administrative history 

CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS 

FORT MATANZAS 

NATIONAL MONUMENTS/FLORIDA 
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 
CONTENTS 

iii 

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 / 102 
iv 

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

Administered by the National Park Service, July 28, 1933 / 101 

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 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

Returning to a place associated with pleasant memories after some twenty 

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. Fretweil, 

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 
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. 

vi 
vii 
viii 
ix 
X 
The Castillo de San Marcos from the southwest, 1967. 

Courtesy of 

Castillo de San Marcos 

National Monument 

Fort Matanzas, southeast quadrant, July 23, 1968. 

xi 
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. 

1 
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 Tlorida 

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"). 

2 
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. 

3 
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 
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<f 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 
charge of fori Marion encouraged white and Indian interaction through 

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 Tuttle, Francis S. 

Dancy, Henry W. Benham, Jeremy F. Gilmer, and Captain William 11.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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
of the city including the structure which housed the Society collections. 

In seeking the arrangement with the War Department the President of the 

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, O.C., March 26, 1915, War 

Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 

15 
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 
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 

17 

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. 
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. 

18. District Engineer to Chief of Engineers, November 10, 1917, War 

Department Records, CASA, Box 25. 

18 
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, CAS A, 

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 
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 
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. Bearss, "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 
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 
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 
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, CAS A, 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 acguire 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 
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 QuartermasterGeneral. "(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 whal 

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 
request, of the Quartermaster General he sought and received from Davis 

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 pulling 

Harris' chestnuts out of the fire."(66) A side issue in the contentions 

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 
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 WarVeterans 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 
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 
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) 

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

National Park Service, RG 79, NA. 

Receipts 

Gross—Guide Services 

Gross--Souvenir Sales 

Total Gross Receipts 

Expense s 

Guide Salaries—Society 

Miscellaneous--Society 

Maintenance--50/50 

Wholesale price--curato r 

Clerk--curato r 

Fort Matanzas--maintenance 

Net Receipts 

Historical Society 

William J. Harris, Curato r 

1929 

$10,325 

9,708 

20,033 

3,399 

290 

1,224 

5,825 

1,440 

- -

5,383 

2,470 

1930 

$11,816 

9,781 

21,597 

3,220 

884 

1,479 

5,869 

1,440 

370 

5,974 

2,730 

Year 

1931 

$10,136 

7,745 

17,881 

3,662 

493 

1,440 

4,647 

1,440 

12 

4,275 

1,922 

1932 

$ 7,299 

5,146 

12,445 

3,293 

463 

1,081 

3,088 

1,260 

12 

2,206 

1,053 

1933 

$ 3,777 

3,424 

7,201 

2,224 

936 

839 

2,054 

1,260 

10 

- 63 

- 50 

1934 

$ 6,553 

4,129 

10,682 

2,090 

873 

787 

2,477 

728 

- -

2,382 

1,342 

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 
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 
92. Ibid. 

93. Ibid., p. 4. 

38 

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. 
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.(1) 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 
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 
Kuhler did not. Lake long to size up the situation at St.. Augustine, 

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 
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 
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. 

44 
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 
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 
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 
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 
Internal Improvement. Tund deeded some 120 acres of tideland adjacent, to 

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 11 

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 
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 
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 
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 with approval in Ihe 

MISSION 66 Prospectus (revised June 25, 1957) for Castillo. (68) Several 

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). 

58 
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 

59 

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. 
60 

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. 
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 newadministration 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 
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 breath 

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 
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," 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 
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 
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 
allowed restrictions on several forms of recreation on the green. Pets, 

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 
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 
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 
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, CAS A, p . 5. 

10. Ibid. 

11. Lattimore, "Inspection Report, Interpretive Program, Fort Matanzas 

National Monument, July 13, 1940, CAS A, p . 3. 

72 
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," CASA, p . 1. 

16. Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, Vinten to Coordinating 

Superintendent, November 25, 1943!, 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 
of commission at the same time, the superintendent reported. (22) 

Matanzas 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 
the reaction proved favorable. (27) Superintendent Roberts, not an 

advocate of the new presentation, noted that the contract expired al letfive 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. 

i 

32. Ibid. , p . 1. 

33. Ibid., p. 2. 

76 
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, pp. 

8-10. 

35. Ibid. , 1974, pp. 11-13. 

36. Ibid., 1975, pp. 12-14. 

37. Ibid. , 1976, pp. 18-19. 

77 
and illustrated the need for a fundamental and necessary step in the 

planning process: par k staff involvement. A know-it-all attitude 

precluded dialogue and focus. Thus, the interpretive prospectu s 

languished until the latte r seventies. (38) The need to focus on the 

Spanish presenc e in Florida (the borderlands) as opposed to the whole 

Spanish colonial system in America escaped the planners and to some 

extent may ye t be lacking today. (39) 

Adjustments in the interpretiv e program made in 1977 included an 

emphasis on safety, protection of historic resource s and change due to 

differing pattern s 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 schedul e many more school group s oriented by "off-site 

materials, pre-visit, and on-sit e visitation materials. "(41) Also, tours on 

the green around the Castillo seemed relaxing to interpretiv e 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 repeate r message on the ferryboa t gave an orientation 

en rout e to the fort and the interpreter, in eighteenth centur y Spanish 

or English uniform, "stresse d the life of the soldier in the outpost rathe r 

than stressin g 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. 

