National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

History Program

Northeast Region

ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY 

Bridging the Past

MINUTE MAN NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK



BRIDGING THE PAST

AN ADMINISTRATIVE HISTORY

OF

MINUTE MAN NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK

JOAN ZENZEN

PREPARED UNDER COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

2010
 

Cover Illustration: Sheep on Historic Battle Road passing the Ephraim Hartwell Tavern, Minute 

Man National Park. From the Collection of Minute Man National Historical Park 

This report was completed in 2007 but not edited and printed until 2010.
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Illustrations ............................................................................................................................... v 

List of Maps ........................................................................................................................................ vii 

Acknowledgments .............................................................................................................................. ix 

List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................................... xi 

Key Findings ......................................................................................................................................xiii 

Chapters 

Commemoration .................................................................................................................................. 1 

Preservation ........................................................................................................................................ 27 

Making a Park ..................................................................................................................................... 65 

Getting Ready ................................................................................................................................... 113 

Bicentennial ...................................................................................................................................... 151 

Touch the Past .................................................................................................................................. 191 

Management Planning ..................................................................................................................... 217 

Reaching Out, Bringing Together .................................................................................................. 257 

Advocacy and Partnerships ............................................................................................................ 285 

For the Future ................................................................................................................................... 323 

Epilogue ............................................................................................................................................. 351 

Appendices 

Massachusetts Resolve, 1924 .......................................................................................................... 353 

Arthur Shurcliff 1925 Report .......................................................................................................... 355 

Order Designating Minute Man National Historic Site ............................................................. 359 

Minute Man Enabling Legislation, Public Law 86-321 ............................................................... 363 

Minute Man 1970 Amendment, Public Law 91-548 ................................................................... 365 

Minute Man 1992 Amendment, Public Law 102-488 ................................................................. 367 

Cooperative Agreement with Town of Concord ......................................................................... 371 

Park Map ........................................................................................................................................... 375 

MIMA Superintendents and Dates of Service ............................................................................. 377 

Annual Visitation Numbers ............................................................................................................ 379 

Annual Budget .................................................................................................................................. 381 

MIMA Organizational Charts ........................................................................................................ 383 

Funded Projects FY1997 to FY2006 .............................................................................................. 397 

Bibliography ...................................................................................................................................... 401

v

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Cover. Hartwell Tavern 

Figure 1. 1836 Battle Monument ............................................................................................ 22 

Figure 2. Daniel Chester French, Minute Man Statue ........................................................ 23 

Figure 3. North Bridge ............................................................................................................. 23 

Figure 4. Grave of British Soldiers ......................................................................................... 24 

Figure 5. North Bridge ............................................................................................................. 58 

Figure 6. Edwin Small with Director Conrad Wirth and others ........................................ 59 

Figure 7. Contemporary House along Route 2A, Lincoln .................................................. 60 

Figure 8. Paul Revere Motel .................................................................................................... 60 

Figure 9. Buttrick Ice Cream Stand ........................................................................................ 61 

Figure 10. Hinds Turkey Farm ................................................................................................. 61 

Figure 11. Elisha Jones (Bullet Hole) House ........................................................................ 107 

Figure 12. Stedman Buttrick Residence ................................................................................ 107 

Figure 13. The Wayside .......................................................................................................... 108 

Figure 14. The Wayside Interior ........................................................................................... 108 

Figure 15. The Wayside Parlor .............................................................................................. 109 

Figure 16. Jacob Whittenmore House .................................................................................. 109 

Figure 17. Fiske Hill Information Shelter ............................................................................ 148 

Figure 18. Job Brooks House ................................................................................................. 148 

Figure 19. Joshua Brooks House ........................................................................................... 149 

Figure 20. Samuel Hartwell House ....................................................................................... 150 

Figure 21. Minute Man Statue Casting ................................................................................. 187 

Figure 22. Reenactors ............................................................................................................. 188 

Figure 23. People’s Bicentennial Commission on Hill ....................................................... 189 

Figure 24. People’s Bicentennial Commission at North Bridge ........................................ 189 

Figure 25. Gerald Ford at North Bridge ............................................................................... 190 

Figure 26. Battle Road Visitors Center ................................................................................. 213 

Figure 27. Major John Buttrick House ................................................................................. 213 

Figure 28. Ephraim Hartwell Tavern .................................................................................... 214 

Figure 29. Samuel Hartwell House ghost structure ............................................................ 214 

Figure 30. Captain William Smith House ............................................................................. 215 

Figure 31. Battle Road Trail ................................................................................................... 319 

Figure 32. Battle Road Trail Boardwalk ............................................................................... 319 

Figure 33. Meriam House ....................................................................................................... 320 

Figure 34. Noah Brooks Tavern ............................................................................................ 320 

Figure 35. Samuel Brooks House .......................................................................................... 321

vii

LIST OF MAPS

Map 1. Battle Road, 1775 ......................................................................................................... 24 

Map 2. Battle Road, Structures, 1775 West ........................................................................... 25 

Map 3. Battle Road, Structures, 1775 East ............................................................................ 25 

Map 4. Shurcliff map, 1925...................................................................................................... 62 

Map 5. Battle Road, Roads and Structures, 1958 West ....................................................... 62 

Map 6. Battle Road, Roads and Structures, 1958 East ......................................................... 63 

Map 7. Minute Man NHS, 1958 ............................................................................................. 63

Map 8. Battle Road Unit ........................................................................................................ 110 

Map 9. North Bridge Unit ..................................................................................................... 110 

Map 10. Proposed Route 2 Alignment, 1968 ........................................................................ 111 

 

ix

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This history has benefited from the assistance and commitment of many people. I 

appreciate all of the ways they helped transform the documents and images into an important 

story about preservation and interpretation, advocacy and partnerships. At MIMA, 

superintendent Nancy Nelson ensured that I had the time and access to staff, documentation, and 

resources within the park to research and write this in-depth account. She has also read drafts and 

provided crucial comments. Curator Teresa Wallace served as my point person at the park, 

opening up the library and archives for my use, providing images, and contacting staff members. 

Museum technician Steve Neth took me on a special guided tour of The Wayside. Chief of 

Planning Lou Sideris shared his files and thoughts about the park’s past interpretive efforts. 

Acting chief of interpretation Bob Derry gave me a tour of The Wayside Barn, where he 

explained his ideas for designing the new exhibits. Former Resource Management Specialist 

Chris Davis provided materials on key projects he had overseen and gave me free access to 

rummage through the lands files. Budget analyst Ellen Fusco responded to my request for some 

understanding of the park’s operating and project-specific budgets. Facility manager Bruce Firth 

explained the facility management computer system and its possibilities. Information 

Technology Specialist David St. Louis provided background about the establishment of the labor 

union and his work on the park’s computer. Darlene Besso, as keeper of the park’s records, kept 

my hands overflowing with documentation. Management analyst Diana Shiba shared information 

about special use permits. Former assistant superintendent Flo Smith and former public relations 

director Melissa Saalfield took me on a tour of the park. Former park interpreter Margie Hicks 

shared her journal from the Bicentennial. 

My work on this project came through a cooperative agreement between the NPS and the 

Organization of American Historians. I thank these two organizations for fostering such projects 

and contributing to the continued strength of history in the federal government. Susan Ferentinos 

provided prompt and helpful service at the OAH while Paul Weinbaum handled the business on 

the NPS side. I feel fortunate to have the opportunity to work with these two dedicated 

professionals. 

I had the pleasure of conducting oral history interviews with a wide range of people. 

Some were NPS employees, still actively employed or retired. Others came from Lincoln, 

Lexington, and Concord and shared their stories of what the park has meant to them over the 

years, positive and negative. I appreciate their frank discussions and sometimes humorous 

stories, helping to make my job easier in making sense of thousands and thousands of pages of 

paper. 

Beyond MIMA, other NPS people assisted my research efforts. In the Boston Support 

Office, many people helped me. Paul Weinbaum provided me with Section 106 and National 

Register records, facilitated my access to other people, and gave helpful comments to drafts. 

Housing management specialist Ed Rizzotto explained the Park Service’s policies on use of 
x

structures and supplied documentation. Environmental compliance chief David Clark let me 

peruse his park files. At the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, Debbie Smith proved 

invaluable in sharing key documents she had found in her own research, providing maps and 

images, and taking me on a tour of the Battle Road Unit to help me figure out all of the roads. At 

Harpers Ferry Center’s NPS History Collection and Library, David Nathanson and Nancy 

Flanagan provided me with records about the Bicentennial period and the park. Tom DuRant, 

former chief of the NPS Historic Photograph Collection based in Charles Town, West Virginia, 

found and digitized many of the images used in this history. At the Denver Technical 

Information Center, Charis Wilson made sure I had my requested documents despite a 

snowstorm. Through the efforts of Michael Caldwell, superintendent at Valley Forge NHP, and 

Jennifer Champagne at the Washington Support Office, I obtained some of the annual base 

operating budget numbers. Former chief historian Dwight Pitcaithley directed me to some 

possible research venues. Former Bureau Historian Janet McDonnell aided my research efforts in 

the Washington Office and provided comments to the first draft. I wish to thank Cathy Stanton, a 

fellow NPS consultant, who shared her papers about reenacting. 

This history goes beyond the park to the surrounding communities. I thank the staffs at 

each of the public libraries, especially Leslie Wilson and Conni Manoli at the Concord Free 

Public Library Special Collections and Jeanne Bracken at the Lincoln Public Library. Joan 

Gearin at the National Archives and Records Administration in Waltham, Massachusetts, made 

sure I saw all of the early Minute Man records. Staff on the Federal Records Center side at 

Waltham also gave me crucial assistance. In Boston, I appreciate the help of the State Library. 

In my travels, I managed to see and stay with friends and family. Their gifts of time and 

humor sustained my energy level and reminded me of the importance of my project. In Boston, 

my thanks go to Marla Choslovsky and Debbie Weinstein and their families. Jeff Pappas aided 

me with friendship and professional assistance, reviewing a chunk of the park’s lands files. In 

Colorado, my thanks go to Laura Hoeppner and my brother Nick Zenzen and his family. 

My own family deserves special mention. My husband Stuart Weinstein has supported 

this project in every imaginable way, not the least of which recognizing that I love to research and 

write about the national parks. My daughter Sarah and son Aaron have given me big hugs upon 

return from research trips, knowing that they are always in my thoughts. When I took the family 

to MIMA in summer 2006, they all relished seeing the people and places that I have come to love. 

I dedicate this book to my siblings, Mindy Edwards, Nick Zenzen, and Michael Zenzen, with 

love. 
xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

AFB Air Force Base 

BNHSC Boston National Historic Sites Commission 

CFPL Concord Free Public Library 

CLR Cultural Landscape Report 

CY Calendar Year 

EA Environmental Assessment 

ESPR Environmental Status and Planning Report 

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FRC Federal Records Center 

FY Fiscal Year 

GEIR Generic Environmental Impact Report 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

HATS II Hanscom Area Towns Committee 

HFAC Hanscom Field Advisory Commission 

HFC Harpers Ferry Center 

MHD Massachusetts Highway Department 

MIMA Minute Man National Historical Park 

NHP National Historical Park 

NHS National Historical Site 

NPS National Park Service 

NRHE National Register, History and Education 

PAHE People Against Hanscom Expansion 

RG Record Group 

ShhAir Safeguarding the Historic Hanscom Area’s Irreplaceable Resources 

xiii 

KEY FINDINGS

In looking back over the history of MIMA, four themes stand out. First, the park has 

struggled with how best to address modern-day traffic on Route 2A. Second, park officials have 

adopted changing guidelines for preserving and restoring structures. Third, the park’s mission 

has expanded and evolved in response to changing historic preservation norms and public 

demands. Fourth, the public, including the three towns of Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington and 

other interests, have shaped the park’s identity since its establishment. These four themes 

represent key issues over the entire life of the park and continue to shape the park’s future. To 

understand MIMA, managers must appreciate these themes and act accordingly. 

Route 2A is perhaps the most visible and highly charged issue that has faced MIMA. 

From the moment of park establishment, NPS planners fully expected that the state would redirect this commuter roadway out of the park and allow for development of an interpretive 

program that would recreate the feel and look of the Massachusetts countryside of 1775. 

However, the NPS never had money allocated to assist the state in accomplishing this 

considerable feat. In the post-World War II expansion of the Boston suburbs, this roadway 

became increasingly important and thus harder to remove. The Hanscom AFB and civilian 

airfield hosted more and more flights, commercial businesses chose this high-technology area to 

settle, and residential developments took shape nearby. Finally, environmental protection laws, 

which came into existence after park establishment, added a whole new level of review and 

consideration to the mix, effectively closing the door on relocation. 

In the meantime, park planners worked in a state of limbo, planning with the idea of a 

relocated Route 2A and addressing the reality that cars and trucks of increasing numbers relied 

upon this route. Years would go by, and the park would not look like a park. Overgrown trees 

and bushes along Route 2A hid the largest unit of the park. Known as the Battle Road Unit, this 

section was where British soldiers retreated from Concord’s North Bridge and suffered heavy 

firing from Patriots convinced that they had to defend their liberties and right to self-government. 

This section of roadway had prompted concerned citizens and leaders in historic preservation to 

set aside this land as MIMA in 1959, but this section of the park failed to present a historical face 

to the public in subsequent years. It looked like every other stretch of commuter roadway, 

crowded with vehicles and lacking in identifying features. 

Public concern over the Battle Road Unit has taken various forms over the years. In the 

Town of Lincoln, officials planned their town under the assumption that Route 2A would feed 

into a relocated Route 2, both skirting the national park’s southern boundary. The town bought 

land and zoned areas to allow for this proposed scenario and continued to push for the idea for 

years after the state ultimately decided to leave Route 2A where it was. People, who used Route 

2A to get to Hanscom or high-tech businesses or their homes, on the other hand, resisted efforts 

to relocate the roadway. They did not want to increase their commutes, nor did they want to 

burden alternative roads in the area. A small, vocal contingent, on the other hand, argued 
xiv 

strenuously in newspapers and other forums that removal of Route 2A was essential for fulfilling 

the original vision of the park and preserving this historically important piece of land. Finding 

ways to address these contrasting public views within the park’s mission has shaped planning and 

interpretive efforts in the past few decades. 

Was it correct for the NPS to hang its hopes for MIMA upon re-routing of this major 

commuter road? Did the NPS lose its chance when it revised its draft General Management Plan 

(GMP) to remove this wish from its list? Other parks have had success and failure in convincing 

local authorities to remove roads. Manassas National Battlefield Park in northern Virginia has 

long wanted to remove a major road from its boundaries but has found stiff opposition from 

voters and their elected officials. Morristown National Historical Park in New Jersey, on the 

other hand, did succeed in getting a road moved out during preparations for the Bicentennial. 

With MIMA, the basic geography of the park complicates the situation. Almost the entire Battle 

Road Unit stretches along this highway, with little land on either side of the roadway actually 

preserved for the park. Without the money and backing of all affected federal agencies (such as 

the Air Force and Federal Highway Department) from the start, the NPS essentially worked from 

a growing deficit. With each year that passed, development around the area solidified Route 2A’s 

existence. In addition to changing environmental requirements, the opportunity to relocate Route 

2A was lost even before the park worked on its GMP. Park superintendents instead must be 

constantly vigilant in fostering partnerships and advocating for the park in every possible venue. 

The park has confronted a second continuing theme with regard to its structures. What 

structures should be saved, how should they be presented to the public, and what interpretive 

roles should they play? When park planners first considered the buildings within the park’s 

boundaries, they identified the 1775 witness structures and those dating after 1775 and until 1830 

as worth saving and restoring. Any structures from after 1830, or roughly 50 years after the 

Revolution, had to have significant historical value for planners to keep them in the park. The 

Wayside, a witness structure that had evolved into a large home with literary associations, 

represents a significant addition to the 1775 timeline. However, the park did not think twice 

about removing modern homes, dating from the 20th century, once the NPS had acquired them in 

the 1960s and 1970s. Some of these buildings, in fact, had the potential to speak about 

architectural design and living habits of the modern era. Careful review and analysis of structures 

before demolition or removal has since characterized NPS action toward such structures. 

A larger issue floats below the surface with regard to structures in MIMA. To what time 

should park planners restore buildings? The park focuses its historical story on 19 April 1775 and 

the surrounding years, but the buildings themselves did not stay frozen in that time period. For 

example, Hartwell Tavern gained additions and changes over time as the Hartwell family grew. 

Should park architects remove those additions to stay focused on 1775 or would visitors gain 

from an understanding of the sweep of time the building encompassed? Plus, park decisions 

depended upon the extent of historical, archeological, and architectural evidence. In the case of 

the Elisha Jones House, extensive renovations in the late 19th century obliterated any opportunity 

to recover the witness structure as it had once stood at that site. The story of a bullet lodged in a 

shed that was later incorporated into the main building further tested the NPS’s process for 
xv 

decision-making. Ultimately, historians concluded that the building deserved retention in its 

present state. The unsubstantiated bullet-hole story adds to the commemorative nature of the site. 

To address these changes over time, the park has used a range of approaches, resulting in 

a continuum of history. The 1966 master plan favored rehabilitation or composite restoration for 

the majority of the park’s historic structures. Rehabilitation generally refers to repair and 

replacement of deteriorated historic elements without specific reference to a single time period. 

Composite restoration, a term not officially defined, suggests returning a building to more than 

one historical period, in a way amplifying key time periods. In contrast, the 1990 GMP favored 

exterior restoration, often to 1775, and adaptation of the interior to modern purposes. For 

Hartwell Tavern, the 1990 GMP noted that the park should maintain the 1775 element and 

differentiate post-1775 elements, making explicit the previous park practice of composite 

restoration. The 1990 GMP also took into account buildings constructed after 1775, such as 

Noah Brooks Tavern, and called for exterior restoration to a later appropriate date. 

People in the nearby communities and even statewide have had their own ideas about 

historic preservation at MIMA. Many landowners resisted selling their properties to the NPS. 

