Stabilization Procedures at Fort Matanzas National

Monument," (Tallahassee: Florida State University, April 1980), pp. 2-3,

11-12.

85. Kathleen A. Deagan,"Excavations At The Castillo De San Marcos."

(Tallahassee: Florida State University, December 1980), pp. 9-10.

90

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

Natural Resources

As the 1970s came to a close park management directed more attention to

research on natural resources at Fort Matanzas. A tidal survey of high

and low water lines by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration ran for four months beginning in 1978; the University of

South Florida studied tidal hydraulics at Matanzas Inlet in the late 1970s;

a vegetative study plot for native plants on sterile soil on the intracoastal

waterway began in the fall of 1978; and park staff gathered turtle survey

data for the Park Service Coastal Field Research Laboratory. (86) During

May 1978 the Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service,

initiated collecting and evaluating sea oats and a study plot, planted by

the Boy Scouts of America, commenced in September. (87) Measuring

waves, currents and movement of sediment by a researcher from Boston

College/University of South Florida originated during the summer of

1978.(88) A five-year forest survey (1979-1984) for purposes of

determining prevalent wildlife, vegetation and people usage, granted to

the Forest Service--Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, opened in

September 1979.(89)

RACE RELATIONS

Interaction between blacks and whites at both park areas took place

throughout the period focused on by this study. Although historical

documentation is sparse and corroborative evidence in short supply, the

86. "The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and

Fort Matanzas National Monuments For the Year 1978," CASA, pp. 50-51.

87. Ibid., p. 52.

88. Ibid.

89. "The National Park Service History of Castillo de San Marcos and

Fort Matanzas National Monuments For The Year 1979 ," CASA, p. 61.

91
I

topic bears comment. Visitors to the Castillo encompassed many races and

nationalities and unlike at some public attractions, blacks found open

admission during the War Department and early National Park Service

administrations. For a number of years black fraternal organizations

sought and received permission from the District Engineer to hold benefit

dances on the terreplein of the Castillo and to sell ice cream and soda

pop during the festivities. (90) Kahler noted, "One thousand colored

Baptists who were attending a convention at Jacksonville visited Fort

Marion and evidently enjoyed their visit. "(91) Practiced especially in the

south, separate but supposedly equal restroom facilities existed at the

Castillo though changes had to be implemented as the guides usurped the

"colored women's side" for their own exclusive use. (92) Some five years

later in a memorandum about activities in the Southeastern National

Monuments, Superintendent Vinten reported that representatives of a

recreation committee for blacks visited him about the "problem of negro

recreation in the City. "(93 ) In the report he added, "There is no race

problem in this community and the negro leaders appreciate any help they

can be given in working out their problems. "(94)

The single biggest racial episode faced by St. Augustine occurred in 1964

when black and white activists began lunch counter sit-ins and other

90. Brown to District Engineer, July 30, 1920, War Department Records,

CASA; Brown to District Engineer, August 11, 1921, War Department

Records, CASA; District Engineer to Brown, August 13, 1921, War

Department Records, CASA; Brown to District Engineer, August 30, 1921,

War Department Records, CASA; Ferguson to Brown, June 18, 1923, War

Department Records, CASA; Brown to District Engineer, June 22, 1923,

War Department Records, CASA; District Engineer to Brown, June 25,

1923, War Department Records, CASA.

91. "Superintendent's Monthly Report," September 12, 1936, RG 79, NA.

92. Freeland to Manucy, November 17, 1939, CASA.

93. Vinten to Director, October 5, 1944, National Park Service, RG 79,

NA.

94. Ibid.

92

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

nonviolent demonstrations. Planned protests began in 1963 when local

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACI')

officials sought to prevent Vice-President Lyndon B. Johnson from

dedicating several restored historic houses if blacks were not included in

the activities. ( 95) Blacks succeeded in participating after the

Vice-President said he would not engage in a "segregated event. "(96)

Black leaders also attempted to prevent federal funds from being used in

the quadricentennial celebration of 1965. (97) Part of a national movement

for civil rights, the demonstrations met with forceful opposition as

members of the White Citizens Council and Ku Klux Klan countered the

black activists led by local blacks and Southern Christian Leadership

Conference officials Hosea Williams and Martin Luther King, Jr., Nobel

Peace Prize recipient that year. From the late spring throughout the

summer demonstrations kept a steady pace and several times

Superintendent Roberts issued permits for black activist rallies on the

monument grounds in St. Augustine. (98) Most demonstrations and sit-ins

took place on the city square and the lunch counter/restaurants nearby.

White citizens of St. Augustine found the negative publicity of the nations

oldest city portrayed as a racist community especially galling. (99)

Several national news gathering agencies contacted Park Service offices to

gain an assessment of the impact that racial unrest had on park

visitation. ( 100) Writing in July, Roberts reported that "Local

businessmen agreed to abide by the new Civil Rights law, however St.

95. David R. Colburn, Racial Change and Community Crisis St.

Augustine, Florida, 1877-1980, (New York: Columbia University Press,

1985), pp. 32-33.

96. Ibid.

97. Ibid., pp. 33-34, 47.

98. "Superintendent's Monthly Narrative Report," April 1964, May 1964,

CASA; Colburn, pp. 73, 75.

99. Colburn, p. 69.

100. "Superintendent's Monthly Report," June 1964, CASA.

93
I

Augustine was still plagued with racial unrest. "(101) Some restaurants

served blacks while others closed; the turmoil caused visitation and fee

collections to fall at the Castillo, while at Fort Matanzas visitation rose

over that of the previous year, though not nearly the percentage it did

in 1965.(102) (See Appendix G) During the post-1964 period

Superintendent Roberts commented that "If they [civil rights leaders]

come again, they would be met with the same reaction. The attitudes

haven't changed. "(103) Grudging adherence to the law and a very slow

process of social adjustment began; the quadricentennial year of 1965

contrasted sharply with the previous year of racial unrest in St.

Augustine.

Minority personnel at Castillo and Fort Matanzas through the years

number several blacks including maintenance and interpretive division

staff . The most notable black in a management position, Martha B.

Aikens, served as superintendent from 1980-1983. As the first black and

woman superintendent, Aikens described her reception as "guarded

acceptance" and "wait and see," somewhat of a change in community

attitude from sixteen years before and the long, hot summer of 1964. (104)

101. "Superintendent's Monthly Report," July 1964, CASA. Congress

passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act on July 2, 1964.

102. Ibid. "Superintendents Monthly Report," August 1964, September

1964, CASA.

103. Colburn, p. 182.

104. Aikens, telephone interview.

94

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

CHAPTER 5: NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: PROBLEMS AND PROSPECTS

Closing in on the end of another century the two coquina structures of

Castillo and Fort Matanzas face a future of uncertainty. Unlike the late

nineteenth century when the question of preservation initially arose in

regard to surplus military posts, the twenty first century portends new

conditions for preservation. The major factors tempering conditions are

embedded in political and economic currents which influence and are

influenced by the demographic makeup of the United States.

At the present time a change in philosophy governing the use of park

resources is observable. No longer is the commitment to public enjoyment

and preservation of resources, rather the market should determine use.

In the instance of non-renewable resources such as historic structures

the threat seems clear. Visitor use, closely tied to market forces, seems

likely to increase given the graying of America, discretionary income and

the alternatives of travel and/or retirement in a sun-belt state such as

Florida. Likewise fiscal restraint serves up another major factor

influencing conditions for park resources. Maintenance and protection of

cultural and natural resources rely heavily upon adequate funding for

proper management. Within the Park Service the heritage and tradition of

large, natural parks predominates over cultural resource parks, resulting

in a lower priority and second class citizenship for the latter. Currently

fiscal policies have severely curtailed personnel in parks who interpret,

protect and educate the public about management of resources. A lack of

maintenance staff, rangers, interpreters and permanent employees to

properly orient volunteers in parks ultimately will affect natural and

cultural resources plus visitor use facilities.

An oft observed phenomena of late and one sure to worsen is

encroachment. Park boundaries are imaginary lines toward which creep

commercial and residential development; extractive industries; pollutants

which contaminate the air or resources; and ecosystem imbalance that

95
I

cause differing successions of plants and animals which create problems

for management of park resources.

Though not unique in mere fact of impinging just on Castillo de San

Marcos and Fort Matanzas national monuments, nevertheless all of the

factors noted may be identified there at present, or potentially in years

to come. Coquina, the building material of both forts, is a non-renewable

resource threatened by the number of visitors and by airborne pollutants.

Though very hard on the surface, once eroded a brittleness and

deterioration endangers the original fabric. Illustrative of market forces

heavy visitor use wears away the resource and creates a scenario for

regulation of visitation that increases each year in a state bathed in

tourism. Perhaps careful monitoring of wear, air quality, visitor

statistics and even a fee structure to limit numbers should be options

considered in protecting historic fabric.

No longer needed at either national monument is the labor-intensive

maintenance of years past. A regular cyclic maintenance program can

provide necessary preservation, however, alternative funding sources

other than annual Park Service budgets should be sought as fiscal

restraint quickens. Experts in detection of wear and methods of

preservation need to be available regularly to assist the park staff in the

extremely important enterprise of preservation.