4 1 . Ibid. , p . 21 . 

42. Ibid. , p . 22. 

43. Ibid. , p . 25. 

78 
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 
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 
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 Reports and Annual Reports, 1960-1984, 

CASA. 

82 
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 
Chickamauga and Chattanooga National Military Park designated Herbert 

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 
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, CAS A, 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 
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. 

76. Ibid., p. 7. 

88 
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 
Deagan conducted three other archeological research efforts in ]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 
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 
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 
nonviolent demonstrations. Planned protests began in 1963 when local 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) 

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 
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) 

94 

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. 
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 
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 
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 
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 
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 
101 

APPENDICES 
APPENDIX A: 

Proclamation by President Calvin Coolidge Declaring National Monument, 

October 15, 1924: Fort Marion, Fort Matanzas. 

102 
tnioiutyp. ARCA3 UN LLK1AIN MILI1AKY KtitKVAlIUN5 DECLARED NATIONAL 

MONUMENTS.) 

BT> the ipreeloent of the TUniteb States of Bmertca 

H {proclamation. 

TTTIIEREAS, there are various military reservations under the control of the 

* * Secretary uf War which comprise areas of historic and scientific interest; 

ANLI WHEREAS, by section 2 of the Act of Congress approved June 8, 1006 

(34 Stat. 225) the President is authorized 'in his discretion, to declare by public 

proclamation historic landmark*, historic and prehistoric structures, and other 

objects of historic or scientific interest that aro situated upon the lands owned or 

controlled by the Government of tho Unites! States to be national monuments, and 

may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, 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 he protected"; 

< Now THEREFORE, 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 designates), 

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-pointed star and clearly define the area 

comprising about two and one-half acres. 

CASTLE PINCKNEY. Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. 

The entire reservation, comprising three and one-half acres situated on Shutes 

Folly Island at the mouth of Cooper River opposite the southern extremity of the 

city of Charleston and about ono mile distant therefrom. 

FORT PULASKT. GEORGIA 

The entire area comprising the site of tho old fortifications which are clearly 

defined by ditches and embankments, which inclose about twenty acres. 

FORT MARION. FLORIDA 

Th* entire area comprising IS.09 acres situated in the city of Saint Augustine, 

Florid*. 

FORT MATANZAS, FLORIDA 

An ace* of one acre comprising within it the site of th* old fortification which 

is situated on a marsh island south of the present main channel of tho Mltsnisn 

River in tho southeast quarter of section 14, Township • South, Range 30 East, 

about 13 miles from the city of Saint Auguetme, and about one sails from Mat oases 

Inlet. . 

f p WUtoUm utMUE**C, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the 

seedmtf the United States to be affixed. 

D»NB at the city of Washington this fifteenth day of October, in tho 

year of our Load on* thousand nine h—dred and twenty-four, and 

[SEAL.] of the Independence of tho United State* of America the not 

hundred and forty-aiath. 

CALVIN COOLIDGE 

Fry fed frattttont: 

Joanna C. GREW 

rieriny Secretary of Stale. 

(No. 1713.) 
APPENDIX B: 

Executive Order No. 6228: National Monuments to be Administered by the 

National Park Service, July 28, 1933. 

104 
[Copy I 

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 
NOW, THEREFORE, said executive order No. 6166, dated June 10, 1933, 

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 
APPENDIX C: 

Name Change: Fort Marion to Castillo de San Marcos, June 5, 1942. 

107 
Calendar No. 145 2 

T7TI.CONQRESS I f V} OAO T 

» — • ti . K . Swo t 

[Report No. 1404] 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

Ocrutra 1ft, 1M1 

Rr».l twice AH J rvfrrml to the Cotuuiittee on Public L*ml* tnd Surreyt 

MAT 2ft, IMS 

Rr|M>rtetl by Mr. HATCH, without »n»en«iinent 

AN ACT 

T<> eliaiufe the tlfsipialHMi of tltr Fort Marion National Motmlllt'llt, in I lit* Stale of Florida, and for other puqKisc*. 

1 lie it enacted by the Senate and flounc of Representor 

'1 tivc* of the Unittyl State* of America in Conyre.** cwiembled, 

'.'. That the area now within the Fort Marion National Mnnn4 incut, in the State of Florida, >hall hereafter he known ft* 

5 the "Castillo de San Marcos National Moiiuinent", under 

6 which nnnie the aforesaid national monument shall be entitled 

7 to receive and In use all money* heretofore or hereafter 

8 appropriated for the Fort Marion National Monument. 

Passed the House of Representatives October 15, 1941. 

Attest: SOUTH TRIMBLE, 

Clerk, 

108 
APPENDIX D: 

License to St. Augustine Historical Society & Institute of Science, 

April 16, 1928. 