When finally they acquiesced, sometimes under contentious circumstances, these landowners 

opted to stay in their homes under special arrangements lasting either decades or for life. The 

NPS had to delay taking control of these buildings, contributing to the lack of historical focus in 

the park. The agency could not restore or remove these buildings to add to a sense of historical 

authenticity to the landscape. Once the agency did gain control of the structures, its planners and 

managers faced a changed landscape in the field of historic preservation. Instead of dogmatically 

staying true to a single time period, preservationists argued that change over time had valid and 

important opportunities for development. In one indication of this changed attitude, park 

planners for the 1990 GMP extended the valid date for structures to 1920. The United States 

Congress also expanded the park’s mission to include the causes and consequences of the 

American Revolution, effectively extending the dates of inclusion for historic preservation. From 

the point of view of the State Historic Preservation Office, the state’s history had many different 

focal points worthy of study and preservation along the long expanse of time, and this office 

supported NPS efforts to move beyond 1775 in its planning. In 2002, the Keeper of the National 

Register of Historic Places accepted the park’s National Register documentation, which identified 

1946 for architectural significance and 1951 for agricultural significance. As the park has gained 

ownership and control over the remaining modern buildings following completion of life estates, 

these extended dates of significance have meant that additional structures require budgetary and 

interpretive attention from the park. 

The third key finding for MIMA ties directly to this expanded vision for historic 

preservation. Managers, planners, and interpreters have adopted an elastic and expanded mission 

for this park. Some of this change has happened based on fortunate opportunities. After careful 

consideration, Margaret Lothrop, daughter of children’s author Harriett Lothrop (penname 

Margaret Sidney), sold The Wayside to the NPS for inclusion in MIMA. This building, although 

a witness structure, had heightened significance based upon its relationship to America’s literary 

history. No one considered downplaying or even removing this association through restoration of 
xvi 

the original structure to 1775. Instead, the house speaks to the different contributions made by 

past owners. The park itself has accepted the added challenge of incorporating this history into 

its interpretive and preservation actions. 

During the period leading up to and directly following the nation’s Bicentennial, park 

planners also adopted interpretive programs that expanded understanding beyond the battle of 

1775. Programs included reenacting town hall meetings and growing vegetable gardens the 

colonial way. Children could participate in hands-on activities, such as marching and drilling, but 

they could also spin wool and cook over an open fire. Interpreters challenged visitors to think 

about the ideas of liberty and self-government as defended by the Patriots but also as embodied in 

present-day life in the United States. Upholding these values became paramount in real terms 

when the NPS allowed the People’s Bicentennial Commission (PBC) to stage a rally and protest 

at the North Bridge on 18-19 April 1975, in tangent with the Town of Concord’s own solemn 

ceremony and festive parade. These events have all contributed to an elastic vision for the park. 

Although history and preservation remain keynotes for MIMA, the park has also taken on 

environmental concerns and even small doses of recreation in its presentation to the public. In 

the early 1970s, the park developed trails and built an information shelter at Fiske Hill to 

encourage school groups and families to go out into the landscape and learn about the evolving 

landscape and wildlife of this part of Massachusetts. In the 1990s, the park designed an auxiliary 

trail for the Battle Road Trail to take visitors to a vernal pool. Here, people could learn about the 

delicate balancing act nature played in providing habitat for an array of animals in this intimate 

setting. The Battle Road Trail itself, a 5.5-mile walking-biking way, opened up the Battle Road 

Unit to exploration and understanding on many levels. Thanks to concurrent landscape 

restoration work, visitors now could enter areas where the Patriots had fired upon the retreating 

British soldiers and gain renewed appreciation for their plight. The trail also has made people 

aware of the agricultural legacy of the area. Having the chance to step away from hectic routines 

and demands, visitors can relax and rejuvenate along the trail by hiking or biking. They can 

reflect upon the historical and natural setting, gaining understanding about the park and its 

meaning. 

The fourth theme recognizes that the three towns and the public in general have helped to 

shape and define the park over time. MIMA includes the long stretch of land along the Battle 

Road because people like landscape architect Arthur Shurcliff argued convincingly that the land 

associated with the running battle deserved as much protection and attention as the North Bridge 

area. The Town of Concord has remained an active steward of the North Bridge and the 

associated markers, under the cooperative agreement, and has voiced its concerns and preferences 

for their care and preservation. The Town of Lincoln made zoning determinations to facilitate its 

desired outcome of having Route 2A relocated to the park’s southern boundary. Lincoln resident 

Thomas Boylston Adams used his column in the Boston Globe to try to build support for the 

park’s draft GMP and its key provision to return Route 2A to its historic condition. In the most 

recent period, descendants of past families around MIMA have provided donations for the 

maintenance and interpretation of historic structures. Citizen groups have worked to publicize 
xvii 

outside threats to the park and built important networks of support. At least one local developer 

has taken the park’s landscape into consideration when designing new developments. 

Sometimes, the public has expressed ideas and concerns in opposition to what the park 

has wanted to pursue. Perhaps these cases provide the best examples of how important the public 

has been to shaping MIMA. During the nation’s Bicentennial, the Town of Concord vehemently 

opposed the idea of having the PBC stage a protest and rally at the North Bridge. The park 

worked directly with the town to address its concerns but still allowed the protest to take place. 

Hard feelings between the park and the town continued for many years afterwards, culminating in 

the town’s opposition to the draft GMP. Only after park superintendent Larry Gall made clear 

through his actions that he was ready and willing to work with the town and address its 

longstanding concerns did a turnaround occur. Superintendent Nancy Nelson has demonstrated 

how strong advocacy, sometimes in opposition to the intentions of the towns, can ultimately bring 

key stakeholders together in significant partnerships. Her strong opposition to a proposed 

widening of Route 2A near the park’s eastern entrance eventually resulted in several important 

safety enhancements for the park. Nelson’s ability to advocate without alienating has resulted in 

enhanced public involvement in a range of ways, including direct donations, volunteer time, and 

increased awareness of the issues facing the park. 

These four key themes have shaped the development of MIMA since its beginnings. 

Park managers and others need to remind themselves of these issues as they plan for the park’s 

future. 

1 

CHAPTER ONE

COMMEMORATION

William Thorning, age 17, was one of the youngest of Lincoln’s Minute Men. On 19 

April 1775 Thorning caught his labored breath, raised his musket from behind a huge 

boulder, and aimed at the British Regulars hurrying down the old Bay Road back to Boston. 

He had nearly been hit himself, caught in crossfire near Josiah Nelson’s house. Running first 

to the woods and flattening himself into a trench to escape notice, he now found protection 

behind an unusually large boulder near the road. This boulder became known as Minute 

Man Boulder. His aim proved deadly as two soldiers fell, eventually to be buried across the 

road in an orchard. With these deaths, Thorning joined the ranks of his fellow Patriots 

fighting for their liberties.1

 The Minute Man Boulder and an encompassing eight-acre parcel 

of land became the initial pieces of property included first as the Minute Man National 

Historic Site in 1958 and then as the Minute Man National Historical Park (MIMA) in 

September 1959. With these designations, the United States officially preserved some of the 

most poignant landscapes and structures associated with the beginning of the American 

Revolution. 

Thorning’s story has been handed down through generations and held closely as a 

tradition. His story and the associated land are important markers in the history of the 

national park. The MIMA exists largely because of the mid-twentieth-century battle to save 

the land around the Minute Man Boulder from residential housing development for the 

adjacent Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB). Lexington Green, where British Regulars shot into 

a dispersing group of militia and killed eight Americans, had long been saved. Concord’s 

North Bridge—where American Patriots fired “the shot heard round the world”2

—also sat 

on land preserved by the town. With the shot fired at British soldiers from this bridge, 

American Patriots declared the rights of people everywhere to liberty and self-government. 

The British soldiers fled after the Minute Men and militia returned their volley and left three 

of their soldiers dead. While the North Bridge was preserved, the old Bay Road, known as 

the Battle Road, suffered. Federal government representatives and local citizens were gravely 

concerned about increasing traffic along this route. By the 1950s the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts had straightened and paved most of the Battle Road. This new highway, called 

Route 2A, carried suburban commuters around the fast-growing metropolitan Boston area. 

 

1 The Lexington-Concord Battle Road, Interim Report of the Boston National Historic Sites Commission to the 

Congress of the United States (hereafter referred to as Interim Report), 16 June 1958, 73, File Boston National Historic 

Sites Commission (BNHSC), National Park Service (NPS) Reports, Minute Man National Historical Park (MIMA) 

Library. John C. MacLean, A Rich Harvest: The History, Buildings, and People of Lincoln, Massachusetts (Lincoln, 

MA: Lincoln Historical Society, 1987), 257, 281. 

2

 Ralph Waldo Emerson, The Concord Hymn. 
Commemoration 

2 

Attractive houses in small subdivisions, farm stands, gas stations, restaurants, and other 

commercial establishments sprouted up where farmers had long plowed the open fields and 

raised livestock, following in the footsteps of the Revolutionary War inhabitants. 

Why should the federal government and the American people care about saving the 

original Battle Road from development? The answer lies in the story of William Thorning 

and the thousands of other men who fired against British soldiers for the first time. These 

American Patriots sacrificed themselves by daring the treasonous act of firing upon their 

fellow citizens, the British soldiers. Their belief in defending their liberties and their right to 

self-government guided their actions. No longer could American Patriots consider the 

people of Great Britain as brothers, sisters, caretakers, or equals. American Patriots, common 

men and women, had the right and duty to defend their land and property from those British 

subjects who threatened their liberties. 

On Lexington Green, members of the American militia stood up against, and fell 

from, the unprovoked firing of British soldiers. On Concord’s North Bridge, American 

Patriots fired at British soldiers after losing two of their own. And on the Battle Road, 

American Patriots made a resounding declaration of their right to liberty and selfgovernment. Their journey took them from Meriam’s Corner in Concord, through Lincoln 

into Lexington, and all the way back to Boston Harbor. These were important actions that 

lead to the 4 July 1776 declaration of independence from British rule.3 In the hearts of people 

who knew this story, the Battle Road and associated lands had to be saved. From this 

recognition came the establishment of MIMA. 

In this book, you will learn how the National Park Service (NPS) assembled MIMA 

from hundreds of small properties and turned it into a visible, well-visited place of 

remembrance and education. Park employees have overseen the restoration of stone walls, 

the opening of landscapes once farmed by colonists, and the rehabilitation of historic 

buildings that resonate with the sights and sounds of the past. The park’s location in a fastmoving metropolitan area on the eastern seaboard has presented managers with challenges 

related to increasing amounts of traffic and pressures to develop land. Hanscom AFB and the 

Hanscom civilian air field abut much of the park along the Battle Road. They have 

contributed significantly to the noise, traffic, and development pressures with their changing 

operations over the years. Although many parks face outside development pressures, MIMA 

stands out for its relative size in a suburban setting. Most of its holdings are along the historic 

roadway of the Battle Road and, by necessity, the modern, intrusive, and heavily traveled 

Route 2A. Over the years, park management has fostered varying levels of partnerships and 

support from the neighboring communities of Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington, all of which 

contain active and committed individuals who appreciate the history of this land. 

Commemorative activities, interpretive programming, and restoration of the landscape and 

structures have been made possible by a wide array of supporters including nearby towns, 

the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, adjacent landowners and businesses, family 

 

3 Interim Report, 70. 
Commemoration 

3 

associations, local and national organizations, and individuals committed to the preservation 

of American history. 

The story of MIMA has also expanded to encompass literary history for Concord 

and the nation, as embodied in the home of authors, The Wayside. Added to the park in 

1965, The Wayside represents the changing landscape of the town. In its original four-room 

shape, as The Wayside was home to the Concord Minute Men and muster master Samuel 

Whitney. The building witnessed the momentous events of 19 April 1775. In the nineteenth 

century, the house grew and changed under the ownership of three great literary families. 

Louisa May Alcott’s childhood here provided inspiration for scenes in Little Women. 

Nathaniel Hawthorne spent his last years writing in this house and walking its grounds. 

Margaret Sidney, author of The Five Little Peppers series of children’s books, kept alive the 

history of this house. The mission of MIMA has grown to encompass this literary history, 

adding fresh layers of meaning to the site beyond its Revolutionary War roots. 

This book is written specifically to provide park managers with detailed information 

about the park’s preservation history and lessons learned while saving and restoring the 

landscape and structures, interpreting the site for visitors, and addressing the demands of 

modern-day visitors and neighbors. Four significant themes emerge from this history of 

MIMA. First, park officials have struggled to find the best approach for addressing modernday traffic on Route 2A. Second, park officials have adopted changing guidelines for 

preserving and restoring structures. Third, the park’s mission has expanded and evolved in 

response to changing historic preservation norms and public demands. Fourth, the public 

has played an important role in shaping the park. These four themes represent key issues for 

park managers over the life of the park. To understand MIMA, managers must appreciate 

these themes and act accordingly. 

The story of MIMA transcends its specific place and time and stands as an example 

of how the NPS has managed the properties under its care over the past 50 years. This history 

of park management includes the heady days of Mission 66. During this time, NPS Director 

Conrad Wirth initiated an aggressive campaign to increase funding for parks to provide 

roads and services for the onslaught of post-World War II visitation. That funding was 

contracted as the nation addressed communism and fought battles in Vietnam. The public 

continued to support the national park idea, setting aside new areas and initiating different 

kinds of parks with emphasis on aspects such as recreation or heritage tourism. The NPS and 

its dedicated cadre of professionals have sought creative and responsive avenues for 

managing parks. MIMA stands as an important example of these efforts. 
Commemoration 

4 

“FIRE FELLOW SOLDIERS, FOR GOD’S SAKE, FIRE!”4

When first looking at a map, park managers and visitors quickly see that MIMA 

boundaries are long and narrow with historic structures and other features scattered along its 

entire stretch. The park is not contiguous; it is comprised of three identifiable units. By 

outlining the significant events of 19 April 1775 and the nineteenth-century literary history of 

The Wayside, the meaning of this layout and its importance to park management becomes 

apparent. 

The following description of the important historic events involving MIMA is reliant 

on written summaries from the park’s Interpretive Division. These summaries are based on 

careful review of primary sources, archeological and architectural studies, and the landscape. 

Some scholarly considerations of the American Revolution have also influenced how park 

officials have portrayed this history to the public. Park officials have included stories about 

the individual soldiers and families that lived nearby, rather than focusing solely on the 

actions of the local or Boston military leaders. This approach recognizes the influence of the 

“bottom-up” approach in social history. 

Much of the more recent historical scholarship has introduced complicated and 

nuanced understandings about the beginnings of the American Revolution. Questions arise 

about British governance and why American Patriots resisted at Lexington and Concord. 

Historians have argued the belief that oppressive British rule was truly evident on the eve of 

the Revolution. In addition, many of America’s founders distanced themselves from the 

masses and acted in opposition to race, class, and gender considerations. Those masses also 

asserted themselves before the firings on the North Bridge, taking governmental bodies from 

royal appointees and re-instituting local rule. The events of 19 April 1775 surpassed a simple 

call for liberty and self-government and became a complex web of motivations and 

circumstances.5

The story of American Patriots striving for liberty and self-government in the face of 

British oppression, however, is the story told at MIMA throughout the park’s history. Park 

historians and interpreters have used this story during presentations, walks, exhibits, and 

written materials. This is the story presented to the public, and must be told in this history of 

the preservation and management of the park. By understanding the story as told to the 

 

4

 Maj. John Buttrick, as quoted in several histories of the Concord fight at the North Bridge. See, for example, Allen 

French, The Day of Concord and Lexington: The Nineteenth of April, 1775, rpt. (Eastern National Park and Monument 

Association, 1984), 191; Ruth R. Wheeler, Concord: Climate for Freedom (Concord, MA: The Concord Antiquarian 

Society, 1967), 122; Lemuel Shattuck, A History of the Town of Concord (Boston: Russell, Odiorne, and Company, 

1835), 103; Townsend Scudder, Concord: American Town (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1947), 98; and 

Interim Report, 64. 5

 The author wishes to thank two peer reviewers, William Fowler and an anonymous reviewer, for pointing out the 

inadequacies of the park’s historical interpretation of the events of the American Revolution. Some sources for further 

exploring the historical scholarship include: David Hackett Fischer, Paul Revere’s Ride (New York: Oxford University 

Press, 1994); Gary B. Nash, The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy and the Struggle to 

Create America (New York: Viking, 2005); John Ferling, A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American 

Republic (New York: Oxford University Press, 2003); David Hackett Fischer, Liberty and Freedom (New York: 

Oxford University Press, 2005); Marjoleine Kars, Breaking Loose Together: The Regulator Rebellion in PreRevolutionary North Carolina (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002); Ray Raphael, The First 

American Revolution: Before Lexington and Concord (New York: New Press, 2003). 
Commemoration 

5 

public, we can better understand the choices made by managers and staff members over the 

history of the park. 

By the spring of 1775 tension filled the air surrounding Boston.6 Following the 

destruction of tea in Boston Harbor in December 1773 by colonists disguised as Indians, the 

British Parliament closed the port of Boston. This severe act left many people without jobs 

and inflamed an already difficult situation. Gen. Thomas Gage, commander of the British 

troops in Boston and the royally appointed governor of the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, 

kept a firm grip on Boston. He also tried to assert control over the countryside. The colonists 

in the surrounding towns, however, acted contrary to his demands. In defiance of General 

Gage’s order to disband, the Massachusetts legislature, known as the Provincial Congress, 

met in Concord. John Hancock served as president. The Provincial Congress directed the 

towns to prepare, arm, and drill their militia companies. Militia companies, containing all 

able-bodied men aged 16 to 66, would defend their towns if necessary. 

From the Provincial Congress came the initial order for the formation of the Minute 

Men. In October 1774 this legislative body directed the towns to “enlist one quarter at least 

of the...companies and form them into companies of 50 privates...who shall equip and hold 

themselves in readiness to march at the shortest notice.” The original mustering of the 

Minute Men in Concord contains these words: 

That we...will defend majesty King George III, his person, 

crown, and dignity. That we will at the same time to the utmost 

of our power and ability defend all and every of our chartered 

rights, liberties and privileges and will stand at a minute’s 

warning with arms and ammunition to do so. 