A primary concern at the Castillo that transcends all the years it has

been preserved as a cultural resource, relates to its location in the heart

of a city dependent on tourism as the economic base. Because of a

sizable land base surrounding the fort (portion of the old military

reservation), community groups and individuals desire the grounds for

many different uses. The demands have been constant through the years

and will continue to occur and threaten the resources and the atmosphere

of the setting. During the Park Service years, management has evolved

toward less use of the grounds and fort proper, by individuals and

community groups than did the War Department - Historical Society

management. Managing the resources in light of current and future

96

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

market demands requires building a local constituency favoring control

and an interpretive program that educates the public about the setting,

context and protection for a national treasure. Moderation and awareness

will be difficult to accomplish given the present philosophy of market

forces determining use and fiscal restraint forcing reduced staff,

therefore less protection and interpretation of the resources will be

available. Likewise with increased visitation a quota system may need

implementation at some future point as deterioration of resources becomes

more apparent.

At Fort Matanzas a principal adverse effect resides with encroaching

development, most of which centers on condominiums and apartment

complexes. Existing complexes along the ocean front butt up against the

boundary and forcefully intrude on the landscape. The Park Service

should learn from a lack of foresight in the past to seek a buffer from

future development on Anastasia Island, Rattlesnake Island and the

mainland to the west. Local constituencies and friends of the parks need

to be mobilized and innovative means sought to prevent recurrence of

earlier poor judgement. Market forces and fiscal policies also will be

detrimental at Matanzas unless vigilance and long range planning are

evidenced.

Over the years following preservation and restoration of the forts, little

in the way of systematic efforts to forge broad-based and formalized

support groups has been attempted. To counteract forces identified

above, much more needs to be done to assist park management and

develop a cadre of volunteers sensitive to the need of protecting the

resources at Castillo and Matanzas. Consistent with this is the need by

the Park Service to train staff in ways to prepare volunteers for positions

in parks. Little formal preparation goes into orientation and training

those who train volunteers or the volunteers themselves, and little in the

way of substantial recognition is given such people whom the Park Service

has increasingly come to rely upon. Ancillary to support groups and

training volunteers, is the dispelling of the notion that parks are fiefdoms

where federal bureaucrats act unilaterally without consideration of

97
I

community setting and relations. A park must be a good neighbor and

the entire staff must assist in the effort, yet at the same time not be

compromised in making the resource vulnerable because of outside

pressures. Over the years various managers of Castillo de San Marcos

and Fort Matanzas have been at odds with the community to the detriment

of all concerned, while others have been assigned there for such short

periods of time that little rapport with local residents could be established

before transfers occurred.

Both military fortifications have suffered as well from the fact of being

parks with nationally significant cultural resources. As such they are of

lower priority than large natural parks, an outcome which the National

Park System perpetuates, and with which the public so identifies. The

results often may be observed in levels of funding and various priorities

established for parks with cultural resources and those with natural

resources. Little effort is made to educate staff and visitors alike or to

demonstrate the interrelated nature of cultural and natural resources, in

fact artificial distinctions are often established in training classes,

exhibitry, interpretive programs and selection of management for the

national parks. Such has been the case with Matanzas and Castillo where

managers most often have backgrounds other than history, archeology or

historic architecture and few staff members have cultural resource

backgrounds. Interpretive programs have focused primarily on history

and little on archeology or the interrelatedness of history and the natural

environment. Little in the way of educating the public of the need to

support the National Park System through the years has been effected, or

for particular support at the Castillo or Fort Matanzas. Presently

interpretation needs to formulate plans for the Columbian celebration of

1992 which would be in keeping with several other multi-centennial

festivities of St. Augustine. It represents a wonderful opportunity to

build support for and obtain funding to assist in preserving and

enhancing the resources of the two parks. It can educate the public to

several worthy ideas too.

98

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Park managers at both locations have not had the necessary assistance of

specialists to aid in protecting resources. Professional advice in curation

of objects, historic architecture, maintenance of the historic fabric and

natural resources, especially at Fort Matanzas, has been sporadic and

uneven. Park staff has often been hard pressed to meet daily and

routine responsibilities with little time for specific and particular resource

needs. Shortage of time, budgetary restraints, delay and deterioration

may be noted through the years which has an impact on both natural and

cultural resources.

It has become more and more apparent that the National Park Service

cannot carry out its mission without substantial public support. For

Matanzas and Castillo and the other parks in the system, it means

assiduously seeking to broaden public support, especially from local

citizens. To do so has many implications for management ranging from

fostering good public relations to protecting resources and educating the

public through enhanced interpretive programs. Not only presenting the

park story but the national significance of Castillo de San Marcos and

Fort Matanzas, and the entire National Park System must be emphasized.

To do less is to ignore lessons from the past about our significant

resources and permit gradual decline, something we do not wish for our

collective legacy and for posterity.

99
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

APPENDICES

101
I

APPENDIX A :

Proclamation by President Calvin Coolidge Declaring National Monument,

October 15, 1924: Fort Marion, Fort Matanzas.

102

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1I

tnL41vtW6 AttGAJ u1V t.GK1AtlV M1LlTAKY Kt5t:KVATI0N5 DECLARED NATIONAL

MONUMENTS.)

Sp the Oreslaent of the 'iAnitea states of amerICA

R proclamation.

WlIF.1tE.1ti, there are vuri-lus military rest-rvatiuny undvr the control of the

Secretary of War WhiCh cuuiprise nr01s Of ListOric and scientific interest;

AND WHEREAS, by section 2 of the Act of Congress approved Juno 8, 1908

(34'Stat. 225) the President is authuritE^! "in his disc•rrtion, to declare by public

proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other

objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or

controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and

may reserve as a part thereof parcels of laud, the limits of which in all cases shAll

be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected"; I Now TneRr:FORa, I, Calvin Coolidge, President of the United States of

America, under authority of the said Act of Congress do hereby declare and proclaim the hereinafter designated areas with the historic structures and objects

thereto appertaining, and any other object or objects specifically designated,

within the following military reservations to be national monuments:

FORT WOOD, NEW YORK

The site of the Statue of Liberty Enlightening the World, the foundations

of which are built in the form of an eleven-pi,inted star and clearly define the area

comprising about two and one-half acres.

CASTLE PINCKNEY, Charleston Harbor, South Carolina.

The entire reservation, comprising three anti one-half acres situated on Shutee

Folly Island at the month of Cooper River opposite the southern extremity of the

city of Charleston and about one mile distant therefrom.

FOR'f PT.'T,ASKf. GEORGIA

The entire area comprising the site of the old fortifications which are clearly

defined by ditches and embankments, which inclose about twenty acres.

FORT MARION. FLORIDA

The entire area comprising 1S.09 acres situated in the city of Saint Augustine,

Florida.

FORT MATANZAS, FLORIDA

An was of one acre comprising within it the site of the old fortification which

is situated on a marsh island south of the present main chmnoed of the Mata

♦asy

River in the southeast quarter of section 14, Township s South, Range 30 East,

about 14 miler from the city of Saint Augustine, and about one ails from Ma6assM

Well. .

3a MU11+tn Whomod, I haye herees,to sst my hand and caused the

9e416101 the United states to be affixed.

Dons at t

►e city of Wssrbingtes this fift^tk day of October, in

year o/ our I.wd aw thousand aims )sriri and lwasty.lbae,

W

(ssa4..) of the Isdetoisieme of the United StsNs of Ameeies the Mq

hundred and forty-sisth.

did ltwddent:

JUNO% C. Claw

detfa/ 8sentsry of Stab.

CALVIN COOLIDeg

(Na 1713.)
I

APPENDIX B:

Executive Order No. 6228: National Monuments to be Administered by the

National Park Service, July 28, 1933.

104

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

[Copy]

EXECUTIVE ORDER

Organization of Executive Agencies

WHEREAS executive order No. 6166 dated June 10, 1933, issued

pursuant to the authority of Section 16 of the Act of March 3, 1933

(Public [Law], No. 428--47 Stat. 1517) provides in Section 2 as follows:

"All functions of administration of public buildings, reservations,

national parks, national monuments, and national cemeteries are

consolidated in an office of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations in

the Department of the Interior, at the head of which shall be a Director

of National Parks, Buildings, and Reservations; except that where deemed

desirable there may be excluded from this provision any public building

or reservation which is chiefly employed as a facility in the work of a

particular agency. This transfer and consolidation of functions shall

include, among others, those of the National Park Service of the

Department of the Interior and the National Cemeteries and Parks of the

War Department which are located within the continental limits of the

United States. National Cemeteries located in foreign countries shall be

transferred to the Department of State, and those located in insular

possessions under the jurisdiction of the War Department shall be

administered by the Bureau of Insular Affairs of the War Department."

and;

WHEREAS to facilitate and expedite the transfer and consolidation of

certain units and agencies contemplated thereby, it is desirable to make

more explicit said Section 2 of the aforesaid executive order of June 10,

1933, insofar as the same relates to the transfer of agencies now

administered by the War Department:

105
I

NOW, THEREFORE, said executive order No. 6166, dated June 1.0, 1.933,

is hereby interpreted as follows:

1. The cemeteries and parks of the War Department transferred to the

Interior Department are as follows:

*

National Monuments

Big Hole Battlefield, Beaverhead County, Montana.

Cabrillo Monument, Ft. Rosecrans, California.

Castle Pinckney, Charleston, South Carolina.

Father Millet Cross, Fort Niagara, New York.

Fort Marion, St. Augustine, Florida.

Fort Matanzas, Florida.

Fort Pulaski, Georgia.

Meriwether Lewis, Hardin County, Tennessee.

Mound City Group, Chillicothe, Ohio.