109 
11IM I I 

THS SICEZTART 07 WAR, under and by virtue of the authority In aim 

•eated, hereby grants to the ST. AUGOSTIKE HISTOEICAL SO CI FIT AMD IMSTITuTX 

07 SCIIMCI, St. Augustine, Florida, hereinafter designated aa tne Society, 

a license, revocable at will by toe Secretary of War, and aubject to the 

provlalone and conaltlona hereinafter aet fortn, to occupy and use for tne 

purposes of said society and lt e museum, and for tne benefit of tne puolic, 

tne following described portion Of TOST MARIO*, St. Augustine, Florida, and 

the military reservation pertaining tnereto, viu 

1. The Society shall be authorised to occupy and uae aa executive 

offices and repository and display rooms the following numoered and 

lettered rooms, namely, rooms 1, 2, C, 9, 10, a> 11, and tne Society 

shall nave access to all otner parts of the reservation and to all 

otner rooms in the Fort that have special historical interest, exclusive of those rooms and parts used specifically for Government purposes; 

provided, that tne Society shall make no essential changes In the Fort 

or the rooms occupied by i t under authority of this license, and tne 

United states shall be put to no expense whatever by reason of such 

occupancy. 

2. Tne Society snail be allowed to maintain a registration book Inside 

tne Fort, and to request visitor s to register, provlded. that registration 

snail not be regarded as a condition precedent to admission to tne Fort, 

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 Fort Marlon during previous years, provided 

tnat all such article s have been approved for sale by Tne quartermaster 

General, or oil duly authorised representative. 

4. Wo 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 General is not in keeping wltn the dignity of Fort 

Marlon as a national historical monument. 

5. Suitable tables and cases for tne display of postcards and otner 

mercnandlse hereinbefore mentioned shall be maintained by tne Society in 

rooms reserved for lt e use and l a such places in tne Sally port as Tne 

quartermaster General may designate, provided, tnat tne sale or display 

of such mercnandlse shall not be permitted in any form or manner whatsoever 

outside of tne rooms and places eo reserved or designated. 

6. Salesmen will conduct tnemeelves l a a courteous and orderly manner, 

and will avoid conveying the Impression that they are employed by the 

Federal Government. They snail not call their article s for sale, nor 

solicit visitors to purchase same, but will answer questions and explain 

toelr wares to visitors, who may request such information or explanation, 

and If any salesman or otner employee snail by word or act, otner than 

tne authorised display of such cards, photographs and other mercnandlse, 

solicit any person to purchase the same, he snail be denied tne privilege 

of tne fort and reservation by order of Tne quartermaster General. 

7. The Fort and the rooms, as designated in paragrapn one ante, shall be 

open to visitors on each ordinary week day between tne hours of 9 A.M. and 

6 P.M., and on Sundays and holidays from 9 A.M. to 5 P.M., provided, tnat 

on agreement between The Quartermaster General and tne Curator of the Society, 

tne hours above named may be altered from time to time to meet tne best 

interests of all concerned, and provided further, that tne Society may close 

110 
any or all of tne rooms specially reserved for lta use wnen eucn closing may 

become necessary for re-arrangement of tne exnlbits, or for business meetings of 

tba Soclaty, or for any other necessary purposes. During tne hours aoove 

specified, eucn employees as may ba necessary for tne comfort and convenience of 

vlaltora, and for tna protection of tna Soclaty exhibits snail be present at 

tnelr assigned placet of duty. In order that tne exhibits and otner property 

may ba secure from theft and vandalism, the Society Is authorized to use lta 

own discretion as to tna admission to Its rooms and exhlolts of visitors not 

accompanied by soma responsible representative of tne Society, or by tne Government caretaker hereinafter provided for. 

8. The society snail license and maintain In attendance at all times wnen tne 

fort Is open to the public, a suitable number of guides, provided, that not mora 

than five sucn licensed guides shall be In attendance and on duty at any time. 

Each guide snail wear a badge properly Inscribed and numbarsd, and no person, 

otnar than the government caretaker, snail ba permitted to act ae guide unless 

licensed by the Society. 

P. The guides snail conduct themselves In a courteous and orderly manner. They 

snail not annoy visitor s by urging tnalr services upon them, nor snail they exact 

fees from vlaltora, but tney may accept gratutles, tne amount of wnlcn. If any, 

snail ba entirely within tna discretion of such visitors, it a suitable point In 

tne usual circuit, guides may distribute to visitor s neatly printed cards, or may 

make an oral announcement concerning tne method of payment for guide services, 

provided, that tne phrasing of such card or oral announcement shall have oeen 

previously approved by The Quartermaster General and snail tnereaftar be rigidly 

adhered to without change. When conducting visitors, guides shall show all parts 

of the Tort and reservation open to public Inspection, end shall point out and 

properly describe objects and points of Interest. Tne officers of tne society 

will be held strictly responsible at all times for tne conduct and competence 

of tnalr guloaa and employees, lay guide guilty of undue sullcltlng or dlscountesy 

to any visitor , or who falls to give proper service. Irrespective of the amount of 

compensation paid him by said visitor , shall, upon a sacond 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 Soclaty shall ba transacted torougn 

him. 