These words clarify the idea that the militias and the Minute Men still held allegiance to the 

King of England, but would fight to preserve their liberties. 

Following the directions of the Provincial Congress, the colonists in towns around 

Boston gathered and secured arms in hidden places. General Gage responded by sending 

troops out of Boston to capture these hidden military supplies. He sent 260 British soldiers to 

the Cambridge Powder House, where they captured concealed supplies. Four thousand 

colonists took to the streets the next day to protest this action. General Gage also sent 200 

men to Salem to take a cache of cannons. Colonists spread the alarm, and the British troops 

found Salem with a raised drawbridge. The colonists refused demands to lower the 

drawbridge, and the troops retreated. General Gage knew that Worcester and Concord 

contained the two largest stockpiles of stashed military supplies. The distance to Worcester 

precluded a successful surprise raid, so General Gage set his sights on Concord. On the 

evening of 18 April 1775 General Gage ordered 700 British soldiers to assemble on Boston 

Common. This action did not go unnoticed, and the colonists spread the alarm.7

 

6

 This account is derived largely from Lou Sideris, “We Meant to Govern Ourselves,” 1997, MIMA Interpretation 

Files. The author wishes to thank Sideris for his guidance in writing this section. See also Douglas P. Sabin, “April 19, 

1775: A Historiographical Study,” File Battle of April 19, 1775, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 7

 Sideris, “We Meant to Govern Ourselves,” 1-3. 
Commemoration 

6 

The nineteenth of April opened with the famous midnight ride of Paul Revere.8 He 

left Boston late on the eighteenth after giving instructions to hang two lanterns in the Old 

North Church as a signal. The British soldiers were traveling by boat across the harbor to 

Lechmere Point and through Cambridge toward Lexington and Concord. Revere took a 

northern route across the harbor to Mystic (present-day Medford) and on through 

Menotomy (Arlington). He raised the alarm to nearly every house along the way. Around 

midnight, he reached the Hancock-Clarke House in Lexington and warned John Hancock 

and Samuel Adams, who also served in the Provincial Congress and agitated for continued 

defiance of British control. 

At this point, Revere met with William Dawes, the other courier sent to spread the 

alarm via a southern route, and the two continued their mission. They soon joined Dr. 

Samuel Prescott, who had spent the evening in Lexington and was returning home to 

Concord. Satisfied that Prescott was a fellow “Son of Liberty,” the three galloped along the 

old Bay Road, with Revere in the lead. Within the hour, mounted British officers, traveling 

ahead of the main troop contingent, surprised and captured Revere. Dawes turned his horse 

quickly and headed back to Lexington. Prescott directed his horse to jump a stone wall and 

carried the alarm to Concord. Revere never made it to Concord. The Paul Revere Capture 

Site (map 1) is marked, and parking is available along the Battle Road Trail within the park. 

The British officers took Revere back to Lexington before releasing him. According 

to Nelson family tradition, Josiah Nelson awoke from the sound of horses passing his house 

along the old Bay Road back to Lexington, and he hurriedly called out to the British soldiers. 

One of the soldiers, according to the story, responded in anger, striking Nelson on the head 

with his sword, drawing the first blood of the day. Nelson’s wife bound his head, and then he 

continued to spread the alarm to Bedford. His house site remains marked within the park’s 

boundaries. The full British expedition made slow progress, landing in the muddy marshes of 

Cambridge. They did not advance until approximately two o’clock in the morning. Further 

delays resulted from General Gage’s choice of commander: Lt. Col. Francis Smith, a 

heavyset man who kept a ponderous pace. Dawn had broken by the time Lieutenant Colonel 

Smith’s advance troops (under Maj. John Pitcairn) reached Lexington. Lexington militia 

Capt. John Parker had his men, numbering only 77, lined up along Lexington Green to make 

a show of their patriot resolve. Major Pitcairn ordered them to disperse, which they started 

to do when an unknown source fired a shot, and the British soldiers, ignoring orders to stop, 

opened fire on the fleeing American Patriots. By the time Major Pitcairn and Lieutenant 

Colonel Smith regained control, eight Patriots laid dead on the Green. News of the shooting 

quickly spread to neighboring communities, drawing men to Concord and the old Bay Road 

for the inevitable confrontation. 

Arriving in Concord around seven that morning, the British Regulars proceeded to 

search for military stores while tracking the movements of the colonial militia. Lieutenant 

 

8

 The following encapsulation of the events of 19 April 1775 draws upon the following sources: Sabin, “April 19, 

1775,” Part III; Interim Report, 51-69; French, Day of Concord and Lexington, 164-65, 183-192; Wheeler, Concord, 

116-122; Brochure, Minute Man National Historical Park (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2004). 
Commemoration 

7 

Colonel Smith saw the Patriots gathering on the east end of the ridge that ran from Town 

Center to Meriam’s Corner. From this vantage point, the Patriots saw the British column and 

proceeded back to town ahead of the British. 

The Alarm Company (at the Liberty Pole) joined the rest of the Patriots as they 

crossed the North Bridge to Punkatasset Hill, moving away from the advancing British. The 

British cut down the Liberty Pole and burned it in Town Center along with gun carriages and 

other found military stores. Additional observations from a cemetery near the Liberty Pole 

proved that vast numbers of Patriots were assembling. Lieutenant Colonel Smith then 

ordered detachments to secure both the South Bridge and the North Bridge. Four companies 

proceeded over the North Bridge to the farthest point of their day’s travels—Col. James 

Barrett’s Farm—to search for additional weapons and munitions. Now with approximately 

400 men, the American Patriots moved closer to the North Bridge to the Muster Field and 

saw the smoke from the burning military supplies rising from Town Center. Not knowing 

what was burning, they feared the worst. Colonel Barrett consulted with his officers, and 

Concord Adjutant Joseph Hosmer asked, “Will you let them burn the town down?” 

Colonel Barrett gave the order to march across the North Bridge and into the town, 

but not “to fire unless first fired upon.” Lt. Col. John Robinson of Westford and Maj. John 

Buttrick of Concord led the advance around nine thirty in the morning, followed by Capt. 

Isaac Davis’s company of Minute Men from Acton, three Concord companies, the Militia of 

Acton, Bedford, and Lincoln, and a column of volunteers. British soldiers had started pulling 

planks from the bridge, and Major Buttrick ordered them to stop. The soldiers hastily 

retreated, joining the rest at the end of the bridge. The British fired first into the river and 

then with deadly results. Acton Capt. Isaac Davis fell dead as he was raising his gun, and one 

of his men, Abner Hosmer, fell with a bullet through his head. The American Patriots had 

obeyed Colonel Barrett’s orders not to fire first, but now Major Buttrick shouted fervently, 

“Fire, fellow soldiers, for God’s sake, fire!” For the first time, American Patriots fired at 

British soldiers. The British, broken by the number and force of the returning volley, 

retreated to Town Center. Three British privates eventually died from the two- or threeminute fight. Two of them are buried near the North Bridge, with graves marked by a slate 

tablet. 

In addition to the reconstructed North Bridge, many other nearby monuments and 

markers memorialize the events of 19 April 1775. Standing where the British once stood is the 

1836 Battle Monument (figure 1), a 25-foot obelisk cut from a single granite boulder with a 

granite base. On the opposite side of the North Bridge, where the Patriots had gathered, is 

the Minute Man statue (figure 2) by Daniel Chester French, who lived in Concord around 

the time of the one-hundredth anniversary of the battle. This bronze statue set on a granite 

base depicts a Minute Man leaving the plow and heading to fight for liberty. On land directly 

next to the North Bridge stands the Old Manse, the former home of Rev. William Emerson, 

who had watched the events of the day. Reverend Emerson’s grandson, Ralph Waldo 

Emerson, would later write the Concord Hymn, the first four lines of which were inscribed on 

the base of the Minute Man statue. A tradition, unsupported by historical evidence, tells of a 
Commemoration 

8 

British soldier passing by the Elisha Jones House and, seeing its owner standing outside, fired 

at him, missing the man but leaving a bullet hole in the wall. A hole, which tradition labels as 

the bullet hole, is covered with glass. This building remains known popularly as the Bullet 

Hole House and is part of MIMA.9

 

In 1885 the Town of Concord placed the Muster Field Monument at the site where 

American Patriots gathered before heading down the ridge toward the North Bridge. In 1915, 

Concord marked Major Buttrick’s important role in the events at the bridge by hiring French 

again to sculpt a bas-relief monument of Major Buttrick. Located within a stone wall on the 

south side of Liberty Street, the bronze bas-relief set in granite depicts Major Buttrick 

standing with one hand on his musket.10

The momentous events of 19 April 1775 continued to unfold following the fight at 

the North Bridge. British Lieutenant Colonel Smith allowed approximately two hours in 

Concord for his troops to regroup and eat, and then they began the march back to Boston. At 

Meriam’s Corner, the British flankers rejoined the main column of soldiers, having to slowly 

cross a narrow bridge. More than a thousand Minute Men and militia from nearby towns 

had begun congregating in the vicinity. Some took cover behind stone walls and buildings at 

the Meriam homestead as they watched the flankers pass. Sources differ regarding which 

side fired first, but volleys were exchanged as the last of the British crossed the bridge. 

Perhaps two British were killed, and others were wounded. The fighting at the North Bridge 

had been ratified and affirmed. Now began the real war, a continuous running battle that 

would stretch 16 miles to Boston.11 At Meriam’s Corner, the NPS has rehabilitated the 

exterior of the Meriam House. One end of the Battle Road Trail, an interpretive trail used by 

walkers and bicyclists, meanders along parts of the historic Battle Road, at Meriam’s Corner. 

British Ensign Jeremy Lister described the resulting scene as he and his comrades 

retreated back toward Lexington and Boston. “It then became a general firing upon us from 

all Quarters, from behind hedges and Walls.”12 Using the landscape for cover, the American 

Patriots fired from these protected areas, and then ran ahead across the country to lie waiting 

again. When the British flankers could operate, they kept the Patriots out of range. At nearly 

every bend and turn of the road, a soldier fell. The British were left exhausted and near panic, 

unsure where a bullet might whistle by. After the Samuel Brooks and Job Brooks House, the 

original road veered sharply to the north and rose in elevation. A tall growth of trees sat on 

the left side of the road and a smaller one sat to the right. Many militia men raced to the cover 

of these trees and waited for the British to pass. When the British column reached this 

section of the road, the American Patriots fired with a devastating effect, killing eight men 

and wounding many more. British flankers approached from behind and returned the fire, 

 

9

 John Luzader, Historic Structure Report, Elisha Jones or Bullet Hole House, Part II, Historical Data Section, 14-16, 

File Elisha Jones House, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 10 Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: North Bridge Unit, Minute Man National Historical Park

(Waltham, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 2004), 36, 61. Interim Report, 66. 11 Interim Report, 69-70; French, Day of Concord and Lexington, 220-21; Wheeler, Concord, 125. 12 Jeremy Lister, Concord Fight: Being so Much of the Narrative of Ensign Jeremy Lister (Cambridge, MA: Harvard 

University Press, 1931), 29. 
Commemoration 

9 

killing or wounding four Patriots. This section of the road has since been called The Bloody 

Angle. Just beyond this spot, another British soldier received mortal wounds and was left to 

die in the road. Catherine Louisa Smith, wife of Capt. William Smith, took the soldier in, 

dressed his wounds, and cared for him until he died a few days later. The day following the 

battle, innkeeper Ephraim Hartwell and another older man drove along the road to The 

Bloody Angle and retrieved what bodies they could find. The British soldiers were buried in 

the Lincoln cemetery.13

Farther down the road, Captain Parker and some of his Lexington militia men (who 

had suffered the first losses of the day) took position against the British on a hill near the 

western boundary of the town. This spot is now remembered as Parker’s Revenge. Local 

historian Ruth Wheeler wrote, “For a little company of citizen soldiers...to regroup and 

march out against the enemy at noontime was a display of resolution that would be hard to 

match.”14 The British tried to return their resounding volley, to little effect. Finally, at Fiske 

Hill on the far eastern edge of what is now MIMA, Lieutenant Colonel Smith took a 

desperate course of action and threw his rear guard on the hill while he tried to restore order 

to his troops below. This action failed miserably, as the Patriots surrounded the British with 

unending fire. Lieutenant Colonel Smith received a wound in his leg, others also suffered, 

and the men broke ranks and began running toward Lexington. There, a delayed supply train 

under Lord Hugh Percy provided a needed respite until the troops continued on their march 

to Boston. 

The heaviest fighting and losses of the day occurred on the road into Menotomy 

(Arlington). Once past this area, Lord Percy had to use cannon to protect his rear guard, 

allowing him to cross Charlestown Neck after nightfall, settle at Bunker Hill, and gain the 

protection of the guns of the HMS Somerset moored in Boston Harbor. Losses for the day 

totaled 73 dead and 174 wounded for the British. The American Patriots had 49 dead and 40 

wounded. More importantly, the intense and consistent fire from the American Patriots 

along the entire stretch of the old Bay Road proved that this rebellion would be difficult to 

suppress. These Patriots fought to preserve their liberties and their right to selfgovernment.15

The independent spirit of 1775 found new expression in the nineteenth century as 

Concord became home to a succession of literary greats. Ralph Waldo Emerson attracted 

many of them to his home on Cambridge Road. One person he supported was Concord 

native Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau built his famous cabin on land owned by Emerson 

along Walden Pond. Bronson Alcott, drawn to Concord through Emerson, settled his family 

in the former Samuel Whitney house, giving it the name of Hillside. Alcott expanded the size 

of the house to accommodate the needs and imaginations of his family. His second daughter 

Louisa May’s playful experiences in Hillside were re-created in her book Little Women. 

 

13 Interim Report, 71-72; Wheeler, Concord, 126-27. Mary Hartwell, wife of Samuel Hartwell, shared later this account 

of the gathering and burial of dead British soldiers, as provided in Douglas P. Sabin, “April 19, 1775: A 

Historigraphical Study,” Part V, 18 July 1985, 23, File Battle of April 19, 1775, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 14 Wheeler, Concord, 127. 15 Interim Report, 75-80; MIMA Brochure; Wheeler, Concord, 128-29. 
Commemoration 

10 

Nathaniel Hawthorne first lived in Concord at the Old Manse following his marriage 

to Sophia Peabody. They eventually moved to Salem and other destinations, but Concord 

remained a special place for them. In 1852 they returned to buy Hillside, renaming it The 

Wayside. Hawthorne brought his own changes with an addition that included a tall tower 

where he wrote. He installed interior gables over the windows in his addition. Several years 

after Hawthorne’s death, his daughter sold The Wayside to Boston publisher Daniel 

Lothrop. Lothrop’s wife, using the pen name Margaret Sidney, wrote the Five Little Peppers 

and How They Grew series of children’s books. The Lothrops added a piazza to the side of 

the house and actively kept alive the history of the house and its former inhabitants. 

Margaret Lothrop, their only child, inherited the house, and she sold it to the NPS in 1965 

for inclusion in MIMA.16

COMMEMORATION

Little formal recognition took place of the April 19 date during the years immediately 

following the event. Early steps toward commemoration displayed uncertainty about the 

most appropriate way(s) to honor the past. Parades and speeches continued, while other 

ideas, such as the placement of monuments, proceeded with fits and starts. What is clear 

from these early efforts is the knowledge that Concord’s North Bridge and the Battle Road 

did not have an immediate and sustained impact on official commemorative activities. Their 

place in the patriotic sentiment developed over time, in response to the activities of later 

generations of townspeople. 

This delay in officially remembering the first patriotic fighting against the British may 

also have been influenced by a need to tame the Revolution and remove any references of 

aggressions that might have a “mobbish” or unruly slant. As Historian Alfred Young has 

argued, not until the 1820s and 1830s, as the original Revolutionary War heroes passed away, 

did the next generations of Americans embrace commemorations beyond the safe and 

edifying one of Independence Day.17

Locally, some residents did remember April 19 soon after the events. In 1776 Rev. 

Jonas Clarke of Lexington began annual memorial sermons. In Concord, Rev. Ezra Ripley, 

who replaced the late William Emerson and eventually married his widow, took anyone who 

visited him at the Old Manse on tours of the battlefield next to his home. Ripley sought 

stories from the former combatants at the bridge and wrote a history based on them. The 

most famous artifact from April 19—the North Bridge—saw its reconstruction in 1788 after 

the original weakened from annual spring flooding. In 1793 the Town of Concord heeded a 

multitude of requests for a bridge in a new location and replaced the North Bridge with 

Flint’s Bridge downstream. The historical significance of the North Bridge did not save it 

from destruction, although scraps of its wood eventually found form as revered souvenirs.18

 

16 Ruth R. Wheeler, Our American Mile: Concord’s Battle Road (Concord, MA: Concord Antiquarian Society, 1957), 

8-9, 14-15. 

17 Alfred P. Young, The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American Revolution (Boston: Beacon Press, 

1999), Part Two. 

18 Edward Tabor Linenthal, Sacred Ground: Americans and Their Battlefields (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 
Commemoration 

11 

Monumentation of the historic spots of the American Revolution proceeded slowly. 

On 4 July 1799, using funds provided by the Massachusetts General Court, Lexington 

dedicated the first official monument memorializing the events of April 1775. This 

monument was dedicated to the town’s eight Revolutionary War martyrs. In 1835 the 

remains of these men were removed from the Old Burying Ground in Lexington and placed 

in a stone vault within the monument. Political pressures thwarted attempts by Concordians 

to have a similar monument erected in their town. According to one local historian, a 

movement had started to move the Massachusetts General Court to an outlying area, and 

Concord had been favorably considered. Those opposed to removing the court from Boston 

wanted to downplay Concord as a potential site. A monument to the town’s important role in 

the American Revolution would increase its visibility and potential, so opponents to the 

move squashed such proposals in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.19

Interest in commemorating the events of Lexington and Concord increased with the 

approach of the 50th anniversary. Many of the veterans from the Revolutionary War were 

passing away, and the next generation planned formal ceremonies to remember their 

example and memory. These events would honor the past while setting the tone and shape of 

future celebrations, with military marches and speeches becoming favored. On the fortyninth anniversary of the battle at the North Bridge, the Concord Artillery Company and the 

Light-Infantry marched for the first time in new uniforms. After sharing a dinner and 

drinking toasts to the 13 surviving Patriots in attendance, the participants paraded to the site 

of the removed North Bridge. Reverend Ripley gave a stirring address recounting the battle. 