Statue of Liberty, Fort Wood, New York.

*

2. Pursuant to Section 22 of said executive order it is hereby ordered

that the transfer from the War Department of national cemeteries other

than those named above be, and the same is hereby postponed until

further order.

3. Also pursuant to Section 22 of said executive order it is hereby

ordered that the transfer of national cemeteries located in foreign

countries from the War Department to the Department of State and the

transfer of those located in insular possessions under the jurisdiction of

the War Department to the Bureau of Insular Affairs of said Department

be, and the same are hereby postponed until further order.

FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT.

The White House.

July 28, 1933.

[No. 6228]

*Executive Order abridged

106

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

APPENDIX C:

Name Change: Fort Marion to Castillo de San Marcos, June 5, 1942.

107
I

Catedar Na 1452

H

. R. 3937

(Report No. 1404)

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

Omen 16, 1941

Rea'l 1w i« rnJ rrfrrrrd to the 0xumitGr on PuWic TAnds and Sump

MAT :A,1tN9

RrtM,rteJ by Mr. NAn•w, without sawndmmt

T-,

► •I

► unt;c the

►

1

► -sit,► uati,m

► ,f the Fort 31ntii

►n 'National :11omentcut, in th ► • Stale ►► f 1-I► -riJu, anti for other purpimm

I Be it cnactrrl by the Senale and Iludm of Rtpnertet4- ' tirct of the lbsitc.l ti'tah•.q of .1 mcrrcrt in Cun;/rr« a.e+u"bl4

:: That flit- urwa now within the F4,rt Marion \utimnnl 316ntt- 4 tucut, in flit- Stale of l'biri ► lu, shall hereafter be known aa

5 the "fi► millu

► Ic Still Mure

► w \tttitmal .11-mument", tinder

6 which nnntc the ,ifnre,ttid national ntunnetuent shall be entitled

7 to receive wid it) use till moneys -heretofore or hereafter 8 aPl► n► l► rintvd for the Fort Marion -National MontunenL

Passed the House of Representatives October 15, 1941.

Attest: SOUTH TRI31BLF4

ClerL

108 IIIIDIIIIII1IIIII
I

I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

APPENDIX D:

License to St. Augustine Historical Society & Institute of Science,

April 16, 1928.

109
THE SgC&BT18T OF WAR, under and by virtue of the authority in him

vested, hereby grants to the ST. AOGpSTIDDr HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND INSTITUTZ

OF SCI]idiCg, St. Augustine, Florida, hereinafter designated as tne Society,

a license, revocable at will by the Secretary of war, and subject to the

provisions and conditions hereinafter set forth. to occupy and use for tne

purposes of said Society and its museum, and for the benefit of tne public,

the following described portion of FORT M4RIOn, St. Augustine, Florida, and

the military reservation pertaining tnereto, vial

1. The Society snall be authorised to occupy and use as executive

offices and repository and display rooms the following numbered and

lettered rooms, namely, rooms 1, 2, C, 9, 10, & 11, and tne Society

shall have access to all otner parts of the reservation and to all

other rooms in the Fort that have special historical interest, exclusivs of those rooms and parts used specifically for Government purposes;

provided, tnat the Society shall make no essential changes in the Fort

or the rooms occupied by it under authority of tnis license, and tne

United States shall be put to no expense whatever by reason of such

occupancy.

2. The Society snail be allowed to maintain a registration book inside

the Fort, and to request visitors to register, Provided, that registration

shall not be regarded as a condition precedent to admission to the Port,

or to any part thereof open to visitors.

3. The Society shall be limited in the articles to be sold to those wnicn

have been dealt in by it at Port Marion during previous years, provided

tnat all such articles have been approved for sale by The Quartermaster

General, or ale duly authorised representative.

4. No postcard, photograph, pamphlet, guide book, or souvenir sold in tne

Fort shall contain any advertising matter of any kind tnat in the opinion

of The Quartermaster Oaneral to not in keeping witn the dignity of Fort

Marlon as a national historical monument.

5. Suitable tables and cases for tne display of postcards and otner

mercnaadise horeinbefore mentioned saall be maintained by tne Society in

rooms reserved for its use and in such places in tas Sally port as Tns

quartermaster General may designate, provided, that tne sale or display

of sucn merchandise shall not be permitted in any form.or manner whatsoever

outside of the rooms and places so reserved or designated.

6. Salesmen will conduct toemeelves in a courteous and orderly manner,

and will avoid conveying the impression that they are employed by the

Federal Government. They shall not call their articles for sale, nor

solicit visitors to purcnase ssme, but will answer questions and explain

tneir wares to visitors, who may request such information or.explanation,

and if any salesman or otner employee, snail by wor Q or act, otner than

the autnorised display of such cards, photographs and other mercnandise,

solicit any person to purchase tne same, ne snail be denied tae privilege

of tne fort and reservation by order of The quartermaster General.

7. The Fort and the rooas, as designated In paragraph one ante, shall be

open to visitors on saoh ordinary week day between tns hours of 9 A.M. and

6 P.M., and on Sundays and holidays from 9 J.M. to 5 P.M., rovided, taat

on agreement between The quartermaster General and tns Curator of the Society,

the hours above named may be altered from time to time to meet the best

interests of all concerned, and provided further, that tne Society may close

110

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

any or all of tne rooms specially reserved for its use wnen such closing may

become necessary for re-arrangement of the ezhibits, or for business meetings of

the Society, or for any other necessary purposes. During time hours aoove

specified, such employees as may be necessary for tne comfort and convenience of

visitors, and for the protection of tne Society exhibits snail be present at

tneir assigned places of duty. In order that tne exnibits and otner property

may be secure from theft and vandalism, the Society is authorized to use its

own discretion as to the admission to its rooms and exhiolts of visitors not

accompanied by some responsible representative of tne Society, or by tne Government caretaker hereinafter provided for.

8. The Society snall.license and maintain in attendance at all times wnen tne

Fort is open to the public, a suitable number of guides, provided, that not more

than five such licensed guides shall be in attendance and on duty at any time.

Each guide shall wear a badge properly inscribed and numbered, and no person,

otner than the government caretaker, enall be permitted to act as guide unless

licensed by the Society.

y. The guides snail condnct themselves in a courteous and orderly manner. They

snall not annoy visitors by urging tneir services upon them, nor snail they exact

fees from visitors. but they may accept gratuties, tne amount of wnicn, if any,

snail be entirely within the discretion of such visitors. At a suitable point in

tne usual circuit, guides may distribute to visitors neatly printed cards, or may

make an oral announcement concerning tne metnod of payment for guide services,

provided, that tne phrasing of such card or oral announcement stall have oeen

previously approved by The Qnartermaster General and snail tnereafter be rigidly

adhered to without change. When conducting visitors, guides snall snow all parts

of the Fort and reservation open to public inspection, and shall point ont.and,

properly describe objects and points of interest. The officers of tne Society

will be held strictly responsible at all time for tae conduct and competence

of tneir guides and employees. Any guide guilty of undue suliciting or discountesy

to any visitor, or wno fails to give proper service, Irrespective of the amount of

compensation paid him by said visitor, shall, upon a second such offense or upon

request from The Quartermaster General, be dismissed and his license revoked.

10. The quartermaster General shall represent tne Secretary of War and all

business between the War Department and the Society snail be transacted tnrouga

nim.

11. The Quartermaster General anal be represented locally by a caretaker of

tne Fort and reservation, wno may act as guide witnont a license from tne

society, provided , tnat he snail wear a suitably engraved badge markedly differing

in design from tnat worn by licensed guides, and provided further, taat as snall

not interfere with or supplant any such licensed guide, and tnat during tne hours

wnen tne Part is open to the public, as specified in paragraph 7 ante. to snail

os considered as a supernumerary guide or extra.

12. In consideration of the foregoing rights and privileges, the Society shall,

under the direction of The quartermaster General, make such minor repairs to the

Fort and appurtenant structures, walks, and paths as may from time to time become

necessary for their maintenance. It shall maintain the entire reservation in an

orderly and sanitary condition satisfactory to The Quartermaster General. shall

mow the grass on the reservation and trim the trees and shrubbery at such intervals

as may be necessary to keep the reservation in a sightly condition at all times

satisfactory to The Quartermaster c3eneral,rihall light and heat to such extent as

may be necessary all rooms used by the Society and by the caretaker, or open to

the public, shall provide such toilet facilities and supplies as may be required

for the convenience of visitors, and snall, if required by The Quartermaster General,

reimburse the United States in the amount of $720.00 per annum to defray the proportionate part of salary of caretaker of the United States on said reservation.

pro + vidsd, that the total expenditure made by the Society in any year for such minor

repairs, maintenance and care of the Tort, its appurtenant structures and surrounding reservation shall, not exceed $3,000.00 per annum, and providing further, that.

the Society shall maintain accounts covering all expenditures made by it for the

purposes hereinbefore indicated, with suitable vouchers in form and manner as

The quartermaster General may direct, and shall submit a statement of account

annually to Too quartermaster General for transmission to the Secretary of War,

and Provided further, that for the foregoing purposes the year snall begin with

the first day of July, 1928.

111
I

13. The Quartermaster General and his duly authorized representative shall

at all times have access to the Fort, including rooms reserved for use of

the Society.