11. The Quartermaster General shall be represented locally by a caretaker of 

tne Tort and reservation, wno may act as guide wltnout a license from tne 

Society, provided, that he snail wear a sultaoiy engraved badge markedly differing 

in design from that worn by licensed guides, and provided further, that ha aaail 

not lntarfera with or supplant any sucn licensed guide, and tnat during tne hours 

when the Tort is open to the public, as specified In paragraph 7 ante, he snail 

be 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 sucn minor repair• to the 

Tort 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 kwep the reservation In a sightly condition at all times 

satisfactory to The Quartermaster General,' shall light and neat to such extent as 

may ba necessary all rooms used by tno society and by tne caretaker, or open to 

the public, shall provide each toile t facilitie s and supplies as may be required 

for the convenience of vlaltora, and shall. If required by The Quartermaster General, 

reimburse tne 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, 

provided, 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, 

tna Society snail 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 Tne Quartermaster General for transmission to the Secretary of War, 

and provided furtner. that for the foregoing purpoeee the year snail begin with 

the fire t day of July, 1928. 

Ill 
13. The Quartermaster General and hie duly authorized representative shall 

at all times hare 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, provided, 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 merchanftise, exhibits, furniture and fixtures pertaining to it, shall 

properly clean the premises occupied by i t under this license, and turn the 

same over in good order and condition to the caretaker of the Fort; and 

provided further, that any sum which may have to be expended after the 

revocation or relinquishment in putting any premises or property hereby 

authorized to be occupied or need 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 hereinbefore provided, or renewed upon 

the application of the Society and approved by the Secretary of War, this 

license shall terminate five years from July 1, 1928. 

IS* WTTSZSS WH2RS0F this license has been executed this 16th day of April, 

1928. 

(Sgd) C. B. BOBBIfi-S 

C. B. R0BBI5S, 

The Assistant Secretary of War. 

THIS LIOBHSS i s accepted under the terms and conditions therein set 

forth this 21st day of April, 1928. 

ST. AOGUSTXBX BISTOBICAL SOCIITT 

AST) INSTITUTX OF SCISHCX. 

BTl 

Frederick s. Vaill 

112 
APPENDIX E: 

Superintendents, 1933 to Present. 

113 
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. Schesvente r 

Martha B. Aikens 

Barbar a J. Griffin 

Custodian CASA/FOMA 

Actg Supt CASA/FOMA and 

Adm Coordinator Castle 

Pinckney, Fts. Pulaski 

and Jefferson 

Supt CASA/FOMA 

Supt CASA/FOMA and 

Coord Supt Southeastern 

National Monuments (SENM) 

(Castle Pinckney, Fts. 

Pulaski, Jefferson and 

Frederica , Ocmulgee) 

Supt CASA/FOMA and 

Coord Supt SENM 

Supt CASA and 

Coord Supt SENM (including Everglade s NP 1947) 

Supt FOMA 

Supt CASA/FOMA Fort 

Caroline (FOCA) 

Supt CASA/FOMA 

Supt CASA/FOMA 

Supt CASA/FOMA/FOCA 

Supt CASA/FOMA/FOCA 

Supt CASA/FOMA/FOCA 

Supt CASA/FOMA 

Supt CASA/FOMA 

Supt CASA/FOMA 

1933 - Oct 34 

Oct 34 - Aug 36 

Aug 36 - Jan 37 

Jan 37 - May 39 

May 39 - Dec 41 

Jan 42 - Sept 53 

Jan 42 - Sept 53 

Sept 53 - Oct 57 

Oct 57 - July 61 

July 61 - Aug 64 

Aug 64 - Dec 65 

Feb 66 - Feb 71 

Mar 71 - Nov 71 

Nov 71 - Oct 80 

Oct 80 - Nov 83 

Mar 84 - date 

114 
APPENDIX F: 

Senior Historians, 1933 to Present. 

115 
Albert C. Manucy 

Luis R. Arana 

Historian CASA 

Regional Interpretive 

Planner with station 

at CASA 

Fulbright Scholar in 

Spain 

Historian CASA for 

MISSION 66/Quadricentennial projects 

Assistant Historian CASA 

(visitor services) 

Historian CASA (supervision) 

Leave without pay for 

study at University of 

Florida 

Historian CASA 

Historian FloridaCaribbean District Office 

(Tallahassee) with station 

at CASA 

Historian CASA 

Nov 38 - Nov 57 

Nov 57 - Aug 62 

Sept 62 - July 63 

July 63 - May 66 

Apr 55 - Nov 57 

Nov 57 - Sept 62 

Sept 62 - July 63 

Aug 63 - May 72 

May 72 - Dec 73 

Dec 73 - date 

116 

Careers of the Senior Historians 
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 
VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1916 

2,877 

5,198 

3,534 

-

-

-

_ 

-

-

-

-

1917 

5,040 

6,646 

7,576 

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,908 

1918 

3,580 

5,035 

6,582 

-

1,090 

700 

732 

769 

502 

503 

743 

1,740 

1919 

3,281 

5,567 

6,769 

-

1,294 

780 

799 

739 

684 

808 

-

2,910 

1920 

4,011 

4,686 

6,130 

3,408 

1,007 

645 

491 

728 

648 

846 

1,620 

3,024 

1921 

4,675 

5,746 

6,993 

3,534 

1,430 

-

1,059 

1,533 

1,221 

-

1,105 

2,257 

1922 

2,710 

4,593 

5,789 

2,992 

2,473 

905 

1,003 

1,133 

788 

1,149 

2,129 

2,670 

1923 

3,714 

4,951 

4,771 

3,267 

1,282 

1,202 

1,445 

2,270 

1,332 

2,799 

4,621 

5,802 

1924 

5,653 

6,443 

5,086 

4,926 

2,778 

2,120 

2,999 

3,367 

3,322 

-

4,242 

4,630 

1925 

5,884 

7,511 

8,616 

4,818 

1,915 

5,431 

9,015 

-

-

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 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1935 