As reported in the local paper, the celebration was held to “keep fresh in the minds of the 

present generation the fortitude, sufferings, and valor of our fathers” while also kindling “the 

warmest feelings of patriotism.”20 

Further recognition came on 2 September 1824 when American Revolutionary War 

hero the Marquis de Lafayette made a brief visit to Concord during his 13-month celebratory 

return to all 24 states. Lafayette had volunteered to fight for the American cause even before 

the French Alliance and was instrumental in shifting French military priorities during the 

course of the war. Lafayette aided Washington and Rochambeau to ultimately surround and 

defeat Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, ending the war. During his brief stay in Concord, 

Lafayette reviewed the military companies that had escorted him into Town Center and 

saluted the surviving Patriots.21

Interestingly, Lafayette’s visit did not include a trip to the North Bridge site. Perhaps 

due the removal of the original bridge and the relocation of the roadway lessened the site’s 

attraction as an official gathering place for remembrance. The lack of a monument in the 

 1991), 13; Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report (CLR): North Bridge, 29-30; Interim Report, 133-34; Paula 

Robbins, “Ezra Ripley,” Unitarian Universalist Association, http://www.uua.org/uuhs/duub/articles/ezraripley.html. 

Annual Report, Town of Concord, 1956, 169, Concord Public Library. 19 Linenthal, Sacred Ground, 13; Roland Wells Robbins, The Story of the Minute Man (New London, NH: The Country 

Press, Inc., 1945), 7-8. 

20 “Anniversary of April 19, 1775,” Concord Gazette & Middlesex Yeoman, 24 April 1824, as quoted in DietrichSmith, CLR: North Bridge, 34. 21 Linenthal, Sacred Ground, 15; Dietrich-Smith, 34. 
Commemoration 

12 

town due to funding conflicts and political pressures may have played a role also. Americans 

were still searching for the symbols and places to revere its founding past, and the North 

Bridge area remained uncertain. This ambiguity toward the site of the bridge is also found in 

the planning for the fiftieth anniversary celebration. 

In 1823 a small group of prominent Bostonians formed the Bunker Hill Association.22

This association sought to raise funds from each town in Massachusetts to buy the land in 

Charlestown where the Battle of Bunker Hill was fought in June 1775 and erect a large 

monument on the site. The association also worked to provide funds for a monument to be 

placed in Concord to honor its significant role in the American Revolution. In its petition for 

incorporation to the state legislature, the association noted that Americans “appear not to 

have been sufficiently mindful of the infinite obligations we are under to those who braved 

the hardships, privations, and dangers”23 of the war. Wanting to mark the fiftieth anniversary 

of the two battles but not having the funds entirely in hand, the association held ceremonies 

and laid cornerstones at each site for the eventual monuments. 

Edward Everett, a founding member of the association and newly elected as a 

representative to the United States Congress, gave the address at Concord. He linked the 

actions of the Minute Men to the nation’s continued quest for freedom, stating, “The liberty 

achieved, the institutions they [the Minute Men] founded, shall remain one common eternal 

monument to their precious memory.”24 Sixty veterans joined the audience to hear Everett’s 

eloquent oratory. Surprisingly, the majority of the town’s citizens had voted to lay the 

cornerstone for the monument in Town Center, near the town pump, rather than at the site 

of the North Bridge.25

This decision rankled many people. During the winter of 1825, some disgruntled 

townspeople built a sham monument over the cornerstone. The monument stood 

approximately 20 feet high and was composed of empty casks and boards. The inscription on 

the mock monument read, “This monument is erected here to commemorate the battle 

which took place at the North Bridge.” The next night, they set the structure ablaze. The 

intense heat injured the cornerstone, and no Revolutionary War monument succeeded this 

misplaced one. Following the Civil War, however, the town erected a monument to that 

war’s dead at almost the same spot as the original Revolutionary War cornerstone.26

Near the end of his life, Reverend Ripley—who once lived at the Old Manse and 

shared stories of the fight at the bridge—offered to settle the controversy over the location of 

a monument. In 1834 he granted the town some of the land he gained as pasturage when the 

North Bridge had been removed in 1793. Solomon Willard, who designed the still 

 

22 This association is now known as the Bunker Hill Monument Association. The park has on loan from this association 

cannon that was probably hidden at Barrett’s Farm before 19 April 1775. 23 Petition, as quoted in Interim Report, 135-36. 24 Everett, as quoted in Linenthal, Sacred Ground, 19. 25 Louis A. Surett, “The Concord Fight Monument on Monument Square . . . Now Gone,” By-Laws of Corinthian 

Lodge, of Ancient, Free and Accepted Masons, of Concord, Mass. (Concord, 1959), as reproduced in Concord 

Magazine (January/February 2000), at http://www.concordma.com/magazine/janfeb00/othermonument.html. Interim 

Report, 136-37; Dietrich-Smith, 34. 26 Surett, “Concord Fight Monument;” Interim Report, 137. Inscription for monument found in both. 
Commemoration 

13 

uncompleted Bunker Hill Monument, provided his services for the Concord Battle 

Monument. Construction began in 1836 with four pieces of white granite cut from a single 

boulder found in the woods of neighboring Westford. On the east face of this obelisk, 25-

foot monument was a slab of white Italian marble with the following inscription attributed to 

Ripley: 

The monument contained a cavity of historical documents and was enveloped by an 

iron fence. A stone wall, requested by Ripley, was built along the southern side of the 

donated property. At the formal dedication on 4 July 1837 participants sang the Concord 

Hymn, written specifically for the occasion by Ripley’s step-grandson Ralph Waldo Emerson. 

In 1838, the sixty-third anniversary of the fight, townspeople planted 200 donated trees to 

enhance the entryway to the monument. Aside from two small stones that were placed to 

mark burial sites of the fallen British soldiers, the Battle Monument was the first monument 

erected to memorialize the fight at the North Bridge. Visitors responded by taking 

Here 

On the 19th of April 1775, 

was made 

the first forcible resistance 

to British aggression. 

On the opposite Bank 

Stood the American Militia. 

Here stood the invading Army, 

And on this spot 

The first enemy fell 

In the War of that Revolution 

which gave 

Independence 

To these United States. 

 

In gratitude to God, 

And 

In the love of Freedom 

This Monument 

was erected 

A.D. 1836 
Commemoration 

14 

pilgrimages to the monument, effectively turning the cow pasturage into sacred space for 

reflection and remembrance.27

By the fight’s seventy-fifth anniversary in 1850 ideas firmed about acceptable ways in 

which to honor Concord and Lexington’s Revolutionary War past. Both towns held a joint 

celebration in Concord, with up to 5,000 people in attendance. Concord dressed for the 

occasion, with flags, streamers, banners, and tablets strewn along the main roads and hanging 

from houses and trees. Around 11 in the morning, a processional composed of military 

companies, one survivor from the fight at the bridge, bands, and political leaders, marched 

from Town Center to the Battle Monument. There, the parade participants paused and 

watched as re-enactors of the Acton Minute Men saluted the procession and fired volleys 

over the spot where Acton Capt. Isaac Davis had been fatally shot. In memory of the British 

soldiers, a British flag flew at half-mast over their burial stones. The festivities ended with 

dinner and orations.28

With the 100th anniversary, people accepted and embraced Concord’s North Bridge 

and the symbols associated with it. Its significance in the birth of the nation was not 

questioned. Tensions also grew slowly between Concord and Lexington, each wanting to 

claim the honor of being the place where American Patriots first forcibly resisted the British. 

These communities battled over the distinction of who fought first, signaling that the 

founding histories of the nation had transformed into founding myths. Overlooked was the 

fact that Concord had removed the epic bridge and had cooperated with Lexington in past 

ceremonies. By 1875 Americans sought more than ways to honor their past. As cultural 

historians John Bodnar and Michael Kammen have argued, Americans searched for ways of 

institutionalizing the government and strengthening the social order of the late nineteenth 

century, as opposed to the revolutionary aspects of the late eighteenth century world. The 

100th anniversary celebrations involved more than remembering the past; Americans also 

formulated a vision of their present and future.29

Two important additions to the area around the Battle Monument cemented that 

vision: a reconstructed North Bridge and the Minute Man statue. Ebenezer Hubbard was 

fundamental in the creation of these monuments. He believed that Concord had yet to pay 

proper homage to its Revolutionary War past. Hubbard grew up surrounded by memories of 

that past. He lived in the house where his grandfather hosted Hancock and other members of 

the Provincial Congress during their stay in Concord. Hubbard saw the original North 

Bridge, and he spoke with some of the militia men who fought there. He believed that the 

location of the Battle Monument—the side where the enemy had been—diminished the 

bravery and courage of the American Patriots who stood up against the British. To support 

 

27 Interim Report, 137-40; Dietrich-Smith, CLR: North Bridge, 35-36, 38. 28 Dietrich-Smith, CLR: North Bridge, 39-40. 29 Linenthal, Sacred Ground, 35-37; John Bodnar, Remaking America: Public memory, Commemoration, and 

Patriotism in the Twentieth Century (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992), 19, 29-30; Michael Kammen, A 

Season of Youth: The American Revolution and the Historical Imagination (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978), 63, 65. 

For a discussion of the founding myths associated with Concord and Lexington, see Ray Raphael, Founding Myths: 

Stories that Hide Our Patriotic Past (New York: New Press, 2004), 67-83. 
Commemoration 

15 

his belief, Hubbard gave the town treasurer $600 to erect a bridge on the site of the original. 

Upon his death in 1870 Hubbard willed $1,000 to Concord for the express purpose of 

building a monument on the opposite side of the river as the Battle Monument.30

Decisions on how the town would use these bequests fell upon the Monument 

Committee, appointed at Town Meeting in 1872. Many townspeople provided ideas for the 

statue’s design, with the most popular suggestion being that of a Minute Man statue. A year 

later, the Monument Committee recommended that the town accept Hubbard’s gifts, 

specifically to “procure a statue of a Continental Minute-man, cut in granite, and erect it on a 

proper foundation, on the American side of the river.” At the base of the statue, the 

committee envisioned placing the opening stanza of Emerson’s Concord Hymn: 

By the rude bridge that arched the flood, 

Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled, 

Here once the embattled farmers stood, 

And fired the shot heard ‘round the world. 

In addition, the committee agreed “that a suitable bridge be constructed to give 

access to the spot” and that this work was to be completed in time for the 100th anniversary. 

Stedman Buttrick (grandson of Maj. John Buttrick) provided a quarter acre of land in his will 

for placement of the statue. He died in November 1874.31

The selection of Daniel Chester French to design the statue came gradually. French 

was still in his early twenties at the time, and he had yet to complete his art training. He had 

focused on sculpture about three years earlier, and created clay figures of farm animals and 

busts of family members. He sat in for a month of drawing class taught by May Alcott, Louisa 

May Alcott’s younger sister, then spent some time in the studios of two other artists. His 

father, Judge Henry French, encouraged Daniel to develop a design for the Minute Man 

statue and may have assisted him in this endeavor. Daniel submitted sketches and a clay 

model to John Keyes and Emerson (who served on the Monument Committee), and they 

recommended his work to the town. In November 1873 the town voted to accept the model, 

and French rented a studio room in Boston to finish the full-size model from which a bronze 

casting would be created.32

His completed statue borrows heavily from classical and Washingtonian references 

and is grounded with local references. French used a plaster cast of the Apollo Belvedere 

sculpture as a basic form for the Minute Man statue, but inserted sturdy arms typical of a 

farmer. The idea of the plow beside a military personage, emphasizing the peaceful work of 

 

30 Interim Report, 141; Samuel Hoar, Edward Emerson, and Charles Walcott, Proceedings at the Centennial 

Celebration of Concord Fight April 19, 1875 (Concord, MA: Town of Concord, 1876), 11-12, [hereafter referred to as 

Proceedings 1875 Celebration], Special Collections, Concord Free Public Library (CFPL); Roland Wells Robbins, The 

Story of the Minute Man (New London, NH: The Country Press, Inc., 1945), 13-16. The Centennial Celebration 

History and Boston Sites Interim Report list Hubbard as dying in 1870. Robbins lists his death in 1871. Hubbard made 

the initial donation in circa 1863—source? 31 Quotes from Interim Report, 142. Robbins, Minute Man, 17; and Proceedings 1875 Celebration, 12. 32 Robbins, Minute Man, 17-18. 
Commemoration 

16 

leaders, may refer to Jean-Antoine Houdon’s 1788 statue of George Washington in the 

rotunda of the Virginia state capitol in Richmond. 

Local references provide a human dimension to the statue and tie it closely to the 

events of 19 April 1775. French specifically sought images of Acton Captain Davis and his 

offspring. The Minute Man statue would not fully represent Davis, but French wanted some 

reference to the people who fought at the bridge. When grappling with the fine points of the 

Minute Man’s anatomy, French turned to reflections of himself in a full-length mirror while 

using friends as models occasionally. Excited about French’s work, Concordians searched 

their attics and farm buildings for examples of the clothing and plows used by their ancestors 

at the time of the Revolutionary War, and the sculptor benefited from these donations. He 

might have included the plow as a subtle reference to one possible way the local people had 

hidden military stores from the British. According to local historian Townsend Scudder, at 

Barrett’s Farm, “Into every furrow, as the ox teams plodded along, rows of muskets were 

being sown. Just as the last hollow was filled, the column of British infantry swung into 

view.”33

Rather than having the statue cut from granite as originally proposed by the 

Monument Committee, French made a plaster cast of the clay model and sent it to the Ames 

Manufacturing Company in Chicopee, Massachusetts, to have it cast in bronze. The bronze, 

melted from ten condemned Civil War cannon pieces, gave the statue a heightened status.34

E. Rockwood Hoar, member of the forty-third Congress and a prominent citizen of the 

town, had secured the necessary legislation. In some ways, the Minute Man statue could be 

considered an attempt to move past the destruction of the War Between the States and 

continue (again) with the principles of the Revolution as a guide. French did not oversee the 

casting or final installation of the statue, as he had already sailed for Florence to continue his 

art studies. The Monument Committee, led by Keyes, decided to place the seven-foot tall 

statue on an equally tall rectangular block, cut from the same granite as the 1836 Battle 

Monument. On the front face of the block, Emerson’s words were incised in bronze. The 

rear face contained the inscription, “1775/Nineteenth/of/April/1875.” This block then sat on 

a nine-inch tall base. The town also raised the elevation of the ground for the statue, 

protecting the work from the typically soggy spring landscape and forcing viewers to look up 

to the Minute Man. French wrote from Italy and asked that a base less heavy be chosen. It is 

not clear from the correspondence whether he wanted to reduce the distance between the 

audience and the sculpture or he felt the heavy rough-cut block would be disproportionately 

heavy in comparison to the lightness of the bronze statue. Keyes and his committee kept to 

 

33 Quote from Townsend Scudder, Concord: American Town (Boston, Little, Brown Company, 1947), 94. Discussions 

about the sources for the statue are from Robbins, Minute Man, 17-22; Russell Lynes, The Art-Makers: An Informal 

History of Painting, Sculpture, and Architecture in Nineteenth-Century America (New York: Dover Publications, 

1970), 334; Roger B. Stein, “Gilded Age Pilgrims,” in William H. Truettner and Roger B. Stein, ed., Picturing Old 

New England: Image and Memory (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1999), 52. 34 Michael Richman, Daniel Chester French: An American Sculptor, (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 976), 

41. Robbins states in Minute Man (p. 22) that the cannon came from that captured by New Englanders during the Battle 

of Louisburg during the French and Indian War. 
Commemoration 

17 

its original decision and mounted the statue on the seventeen-ton granite base in early April 

1875 in preparation for the unveiling.35

This combination of sources for the statue and its overall presentation gave viewers a 

heroic image of the citizen soldier. Contemporary accounts reflect this meaning. The 

Springfield Republican, reporting on the statue’s unveiling at the 100th anniversary 

celebration, called the Minute Man the “ideal embodiment of the genius of the Revolution” 

and described its features as “strongly marked and bear the energy, the self-command, the 

ready shrewdness, the immediate decision, and above all, the air of freedom that belongs to 

the New England face.”36 The chroniclers of the 1875 celebration wrote that the statue had 

the visage of one “who sees all the doubt and danger from the first and yet goes quietly on. 

The figure is of heroic proportions [yet]...the long waistcoat, hanging heavy with the bullets 

in its pockets, the worn gaiters and rude accoutrements show faithful work and historical 

accuracy.”37 These descriptions emphasize the strength and inner determination celebrated 

in the sculpture. They also apply these past the Minute Men of the Revolutionary War era as 

a call to Americans and people around the world in succeeding generations. One Concord 

clergyman wrote some years after the unveiling that “The Minute Man speaks not to 

Americans only, but he speaks to the whole race of men in all times and all places. He stands 

there as the universal embodiment of human freedom. He represents the everlasting protest 

of mankind against tyranny and oppression.”38 The Minute Man statue embodied what late 

nineteenth-century Americans wanted to remember about their Revolutionary past: the 

selfless commitment to self-determination and liberty. The statue also helped Americans 

forgo references to the true revolution and the overturning of government that resulted from 

this belief. 