14. This license may be revoked at will by the Secretary of War, or it

may be relinquished at will by the Society, providsd, that, in the event

of such revocation or relinquishment, the Society shall, within 30 days

after the date of written notice of such revocation or relinquishment, remove

all merchandise, exhibits, furniture and fixtures pertaining to it, shall

properly clean the premises occupied by it under this license, and turn the

same over in good ordqr and condition to the caretaker of the Part; and

provided further, that any sum which may have to be expanded after the

revocation or relinquishment in putting any premises or property hereby

+}uthorized to be occupied or used in as good condition for use by the United

States as it is at this date, shall be repaid by said Society on demand.

15. Unless otherwise terminated as hersinbefore provided, or renewed upon

the application of the Society and approved by tne Secretary of War, this

license shall terminate five years from July 1, 1928.

IN WITNESS THEM! this license has been executed this 6th day of April,

1928.

(Sgd) C. B. ROBBINS

C. B. ROBBINS,

The Assistant Secretary of War.

THIS LICENSE is accepted under the terms and conditions therein set

forth this 21st day of April, 1928.

ST. ODCi1STIBZ HISTORICAL SOCIETY

AND INSTITUTE 07 SCIENCE.

By:

112

Frederick S. Valli

I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

APPENDIX E:

Superintendents, 1933 to Present.

113
I

I

Superintendents

Castillo de San Marcos National Monument (CASA) and

Fort Matanzas National Monument (FOMA)

1933 to date

Herbert E. Kahler

Edward D. Freeland

C. Raymond Vinten

Edward J. Eaton

C. Raymond Vinten

Bertrum C. Roberts

L. Theodore Davenport

George F. Schesventer

Martha B. Aikens

Barbara J. Griffin

Custodian CASA/FOMA 1933 - Oct 34

Actg Supt CASA/FOMA and Oct 34 - Aug 36

Adm Coordinator Castle

Pinckney, Fts. Pulaski

and Jefferson

Supt CASA/FOMA Aug 36 - Jan 37

Supt CASA/FOMA and Jan 37 - May 39

Coord Supt Southeastern

National Monuments (SENM)

(Castle Pinckney, Fts.

Pulaski, Jefferson and

Frederica, Ocmulgee)

Supt CASA/FOMA and

Coord Supt SENM

May 39 - Dec 41

Supt CASA and

Coord Supt SENM (including Everglades NP 1947)

Supt FOMA

Supt CASA/FOMA Fort

Caroline (FOCA)

Supt CASA/FOMA

Supt CASA/FOMA

Supt CASA/FOMA/FOCA

Jan 42 - Sept 53

Jan 42 - Sept 53

Sept 53 - Oct 57

Oct 57 - July 61

July 61 - Aug 64

Aug 64 - Dec 65

Supt CASA/FOMA/FOCA Feb 66 - Feb 71

Supt CASA/FOMA/FOCA

Supt CASA/FOMA

Mar 71 - Nov 71

Nov 71 - Oct 80

Supt CASA/FOMA

Supt CASA/FOMA

Oct 80 - Nov 83

Mar 84 - date

I

I

P

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

114

,
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Careers of the Senior Historians

Albert C. Manucy Historian CASA

Regional Interpretive Nov 57 - Aug 62

Planner with station

at CASA

Fulbright Scholar in Sept 62 - July 63

Spain

Historian CASA for

MISSION 66/Quadricentennial projects

Luis R. Arana Assistant Historian CASA

(visitor services)

Historian CASA (supervision)

Leave without pay for

study at University of

Florida

Nov 38 - Nov 57

July 63 - May 66

Apr 55 - Nov 57

Nov 57 - Sept 62

Sept 62 - July 63

Historian CASA Aug 63 - May 72

I Historian FloridaCaribbean District Office

(Tallahassee) with station

at CASA

May 72 - Dec 73

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E

Historian CASA Dec 73 - date

116
APPENDIX F :

Senior Historians, 1933 to Present.

115

I

I

I

I

I

I

n

E

I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIEjIII

APPENDIX G:

Annual Visitation.

117
Annual Visitation: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument

January 1916 to July 1925

July 1935 to July 1986

Fort Matanzas National Monument

January 1937 to July 1986

118

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

r

I

I

I

I

I
E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

VISITATION--CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1916 1917 1918 1919 1920 1921 1922 1923 1924 1925

January 2,877 5,040 3,580 3,281 4,011 4,675 2,710 3,714 5,653 5,884

February 5,198 6,646 5,035 5,567 4,686 5,746 4,593 4,951 6,443 7,511

March 3,534 7,576 6,582 6,769 6,130 6,993 5,789 4,771 5,086 8,616

April - - - - 3,408 3,534 2,992 3,267 4,926 4,818

May - - 1,090 1,294 1,007 1,430 2,473 1,282 2,778 1,915

June - - 700 780 645 - 905 1,202 2,120 5,431

July - - 732 799 491 1,059 1,003 1,445 2,999 9,015

August - - 769 739 728 1,533 1,133 2,270 3,367 -

September - - 502 684 648 1,221 788 1,332 3,322 -

October - - 503 808 846 - 1,149 2,799 - -

November - - 743 - 1,620 1,105 2,129 4,621 4,242 -

December - 1,908 1,740 2,910 3,024 2,257 2,670 5,802 4,630 -

Source: Castillo de San Marcos National Monument files, carbon copies of U.S.

Engineer District Office, Jacksonville (Florida), Box 25, Documents 1

through 60.

VISITATION--CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1935 1936 1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944

January 18,258 27,788 34,537 25,289 22,860 27,334 19,720 12,105 13,681

February 21,761 28,933 40,508 28,065 28,481 32,689 15,002 10,413 14,315

March 24,622 30,749 32,248 29,823 26,397 31,925 24,381 12,377 12,463

April 18,018 18,872 20,056 17,018 15,855 29,023 20,127 12,803 13,724

May 8,987 11,001 11,496 9,263 11,076 19,831 12,295 11,449 11,047

June 14,365 14,827 17,976 14,955 16,436 25,225 9,799 10,165 8,993

July 17,809 24,225 27,479 31,586 24,617 25,881 35,416 8,940 12,259 12,436

August 22,420 26,686 30,633 21,550* 26,311 27,143 32,639 7,789 13,324 11,400

September 9,966 15,426 14,017 11,572 11,478 15,444 15,265 8,428 10,169 10,384

October 9,985 10,870 11,384 9,420 10,115 11,471 18,013 10,877 10,836 10,480

November 10,453 13,058 14,797 11,254 10,777 11,463 16,118 13,506 10,671 10,743

December 19,540 27,860 33,080 20,694 24,875 25,339 24,227 10,120 10,657 10,674

Total 89,873 224,127 263,560 262,897 232,586 237,846 307,705 160,964 137,228 140,340

*Entrance fee inaugurated

119
VISITATION--CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954

January 10,296 27,801 28,864 23,810 30,309

February 12,225 35,411 31,065 26,810 35,514

March 12,622 32,867 28,461 27,726 34,289

April 12,612 25,703 21,634 18,871 23,520

May 10,966 20,647 16,017 13,862 18,805

June 11,398 21,189 25,361 21,989 27,573

July 14,551 19,761 35,612 35,327 41,581

August 16,704 22,998 33,242 34,180 36,279

September 13,454 15,054 14,113 15,880 14,467

October 14,542 13,113 13,677 18,531 14,958

November 17,856 16,406 15,630 16,029 15,224

December 19,467 22,251 20,821 22,923 25,405

31,011 31,427 39,032 39,764 40,014

38,584 34,659 46,174 45,022 47,528

32,858 39,142 47,025 44,680 44,442

28,116 27,535 43,979 43,594 46,477

20,526 27,248 32,548 33,368 38,529

32,341 47,270 55,615 62,351 55,983*

54,202 68,373 73,335 78,421 69,070

44,626 58,508 62,619 67,851 60,850

17,530 24,616 25,750 28,661 25,745

17,873 24,000 25,831 26,940 24,422

16,530 18,477 26,200 25,794 21,255

23,482 28,995 37,138 37,234 29,222

I

I

I

Total 166,693 273,201 284,498 275,938 317,924 357,679 430,250 515,246 533,680 503,537

*6/16 fee increased from 10C to 25`

VISITATION--CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

January 29,236 27,540 27,001 23,661 18,475 18,917 15,923 15,864 16,707 20,889

February 34,787 34,821 35,210 20,457 21,714 23,363 21,481 25,947 21,479 26,767

March 36,578 37,603 36,322 24,220 29,405 22,969 26,975 27,605 32,361 36,611

*April 41,440 36,412 39,855 31,815 24,640 33,248 33,145 38,245 44,115 26,174

*May 32,188 27,219 30,671 25,740 20,968 26,724 23,039 26,042 26,419 24,832

*June 58,769 59,808 53,356 50,580 47,221 50,251 51,108 54,967 63,689 33,838

*July 83,933 77,841 74,340 66,385 54,679 68,698 73,191 79,182 84,174 43,908

August 65,941 55,171 64,538 56,530 67,318 59,063 62,794 74,796 78,449 44,065

**September 23,618 21,416 21,955 16,377 18,062 13,688 17,655 18,136 18,855 11,409

October 22,445 16,880 20,692 17,347 14,441 16,480 16,459 16,643 15,852 12,827

November 21,900 16,861 17,787 17,798 13,932 13,789 16,719 16,598 15,228 13,798

December 28,051 29,188 29,450 22,571 25,350 19,157 27,117 22,591 26,296 27,252

Total 478,886 440,760 451,177 373,481 356,205 366,347 385,606 416,605 443,624 322,370

*Widening of Fort Marion Circle underway.