17,809 

22,420 

9,966 

9,985 

10,453 

19,540 

89,873 

1936 1937 

18,258 27,788 

21,761 28,933 

24,622 30,749 

18,018 18,872 

8,987 11,001 

14,365 14,827 

24,225 27,479 

26,686 30,633 

15,426 14,017 

10,870 11,384 

13,058 14,797 

27,860 33,080 

224,127 263,560 

1938 

34,537 

40,508 

32,248 

20,056 

11,496 

17,976 

31,586 

21,550* 

11,572 

9,420 

11,254 

20,694 

262,897 

1939 

25,289 

28,065 

29,823 

17,018 

9,263 

14,955 

24,617 

26,311 

11,478 

10,115 

10,777 

24,875 

232,586 

1940 

22,860 

28,481 

26,397 

15,855 

11,076 

16,436 

25,881 

27,143 

15,444 

11,471 

11,463 

25,339 

237,846 

1941 

27,334 

32,689 

31,925 

29,023 

19,831 

25,225 

35,416 

32,639 

15,265 

18,013 

16,118 

24,227 

307,705 

1942 

19,720 

15,002 

24,381 

20,127 

12,295 

9,799 

8,940 

7,789 

8,428 

10,877 

13,506 

10,120 

160,964 

1943 

12,105 

10,413 

12,377 

12,803 

11,449 

10,165 

12,259 

13,324 

10,169 

10,836 

10,671 

10,657 

137,228 

1944 

13,681 

14,315 

12,463 

13,724 

11,047 

8,993 

12,436 

11,400 

10,384 

10,480 

10,743 

10,674 

140,340 

*Entrance fee inaugurated 

119 
VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1945 

10,296 

12,225 

12,622 

12,612 

10,966 

11,398 

14,551 

16,704 

13,454 

14,542 

17,856 

19,467 

166,693 

1946 

27,801 

35,411 

32,867 

25,703 

20,647 

21,189 

19,761 

22,998 

15,054 

13,113 

16,406 

22,251 

273,201 

1947 

28,864 

31,065 

28,461 

21,634 

16,017 

25,361 

35,612 

33,242 

14,113 

13,677 

15,630 

20,821 

284,498 

1948 

23,810 

26,810 

27,726 

18,871 

13,862 

21,989 

35,327 

34,180 

15,880 

18,531 

16,029 

22,923 

275,938 

1949 

30,309 

35,514 

34,289 

23,520 

18,805 

27,573 

41,581 

36,279 

14,467 

14,958 

15,224 

25,405 

317,924 

1950 

31,011 

38,584 

32,858 

28,116 

20,526 

32,341 

54,202 

44,626 

17,530 

17,873 

16,530 

23,482 

357,679 

1951 

31,427 

34,659 

39,142 

27,535 

27,248 

47,270 

68,373 

58,508 

24,616 

24,000 

18,477 

28,995 

430,250 

1952 

39,032 

46,174 

47,025 

43,979 

32,548 

55,615 

73,335 

62,619 

25,750 

25,831 

26,200 

37,138 

515,246 

1953 

39,764 

45,022 

44,680 

43,594 

33,368 

62,351 

78,421 

67,851 

28,661 

26,940 

25,794 

37,234 

533,680 

1954 

40,014 

47,528 

44,442 

46,477 

38,529 

55,983* 

69,070 

60,850 

25,745 

24,422 

21,255 

29,222 

503,537 

*6/16 fee increased from 10* to 25* 

VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

January 

February 

March 

•April 

*May 

•June 

•July 

August 

••September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1955 

29,236 

34,787 

36,578 

41,440 

32,188 

58,769 

83,933 

65,941 

23,618 

22,445 

21,900 

28,051 

478,886 

1956 

27,540 

34,821 

37,603 

36,412 

27,219 

59,808 

77,841 

55,171 

21,416 

16,880 

16,861 

29,188 

440,760 

1957 

27,001 

35,210 

36,322 

39,855 

30,671 

53,356 

74,340 

64,538 

21,955 

20,692 

17,787 

29,450 

451,177 

1958 

23,661 

20,457 

24,220 

31,815 

25,740 

50,580 

66,385 

56,530 

16,377 

17,347 

17,798 

22,571 

373,481 

1959 

18,475 

21,714 

29,405 

24,640 

20,968 

47,221 

54,679 

67,318 

18,062 

14,441 

13,932 

25,350 

356,205 

1960 

18,917 

23,363 

22,969 

33,248 

26,724 

50,251 

68,698 

59,063 

13,688 

16,480 

13,789 

19,157 

366,347 

1961 

15,923 

21,481 

26,975 

33,145 

23,039 

51,108 

73,191 

62,794 

17,655 

16,459 

16,719 

27,117 

385,606 

1962 

15,864 

25,947 

27,605 

38,245 

26,042 

54,967 

79,182 

74,796 

18,136 

16,643 

16,598 

22,591 

416,605 

1963 

16,707 

21,479 

32,361 

44,115 

26,419 

63,689 

84,174 

78,449 

18,855 

15,852 

15,228 

26,296 

443,624 

1964 

20,889 

26,767 

36,611 

26,174 

24,832 

33,838 

43,908 

44,065 

11,409 

12,827 

13,798 

27,252 

322,370 

•Widening of Fort Marion Circle underway. 