Nineteenth-century sensibilities also played a significant role in reconstructing the 

North Bridge for the 1875 festivities (figure 3). The town followed Hubbard’s request to 

reconstruct the bridge, with a town committee referring to contemporary prints of the 

structure. Wood engraver Amos Doolittle and painter Ralph Earl, both serving in the 

Connecticut Militia, visited Concord several weeks after the fight and drew sketches. Their 

completed works provided valuable clues about the shape and design of the bridge. However 

the final version, completed in 1874, had a “lighter scale” with decorations added to the 

“rigid simplicity”39 of the original. As noted during the 1875 proceedings of the celebration, 

“the place of the rough railing of ‘followers’ of the old bridge was supplied by a paling of 

graceful pattern, made of cedars with the bark on; and two rustic half-arbors were placed on 

the middle of the bridge, projecting over the water, with seats where pilgrims might sit and 

 

35 Proceedings 1875 Celebration, 14-16; Interim Report, 143; Robbins, Minute Man, 22-23; Dietrich-Smith, CLR: 

North Bridge, 43; French to Keyes, 28 November 1874, transcript and photocopy of original letter, File Minute Man 

Statue, Reports Files, Park Library, MIMA. Correspondence between DC French and his father Henry French in the 

French papers at the Library of Congress, Manuscript Division, reveal the artist’s concern about the base and his 

father’s attempts to serve as an intermediary. See especially Reel 13, 23 October 1874 and 28 December 1874. 36 19 April 1875 Springfield Republican, as quoted in Linenthal, Sacred Ground, 31. 37 Proceedings 1875 Celebration, 16-17. 38 As quoted in Interim Report, 133. 39 Proceedings 1875 Celebration, 14. 
Commemoration 

18 

watch the quiet river brimming to its meadows.”40 This reincarnation of the North Bridge, 

designed by William Emerson of Boston and constructed by Reuben Rice, served as a place 

of contemplation for remembering the events of the Revolutionary War. With a new granite 

marker at the graves of the British soldiers (figure 4), the entire North Bridge site reclaimed 

its historic past and visitors were urged to rededicate themselves to the ideals of liberty and 

self-determination. 

The day of 19 April 1875 dawned uncharacteristically cold and gray, with 

temperatures hovering at 20 degrees Fahrenheit. Bunting loaned from the nation’s Navy 

yards colored the streets, buildings, and special tents erected for the event. A one hundredgun salute echoed through the rolling hills at sunrise. By 9 a.m., a 2-mile procession wound 

down Main Street, through Monument Square, down Monument Street, and to the North 

Bridge. Military units escorted chief national and state officers, while martial music filled the 

air. The processional crossed the bridge and halted while President Ulysses S. Grant unveiled 

the Minute Man statue. Judge French, acting as his son’s representative during the festivities, 

remarked of the unveiling that the “Minuteman is triumphant. Everybody admires it and 

nobody finds any fault.”41 Following speeches by Ralph Waldo Emerson and George William 

Curtis, the parade moved to tents in the nearby fields for dinner and more speeches. A grand 

ball in the Agricultural Hall capped the evening. Judge French noted that many of the women 

dressed in the “antique style with hair powdered”42 and the men wore uniforms. Planners 

had expected about 10,000 visitors for the day’s festivities, but more than 50,000 people 

braved the cold.43 

Words reflecting on the sacrifices of the Patriots at the North Bridge emphasized 

their peaceful motives. The 1875 onlookers listened to Curtis remind them not of the 

revolutionary actions of the Minute Men, but of their commitment to longstanding 

principles. Curtis described a Minute Man as the “rural citizen trained in the common 

school, the church, and the town meeting, who carried a bayonet that thought, and whose 

gun, loaded with principle, brought down not a man, but a system.”44 The day before, a 

Sunday, Reverend Grindall Reynolds of the First Parish Meeting House echoed a similar 

sentiment from the pulpit. “The Revolution, therefore, was no restless throwing off a yoke,” 

Reynolds had expounded. “The fight at North Bridge was no fierce outburst of revenge. 

Those eight years of loss and great endurance were not given simply for selfish good of any 

kind: they are all parts of a steady, solemn refusal to be subject to the whims and caprices of 

any man, or of any body of men.”45 With the centennial celebration, Concord and its North 

Bridge area sat firmly within the story of the American Revolution. Concord was officially 

considered a place of honor and sacrifice, of dedication to the principles of selfdetermination and remembrance for future generations. 

 

40 Ibid. 

41 H. French to D. C. French, 21 April 1875, Reel 13, French Papers, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. 42 Ibid. 

43 Proceedings 1875 Celebration, 30, 38, 64-65, 72. 44 Ibid., 110. 

45 Ibid., 55. 
Commemoration 

19 

Between the centennial and sesquicentennial celebrations, the landscape of the 

North Bridge underwent some changes. The 1874 Victorian bridge swept away in the 1888 

spring floods. Its replacement, built the same year, did not have the delicate tracings of its 

predecessor. Instead, it was built with heavy oak piles, posts, railings, and strong diagonal 

props to extend its probable lifespan. This version was washed away by the spring floods of 

1909. The Massachusetts Department of Public Works opted to use concrete, in a design 

reminiscent of the drawing in the Doolittle print, in an attempt to foil nature’s strength. More 

changes came for the gravesite of the British soldiers. In 1877 the town used money donated 

by an English-born Bostonian to formalize the space. A granite post-and-chain-fence was 

built around the gravesite. Further enhancements came in 1910. This time, using funds from 

a direct descendent of an original Concord settler, the town had a slate slab engraved with 

the last stanza of James Russell Lowell’s 1849 poem “Lines.” Placed in the stone wall above 

the graves, the marker read: 

They came three thousand miles and died, 

To keep the past upon its throne 

Unheard beyond the ocean tide, 

Their English mother made her moan. 

Lowell had visited the graves with Nathaniel Hawthorne before publication of 

Hawthorne’s Mosses from an Old Manse (1846), written while he and his wife lived at the 

house next to the North Bridge.46

New monuments and markers appeared in the surrounding area. In 1885, as part of 

its efforts to commemorate the 250th anniversary of its founding, the town placed the Muster 

Field Monument in the field where American Patriots gathered the morning of 19 April 1775 

before marching down to the North Bridge. Inset in a stone wall along the north side of 

Liberty Street, the town made legal arrangements with owners George and Mary Keyes to 

retain ownership of the marker and maintain it. The marker read: “On this field/ the minute 

men and militia/ formed before marching/ down to the/ fight at the bridge.” The town 

requested the services of sculptor French again in 1915 to design the John Buttrick Bas-Relief 

Monument. The town obtained a grant to the land for the monument from owner Stedman 

Buttrick II. Sculptor Edmond T. Quinn made the model for the figure of Major Buttrick, 

referring to two daguerreotypes provided by Stedman Buttrick II. Located within a stone 

wall on the south side of Liberty Street, the bas-relief monument stands 16 feet tall and 9 feet 

wide. It contains a bronzed image of Buttrick and is flanked by two granite benches. Two 

more markers entered the historic landscape in the early 1900s. A granite square-cut Mile 

Marker stands about two feet high on a grass island at the intersection of Liberty Street and 

Estabrook Road. The Line of March Marker shows the colonial line of march on the historic 

day. A granite slab, the Line of March Marker stands about three feet to the south of the Mile 

Marker.47

 

46 Dietrich-Smith, CLR: North Bridge, 58, 60. 47 Ibid., 61-62. French to Stedman Buttrick II, 22 February 1915; French to Buttrick, 1 March 1915; French to Edmond 
Commemoration 

20 

Most attention went to the North Bridge area, but some commemorative markers 

also appeared in the late nineteenth century along key sites of the Battle Road. In 1885 

Lexington dedicated the Bluff Monument and the Hayward Well Monument as part of a 

larger celebration of the town’s historic sites. Located at the base of Fiske Hill, the Bluff 

Monument marked the location of the eighth and final confrontation along the present-day 

Battle Road Trail. Within a stone wall in front of Ebenezer Fiske’s House, the Hayward Well 

Monument marks the place where tradition has claimed that an American patriot and a 

British soldier fired on and killed each other on 19 April 1775. Each monument consists of 

rough-cut granite tablets inscribed with gilded lettering. Also in 1885, Concord placed a 

granite tablet within a stone wall at Meriam’s Corner. This monument joined seven others, 

including the Muster Field Monument, in honor of the town’s 250th anniversary. The 

Meriam’s Corner Monument marks the starting place of the running battle that continued to 

Charlestown. Through an agreement with owners Thomas and Rose Burke, the town 

retained legal ownership and assumed responsibility for the monument’s maintenance. In 

1899, the Town of Lincoln placed the Paul Revere Capture Marker, a large granite 

monument with bronze tablet that sits within a stone wall. This marker approximates where 

British soldiers captured Revere during his midnight ride. A committee chose the location 

based on tradition and input from a local authority. No further major monuments have been 

placed along the Battle Road.48

All of these memorials contributed to the tourist experience. The Minute Man statue, 

the 1836 Battle Monument, the rebuilt North Bridge, and the other features particularly close 

to the North Bridge became linked to the historical setting and are notable sites on their own. 

This method of creating monuments echoed what Americans created at other battlefields 

and cemeteries, marking the past while providing a park-like setting. Trees and shrubbery 

leading to the North Bridge and around the monuments provided shade and comfort for 

visitors while enhancing the beauty of the scene. Town officials had shrubs placed around 

the Battle Monument and behind the Minute Man statue and had cedars planted to mark 

each corner of the Battle Monument. 

These steps surpassed memorializing the past. They beautified the area, inviting 

visitors to stop, ponder the historic events, and enjoy the setting. More and more visitors 

from the Boston area and beyond responded favorably. They took the railroad into Concord 

and hired carriages, or later drove themselves in automobiles, to touch the past while 

delighting in the present. An annual “carnival of boats” on Independence Day encouraged 

people to float down the Concord River and observe the North Bridge first from the water. 

Boathouses located throughout the waterway system provided canoes and other types of 

 Quinn, 15 September 1915; and French to Quinn, 20 September 1915, all in Reel 15, French Family Papers, 

Manuscript Division, LC. 

48 Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report for Battle Road Unit Minute Man National Historical Park

[hereafter CLR: Battle Road], 95 % draft, (Waltham, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 2004), 52, 54. 
Commemoration 

21 

transport. With the 1894 establishment of a legal holiday—Patriot’s Day—in Massachusetts, 

each location associated with the events of that day gained more visibility.49

The next large public commemoration of the North Bridge area came in April 1900 

when Concord welcomed 10,000 visitors. The town honored the nineteenth of April, falling 

on a Sunday, with special services at churches, marking of the graves, parades, and concerts. 

The next day (now a legal holiday), included another parade that marched to the bridge and a 

re-enactment. According to Prescott Keyes, who chaired the planning committee, the reenactment was designed to dramatize the removal of the British from the bridge, “this 

clearing the way for the parade, personifying All America, to cross.” In this way, Concord 

kept alive the memory of the past and reinforced it for the present “All America.”50 As the 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts prepared for the 150th commemoration of the American 

Revolution in 1925, some historically conscious individuals took important first steps toward 

creating about a permanent memorial to the events along the Battle Road. 

 

49 Ibid., 51, 57, 63-64; Linenthal, Sacred Ground, 14. For background on the connection of parks and cemeteries, see 

John Sears, Sacred Places: American Tourist Attractions in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Oxford University 

Press, 1989. 

50 Linenthal, Sacred Ground, 15-16. Keyes quote from p. 16. 
Commemoration 

22 

Figure 1. 1836 Battle Monument. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 
Commemoration 

23 

Figure 2. Minute Man Statue by Daniel Chester French. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 

Figure 3. 1875 version of the North Bridge by Alfred W. Hosmer. Courtesy Concord Free Public 

Library. Used with permission. 
Commemoration 

24 

Figure 4. Grave of British Soldiers at the North Bridge. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 

Map 1. Battle Road, 1775. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: 

Battle Road Unit, Figure 18. 
Commemoration 

25 

Map 2. Structures along western part of Battle Road. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural 

Landscape Report: Battle Road Unit, part of Figure 17. 

Map 3. Structures along the eastern section of Battle Road. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, 

Cultural Landscape Report: Battle Road Unit, part of Figure 17

27 

CHAPTER TWO

PRESERVATION

In his visceral writings about the New England landscape in which he grew up, 

studied, and loved, Arthur Shurcliff shared his equal passion for its deep human history. He 

noted, 

this is our country. Our forebears cleared this ground for 

tillage and pasturage. Men of our line built these stone walls to 

mark the land and to keep the cattle within bounds. These 

trees were planted by our kin who reckoned the yield, the 

shade and beauty. 

 

He connected the New England landscape of the early twentieth century with that past with 

prose such as 

when we look up these valleys and hills you see that the 

loveliness of the ponds, the pastures, the fields, the orchards, 

and the old roads is in part the work of our hands. Part is 

ours, part is loveliness which came down from the heavens or 

sprang up seemingly of itself from the ground.1

 

Throughout his professional life, he worked to bring people into beautiful landscapes, often 

resonating with historical associations. Through his work for the Massachusetts 150th

Anniversary of the American Revolution Commission, he presented the United States with a 

vision for commemorating the events of 19 April 1775 along the Battle Road. 

Born in 1870 in Boston, Shurcliff (also known as Shurtleff2

) worked as a 

distinguished landscape architect. After mechanical engineering training at the 

Massachusetts Institute of Technology and landscape training at Harvard University, 

Shurcliff worked in the Brookline, Massachusetts, offices of Frederick Law Olmsted. With 

Frederick Law Olmsted, Jr., he had established the first four-year landscape program in the 

United States at Harvard and taught there until 1906. Upon beginning his private practice in 

1904, Shurcliff completed highway studies for the Boston Metropolitan Improvement 

Commission and the Massachusetts State Highway Commission. He made many plans for 

towns around the Boston area, including Concord and Lexington. In a 1921 study of 

Newton, Massachusetts, Shurcliff suggested that the town extend the Hammond Pond 

 

1

 Arthur Asahel Shurcliff, New England Journal (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1931), 8. 2

 Arthur Asahel Shurtleff changed his family name to Shurcliff in 1930 to conform to the ancient family 

Old English spelling. See Charles Birnbaum and Robin Karson, Pioneers of American Landscape Design

(New York: McGraw-Hill, 2000), 351. See also Biographical Sketch, Guide to the Collection, Arthur 

Asahel Shurcliff Papers, The Massachusetts Historical Society; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 

891-92. 
Preservation 

 28 

Parkway between Brookline and Newton to connect parks with other transportation routes. 

This particular project provides some idea about how he approached his work for the 150th

Anniversary Commission. 

During World War I, Shurcliff also designed war housing in Bridgeport, 

Connecticut. Over the course of his career, his public works projects included dams, 

reservoirs, parks, playgrounds, and zoological gardens. For the private sector, he designed 

gardens and college campuses including Amherst, Brown, and Wellesley. Between 1928 and 

1941, he served as the Chief Landscape Architect for Colonial Williamsburg. He also helped 

lay out Old Sturbridge Village in Massachusetts. These latter two accomplishments meshed 

well with his personal interest in American history, craft, and gardens. His assistance with 

the planning for the 150th Anniversary of the American Revolution also held his attention 

beyond that of a typical project.3

SHURCLIFF AND THE BATTLE ROAD

In 1925 the history of Minute Man National Historical Park (MIMA) reached an 

important point. Previous attempts at remembering the opening of the Revolutionary War 

were focused on the placement of markers on small parcels of land and hosting public 

gatherings at significant anniversaries. However, for the 150th anniversary, a larger vision 

emerged. Concerns began to surface about the landscape and its preservation in the face of 

changes occurring in the area of the North Bridge and the Battle Road. People began to 

think ahead and wonder what steps should be taken to preserve the places of the past. Many 

worried about increased building along the Battle Road and the implications of it being a 

commuter roadway. These worries continue throughout the history of MIMA and are 

essential for understanding decisions made and actions taken over the years. 

An early change in Concord-Lincoln-and-Lexington came with the development of 

former farmland into large estates. Wealthy Bostonians, taking advantage of railroad lines 

extending from Boston into Lexington and Concord by the 1880s, bought hefty acreage and 

transformed the land. By the North Bridge, Edwin Barrett built one of the first of these 

estates and named it Battle Lawn. He was a descendent of both Col. James Barrett, whose 

military stores had attracted the British to Concord, and Capt. Nathan Brown from the fight 

at the bridge. In 1877 Edwin Barrett purchased (from George and Mary Keyes) land that 

was once the house lot of Capt. David Brown, also from the 1775 fight. Built in 1879, the 

Tudor-style mansion overlooked the Minute Man statue and North Bridge. The dining 

 

3

 Birnbaum and Karson, Pioneers of American Landscape Design, 110-11; Biographical Sketch, Shurcliff 

Papers, Massachusetts Historical Society; Acts and Resolves of Massachusetts, 1924, Chapter 42. 

Massachusetts, General Court, House Documents, 1925, No. 120, Preliminary Report of the 

Commission on 150th Anniversary of American Revolution. Arthur A. Shurtleff, Report to Commission on 

the One Hundred Fiftieth Anniversary of the American Revolution, 5 January 1925, 1-2, File 1925 Report, 

Unprocessed Materials, Museum Collection, MIMA. Shurcliff to The Boston National Historic Sites 

Commission (BNHSC) and Small, 5 June 1956, 1, File L58 1959-1960, Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject 

Files, NARA Waltham. The author thanks NPS historical landscape architect Debbie Smith for sharing 

her research on the 150th anniversary commission. 
Preservation 

 29 

room was adorned with a fireplace mantel made from an oak post taken from the 1775 

bridge. The post was dug out of the Concord River’s mud floor at one of the old bridge’s 

abutments. A frieze rested atop the mantle. Colonel Barrett added a cottage, large stable, and 

a gazebo-like building to his estate. He also landscaped the upper section of his grounds 

with a groomed lawn, ornamental trees, shrubbery, and a flowerbed. He devoted the lower 

section to agriculture. To honor his forefathers from the 1775 battle, he placed a memorial 

marker on the grounds. Upon Colonel Barrett’s death in 1898 his family first continued to 

reside in the mansion, then rented it. In 1909 Edward A. Newell purchased the property and 

oversaw its extensive remodeling and enlargement into a colonial revival style house.4

Battle Lawn was soon joined by other estates. One year after Newell arrived in 

Concord, Stedman Buttrick II became sole owner of the Buttrick farm. He began purchasing 

additional properties and hired a Boston architect to design the new estate and a ClassicalRevival style mansion. Other buildings included a caretaker’s cottage and a carriage house. 