**U.S. Highway #1 bypass opened.

120

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

P

I

I

I

I

VISITATION--CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1965

January 20,122

February 23,429

March 24,668

April 35,455

May 24,979

June 56,554

July 100,436

August 90,127

September 20,949

October 18,765

November 20,325

December 34,042

Total 469 , 851

1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

20,387 20,496 17,456 13,147 20,053 25,936 29,344 32,824 26,382

26,263 26,352 24,943 18,496 24,746 29,744 36,429 42,594 29,605

38,078 48,093 31,627 29,338 44,875 38,237 61,352 58,000 33,282

47,774* 32,658 43,862 36,926 39,831 38,302 69,281 78,958 52,657

30,026 27,344 29,092 31,277**** 35,088 38,705 47,402 54,333 38,757

62,177 60,617** 61,154 66,349 69,984 66,293 100,247 88,845 68,350

92,971 88,917 87,872 90,329 93,549 102,570 130,049 109,202 92,317

82,388 82,742 76,031 84,241 86,542 88,630 109,107 99,022 84,130

19,499 21,360 19,772 18,001 22,483 24,585 32,225 32,746 28,277

17,575 16,641 14,217 15,962 18,917 22,734* 29,658 33,784 29,642

19,572 18,604 15,197*** 22,104 22,057 26,565 28,142 36,365 33,599

31,811 29,928 25,069 36,780 34,049 42,824 44,912 32,767 49,117

488,521 473,752 446,292 462,950 512,174 565,125 718,148 699,440 566,115

*Fee raised to 504 effective 4/1/66

**Opening 1-95 between Bayard & Pellicer Creek 6/1

***CASA closed Thurs & Fri effective 11/15

****CASA began opening Thurs & Fri 5/8/69

*Disney World in Orlando opened 10/1/71

VISITATION--CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

January 35,822 43,189 32,415 36,121 36,666 33,776 36,904 34,686 35,804 32,617

February 50,526 58,062 46,602 46,441 47,952 44,945 44,991 45,893 47,637 50,717

March 80,140 72,031 64,358 85,074 74,671 62,527 66,730 65,994 74,474 72,480

April 61,897 79,391 70,157 69,150 77,245 69,208 74,283 75,345 72,661 76,305

May 48,149 55,368 50,065 60,472 53,383 52,165 59,364 57,126 59,792 59,687

June 89,119 92,632 81,530 95,609 71,850 69,678 72,827 71,673 80,623 79,977

July 115,121 131,346 111,556 122,633 83,496 78,346 86,696 91,012 91,836 96,242

August 102,682 **98,806 92,420 98,794 76,433 70,650 77,770 75,405 70,001 74,516

September 27,373 33,748 34,503 37,418 30,611 29,017 36,530 35,745 35,055 38,749

October 31,041 36,929 38,194 39,322 33,450 33,303 37,887 37,847 42,930 42,637

November 36,515 34,223 37,712 41,357 37,462 37,462 +37,270 38,570 41,460 38,851

December *58,034 44,870 43,854 42,246 39,489 40,623 35,841 43,583 33,798 43,554

Total 736,419 780,595 703,366 774,637 663,097 621,700 667,093 672,879 686,071 706,332

*Visitation for December 28, 1975 was 7,772 (highest day on record).

**Began adding 2% non-recreation visitation ( external visitor factor) for grounds and City Gate.

+Nov. 23, 1981 - Because President Reagan vetoed the budget presented to him by Congress,

the Fort was closed at 2 p.m. and employees sent home.

121
VISITATION--CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

January 32,825 38,368

February 48,329 51,760

March 71,059 82,549

April 75,568 73,744

May 61,440 67,827

June 78,338 83,939

July 96,419

August 79,803

September 35,114

October 39,961

November 46,789

December 47,581

Total 713,226

122

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

VISITATION--FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1937 1938 1939 1940 1941 1942 1943 1944

January 686 1,857 1,574 1,686 714 130 156 196

February 929 2,041 2,062 1,996 819 112 163 189

March 2,612 2,170 2,463 1,991 916 181 156 183

April 1,909 3,169 1,523 1,552 651 226 183 196

May 1,087 1,904 1,121 1,228 496 153 173 204

June 1,994 1,245 1,095 1,095 252 196 187 221

July 2,925 2,207 2,218 1,673 254 163 185 213

August 2,135 1,809 2,379 1,428 163 193 234 273

September 1,497 1,058 1,478 916 163 231 206 532

October 3,201 1,243 1,098 1,098 763 138 153 171

November 902 1,031 987 894 608 122 234 206

December 849 1,576 1,584 1,436 941 120 172 232

VISITATION—FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1945 1946 1947 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954

January 821 1,062 986 1,495 1,412 1,365 2,635 2,523 3,816

February 963 1,045 1,027 1,640 1,721 2,416 2,826 2,751 3,740

March 1,657 1,278 1,296 1,663 1,554 3,148 3,730 3,911 4,728

April 1,262 1,148 1,303 1,456 2,013 2,553 3,156 4,253 5,116

May 898 974 946 1,061 1,289 2,223 2,384 3,546 4,268

June 1,272 1,345 1,286 1,391 1,491 3,070 3,871 5,130 5,461

July 1,319 1,308 1,361 1,956 1,931 4,513 4,865 5,811 6,815

August 1,376 1,432 1,524 1,831 1,286 4,393 4,632 5,628 6,995

September 853 792 1,048 1,042 410 1,993 1,562 3,000 2,500

October 381 831 814 993 910 442 1,210 1,865 2,980 2,010

November 416 886 913 924 963 430 1,452 1,621 2,857 1,965

December 468 1,143 1,108 1,110 997 953 1,728 2,541 3,251 3,065

Total 11,686 13,244 13,612 16,562 15,977 26,486 34,051 35,598 45,659 50,479

123
VISITATION--FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964

January 3,801 3,620 3,543 3,982 4,087 4,237 4,721 3,294 5,892 6,202

February 3,547 4,282 4,673 3,266 4,831 4,670 5,197 5,488 5,329 8,354

March 4,469 5,244 5,425 5,063 6,323 4,212 6,639 6,451 7,140 10,044

April 5,208 5,032 5,536 5,021 6,429 5,616 6,853 6,507 7,260 8,521

May 4,310 3,122 3,612 3,740 5,271 5,288 5,512 5,295 5,449 8,173

June 5,483 5,921 6,732 6,547 8,511 10,363 8,193 9,576 9,227 11,368

July 7,302 7,442 8,060 8,421 11,023 7,763 7,969 10,483 10,780 12,936

August 6,922 7,154 8,371 8,763 11,081 5,396 9,079 9,755 9,128 10,946

September 3,520 3,615 4,050 3,411 4,474 4,400 4,228 3,955 5,173 6,388

October 3,490 2,872 2,965 3,609 3,211 3,773 3,413 3,392 5,199 5,793

November 2,473 2,947 3,450 4,123 3,130 3,447 3,360 3,224 4,501 6,510

December 2,850 3,245 3,867 4,674 4,107 2,567 4,081 4,930 5,231 7,459

Total 53,375 54,496 60,293 60,620 72,478 62,732 69,245 72,350 80,309 102,694

VISITATION--FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974

January 8,288 9,999 10,669 8,813 8,275 8,825 9,059 11,263 12,690 17,881

February 9,222 10,884 12,256 12,073 8,700 9,924 11,356 11,817 15,926 14,729

March 11,809 14,020 18,705 16,976 11,150 17,350 14,752 19,568 22,590 20,564

April 12,169 15,646 16,890 18,162 16,100 20,300 19,925 21,349 21,015 31,993

May 10,157 13,898 14,763 12,576 13,075 17,601 17,558 16,837 24,188 22,209

June 15,694 21,813 21,165 20,250 20,850 21,689 20,689 26,386 32,820 25,595

July 19,649 30,798 27,606 25,625 29,200 28,990 26,281 30,679 41,726 26,437

August 18,483 26,515 22,722 22,950 25,100 26,344 21,550 24,804 36,262 26,126

September 8,312 10,991 13,722 13,375 11,600 14,218 13,023 17,689 21,422 20,245

October 7,476 11,028 10,445 9,189 6,650 9,887 10,588 14,035 16,963 16,444

November 6,902 9,785 8,862 8,100 8,525 8,493 9,074 10,795 16,702 17,147

December 7,660 10,186 9,912 7,700 7,500 8,959 10,154 12,417 13,841 16,549

Total 135,821 185,563 187,717 175,789 166,725 192,580 184,009 217,639 276,145 255,919

124

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

D

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

VISITATION—FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

22,352

14,857

10,123

12.079

1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984

11,114 11,567 12,997 13,419 10,580 12,400 13,261 11,296

16,621 14,246 12,286 16,334 17,369 15,675 15,957 20,213

32,333 29,165 25,016 29,538 29,180 26,832 26,970 26,060

37,110 33,074 31,739 29,037 30,705 24,676 28,901 34,556

31,790 27,994 25,016 29,985 29,651 24,361 30,403 30,845

40,269 30,300 27,930 28,537** 30,947 25,001 24,650 31,748

66,979 44,465 30,371 28,413 32,852 31,098 30,664 37,345

34,006 28,413 26,177 24,941++ 26,946 21,150 24,496 31,880

22,673 35,166 17,695 18,464 20,948 18,001 17,282 24,007

16,182 16,380 15,178 15,186 16,160 15,972 15,896 21,799

13,363 12,110 14,386 9,891 +15,002 13,832 13,841 17,533

7,871 10,572 12,716* 10,498 9,867 12,705 8,469 13,823

Total 260,633 300,028 330,311 293,452 251,507 254,243 270,207 247,694 250,790 301,106

1975 1976

15,262 15,108

21,909 26,526

28,484 36,739

31,079 33,955

23,276 29,097

32,583 34,317

28,692 34,530

16,796 30,345

September 17,147

October 16,236

November 14,060

December 15,109

*A&P Builders began Stabilization of Fort and Shoreline Project 11/26/79.