••U.S. Highway #1 bypass opened. 

120 
VISITATION—CASTILLO DE SAN MARCOS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1965 

20,122 

23,429 

24,668 

35,455 

24,979 

56,554 

100,436 

90,127 

20,949 

18,765 

20,325 

34,042 

469,851 

1966 

20,387 

26,263 

38,078 

47,774* 

30,026 

62,177 

92,971 

82,388 

19,499 

17,575 

19,572 

31,811 

488,521 

1967 

20,496 

26,352 

48,093 

32,658 

27,344 

60,617** 

88,917 

82,742 

21,360 

16,641 

18,604 

29,928 

473,752 

1968 

17,456 

24,943 

31,627 

43,862 

29,092 

61,154 

87,872 

76,031 

19,772 

14,217 

15,197*** 

25,069 

446,292 

1969 

13,147 

18,496 

29,338 

36,926 

1970 

20,053 

24,746 

44,875 

39,831 

31,277**** 35,088 

66,349 

90,329 

84,241 

18,001 

15,962 

22,104 

36,780 

462,950 

69,984 

93,549 

86,542 

22,483 

18,917 

22,057 

34,049 

512,174 

1971 

25,936 

29,744 

38,237 

38,302 

38,705 

66,293 

102,570 

88,630 

24,585 

22,734* 

26,565 

42,824 

565,125 

1972 

29,344 

36,429 

61,352 

69,281 

47,402 

100,247 

130,049 

109,107 

32,225 

29,658 

28,142 

44,912 

718,148 

1973 

32,824 

42,594 

58,000 

78,958 

54,333 

88,845 

109,202 

99,022 

32,746 

33,784 

36,365 

32,767 

699,440 

1974 

26,382 

29,605 

33,282 

52.657 

38,757 

68,350 

92,317 

84,130 

28,277 

29,642 

33.599 

49,117 

566,115 

*Fee raised to 50* 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 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1975 

35,822 

50,526 

80,140 

61,897 

48,149 

89,119 

115,121 

102,682 

27,373 

31,041 

36,515 

•58,034 

736,419 

1976 

43,189 

58,062 

72,031 

79,391 

55,368 

92,632 

131,346 

** 98,806 

33,748 

36,929 

34,223 

44,870 

780,595 

1977 

32,415 

46,602 

64,358 

70,157 

50,065 

81,530 

111,556 

92,420 

34,503 

38,194 

37,712 

43,854 

703,366 

1978 

36,121 

46,441 

85,074 

69,150 

60,472 

95,609 

122,633 

98,794 

37,418 

39,322 

41,357 

42,246 

774,637 

1979 

36,666 

47,952 

74,671 

77,245 

53,383 

71,850 

83,496 

76,433 

30,611 

33,450 

37,462 

39,489 

663,097 

1980 

33,776 

44,945 

62,527 

69,208 

52,165 

69,678 

78,346 

70,650 

29,017 

33,303 

37,462 

40,623 

621,700 

1981 

36,904 

44,991 

66,730 

74,283 

59,364 

72,827 

86,696 

77,770 

36,530 

37,887 

+37,270 

35,841 

667,093 

1982 

34,686 

45,893 

65,994 

75,345 

57,126 

71,673 

91,012 

75,405 

35,745 

37,847 

38,570 

43,583 

672,879 

1983 

35,804 

47,637 

74,474 

72,661 

59,792 

80,623 

91,836 

70,001 

35,055 

42,930 

41,460 

33,798 

686,071 

1984 

32,617 

50,717 

72,480 

76,305 

59,687 

79,977 

96,242 

74,516 

38,749 

42,637 

38,851 

43,554 

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 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1985 