With completion of the mansion in 1913 Buttrick moved the home of Stedman Buttrick I, 

which sat next to the new mansion and overlooked the North Bridge, to the easterly side of 

Monument Street. Landscaping plans over the years included flower gardens, an orchard, 

and paths with stairs leading down to the river. Along the Battle Road, a few properties of a 

smaller scale began to appear, providing residences for people who commuted to Boston.5

Battle Lawn, the Buttrick estate, and some other properties along the Battle Road 

changed the landscape by digging foundations into ground that may have held historic 

artifacts. The addition of these properties also altered the topography from the original 1775 

farmlands with the addition of gardens, trees, and supporting structures. Even so, these 

properties also encompassed wide stretches of land, preventing the land from being 

subdivided into small house lots or other uses. In the first decades of the twentieth century, 

the threat of more damaging changes loomed, encouraged by changes in the Battle Road. 

This road had undergone past realignments and adjustments. Between 1802 and 1806, 

towns along the roadway removed two large bends. One led to the Hartwell farms and the 

other led to the Nelson farms. These bypassed roads became secondary roads with various 

names over the years. Additional work in succeeding decades reduced slopes and widened 

roadways. By the late 1890s the newly established Massachusetts State Highway 

Commission laid out its own vision of a state highway (later named Route 2A) for this 

realigned Battle Road. This new highway would go from Meriam’s Corner to the Bluff and 

then along Marrett Road. The new road bed was formed by layering and steamrolling 

broken stone, and it measured 15-feet wide with 3-foot gravel shoulders. In the days before 

automobiles, the road served the increasing demands of bicyclists. Automobiles soon 

created additional demands for the road. Around 1907 Middlesex County widened the road 

in several places, requiring the removal of several sections of stone walls and a portion of the 

Bluff and Fiske Hill.6

 

4

 Dietrich-Smith, CLR: North Bridge, 67-68, 71 5

 Ibid., 72, 74. Dietrich-Smith, CLR: Battle Road, 52. 6

 Dietrich-Smith, CLR: Battle Road, 34, 37. 
Preservation 

 30 

With the sesquicentennial anniversary approaching, more commemoration 

opportunities appeared. In 1924 Massachusetts Governor Channing H. Cox appointed a 

nine-person commission, chaired by Charles Barnes, to recommend ideas for a memorial to 

commemorate the 150th anniversary of the beginning of the American Revolution (see 

Appendix for a copy of the Resolve). Commission members included artist Walter Gilman 

Page, who also wrote about the value of displaying American art depicting the heroes of the 

Revolutionary War in schoolrooms. Louis Kirstein, another member of the commission, 

headed Filene’s Department Store and was a major philanthropist. The Kirstein Memorial 

Business Branch of the Boston Public Library is named after him. Commission member 

Arthur Walter Dolan served as a probate judge for Suffolk County. He eventually became an 

Associate Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Samuel Hoar, from Concord, had a 

long family history in the area. He served as chair of the Board of Selectmen and was the 

Secretary for the Concord 150th anniversary celebration. Walter Kendall Watkins, Secretary 

of the commission, had made a name for himself as an authority in local history, antiquities, 

and genealogy. He had also served on a municipal commission for Boston to mark local 

history sites.7

Recognizing that each town should develop individual celebrations, Barnes and his 

fellow members looked for more permanent ways to mark the anniversary. One thought 

revolved around a memorial highway along the Battle Road between Lexington and 

Concord, and the commission sought Shurcliff’s advice. He accompanied commission 

member James S. Smith on a trip through Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington in December 

1924. They examined the condition of historic sites along the Battle Road. What they found 

prompted additional calls for a memorial highway. 

As he reported to the commission, Shurcliff noted that up to a decade ago, the 

“narrow winding gravel road bed” had retained “much of its ancient appearance” and many 

of the important topographical features of 1775 “could be seen in approximately their 

original state.” He believed that only 10–20 years ago, “no effort of the imagination was 

needed to picture the setting” of the day’s events. Things had changed rapidly since then, to 

“such an extent that visitors cannot review the ancient line of march” clearly. An increasing 

number of modern dwellings distracted attention from the historic houses and invaded the 

fields, pastures, and woods where American Patriots sought protection while fighting the 

British. Shurcliff noted that roadside shrubbery, trees, and stone walls had been removed. 

He contested that the state had completed damaging changes by widening, straightening, 

and evenly surfacing the historic roadway.8

 

7

 Walter Gilman Page, “Interior Decoration of School Houses,” Proceedings, 66th Annual Meeting of the 

American Institute of Instruction (Bethlehem, NH: 1896), 105, 111, 113. Obituary, Louis Kirstein, Boston 

Herald, 11 December 1942. Massachusetts Reports, v. 328 (1951-1952): 748. “Funeral Tomorrow of 

Walter Kendall Watkins,” Boston Globe, 20 January 1934. Information on Samuel Hoar from Social 

Circle History, Special Collections, CFPL. The author could not uncover further information on the 

other commission members: Charles Barnes, Emma Burt, Isabel Gordon, or James Stuart Smith. 

8

 Shurtleff, 1925 Report, 1-2. All quotes are from these two pages. See also Dietrich-Smith, CLR: Battle 

Road, 67-68. 
Preservation 

 31 

These roadway changes helped address demands from the pronounced numbers of 

tourists. All of the monuments and markers drew people to Concord-Lincoln-Lexington. 

Rising patriotism following the events of World War I also encouraged many Americans to 

explore their past and visit its most cherished sites. To accommodate “the motors of 

sightseers and the fleets of sightseeing busses” making regular trips to the historic sites 

during mild weather, the state continued to improve Route 2A. With these tourists came the 

services to assist them in their travels. Shurcliff reported that “vending stands, booths, small 

roadside restaurants, resting rooms, and oiling stations...have made inroads upon the 

scenic attractiveness of this historic highway.” And, these intrusions were not quiet in 

proclaiming their existence. “The visitor,” Shurcliff cautioned, “is confronted with appeals 

to make purchases, to employ guides, or to notice gaily painted signs and vending devices” 

that obscured the view and detracted from the monuments.9

Shurcliff and others were uncomfortable with this situation. In 1956 he recalled that 

conversations with many fellow members of the State Art Commission, State Highway 

Commission, Boston Society of Architects, and the Society of Landscape Architects 

reflected this unease. Other groups familiar with the Battle Road’s historic value to Boston 

“were similarly interested to preserve as far as reasonably possible, the historic appearance 

of The Road.”10 In light of this concern, Shurcliff made his recommendations to the 

commission on the 150th Anniversary of the American Revolution. The Boston National 

Historic Sites Commission would echo these ideas thirty years later. 

To control the visual intrusion of vending booths and advertising signs, Shurcliff 

wanted to impose zoning regulations. He recommended the placement of permanent 

markers to indicate the line of march and to help direct visitors as they crossed confusing 

intersections. Shurcliff supported using special tablets and monuments to mark points of 

“unusual historic interest.” However, he discouraged the use of markers for lesser sites, so 

“the importance and interest of the chief monuments may not become lost or injured.” If 

the requested memorial highway came into existence, Shurcliff wanted to ensure that a strip 

of land on either side would be “sufficiently wide to include remaining ancient stone walls, 

fine roadside trees, the sites of existing and proposed memorials, [and] pylons and 

markers.” Seeing the remarkable changes already occurring, Shurcliff argued that there 

should also be a “permanent limit for construction of future buildings which might 

otherwise cramp this highway to a width out of keeping with its historic importance and its 

increasing use.” He especially wanted to ensure the preservation of the stone walls, which 

the Patriots had used as breastworks.11

Despite the need for these restrictions, he did not believe the situation lost. When 

the county straightened out parts of the Battle Road to form the state highway, two bends 

were left alone. As he wrote, “fortunately, however, the opportunity to preserve nearly two 

miles of the original line of march essentially in its original condition still remains.” These 

 

9

 Shurtleff, 1925 Report, 2. All quotes from this page. 10 Quote from Shurcliff to BNHSC, 5 June 1956, 1. See also, Interim Report, 34-35. 11 Shurtleff, 1925 Report, 2-3. All quotes from these two pages. 
Preservation 

 32 

detoured bends “escaped the modernizing influences” and held promise for preservation. 

One short bend occurred in an area known as Hastings Park in Lexington, rather than 

eventually being a part of MIMA. The second bend, approximately a half-mile long, 

occurred at the Nelson Farms near the point where the British captured Revere. The third 

and longest bend embraced the area of the Hartwell farms and The Bloody Angle. “It is an 

extraordinary piece of good fortune,” Shurcliff wrote, “that these...sections of the original 

line of march should have been preserved nearly in their original state until our day.” He 

urged acquisition of these stretches of road and adjacent land. He noted that they existed as 

“farm property, little developed, and containing scarcely over a half dozen dwellings of 

which at least four existing structures or sites are recorded in the history of the march.” 

Shurcliff wanted a minimum of approximately 400 feet on either side of the roadway for 

proper preservation, though he suggested that more space “to maintain protective 

backgrounds and to embrace larger areas of the ground over which the Patriots 

advanced...would be desirable.” He also preferred to connect the two larger bends through 

land acquisition to simplify land administration and provide visitors with a way to view the 

historic ground without “mingling with the through traffic.” This design proposal of 

connecting parts of the undisturbed Battle Road to reduce traffic intrusions would guide 

later preservation attempts by the Boston Historic Sites Commission and the NPS.12

The 150th Anniversary Commission echoed Shurcliff’s proposals and the idea of a 

memorial highway along that stretch of the Battle Road in its final report (see Appendix H) 

for a copy of the report). In this report, the commission recommended “to make as a public 

domain this portion of the road and roadside and to preserve them from the otherwise 

inevitable changes” that had occurred along the other sections of the road. The commission 

did not want to single out Lexington and Concord as better than the other sites of the 

American Revolution within Massachusetts. Instead, its members believed that since a good 

portion of that road was still in its original form, “it may be perpetuated as a symbol of the 

American Revolution and its every event.”13

Despite this call for action by the state commission, the memorial highway proposal 

did not come to fruition. People recognized that the historic landscape had been disturbed. 

The commission even asked that the state require removal of “the unsightly advertising 

signs along the historic route”14 before the 150th anniversary, but these intrusions did not 

arouse a considerable outcry. A review of newspapers, legislative records, and other sources 

from the period failed to uncover any further dialogue about the commission’s proposal and 

its ultimate demise. As Shurcliff reflected in 1956, “Why were the landmarks not saved 

twenty-five years ago?—because they were a part of a quiet countryside, not unlike that of 

the early days; they needed no marks other than a few inscribed boulders.”15 Instead, towns 

 

12 Ibid., 3-4. All quotes from these two pages. 

13 Massachusetts, General Court, House Documents, No. 329, Final Report of the Commission on the 

Celebration of the 150th Anniversary of the American Revolution. 14 150th Commission, Final Report. 15 Shurcliff to BNHSC, 5 June 1956, 1. 
Preservation 

 33 

like Concord and Lexington held separate celebrations. Vice President Charles Dawes and 

Gen. John J. Pershing served as honored guests at each venue. A commemorative stamp 

featured the Concord Minute Man statue, while a Patriot half dollar displayed the Concord 

Minute Man on the obverse and the Old Belfry in Lexington on the reverse. Lexington 

extended its celebration into the summer months, highlighted with a three-night 

performance of the play Lexington. In 1925, 19 April fell on a Sunday, and Concord held 

various literary exercises that day. The next day, the town had its traditional parade, 

reenactment, and ball, following in large part the model set from the 1875 celebration. Some 

adaptations reflected the times, as parade marchers and reenactors coordinated their 

activities by use of telephone. The state bolstered the North Bridge for the reenactment, 

placing piles alongside the cement piers to carry the bridge’s weight. Low water levels had 

scoured the footing of the 1909 concrete bridge.16

Massachusetts did not gain its proposed memorial highway. In 1930 Middlesex 

County further destroyed the historic roadway by obliterating previous alignments and 

constructing the new road primarily south of the original roadbed. The county removed a 

significant portion of Fiske Hill during this realignment, as well as more of the Bluff. This 

work made the road safer for automobile traffic. Side roads cut through former farmland on 

either side of State Highway Route 2A, providing access to the residential properties being 

built in the area.17 With the passage of the Historic Sites Act of 1935, the federal government 

began to show interest in the Battle Road and the North Bridge, promising to at least slow 

the roadway changes. This wide-ranging law addressed the real need to identify and 

preserve nationally historic buildings and spaces. To accomplish this goal, the law directed 

the Secretary of the Interior to survey historic properties to determine which of them were 

exceptionally valuable for commemorating or illustrating the history of the nation. The law 

authorized the Secretary and the NPS to conduct research, restore or maintain historic 

properties directly or through cooperative agreements, and engage in interpretive activities 

to educate the public about the historic sites. The law also established the Secretary’s 

Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments. The Advisory 

Board, composed of outside experts in cultural and natural resources, reviewed selected 

properties and recommended those found nationally significant for designation.18

At its fourth meeting in March 1937, the National Parks System Advisory Board 

designated the Lexington-Concord Road, or Battle Road, as nationally significant and 

recommended it for acquisition or development of cooperative agreements. The actual 

minutes for this meeting, as preserved in the NPS Washington offices, do not illuminate the 

discussion of this designation. However, the Advisory Board reviewed a range of sites from 

many different phases of American history. The Board did not necessarily grant other sites 

 

16 Linenthal, Sacred Ground, 16; Allen French, “Sesquicentennial Celebration of Concord Fight,” 

Proceedings of 1925, typescript, 4-5, 8, 15, 28-30, File Series IV Historian’s Report, 1925 Records 150th

Anniversary, CFPL. 

17 Dietrich-Smith, CLR: Battle Road, 34, 37, 49, 63, 65. 18 Barry Mackintosh, The National Park Service: Shaping the System (Washington, DC: NPS Division of 

Publications, 1985), 48; Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 562-77. 
Preservation 

 34 

such national significance at the time. To support additional work of the Advisory Board, 

Edwin Small prepared a Historic Sites Survey for New England in June 1937. Small joined 

the NPS in 1935 through the Emergency Conservation Work program of the Civilian 

Conservation Corps, serving as the regional historian for New England. He had BA and MA 

degrees in history from Yale University. In 1938 he would begin a long career as 

superintendent of the Salem Maritime National Historic Site before becoming Chief of 

Party for the Boston National Historic Sites Commission.19 Small would then serve as the 

first superintendent of MIMA.20 In 1937, he recommended action similar to Shurcliff’s 1925 

proposal: the federal government should preserve the two bends of the original road plus 

the historic houses standing on them. Small included Meriam’s Corner and the Meriam 

House in his recommendation. He did not, however, mention permanent markers or 

suggest connecting the separate parcels into a coherent area. Small had likely not seen 

Shurcliff’s report when he completed this survey.21

Possibly in support of an extended tour of historic sites by the advisory board 

during the eighth meeting in August 1938, Small completed a historical report titled “The 

Lexington-Concord Road.” In this report, Small used language like that of a tour guide, 

including “We begin our journey,” and “We are now nearing one of the most famous spots 

in American history.” He identified many historic buildings and sites along the way, and 

indicated which agencies preserve each of the structures. Once readers reach the North 

Bridge, Small writes, “As we enter this historic lane we are fully aware that if there is any soil 

sacred to the Republic, it is here.” He wrote about the fight in great detail and concluding 

that, “No great amount of dead but the monumental principle of the right to be free from 

foreign control had been vindicated in America.” At the end of the report, Small evaluated 

the Battle Road’s preservation by noting, “a scenic reconstruction of some parts of the road 

might be possible.” Concerning sections of the road that deviated from the modern Route 

2A, he stated, “Preservation of such parts of the old road no longer in use might in some 

instances be highly desirable.” Once again, Small neither referred to Shurcliff, nor listed the 

1925 report in his bibliography. The fact that Small does not present the idea of connecting 

the abandoned roadways into a coherent whole, as Shurcliff did, further suggests that Small 

 

19 Pauline Chase-Harrell, Carol Ely, and Stanley Moss, Administrative History of the Salem NHS, 

February 1993, 6-7, 12, 103, 106. 

20 While Small completed some military duty, administration of Minute Man first went to Salem 

Maritime National Historic Site. 

21 Minutes saved from the 4th Meeting of the Advisory Board (25-26 March 1937) do not include 

reference to the Lexington-Concord Road, but it is the case for this early period that the minutes are 

incomplete. At the 5th Meeting (25-26 June 1937), the minutes refer to the Lexington-Concord Road as 

already being approved for national significance. A subject note card for the Lexington-Concord Road 

states that at the 4th Meeting the Board did assign national significance to the site. All of these sources 

are found in the Advisory Board Files, National Register, History and Education (NRHE), NPS 

Washington. See also Edwin W. Small, Historic Sites Survey, 5 June 1937, Section IX, File Historic Sites 

Visits by Small 1936-37, Box 4, RG 79 Region I Assistant Regional Historian Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. Small also indicated in a separate section that the Town of Concord owned and cared for the 

North Bridge. 
Preservation 

 35 

had not read the 1925 report. When the Advisory Board toured the area in August, it made 

stops at the Hartwell Farm along the Battle Road and at the North Bridge.22

With the start of World War II, the NPS had reduced funding and its staff. Attention 

to the Battle Road and North Bridge diminished but did not disappear. Discussions about 

preservation continued in a random fashion without any new legislation. One scheme 

attracted some action by Small and others in 1941. Charles W. Ryder (of Lexington) was a 

member of a firm of wool dealers and owned much land in the town. He sought acceptance 

of his proposal to have a hilly, wooded lot designated as Liberty National Park. Ryder had 

sold many of his lots for development of suburban housing, but this 80-acre area was 

deemed unsuitable. He was unsuccessful in his attempt to sell the land to the Town of 

Lexington for recreational purposes. Next, he approached the federal government. Small 

met with Ryder in August 1941 and walked the property. After reviewing the historical 

record and seeing the geography of the proposed national park, Small determined that no 

action from 19 April 1775 occurred in the space of Ryder’s property. Without the land 

having a clear connection to those nationally significant events, the NPS declined Ryder’s 

proposal.23

Also in 1941 Ronald F. Lee, NPS supervisor of historic sites, submitted a draft 

cooperative agreement between the Town of Lexington and the federal government to the 

National Parks Association (later known as the National Parks Conservation Association). 