**St. Johns County began charging fees for vehicular traffic on beach 6/5/80.

+11/23/81 Because President Reagan vetoed the budget presented to him by Congress,

the Fort was closed at 2 p.m. and employees sent home.

-Stabilization of Fort and Shoreline completed August 11, 1980.

VISITATION--FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT

1985 1986

January 14,312 17,816

February 21,117 24,212

March 38,465 37,653

April 37,470 36,834

May 33,441 43,449

June 32,972 48,148

July 44,634

August 26,583

September 24,944

October 23,102

November 21,859

December 14,271

Total 333,170

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994

125
APPENDIX H:

Summary of Federal-City Relations 1819-1955.

126

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

City and Federal Cooperation

A Summary of Federal-City Relations and Recommendations

Concerning City and Federal Cooperation

St. Augustine, Florida

by C. R. Vinten

Superintendent

The following summary reviews the most important points of

relationship between the Federal government and the City of St.

Augustine. It also analyzes the critical problems facing the City, and

points to a solution.

Introductory Data:

In 1819, all lands in the City were owned by the

Sovereign of Spain, except those lands conveyed

by grant or purchase.

After 1821 a joint commission determined which

lands were to be in federal and which in city

ownership. The commission did not agree on all

tracts.

War Department surveys have defined boundaries

of the Castillo military reservation for over

100 years.

The Clements Survey of 1832 defined city and

private properties.

In late 1800's, private owners encroached on

the reservation, and the Act of 1916 let owners

purchase small areas of encroachment.

Encroachments on the reservation by private owners

continued through 1951, but law enforcement resulted in prompt removal.

Federal Cooperation with City Officials and Private Owners.

The license of 1908 by the War Department gave the

City authority to pave Fort Marion Circle, and the

City assumed the responsibility for maintenance

and preventing further private encroachments on

federal lands.

In 1916 private owners were permitted to buy

reservation lands on which they had encroached.

March 1941, the National Park Service urged the

City to secure a competent plan for the Bayfront

127
and Fort Marion circle proposals. Extension of

Bennett Hotel northward was also referred to by

the Service as a potential "bottleneck" and the

City was advised to acquire this vacant property

for future street re-location. Construction of

the hotel extension was authorized by the City.

July 23 , 1943, letter to Mayor O. D. Wolfe by

Superintendent Vinten suggested that the City

make surveys and submit plans for Bay StreetFort Marion Circle project. The nature of the

information needed was outlined. No action was

taken by City.

March-August 1950, Service had several conferences

with Mayor Ronald Jackson regarding a Bayfront

Parking Area. Director Wirth sent City Planner

Irving Root to make a 4 day study of city problem -

September 14-17, 1950. Proposed to offer service

of Mr. Root "free" if City would pay expenses.

Estimated cost $500 for overall plan for city

traffic and parking, and $3000 for comprehensive

city plan including: utilities, traffic and parking, proposed essential improvements, architectural

standards and a modern zoning ordinance. No action

was taken by the City. Negotiations were promoted

by the St. Augustine Historical Society.

June 17, 1952, meeting of Chamber of Commerce

Committee with Castillo staff. Three parking

area solutions suggested by Committee, which

were drawn to scale later by Superintendent

Vinten and discussed with Chamber President

Walt Freeman, and judged impractical.

City Commission Resolution of June 26, 1952,

on congestion and hazards of Fort Marion Circle

forwarded to Director of National Park Service.

The Director's reply emphasized the serious

congestion and accident record on San Marcos Ave.,

West King Street, and the Plaza, compared to the

minor problem on Fort Marion Circle, in letter

to City Clerk of August 27, 1952. This letter

expressed the policy of the Service with regard

to any further encroachment to the north and

east of Ft. Marion Circle, and referred to

"bottlenecks" created by private construction.

July-August 1953, Commissioners Aubrey Davis

and Hobson Cone made requests to the National

Park Service for comments on the Smith and

Gillespie Bayfront Parking area plan. The

study was made during the heavy travel summer

128

IIIIIIIIEIIEIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

of 1953, and a technical report submitted to

City at an open meeting of the Commission.

In general, the study was criticized and

accomplished no useful purpose.

May 14, 1954 letter of Superintendent to Mayor

Aubrey Davis confirmed conference with Commissioners Davis, Cone-Orier. Letter called for

staking of the Lauper plan for Ft. Marion Circle

and a joint study of alignment and location on

the ground. Part of the alignment was staked by

the City, but no further requests were received

to inspect the staked lines.

May 1955. Exchange of letters, - Mayor Brett

asked cooperation of the Service and Superintendent Vinten invited the Mayor to call on him at

any time.

(The above summary points to 57 years of

federal cooperation with official St. Augustine

and its citizens in granting valuable privileges,

deeding the public lands of the reservation lands

to private citizens, conferring with local officials

and committees, making studies and reports of a

technical nature, and advising the city against

unwise and impractical development proposals.

Over the years, the City has been advised to

prevent the establishment of costly "bottlenecks."

The national monument has not been responsible

for the lack of planning.)

Requests by the Federal Government for Cooperation of

City Officials and Citizens in the Protection of the

Castillo Area.

1) In July 1949, the Superintendent requested Mayor

Drazba, City Commissioner Cy Davis, and Engineer

Ponton to cancel a City sign permit issued to

Bennett Hotel for a large neon sign encroaching

on monument lands, and also to remove the city

guide station from the area and to enforce city

solicitation ordinances. The request was refused

and the authority of the federal government was

questioned. No cooperation was offered.

2) May 1950 the City was requested to make a

statement concerning the acquisition of the Drew lot,

proposed under HR-1026, by Congressman Herlong.

City concurred, but later rescinded action.

A

compromise proposal was later submitted. The

City made a counter-offer to endorse HR-1026 if

the National Park Service.would deed Fort Marion

129
I

Circle, and all federal lands beyond, to the City.

The counter proposal was obviously unreasonable.

3) September 27, 1953; meeting with Senator

Smathers, City Commissioners, and Castillo staff.

City presented Bayfront plan and sketch for Fort

Marion Circle widening. Mayor Aubrey Davis presented the City's desire to have Fort Marion

Circle, and all lands beyond it, deeded to the

City. Several questions were asked by the Senator,

concluding with a question about what the City

was offering the National Park Service for these

protective lands and loss of controls? There was

nothing to offer. Superintendent Vinten merely

pointed out the need for a revision of the northerly

portion of the Bayfront Plan, as trash and sand

deposits and erosion of Castillo seawalls was

imminent if the Smith and Gillespie plan were

carried out. No practical plan revisions were

discussed or submitted by the City after that conference.

(Research in the field of city cooperation

with the National Park Service produces only

two requests by the Service for official City

cooperation, both of which were refused; and a

third request which the City agreed to grant,

contingent upon the conveyance of valuable protective lands to the City as a gift. The study of the

records reveals numerous attempts to encroach on

federal lands and efforts to break down the authority

and ownership of the United States; such as the JuneJuly 1951 effort of City and County Attorneys in

Federal Court, Jacksonville, to claim that the

National Park Service had no jurisdiction on

Fort Marion Circle and that boundaries were in

dispute.

(The court refused to hear the arguments.)

4) The National Park Service has had excellent

cooperation from the St. Augustine Police Department, the press and radio, the St. Augustine

Historical Society, and many progressive citizens

of the community who have come to the defense of

the national monument when threats to its integrity

have been proposed.

CONCLUSION: The above summary merely covers a few of

the highlights which apply most closely to the problem at hand. That

problem is:

1) In a request for cooperation of the National

Park Service, what is the definition of cooperation which the City has in mind?

130

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

In addition to the above examples of

cooperation, the Service has spent

about $1,500,000 on public service to

millions of visitors; and has stabilized,

protected and maintained the area as a

national attraction for 20 years. Close

to a quarter of a million historical

leaflets are taken by visitors and mailed

all over the United States every year.

What can the city do in recognition of

this cooperation?

2) Is the City willing to secure the services of

one of the most competent City Planners in the

United States to solve the city-wide traffic,

parking, and hazard problems ; and to present

such a plan to the National Park Service if

such a plan calls for cooperation of the Service?

The City now has a tourist business estimated

as worth $15,000,000 a year. The City can

not afford to continue to make costly errors

which are a result of unwise developments,

and the National Park Service can not be

counted upon to contribute to further errors,

or agree to further encroachments on the

national monument area. Neither the

City nor the National Park Service can

afford to experiment with cheap plans

or with amateur and inexperienced planners.

The need for historical conservation must

be recognized by the City and the National

Park Service as a value which the entire

nation can rightly claim. There is no

economy in piecemeal planning for an asset

of these proportions. There are irreplaceable values here which can easily be lost.