32,825 

48,329 

71,059 

75,568 

61,440 

78,338 

96,419 

79,803 

35,114 

39,961 

46,789 

47,581 

713,226 

1986 

38,368 

51,760 

82,549 

73,744 

67,827 

83,939 

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 

122 
VISITATION —FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

1937 

686 

929 

2,612 

1,909 

1,087 

1,994 

2,925 

2,135 

1,497 

3,201 

902 

849 

1938 

1,857 

2,041 

2,170 

3,169 

1,904 

1,245 

2,207 

1,809 

1,058 

1,243 

1,031 

1,576 

1939 

1,574 

2,062 

2,463 

1,523 

1,121 

1,095 

2,218 

2,379 

1,478 

1,098 

987 

1,584 

1940 

1,686 

1,996 

1,991 

1,552 

1,228 

1,095 

1,673 

1,428 

916 

1,098 

894 

1,436 

1941 

714 

819 

916 

651 

496 

252 

254 

163 

163 

763 

608 

941 

1942 

130 

112 

181 

226 

153 

196 

163 

193 

231 

138 

122 

120 

1943 

156 

163 

156 

183 

173 

187 

185 

234 

206 

153 

234 

172 

1944 

196 

189 

183 

196 

204 

221 

213 

273 

532 

171 

206 

232 

VISITATION—FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

123 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1945 

821 

963 

1,657 

1,262 

898 

1,272 

1,319 

1,376 

853 

381 

416 

468 

11,686 

1946 

1,062 

1,045 

1,278 

1,148 

974 

1,345 

1,308 

1,432 

792 

831 

886 

1,143 

13,244 

1947 

986 

1,027 

1,296 

1,303 

946 

1,286 

1,361 

1,524 

1,048 

814 

913 

1,108 

13,612 

1948 

1,495 

1,640 

1,663 

1,456 

1,061 

1,391 

1,956 

1,831 

1,042 

993 

924 

1,110 

16,562 

1949 

1,412 

1,721 

1,554 

2,013 

1,289 

1,491 

1,931 

1,286 

410 

910 

963 

997 

15,977 

1950 

1,365 

2,416 

3,148 

2,553 

2,223 

3,070 

4,513 

4,393 

1,993 

442 

430 

953 

26,486 

1951 

2,635 

2,826 

3,730 

3,156 

2,384 

3,871 

4,865 

4,632 

1,562 

1,210 

1,452 

1,728 

34,051 

1952 

1,865 

1,621 

2,541 

35,598 

1953 

2,523 

2,751 

3,911 

4,253 

3,546 

5,130 

5,811 

5,628 

3,000 

2,980 

2,857 

3,251 

45,659 

1954 

3,816 

3,740 

4,728 

5,116 

4,268 

5,461 

6,815 

6,995 

2,500 

2,010 

1,965 

3,065 

50,479 
VISITATION — FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1955 

3,801 

3,547 

4,469 

5,208 

4,310 

5,483 

7,302 

6,922 

3,520 

3,490 

2,473 

2,850 

53,375 

1956 

3,620 

4,282 

5,244 

5,032 

3,122 

5,921 

7,442 

7,154 

3,615 

2,872 

2,947 

3,245 

54,496 

1957 

3,543 

4,673 

5,425 

5,536 

3,612 

6,732 

8,060 

8,371 

4,050 

2,965 

3,450 

3,867 

60,293 

1958 

3,982 

3,266 

5,063 

5,021 

3,740 

6,547 

8,421 

8,763 

3,411 

3,609 

4,123 

4,674 

60,620 

1959 

4,087 

4,831 

6,323 

6,429 

5,271 

8,511 

11,023 

11,081 

4,474 

3,211 

3,130 

4,107 

72,478 

1960 

4,237 

4,670 

4,212 

5,616 

5,288 

10,363 

7,763 

5,396 

4,400 

3,773 

3,447 

2,567 

62,732 

1961 

4,721 

5,197 

6,639 

6,853 

5,512 

8,193 

7,969 

9,079 

4,228 

3,413 

3,360 

4,081 

69,245 

1962 

3,294 

5,488 

6,451 

6,507 

5,295 

9,576 

10,483 

9,755 

3,955 

3,392 

3,224 

4,930 

72,350 

1963 

5,892 

5,329 

7,140 

7,260 

5,449 

9,227 

10,780 

9,128 

5,173 

5,199 

4,501 

5,231 

80,309 

1964 

6,202 

8,354 

10,044 

8,521 

8,173 

11,368 

12,936 

10,946 

6,388 

5,793 

6,510 

7,459 

102,694 

VISITATION —FORT MATANZAS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1965 