There is no indication of what prompted this action, and no further correspondence 

indicates that such a cooperative agreement went beyond the draft stage. Lee does write in 

his cover letter that, “civic leaders in Lexington may be interested in extending to the 

Lexington Green Battleground the advantageous provisions of the Historic Sites Act.”24 This 

act encouraged development of these types of agreements, so it is no surprise that the town 

once investigated its applicability to the Battle Green. Lee’s model was the cooperative 

agreement between the United States and the Association for the Preservation of Virginia 

Antiquities, which preserved Jamestown Island. The draft agreement for Lexington 

recommended designation of the 1775 battleground as a National Historic Site (NHS). 

Ownership of the historical monuments and grounds would stay with the town, but the 

federal government would help with preservation efforts. The federal government would 

 

22 All quotes, in order, are from pages 1, 2, 12, 14, and 15 of “The Lexington-Concord Road,” 1938, File 

Battle Road, NPS Reports Filing Cabinets, MIMA Library. The report as copied in MIMA Library does 

not include an author reference, but correspondence indicates that Small is the author. See Tolson to 

Demaray, 28 March 1946, File MIMA Correspondence 1941-1959, NRHE Files. 8th Meeting, 15-20 

August 1938, Advisory Board Minutes, NRHE Files. Small soon learned of the 1925 Shurcliff report, as 

he requested copies of it and the maps. See Bike to Small, 24 July 1940, File 1925 Report, Unprocessed 

Materials, Museum Collection, MIMA. The copies of the Shurcliff report now held by Minute Man 

most probably came from this 1940 request. 23 Walsh to Ickes, 21 July 1941; Small to Ryder, 5 August 1941; Small to Director, 14 August 1941 and 

attached Report of the Proposal of Charles W. Ryder for a Federal Reservation at Lexington, 

Massachusetts; and Demaray to Ryder, 12 November 1941, all in File 1941 Proposal, Unprocessed 

Materials, Museum Collection, MIMA. Most of these documents are also found in File MIMA 

Correspondence 1941-1959, NRHE Files. The NRHE Files includes a sketch of the property. 24 Lee to Ballard, 6 October 1941, File MIMA Correspondence 1941-1959, NRHE Files. 
Preservation 

 36 

also aid interpretation and funding for “preservation, restoration, and use of the historic 

monuments and grounds as a national historic site.”25

A promising preservation attempt involved the renewed interest of landscape 

architect Shurcliff. In 1943 Shurcliff returned to the North Bridge area and lamented its 

condition. He commented in letters to Russell Kettell, who served as chairman of the Old 

Manse Committee, that “I felt a great sadness on seeing Concord Bridge the other day in a 

guise which it did not have” in 1925. In Shurcliff’s opinion, the bridge appeared to be in 

“real danger on the north side, not only from the dwelling so near the property line, but 

from the sale of postcards, soft drinks and other tourist ‘stuff.’”26 Recognizing the threat of 

suburban development, he wondered whether the land leading to the bridge was “owned in 

such a way that it can never be covered with houses.”27 Shurcliff also worried about the large 

Japanese barberry hedge that had been planted near the Minute Man statue.28 This nonnative plant seemed incongruous to the historic setting of American freedom and was 

“incidentally reminiscent of far too many suburban land developments.”29 The plant’s name 

also had negative associations to an enemy of the United States during World War II.30

Kettell was a well-connected historic preservationist in the Boston area. In 1936 he 

published a large book titled Early American Rooms. Kettell was friends with William 

Sumner Appleton, who started the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities. 

In this book, Kettell used images and detailed text to depict 12 sample display rooms that 

represented historical periods from colonial times through the Civil War.31 He responded to 

Shurcliff, noting that three men had recently inherited the land north of the bridge and that 

the will stipulated that Mrs. Fred A. Sohier (who sold the tourist goods at the bridge) have a 

life tenancy on the land in question.32 Kettell agreed that the souvenirs were “dreadful”33

and hoped that one day a committee of town artists might improve their quality. The 

Trustees of Public Reservations, through the Old Manse Committee, owned the land on the 

south side of the bridge, which saved it from thoughtless development. Regarding the 

hedge, Kettell offered to approach the local gardening club and see whether it would 

remove the non-native shrub and replace it with something Shurcliff recommended, such as 

 

25 Draft Cooperative Agreement, 29 September 1941, 3, File MIMA Correspondence 1941-1959, 

NRHE Files. 

26 Both quotes, Shurcliff to Kettell, 30 March 1943, File Arthur Shurcliff Correspondence, MIMA 

Library. Original at Frances Loeb Library, Gund Hall, Harvard University. My thanks to NPS 

Historical Landscape Architect Debbie Smith for sharing this collection of documents from her own 

cultural landscape research. 

27 Shurcliff to Kettell, 26 February 1943, File Arthur Shurcliff Correspondence, MIMA Library. 

Original at Loeb Library, Harvard. 

28 Ibid. 

29 Shurcliff to Kettell, 30 March 1943. 

30 Shurcliff to Kettell, 26 February 1943. 

31 Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 895. 32 Kettell to Shurcliff, 28 March 1943, File Arthur Shurcliff Correspondence, MIMA Library. Original 

at Loeb Library, Harvard. 

33 Kettell to Shurcliff, 19 January 1944, 6, File Arthur Shurcliff Correspondence, MIMA Library. 

Original at Loeb Library, Harvard. 
Preservation 

 37 

a wild rose or wild blueberry. This suggestion was not heeded; by the mid-1950s, the hedge 

partially blocked views of the Minute Man statue.34

Both men were unsuccessful in their attempts to meet in person to discuss the 

situation at the bridge.35 Shurcliff realized that the threats he witnessed “may increase in 

volume and intensity” and, in reference to the world war, may “make Concord Bridge a sad 

example of our deteriorating conditions.”36 Their correspondence ended in spring 1944 

when Shurcliff wrote, “Viewed as a historic monument that whole tract is of course of 

national significance. Obviously something must be done to meet the threat of existing 

conditions.”37 The next year, Wallace B. Conant, president and treasurer of the Conant 

Machine and Steel Company in Concord, submitted a proposal to designate the North 

Bridge as an NHS. There are no known supporting documents that detail whether Shurcliff 

or Kettell had influenced Conant. NPS Acting Director Hillory Tolson replied to Conant, 

noting that the NPS would be “glad to recommend”38 presidential authorization of an NHS 

through a cooperative agreement with the Town of Concord, as allowed under the 1935 

Historic Sites Act.39 In 1946 further interest appeared in an internal NPS memorandum. 

Tolson remarked that a confidential list of sites recommended for national designation 

included “some structure associated with the Lexington-Concord battle.”40 Ultimately, no 

federal action occurred in the 1940s. As NPS Director Newton B. Drury wrote to United 

States Representative John W. McCormack in 1949, “Several years ago, some preliminary 

studies of historic sites and buildings in this vicinity were made, but they were interrupted 

by the war and we have not had funds since with which to resume them.”41

BOSTON NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES COMMISSION

In his writing to Director Drury, Representative McCormack initiated his important 

contributions to the eventual designation of MIMA. He wanted to confer with the NPS 

about the possibility of having a memorial parkway along the Battle Road, reviving the 150th

Anniversary Commission’s proposal. McCormack had served as the Democratic floor 

leader in the state legislature between 1925 and 1926 and most certainly knew of the 

commission’s recommendations for a permanent memorial to the American Revolution. 

Although the proposal was not passed by the state legislature, McCormack continued his 

 

34 Ibid., 3. Kettell to Shurcliff, 28 March 1943, 3; Kettell to Shurcliff, 19 January 1944, 3; Kettell to 

Shurcliff, 10 March 1943, File Arthur Shurcliff Correspondence, MIMA Library. Original at Loeb 

Library, Harvard. Dietrich-Smith, CLR: North Bridge, 89. 35 Shurcliff to Kettell, 24 January 1944; 11 May 1944, Shurcliff to Kettell; and Shurcliff to Kettell, 10 

April 1944, both in File Arthur Shurcliff Correspondence, MIMA Library. Original at Loeb Library, 

Harvard. 

36 Shurcliff to Kettell, 30 March 1943. 

37 Shurcliff to Kettell, 24 January 1944. 

38 Tolson to Conant, 8 October 1945, File MIMA Correspondence 1941-1959, NRHE Files. 39 Examples of successful cooperative agreements using the 1935 Act include Federal Hall in New York 

City and the Old Custom House or Second Bank of the United States, Philadelphia. See Hosmer, 

Preservation Comes of Age, 704-13. 40 Tolson to Demaray, 28 March 1946, File MIMA Correspondence 1941-1959, NRHE Files. 41 Drury to McCormack, 18 March 1949, File MIMA Correspondence 1941-1959, NRHE Files. 
Preservation 

 38 

strong commitment to preserving that stretch of road and other worthy places in the Boston 

area. This commitment translated into legislation. In 1955 he and Senator Leverett 

Saltonstall co-sponsored the bills that called for the creation of the Boston National 

Historic Sites Commission (BNHSC). McCormack, who was the house majority leader, 

played a key role in the passing of this legislation.42

Public Law 75, approved 15 June 1955 established the BNHSC to ascertain whether 

a coordinated program among federal, local, and state governments and historical and 

patriotic societies could be formed to preserve and protect important colonial and 

Revolutionary War properties in the greater Boston area. The role of the BNHSC was 

strictly advisory. It would need additional legislation and funding to set aside land and 

buildings identified as “outstanding examples of America’s historical heritage.” Mark 

Bortman, whose collection of early Americana eventually became part of the Boston 

University Archives, served as chairman... Small, who had worked on historic site surveys 

of New England and wrote the tour guide of the Lexington-Concord Road, served as the 

staff historian and chief of party. Other members of the commission included Senator 

Saltonstall, Rep. Thomas P. O’Neill, Jr. (D-MA), and the current NPS Director Conrad L. 

Wirth. An alternate from the NPS routinely represented Wirth at meetings.43

The accelerated interest and heightened concern for the preservation of the Battle 

Road are evident in the BNHSC meeting minutes and correspondence, which are available 

at the National Archives in Waltham, Massachusetts. These documents also provide 

important clues about how the commission wanted to preserve the land that eventually 

became MIMA. Shurcliff’s ideas guided the BNHSC. The first substantive mention of the 

Battle Road in the minutes was in early June 1956. At this point, the BNHSC made decisions 

about hiring architects to study historic buildings and the surrounding grounds on 

properties throughout Boston. Small mentioned that “the Lexington-Concord area was 

primarily a landscaping problem”44 although BNHSC members would also need to review 

historic structures including the Bullet Hole House. Small asked for additional time to 

create a list of items for attention by such architects. 

At the next meeting on 22 June 1956, Small presented the BNHSC members with the 

1925 Shurcliff report. Through a fortunate set of circumstances, Shurcliff and Small had 

recently met, and Shurcliff followed up with a letter to the full BNHSC. In the letter, he 

reflected on the state of the road in 1925 and commented about how conditions had 

changed by 1956. He noted that in the 1920s, people from no more than 20 miles away 

visited the monuments along the Battle Road. However, by the 1950s, “tourists come from 

the near and farthest reaches of the Nation” to see where the farmers had reversed the 

British advance. Shurcliff urged immediate preservation, stating, “Why today?—because 

 

42 Ibid., Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, entry on John W. McCormack, 

http://bioguide.congress.gov; Edward Stone to McCormack, 24 January 1957, File Congressman John 

McCormack Correspondence, Box 4, RG 79 Northeastern Region New England Field Office Boston 

National Historic Sites Commission (BNHSC), NARA Waltham. 

43 Boston National Historic Sites Commission Act, Public Law 75, 85th Cong., 1st sess. (15 June 1955). 44 Minutes, BNHSC, 8 June 1956, 3, File A2015 12th Meeting, Box 1, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 
Preservation 

 39 

rapid changes in the Roadside appearance are now beginning to engulf and blot out many of 

the most important ancient landmarks.”45

Several of Shurcliff’s recommendations to the BNHSC were similar to those in his 

1925 report. He wanted to delineate the ancient roadway westward from Fiske Hill and 

keep it away from modern intrusions with “old-fashioned country walls and fences.” He 

also aspired for it to be “used only by pedestrians.” At Fiske Hill, he argued that the “present 

highway should, if possible, be moved southerly so it would not be so close to The Road.” 

He believed that the government should restore ancient houses if possible, and “modern 

dwellings ought to be taken away so The Road could be continued as in the old days.” 

Shurcliff worried that the government would not take enough land to ensure that modern 

buildings wouldn’t engulf the old landscape, especially at the Bluff. He stated that “much 

more ground should be acquired so the sweep of The Road can pass around it” and provide 

a full setting to visitors for understanding the tactics taken by both British and patriot forces. 

Zoning ordinances would help, and Shurcliff advocated using them, but he also thought it 

important to “preserve a considerable mileage of The Road from Fiske Hill toward 

Concord.” Prominent, carefully placed markers along the entire stretch of road from 

Lexington to Concord would attract visitors, educate them, and assist in keeping a 

continuous feel to the project.46

Shurcliff had a grand and comprehensive vision for preserving the Battle Road. It 

took a little more time for the BNHSC to appreciate fully his ideas and begin to incorporate 

them into their own recommendations. For instance, at the 22 June 1956 BNHSC meeting, 

Small suggested that there was “a good chance to revive the landscape and the outline of the 

old road by removing the macadam [solid road surfacing].”47 He was not referring to 

moving Route 2A; he simply aimed to remove the modern surfacing material from where the 

original Battle Road departed from the highway. The level of concern for the Battle Road 

jumped up a notch at the 18 July meeting when Small noted, “the character of the 

countryside” in Lexington-Concord “is changing so rapidly that people don’t realize the 

historical significance.” Bortman agreed, reflecting that 20 years ago when Shurcliff 

advocated preservation, “it would have taken very little action” to save the area. The 

minutes reflect Bortman saying, “It will take a real project now to do the job,” and in five 

years time, “the whole area will be built up around the important sites, making it practically 

impossible to do anything.” He believed that the Battle Road through Lexington, Lincoln, 

and Concord was “the most important thing outside of the Boston area of national and 

international importance.”48

In the wake of World War II, modern encroachments sped throughout the Boston 

area and along the corridor between Lexington and Concord. In 1946 the Massachusetts 

 

45 Both quotes, Shurcliff to BNHSC, 5 June 1956, 1, File L58 1959-1960, Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject 

Files, NARA Waltham. 

46 All quotes from Ibid., 2. 

47 Minutes, BNHSC, 22 June 1956, 1, File A2015 13th Meeting, Box 1, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 48 Quotes from Minutes, BNHSC, 18 July 1956, 2, File A2015 14th Meeting, Box 1, RG 79 BNHSC, 

NARA Waltham. 
Preservation 

 40 

Department of Works cut a road, known as Airport Road, from Route 2A to the Laurence 

G. Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB), going through the historic Bull Tavern site. The AFB also 

expanded its mission to include military electronics research, especially in radar, and 

attracted more people who required nearby housing. The completion of Route 128, the first 

limited-access highway in the state, helped people move between homes and jobs. Route 2A 

swung off from this highway, encouraging travel along its historic roadway and making it an 

attractive option for suburban development. 

Housing units continued to make inroads in former farmlands. In 1955 and 1956 

one hundred thirty-four building permits were issued in Lincoln for new residences. 

Considering that the town had existed with only 129 houses in 1865, such change signaled 

exponential growth. New houses overwhelmed The Bloody Angle section of the Battle 

Road. On Route 2A, businesses such as the popular Buttrick Ice Cream Stand and the Paul 

Revere Motel competed with places like the historic Meriam House and Paul Revere 

Capture Site for attention. Farmland did not disappear, and some farm families embraced 

mechanization to expand their production from subsistence to commercial levels. Farm 

markets became favorite stops of families for fresh produce. A tree nursery, poultry farms, 

dairy farms, a sheep pasture, and greenhouses added to the agricultural diversity of the 

area.49

These changes to the historic landscape occurred steadily, and members of the 

BNHSC could foresee additional developments threatening what was left of the Battle 

Road. In its July 1956 Preliminary Report, the BNHSC argued that “Rescue from oblivion 

and imminent change”50 was “urgent if hallowed ground [between Lexington and Concord] 

is to be saved from mundane and disrespectful uses before it is too late.”51 Taking the first 

step in this direction, Small and NPS supervising park landscape architect Andrew Feil, Jr., 

walked along the historic roadway and discussed the best way to proceed with preservation. 

They concluded that the government could probably save five or six discrete units, not fully 

developed with modern dwellings, as a historical park area.52 Bortman agreed that, “a public 

thruway or a public park of small dimension but of importance could be created.”53 As Small 

notes in the minutes for 24 September 1956, these ideas for preserving the Battle Road were 

a “revival of an idea presented to the Legislature in 1925 by Arthur Shurcliff.”54 By October, 

when the BNHSC presented its initial ideas to the Town of Lexington, Small included 

Shurcliff’s idea of buffers for protection from “hot dog stands, etc. [that] would spring up 

possibly right within view of the significant sites and portions of the road.” Lexington 

 

49 Dietrich-Smith, CLR: Battle Road, 74-79; Minutes, BNHSC, 16 November 1956, 3, File A2015, Box 1, 

RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham; MacLean, Rich Harvest, 577; and Renee Garrelick, Concord in the 

Days of Strawberries and Streetcars (Concord, MA: The Town of Concord, 1985), 145. 50 BNHSC, Preliminary Report of the Boston National Historic Sites Commission, 18 July 1956, 13, File 

Preliminary Report of BNHSC, Box 4, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 

51 Ibid., 14. 

52 Minutes, BNHSC, 24 September 1956, 3, File A2015 16th Meeting, Box 1, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. 