There must be a recognition of the fact

that while progress means change, - change

does not always mean progress; and changes

in the historic waterfront or in the historic

town, should be made only after consultation

with the best planning genius available in

the United States. Anything less than that

will be less than the Ancient City deserves;

and any plan by unqualified planners will

not inspire any great amount of interest by

the National Park Service.

3) If such a plan were secured by the City is there

any assurance that it would be adopted as a guide

for an orderly. and economical city growth?

131
I

If the City is convinced that the science

of city planning is essential to the future

prosperity of the community, then an investment in a city plan would be sound. The

National Park Service would then have

assurance that its program for preserving

and interpreting the national monument

would be supplemented by a similar program of

the City, namely, to preserve and interpret

Colonial St. Augustine.

On the other hand, if the City continues to

plan on a piecemeal basis, and to adopt

dangerous and immature plans, the course of

"so-called" progress, as the history of the

past few decades has proven, will lead into

more "bottlenecks" and "bypasses." In a few

years the City will be confronted with a

demand for by-passing of State Road A-1-A

traffic, which may be forced to follow US-1

as far as Crescent Beach. As A-1-A

traffic is principally composed of

recreational or sightseeing travelers

the plan for retaining it involves a

study of the entire route through town

in order to provide for increasing loads.

A most important phase of the town plan

is the one related to the preservation of

Colonial St. Augustine in a way that will

assure greater attractiveness and at the

same time provide for the heavier use which

the future will bring. The problem is one

which calls for the experience and skill of

the best planning talent in the United States:

One who has the vision and ingenuity to provide for progress without sacrificing antiquity

and charm, and one who has the ability to distinguish between constructive change and the

alternative of destructive and unsound development.

An investment in an adequate long-range plan

for the City is the foundation upon which to

build a zoning ordinance, a long range plan

for utilities, and a plan for preserving and

interpreting Colonial St. Augustine as an important milestone in the history of the entire

western hemisphere. There will never be a

better time nor a cheaper time to start such

a constructive and far-seeing program. In

fact, time is running out on St. Augustine.

132

IIIIIIIIIIIII1III
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

The errors of the past should be adequate

proof of the urgent need for an orderly plan

for the future of St. Augustine. The City

can be assured of the continued cooperation

of the National Park Service in a progressive

and safe objective of this kind.

133
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1II
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MANUSCRIPT MATERIAL

Harpers Ferry, West Virginia. Harpers Ferry Center: National Park

Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services. Castillo de San

Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument

correspondence files.

St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

Boxes 1-25, Corps of Engineers. War Department Records.

St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

Photographic Collection, 1912.

St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and

Fort Matanzas National Monument. Annual Report Files.

St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and

Fort Matanzas National Monument. Historians Monthly Narrative

Report.

St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and

Fort Matanzas National Monument. Superintendent's Monthly Report

Files.

St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and

Fort Matanzas National Monument. The National Park Service History

of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas

National Monument, 1973-1979.

St. Augustine, Florida. Fort Matanzas National Monument. Boxes 1-3,

Corps of Engineers. War Department Records.

Washington, D. C. National Archives. Record Group 79. Records of

the War Department.

Washington, D. C. National Archives. Record Group 79. Records of the

National Park Service.

Washington, D. C. National Archives. Record Group 92. Records of the

Quartermaster Department.

GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS

Deagan, Kathleen A. "An Assessment Of Archaeological Collections At

The Castillo de San Marcos, St. Augustine, Florida." Tallahassee,

Florida: Florida State University, October. 1975.

135
Deagan, Kathleen A. "Archeological Investigation of the Fort Matanzas

Interior-1978." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University,

1978.

Deagan, Kathleen A. "Archeological Investigations At Fort Matanzas

National Monument." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University,

February 1976.

Deagan, Kathleen A. "Excavations At The Castillo de San Marcos. "

Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, December 1980.

Deagan, Kathleen A. Excavations at the Castillo de San Marcos St.

Augustine, Florida: Archeological Data in Support of Architectural

Stabilization. Tallahassee: Florida State University, December 1980.

Deagan, Kathleen A. "Report on Monitor/Salvage Activities During the

1980 Architectural Stabilization Procedures at Fort Matanzas National

Monument." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State University, April

1980.

Executive Order, Organization of Executive Agencies. Washington, D. C.

Government Printing Office, 1933.

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. An

Administrative History of Chickamauga and Chattanooga National

Military Park by John C. Paige and Jerome A. Greene. Denver,

1983.

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Castillo de San

Marcos National Monument and Fort Matanzas National Monument

Historical Research Management Plan, by Luis R. Arana, David C.

Dutcher, George M. Strock, and F. Ross Holland, Jr. Washington,

D.C., 1967.

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Centennial

Edition National Park Service Officials March 1, 1972, by Howard W.

Baker. Washington, 1972.

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Historic

Structure Report For Castillo de San Marcos National Monument St.

John's County, Florida, by Edwin C. Bearss and John C. Paige.

Denver, 1983.

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "History of

Legislation Relating to the National Park System Through the 82nd

Congress," by Edmund B. Rogers. Washington, 1958.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "MISSION 66

Prospectus. Washington, 1956. Castillo de San Marcos National

Monument."

136

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "MISSION 66

Prospectus. Washington, 1956. Fort Matanzas National Monument.

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Notes On The

Excavation of Colonial Floors In The Sally Port And Guardroom Area

At Castillo De San Marcos," by Albert C. Manucy. St. Augustine,

1960.

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Statement for

Interpretation And Visitor Services for Castillo de San Marcos and

Fort Matanzas National Monuments." St. Augustine, 1984.

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Terreplein

Construction Fort Marion Notations on Its Original Character, by

Albert C. Manucy. St. Augustine, 1939.

U. S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "The War

Department Years, 1821-1933," Historic Structure Report For Fort

Matanzas National Monument St. John's County, Florida, by Edwin C.

Bearss. Denver, 1980.

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service. "Administrative

History as a Management Tool," Trends, by Barry Mackintosh.

Washington, 1983.

Williams, Maurice. "Report on Monitoring of Architectural Stabilization

Procedures at Fort Matanzas." Tallahassee, Florida: Florida State

University, 1980.

ORAL HISTORY TRANSCRIPTS AND INTERVIEWS

Aikens, Martha B. National Park Service. Washington, D. C. Telephone

Interview, 12 August, 1985.

Chatelain, Verne E. Retired Historian, Silver Spring, Maryland.

Interview 26 February 1985.

Davenport, L. Theodore. Transcript of Oral History Interview of L.

Theodore Davenport by Albert Manucy. Harpers Ferry Center:

National Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services,

February 15, 1971.

Griffin, Barbara J. National Park Service. St. Augustine, Florida.

Telephone Interview, 14 August 1985.

Kahler, Herbert E. Alexandria, Virginia. Telephone Interview, 5 August

1985.

Kahler, Herbert E. Transcript of Oral History Interview of Herbert E.

Kahler by Albert Manucy. Harpers Ferry Center, National Park

Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services, July 1, 1971.

137
Kahler, Herbert E. Transcript of Oral History Interview of Herbert E.

Kahler by Luis Arana. National Park Service, Harpers Ferry

Center: Branch of Archival and Library Services, January 20,

1975.

Manucy, Albert C. Transcript of Reminiscences to Charles B. Hosmer,

Jr., Harpers Ferry Center: National Park Service, Branch of

Archival and Library Services, November 11, 1972.

Roberts, Bertrum C. Transcript of Oral history Interview of Bertrum C.

Roberts by S. Herbert Evison. Harpers Ferry Center: National

Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services, March 26,

1971.

Schesventer, George F. Transcript of Oral History Interview of George

F. Schesventer by S. Herbert Evison. Harpers Ferry Center:

National Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services,

November 8, 1973.

Vinten, C. Raymond. Transcript of Oral History Interview of C.

Raymond Vinten by S. Herbert Evison. Harpers Ferry Center:

National Park Service, Branch of Archival and Library Services,

April 6, 1971.

UNPUBLISHED MATERIAL

Gluckman, Stephen J. "An Archeological Survey Of Fort Matanzas

National Monument." (unpublished) 1966.

St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument,

"Conservation And Reutilization Of Castillo de San Marcos And Fort

Matanzas," by Luis R. Arana, 1984 (Xeroxed).

St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, "One

Who Wasn't Pillaged," by Luis R. Arana, undated (Xeroxed).

St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument,

"Castillo de San Marcos National Monument Centennial/Tricentennial

Calendar 1972," (Xeroxed).

St. Augustine, Florida. Castillo de San Marcos National Monument,

"Schedule of Events for 400th Anniversary Celebration." (Xeroxed).

U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, "Time Line," by

C. Craig Frazier. (Denver: Denver Service Center, November

1984), (unpublished).

138,

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I
I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

E

BOOKS, PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS

Arana, Luis R. "Notes On Fort Matanzas National Monument." f_I

Escribano 18 (1981): 45-73.

A Winter From Home. New York: John F. Trow [1852].

Barbour, George M. Florida For Tourists, Invalids, And Settlers. New

York: D. Appleton and Company, 1882; reprint ed. , Jacksonville:

Quadricentennial Edition of the Floridiana Facsimile and Reprint

Series, 1964.

Bill, Ledyard. A Winter In Florida. New York: Wood & Holbrook, 1870.

Bryant, William Cullen. Letters Of A Traveler; Or Notes Of Things Seen

In Europe And America. New York: George P. Putnam, 1850.

Colburn, David R. Racial Change and Community Crisis St. Augustine,

Florida, 1877-1980. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985.