8,288 

9,222 

11,809 

12,169 

10,157 

15,694 

19,649 

18,483 

8,312 

7,476 

6,902 

7,660 

135,821 

1966 

9,999 

10,884 

14,020 

15,646 

13,898 

21,813 

30,798 

26,515 

10,991 

11,028 

9,785 

10,186 

185,563 

1967 

10,669 

12,256 

18,705 

16,890 

14,763 

21,165 

27,606 

22,722 

13,722 

10,445 

8,862 

9,912 

187,717 

1968 

8,813 

12,073 

16,976 

18,162 

12,576 

20,250 

25,625 

22,950 

13,375 

9,189 

8,100 

7,700 

175,789 

1969 

8,275 

8,700 

11,150 

16,100 

13,075 

20,850 

29,200 

25,100 

11,600 

6,650 

8,525 

7,500 

166,725 

1970 

8,825 

9,924 

17,350 

20,300 

17,601 

21,689 

28,990 

26,344 

14,218 

9,887 

8,493 

8,959 

192,580 

1971 

9,059 

11,356 

14,752 

19,925 

17,558 

20,689 

26,281 

21,550 

13,023 

10,588 

9,074 

10,154 

184,009 

1972 

11,263 

11,817 

19,568 

21,349 

16,837 

26,386 

30,679 

24,804 

17,689 

14,035 

10,795 

12,417 

217,639 

1973 

12,690 

15,926 

22,590 

21,015 

24,188 

32,820 

41,726 

36,262 

21,422 

16,963 

16,702 

13,841 

276,145 

1974 

17,881 

14,729 

20,564 

31,993 

22,209 

25,595 

26,437 

26,126 

20,245 

16,444 

17,147 

16,549 

255,919 

124 
VISITATION —FORT MATAN2AS NATIONAL MONUMENT 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1975 

15,262 

21,909 

28,484 

31,079 

23,276 

32,583 

28,692 

16,796 

17,147 

16,236 

14,060 

15,109 

260,633 

1976 

15,108 

26,526 

36,739 

33,955 

29,097 

34,317 

34,530 

30,345 

22,352 

14,857 

10,123 

12,079 

300,028 

1977 

11,114 

16,621 

32,333 

37,110 

31,790 

40,269 

66,979 

34,006 

22,673 

16,182 

13,363 

7,871 

330,311 

1978 

11,567 

14,246 

29,165 

33,074 

27,994 

30,300 

44,465 

28,413 

35,166 

16,380 

12,110 

10,572 

293,452 

1979 

12,997 

12,286 

25,016 

31,739 

25,016 

27,930 

30,371 

26,177 

17,695 

15,178 

14,386 

12,716* 

251,507 

1980 

13,419 

16,334 

29,538 

29,037 

29,985 

28,537** 

28,413 

24,941++ 

18,464 

15,186 

9,891 

10,498 

254,243 

1981 

10,580 

17,369 

29,180 

30,705 

29,651 

30,947 

32,852 

26,946 

20,948 

16,160 

+15,002 

9,867 

270,207 

1982 

12,400 

15,675 

26,832 

24,676 

24,361 

25,001 

31,098 

21,150 

18,001 

15,972 

13,832 

12,705 

247,694 

1983 

13,261 

15,957 

26,970 

28,901 

30,403 

24,650 

30,664 

24,496 

17,282 

15,896 

13,841 

8,469 

250,790 

1984 

11,296 

20,213 

26,060 

34,556 

30,845 

31,748 

37,345 

31,880 

24,007 

21,799 

17,533 

13,823 

301,106 

*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 

January 

February 

March 

April 

May 

June 

July 

August 

September 

October 

November 

December 

Total 

1985 

14,312 

21,117 

38,465 

37,470 

33,441 

32,972 

44,634 

26,583 

24,944 

23,102 

21,859 

14,271 

333,170 

1986 

17,816 

24,212 

37,653 

36,834 

43,449 

48,148 

1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 

125 
APPENDIX H: 

Summary of Federal-City Relations 1819-1955. 

126 
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 
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 
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 pre -

sented 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 
131 

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? 
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-l-A 

traffic, which may be forced to follow US-1 

as far as Crescent Beach. As A-l-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 
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 
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 
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 
BOOKS, PERIODICALS AND NEWSPAPERS 

Arana, Luis R. "Notes On Fort Ma tan/.as National Monument." LI 

Escribano 18 (1981): 45-73. 

A Winter From Home. New York: John F. Trow [1852J. 

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 Metropolis, June 11, 1921. 

140 
ILLUSTRATIONS 

141 
Illustration 1. 

Major General William M. Black, U.S. Army Chief of Engineers, 1916-1919, advocate of 

preservation of the Castillo and Fort Matanzas. 

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

to 

Illustration 2. 

Left to right: H.S. Wyllie (guide), Sergeant George M. Brown (caretaker), Mrs. William J. 

Harris, William J. Harris (curator, St. Augustine Historical Society), John G. Harris (father 

of William J.) , unidentified guide, circa 1915-1916. 

Courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society. 

0^ 

Illustration 3. 

Dr. Dewitt Webb 

Courtesy of St. Augustine Historical Society. 

146 

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 

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 

Illustration 6. 

Verne E. Chatelain, Chief, Historical Division, National Park Service, 

Courtesy of Verne E. Chatelain. 

Courtesy of Verne E. Chatelain. 

152 

Illustration 7. 

Herbert E. Kahler, Custodian, Acting Superintendent, Superintendent 

1933-1939. 

Courtesy of Herbert E. Kahler. 

154 

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 

Illustration 9. 

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. 

Bottom: L. Theodore Davenport, Superintendent, Castillo and Fort 

Matanzas National Monuments, 1966-1971. 

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

158 

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. 

Center: Martha B. Aikens, Superintendent, Castillo de San Marcos and 

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 

Illustration 11. 

Top: Albert C. Manucy, Historian, 1959. 

Bottom: Luis R. Arana, Historian, 1962. 

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

162 

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 

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 

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 

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 8, 

1972. 

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

170 

Illustration 16. 

Top: The Castillo de San Marcos from the southwest, 1886. 

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

172 

Illustration 17. 

Top: Courtyard and stairway to terreplein looking southeast, Castillo de 

San Marcos National Monument, April 18, 1947. 

Bottom: Courtyard looking northeast, Castillo de San Marcos National 

Monument, April 13, 1960. 

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

174 

Illustration 18, 

Top: Archeological investigation of the courtyard conducted by Jean C. 

Harrington, January 28, 1953. 

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 

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 

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 

Illustration 21. 

Matanzas Queen visitor ferry to Fort Matanzas, 1980. 

Courtesy of Castillo de San Marcos National Monument. 

182 

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 

1 

I 

i