East, Omega G. "Apache Prisoners In Fort Marion, 1886-1887," El

Escribano 6 (1969).

Eagan, D. The Florida Settler, Or Immigrant's Guide. Tallahassee:

Office of the Floridian, 1873.

Fennimore, Constance. "The Ancient City, Part I." Harpers New

Monthly Magazine. December 1874.

Graham, Thomas. The Awakening Of St. Augustine: The Anderson

Family and the Oldest City 1821-1924. St. Augustine, Florida: St

Augustine Historical Society, 1978.

King, Thomas F., Patricia Parker Hickman and Gary Berg. Anthropology

In Historic Preservation: Caring For Culture's Clutter. New York:

Academic Press, 1977.

Murray, Amelia M. Letters From The United States, Cuba and Canada.

New York: G.P. Putnam & Company, 1856.

Pratt, Richard Henry. Battlefield And Classroom: Four Decades with the

American Indian, 1867-1904, ed. by Robert M. Utley. New Haven:

Yale University Press, 1964.

"Rambler." Guide To Florida. New York: The American News Company,

1875; reprint ed. , Jacksonville: Floridiana Facsimile and Reprint

Series, 1964.

Sewall, R. K. Sketches Of St. Augustine. New York: George P.

Putnam, 1848; reprint ed., Gainesville: The University Presses of.

Florida, 1976.

139
Sylvia Sunshine [A.M. Brooks]. Petals Plucked From Sunny Climes.

Nashville: Southern Methodist Publishing House, 1880.

The Florida Metrop^jlis, June 1-1, 192.1.

140

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIEIIIIIIIIIIIE

ILLUSTRATIONS

141
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

142

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIM

iiIIIINIII

II

LI I

11

144 11
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
N

Illustration 3.

Dr. Dewitt Webb

Courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society.

146

I

N

I

I

I

Ii

I

I

11

I

I

I

t

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Illustration 4.

Officials of St. Augustine Historical Society left to right: Emily L.

Wilson (historian), Albert C. Manucy (librarian) and David R. Dunham

(president), October 1951.

Courtesy of the St. Augustine Historical Society.

148

I

r

I

I

r

I

1

I

t

If

P

I

I

I

I

I

1

11

II

r
II
I

Illustration 5.

Presentation of Barcia's History of Florida, by X.L. Pellicer (center),

President St. Augustine Historical Society, to Dr. Fernando Rubio (left)

and Dr. Francisco Sinteo Obrador (right), April 1956.

Courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society.

150

1

11

I

I

1,

I

I

I

I

C

r

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Illustration 6.

Verne E. Chatelain, Chief, Historical Division, National Park Service,

Courtesy of Verne E. Chatelain.

Courtesy of Verne E. Chatelain.

152

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

Ii

I

I

I

II

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I

Illustration 7.

Herbert E. Kahler, Custodian, Acting Superintendent, Superintendent

1933-1939.

Courtesy of Herbert E. Kahler.

154

11

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

LI

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Illustration 8.

Top: Edward D. Freeland, Superintendent 1939-1941, Castillo de San

Marcos and Fort Matanzas National Monuments, October 20, 1939.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

Bottom: C. Raymond Vinten, left, Superintendent, Castillo de San Marcos

National Monument 1942-1961, Fort Matanzas National Monument, 1953-1961,

December 31, 1959.

Edward J. Eaton, right, Superintendent, Fort Matanzas National

Monument, 1942-1953; receiving commendable service award, December 31,

1959.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

156

C

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

0

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I OF 1565

,,iiCr„pi of

In lu , ^I iutihierti

•1 ,l.-f0 nrilrs to fl,e north. inc

11 lit „+t .;l)ll to

.illrr (1i11 ► heir defenseless base

word 1`lai^,nzas means

the Fortified tower of Matanzas

t to pard the soulh enirance of

,,stine. I
I

Illustration

Top: Howard M. Johnson, left, land donor, Fort Matanzas National

Monument, October 19, 1962.

Bertrum C. Roberts, right, Superintendent, Castillo de San Marcos and

Fort Matanzas National Monuments, 1961-1965, October 19, 1962.

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

Bottom: L. Theodore Davenport, Superintende nt, :, till n l 1; ri '

Matanzas National Monuments, 1966-1971.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

158

I

I

I

i

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I

Illustration 10.

Top: George F. Schesventer, left, Superintendent, Castillo de San Marcos

and Fort Matanzas National Monuments, 1971-1980, September 27, 1973.

Robert C. Hall, right, maintenance, receiving service pin, September 27,

1973.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

1

I

i

I

I

I

i;otiier: %larthi Li. .^ii^en.^, ^uperintc^ndenl, i-:"islillo

Fort Matanzas National Monuments, 1980-1983.

Courtesy of Martha B. Aikens.

Bottom: Barbara J. Griffin, left, Superintendent, 1984 to present; and

Luis R. Arana, right, historian (receiving 30 year award plaque), Castillo

de San Marcos and Fort Matanzas, April 25, 1985.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

160

I

I

I

I

G

I

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I

Illustration 11.

Top: Albert C. Manucy, Historian, 1959.

Bottom: Luis R. Arana, Historian, 1962.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument162

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

11

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Illustration 12.

Top: Tressa Y. and Howard M. Johnson, land donors, Fort Matanzas

National Monument, circa 1940s.

Bottom: Maintenance worker James Shope and son, May 29, 1972

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

164

I

I

I

I

I

Ii '

I

11

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I^

I

I

I
II1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Illustration 13.

Top: Robert Batie, maintenance man now retired, painting iron cannon

tube, Castillo de San Marcos National Monument, February 15, 1974.

Bottom: Replanking ravelin bridge at Castillo de San Marcos National

Monument, January 16, 1974.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

166

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

11

II

I

I

I

I

I

V

I

I
IIIIIIIIII1IIIIIIII
I

illustration 14.

Top: Commemorative stamp issue ceremony on 400th anniversary, Castillo

de San Marcos National Monument, August 28, 1965.

Bottom: Presentation of statue of San Marcos by Spanish Minister of

Industry, Gregorio Lopez Bravo (right), to Staff Historian Albert C.

Manucy (left) and Monsignor John J. Burns, Cathedral of St. Augustine,

during 400th anniversary year, November 27, 1965.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

168

I

I

r

i

0

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I

I

I

1
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItI
Ii

Illustration 15.

Spanish Minister of Information and Tourism Alfredo Sanchez Bella,

presenting a painting at one event celebrating the 300th anniversary of

building the Castillo. Left to right Superintendent George F.

Schesventer; Spanish Consul General Vicente Ramirez Montesinos-Miami;

Senor Bella; and Flagler Foundation Director Lawrence Lewis, September

1972.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

170

I

Ii

I

t'^

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

'f

I

I

I
1IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Illustration 16.

Top: The Castillo de San Marcos from the southwest, 1886.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

172

I

I

I

I

II

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIFIIIIIIIIIIF
Illustration 17.

Top: Courtyard and stairway to terreplein looking southeast, Castillo

San Marcos National Monument, April 18, 1947.

Bottom: Courtyard looking northeast, Castillo de San Marcos National

Monument, April 13, 1960.

Courtesv of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument,

174

I

I

I

I

I

1!

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

1

I

I
IIIIIIIItIIIIIIII

_al I
Illustration 18.

Top: Archeological investigation of the courtyard conducted by jean

Harrington, January 28, 1953.

C.

Bottom: View of terreplein and San Carlos watchtower, Castillo de San

Marcos National Monument, July 3, 1955.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

176

I

ii

I

I

I

11

I

I

I

I

I

H

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII l

i

m ii El 11

I I
Illustration 19.

Top: Aerial view of Fort Matanzas National Monument, 1942.

Bottom: Ocean front looking south, Fort Matanzas National Monument,

October 1971.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

178

t

I

1

1

I

Y

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIrIIIIrIIIIIII
Illustration 20.

Top: Visitor Center and ranger residence completed by the Works Project

Administration, 1937.

Bottom: Fort Matanzas, southwest quadrant, December 16, 1981.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

180

I

I

I

t

I

t

I

11

I

I

I

I I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I

Illustration 21.

Matanzas Queen visitor ferry to Fort Matanzas, 1980.

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument.

182

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

it '

I

t

I

I

I

I

I
El

1

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

-.^..^_ .^

^^-MMOF=-,

-? ^. ` ^^. j.a..^^ '^'^i

► ^

^'^. `

^ • - ---- - _ ..f ^-: ..^,: -. ^. . - -

_ -^: -, ^ ^, .^V ;^ _ ^.^^. >^^, _^•^-^.,. - ,s' - ^ .

.^^ ^^• ♦ 4 ^ !

^_ , ..+/^ . ^_.F_=-•. ..' ^^ . .. . ^^-^,^ . .. ^ =^ , , .. ^--` :^^^^^ -,.yl,^

' '- . ' .• .^.w. . _ _.s - . .-^, "^ ^a. ^

I
As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Department of the

Interior has basic responsibilities to protect and conserve our land and

water, energy and minerals, fish and wildlife, parks and recreation

areas, and to ensure the wise use of all these resources. The

Department also has major responsibility for American Indian reservation

communities and for people who live in island territories under U.S.

administration. NPS D-13, July 1986

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

III

11

II

I

It

1

I

I

I

I

I
IIIIIIIIIIItIIIIItI
IIIIIIIIIIIII1IIII1