53 Ibid., 4. 

54 Ibid., 3. 
Preservation 

 41 

Planning Board member Wilbur M. Jaquith recognized the need to take action and prevent 

development. He wondered whether the town should acquire “a particular strip of land 

which connected the two most important points.” At the time, the BNHSC considered only 

setting aside discrete units of land, not the continuous strip that Shurcliff had suggested.55

Everything changed at the 16 November 1956 meeting. Having already talked to 

representatives from Lexington, the BNHSC members wanted to gauge how people in 

Lincoln and Concord would react to the idea of a public park composed of separate units 

along the Battle Road. Each town’s representatives came separately on that day to share 

their thoughts. Bortman, Small, and others did not foresee the immediacy of a threat to one 

of the most untouched sites they had identified for preservation. That site contained the 

land where, on 19 April 1775 William Thorning shot and killed two British soldiers from 

behind what later came to be called the Minute Man Boulder and where Josiah Nelson 

angered a British soldier and was the first to lose blood that day. Ironically, the threat to this 

sacred ground came from the Hansom Air Base rather than from independent developers. 

The November meeting with representatives from Lincoln opened easily enough 

with Bortman and Small explaining the charge of the BNHSC and its thoughts about saving 

parts of the Battle Road. Planning Board members Alan McClellan, Walter F. Bogner, and 

Katharine White and Massachusetts State Representative James DeNormandie, listened 

politely, but they quickly turned the conversation to a discussion about Hanscom AFB, also 

known as Bedford Airport. The Town of Lincoln had had continuing conversations with the 

airbase concerning noise levels from jet planes, road improvements, and airport expansion 

plans. Borgner and the others considered the plans submitted by the BNHSC for a public 

park “a blessing for the town to have any form of barrier between the Airport expansion and 

the rest of the town.” Such a park would be a “tremendous asset to the town” and would 

help to improve property values in the surrounding areas. However, Bogner was concerned 

about whether the BNHSC had heard of the Air Force’s plan to absorb land between Route 

2A and the airport access road for military personnel housing of several hundred units.56 In 

this informal, nearly accidental way, the BNHSC began its odyssey of preservation of the 

Battle Road in direct confrontation with the United States Air Force (USAF). 

The Lincoln representatives shared their thoughts about the proposed housing 

development. McClellan considered it a “critical problem for the Commission,” and he 

doubted whether the USAF could be “persuaded to make any changes in [its] plans without 

being pressured.” While estimating the total population expected for the new subdivision, 

McClellan said it would “approximately equal the present total population of Lincoln.” This 

was a daunting consideration. When Daniel J. Tobin (NPS representative for Director 

Wirth), asked if the USAF might have alternative locations for the development, McClellan 

replied negatively. As the minutes from the meeting recorded, McClellan shared that “there 

 

55 Minutes, BNHSC, 15 October 1956, File A2015 17th Meeting, Box 1, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. Quotes on pp. 8 and 9, respectively. 

56 Minutes, BNHSC, 16 November 1956, File A2015 18th Meeting, Box 1, RG BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 

Quotes on p. 3. 
Preservation 

 42 

was no doubt that the Air Force could justify its selection for the housing development” 

location due to its proximity to the AFB and the fact that many of its personnel were on alert 

duty.57

Even so, the Lincoln representatives urged the BNHSC to dream larger than its 

initial plan of separate disconnected units. The residents in Lincoln had long sought ways to 

preserve the agricultural and rural characteristics of their town, and having a park dedicated 

to the history of the area fit well within their vision.58 The group “unanimously concurred” 

that a “small-scale approach by the Commission would accomplish nothing—that it should 

be done on a large scale with the realization that it concerned something of extreme 

significance to the entire Nation.” They also encouraged such an addition, saying that a 

“park belt between the Airport and the community would be the most welcome 

improvement in the community.” It was McClellan’s belief that “both the Concord and 

Lexington Planning Boards felt much the same way.”59

In the final session at that November meeting, the BNHSC met with a range of 

people from Concord. Attendees included the chairman of the Parks and Historic 

Monuments Committee, the commissioner of the Public Works Department, a member of 

the Board of Selectmen, members of the Town Planning Board, and three representatives 

from the Concord Antiquarian Society, including its president, Russell Kettell. Kettell was 

the Old Manse Committee chairman who corresponded with Shurcliff in the early 1940s. 

Once again, Bortman and Small shared some background about the BNHSC and its initial 

thoughts about preserving a series of units along the original Battle Road. The Discussion 

then centered on development pressures at key sites along the road in Concord, especially 

near Meriam’s Corner. Mrs. Herbert Hosmer of the antiquarian society noted that one 

developer had proposed building 600 houses in that vicinity while at the last Town Meeting, 

citizens voted down a measure to have a shopping center built on the field in front of the 

Meriam House. As Mrs. Caleb Wheeler (also of the society) stressed, “individual effort so 

far has been successful in keeping objectionable modern developments out of Concord, but 

the pressure for new building is increasing rapidly and is becoming a serious problem.”60

When asked if the town would favor preservation of the Battle Road with a normal footage 

as buffer on either side, Mrs. Hosmer stated that some individuals might be against it, but 

“most of the townspeople would be in favor of it as they don’t want any more building in 

Concord.”61

In response to a question for comments on the commission’s proposal, Kettell 

revived Shurcliff’s vision and offered several specific improvements. Kettell remarked that 

the “Lincoln Memorial in Washington was a dignified, impressive, appropriate 

 

57 All quotes, Ibid., 4. 

58 Betty Levin, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 26 April 2005, 3-4, MIMA 

Archives. Warren Flint, Jr., transcription of oral history interview with the author, 28 April 2005, 1-2, 

MIMA Archives. 

59 All quotes, Ibid., 5. 

60 Ibid., 8. 

61 Ibid., 9. 
Preservation 

 43 

monument—not a log cabin.” He thought such a model would be beneficial when 

considering preservation of the Battle Road. He believed that the BNHSC should consider 

the entire stretch from Lexington Green to the North Bridge as a whole unit. He also 

stressed that the federal government should remove “the objectionable things and preserve 

the nice things” along that route and “take essential steps to restrict the whole unit.” To give 

visitors the sense of traveling within a complete historic enclosure, Kettell recommended 

erecting a “properly designed stone wall” and planting trees beside the road, preferably one 

type of a native species. He also suggested developing a roadway that was ground-topped, 

not blacktopped, “in a manner which would suggest an atmosphere of farm land.” Kettell 

believed that by taking these steps, “the result would be a seven-mile stretch of something 

different which would attract visitors from all over the country.” Small complimented 

Kettell on emphasizing “beautifully the concept Arthur Shurcliffe [sic.] had in 1925.” 

Bortman appreciated Kettell’s comments for providing a specific approach to the problem.62

A NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

In addressing the Air Force housing threat to the Minute Man Boulder and Josiah 

Nelson House foundation, the Boston BNHSC crystallized its view about the best way to 

preserve the Battle Road from the western edge of Lexington at Fiske Hill, through Lincoln, 

and to the North Bridge in Concord. From its initial plans to save five or six discrete units to 

advocating for a full-fledged national historical park, the BNHSC largely incorporated and 

extended Arthur Shurcliff’s vision. The park also met the expectations of the towns and 

their representatives, as expressed in those initial meetings in the fall of 1956. 

At a 6 December 1956 meeting with Installation Com. Col. Woodrow W. Dunlop 

and his staff, Small made his initial inquiry with the USAF regarding the proposed housing 

project. He presented the BNHSC preservation plans for sections of the Battle Road. 

Commander Colonel Dunlop expressed initial interest, and even remarked that the Air 

Force Cambridge Research Center at the base had once volunteered to assist the Town of 

Lincoln in cleaning up the boulder marking the graves of the two British soldiers along the 

eastern slope of Fiske Hill. These were the soldiers believed to be killed by Thorning while 

behind the Minute Man Boulder. Small reported that “Enthusiasm for the idea as a whole 

[about preservation of parts of the Battle Road] continued until a member of the planning 

staff arrived with drawings”63 of the housing development. 

These drawings showed that the Air Force intended to take an area extending 1,360 

feet along the stone wall on the north side of Nelson Road. As Small characterized it, the 

area would be “approximately one-quarter of a mile of the best natural and historic setting 

 

62 Ibid., 10. 

63 Edwin W. Small, Planned Encroachments on Natural and Historic Setting of Nelson Road, an 

Unspoiled Section of the Lexington-Concord Battle Road of April 19, 1775, by the Air Force 

Cambridge Research Center at Hanscom Field, 7 December 1956, 1, as attached to Small to George F. 

Hines, 28 December 1956, File L58 1956-1961 (1of 2), Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. 
Preservation 

 44 

that survives on the route traversed by the British on April 19, 1775.” Within this space, the 

Air Force expected to build 670 family housing units, primarily for officers. The stone wall 

would not be touched, but housing would stand as close as 40–60 feet to the north of it. 

Many boulders, including the Minute Man Boulder, “are so large and unwieldy as to defy 

their ready removal or destruction by modern machinery.” However, an officer housing 

unit would partially cover the site of the Nelson House.64

The Air Force responded coldly to any suggestion of plan modification. Small noted 

that until his visit, the Air Force did not know that any part of its project “would be treading 

on hallowed ground.” Once this situation became clear, Small instantly saw “a change in the 

outlook of those with whom I conferred.” He reported that “Historical preservation is a 

splendid and patriotic thing but not to the extent that it merits any consideration if it 

requires any modification or change in plans of the Air Force.” In fact, Small recalled that 

the discussion ended “with regret expressed by the Installation Commander that my call 

had not been delayed at least six months” to preclude any chance of “interference or the 

possibility of ‘a hassle’” about the development project.65

Taking the charge from the BNHSC seriously, Small argued that “the Commission 

will be remiss in its duties if it does not explore further” possible modifications to the Air 

Force plan. Small believed that if the Air Force removed 30 of the proposed 670 units from 

its plans, the “most vivid and topographically interesting sections of the sparsely surviving 

Battle Road” could be saved. Small closed his report by asking, “Is this too much to ask in 

order to save two of the important landmarks or sites [the Minute Man Boulder and the 

Nelson House foundation] of the Lexington-Concord Road?”66

The BNHSC members agreed that they had to find a way to preserve the land. As 

Small disclosed to the town manager of Concord, “the future of any recommendations to be 

considered for the project as a whole may depend upon success in forestalling intrusion 

upon one of the least unspoiled sections of historic roadside beside Nelson Road in the 

Town of Lincoln.”67 The BNHSC needed to act. Bortman was out of the country on 

business, so Acting Chairman Watkins sent letters to Senator Saltonstall and Representative 

McCormack to inform them of the situation and enlist their formal support. Representative 

O’Neill and other members of the BNHSC remained informed. These letters were sent on 

12 December 1956 with favorable replies. Next, the BNHSC decided to begin working on an 

Interim Report for submission to Congress, explaining the situation with the Battle Road and 

recommending that Congress provide the necessary funds for land acquisition. Even if the 

BNHSC successfully resolved the situation regarding the Air Force project, it recognized 

that legislative means were necessary for protecting the land from potential private 

developers—an intimidating threat. To aid in preparation of the Interim Report, the BNHSC 

 

64 Both quotes, Ibid. 

65 All quotes, Ibid., 2. 

66 Ibid. 

67 Small to Theodore M. Nelson, 2 January 1957, File Town of Concord Correspondence, Box 3, RG 79 

BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 
Preservation 

 45 

tasked Small with identifying parcels of land that would encompass the proposed park and 

finding an independent appraiser to value those land units. Finally, the BNHSC sought a 

meeting with the Department of Defense (DoD) Army Corps of Engineers, who handled 

land acquisition for the military in that region. Air Force representatives also attended the 

meeting, prompted into action by Representative McCormack. The Air Force noted in its 

return letter that although real estate around Hanscom AFB was scarce, “it is not our 

intention to disturb any historical landmarks.” It also promised to “cooperate to the fullest 

extent in order to reach an amicable solution to this problem.”68

At the 9 January 1957 meeting of the BNHSC, representatives from the Army Corps 

of Engineers and the Air Force summarized their plans. Any changes to the $11 million 

Capehart housing project would necessitate additional appropriations amounting to an 

estimated $100,000 to cover redesign of housing locations, roads, and utilities. The Air 

Force had a minimum need of 670 housing units to attract and keep professionals in its 

service. Reducing this amount by 30 units would “seriously affect” its plans. The BNHSC 

could not guarantee that Congress would support its recommendation for a public park or 

appropriate money. In the meantime, the Air Force expected to take the title to the land 

within two weeks and planned for construction to begin in the spring. Although the Town 

of Lincoln had previously opposed the Air Force proposal, it had not raised the issue of the 

historic significance of the property. Instead, Lincoln had considered the land’s 

development for a town dump, light industrial area, or one-acre housing lots.69 As Hanscom 

AFB Historian Francis Walett wrote in his account of this episode, “What seemed 

unbelievable to [Air Force Cambridge Research] Center officials was the fact that in none of 

the numerous meetings with the Lincoln selectmen and townspeople had there been any 

mention of the historic value of the housing site.” From the perspective of Hanscom AFB 

officials, they had proceeded openly with their plans and worked cooperatively with the 

local towns.70

Ill-tempered exchanges ensued as the Air Force and the BNHSC tried to find a way 

to proceed. Hampton Turner of Air Force Headquarters argued that the correspondence 

from the BNHSC inferred that the “Air Force was deliberately destroying a historic 

 

68 Minutes, BNHSC, 10 December 1956, 2-3, File A2015 19th Meeting; and Minutes, BNHSC, 19 

December 1956, 1-2, File A2015 20th Meeting, both in Box 1, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. Watkins 

to Saltonstall, 12 December 1956, File Sen. Saltonstall Correspondence, Box 4, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. A similar letter was sent to Rep. McCormack. Roland H. Cipolla to BNHSC, 28 December 

1956, attached to Watkins to Cipolla, 2 January 1957, File L58 1956-1961 (1 of 2), Box 4, RG 79 MIMA 

Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

69 Minutes, BNHSC, 9 January 1957, 3, File A2015 21st Meeting, Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. For a more complete description of the Air Force housing proposal, see James F. D. Kradel 

to Base-Community Council, 8 February 1957, File L58 1956-1961 (1 of 2), Box 4, RG 79 MIMA 

Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

70 Julius King, History of Air Force Cambridge Research Center, 20 September 1945-30 June 1959, 

Appendix C, Francis Walett, “Minute Man Boulder and Capehart Housing,” no page numbering [36]. 

The author thanks Deborah Dietrich-Smith for sharing this document. Informal page numbering 

provided by Dietrich-Smith. A copy of this document will remain with the MIMA Administrative 

History collection. 
Preservation 

 46 

monument,” to which BNHSC Acting Chairman Watkins replied that if the Air Force did 

succeed in its venture, “that is what everyone will think anyway—it would be like putting up 

600 odd houses on the battleground at Gettysburg.” Turner then asked that the BNHSC 

consider a compromise, having the Air Force landscape the area and leave the stone wall 

undisturbed. Daniel Tobin, NPS Regional Director for Region 5, remarked that “it would 

take more than that to create a park feeling of continuity of the area that existed at the time 

of the historic incident.”71 During more exchanges, both sides discussed the costs of 

redesigning the project compared to the irreparable loss of the historic ground. Then, Maj. 

Arthur Dupay of Air Force Installations in Boston offered to re-study the plan “to see just 

how much of a compromise could be made with a minimum of effort and a minimum of 

waste of funds.”72 Both sides agreed to this next step. 

In the meantime, Representative McCormack and Senator Saltonstall applied some 

political pressure. Senator Saltonstall, who served on the Senate Armed Services Committee, 

made arrangements for the Air Force to furnish him with a complete report as to “what 

measures might be taken to prevent any damage to the historic countryside.” He also 

received assurances that “no construction work will begin until a report has been furnished 

to me.”73 Representative McCormack took a different tack. He wrote directly to the 

Secretary of the Air Force and reminded him that, “Up to now, these negotiations [between 

the Air Force and the BNHSC] and failure to arrive at a solution have not been made 

public.” But, McCormack continued, “I do not need to point out to you that just as soon as 

it becomes known” that the Air Force is going to take—by condemnation—land that is part 

of the original Battle Road, “it will create a national public clamor which will greatly injure 

the reputation of the Air Force.” Representative McCormack requested that the Air Force 

immediately stop the project, including taking the land, until it could be redesigned to keep 

secure the historic landscape “against further invasion.” Representative McCormack rooted 

his strong words in his belief that “we in Massachusetts must always be eternally vigilant 

against further destruction and encroachment as the custodians of this hallowed ground for 

all of the American people.”74 This reminder of a potential public backlash would influence 

later actions. 

In late January 1957 Small and Watkins traveled to Washington, DC, to meet 

separately with the NPS, congressional members, and the Air Force about progress on the 

re-study of the Air Force housing project. NPS Director Wirth attended the initial meeting. 

Following this meeting, Watkins suffered a stroke to which he ultimately succumbed, and 

NPS Regional Director Tobin accompanied Small to the subsequent appointments. Senator 

Saltonstall agreed to introduce a bill, as worked out by the BNHSC and the NPS, for 

 

71 All quotes, Ibid., 4. 

72 Ibid., 5. 

73 Both quotes, Saltonstall to Watkins, 22 January 1957, File Saltonstall Correspondence, Box 4, RG 79 

BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 

74 All quotes, McCormack to Hon. Donald A. Quarles, 17 January 1957, 1-2, attached to Small to 

McCormack, 21 January 1957, File McCormack Correspondence, Box 4, RG BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. 
Preservation 

 47 

establishment of a national historical park. McCormack felt it most proper for 

Representative O’Neill (a member of the BNHSC) to introduce the park bill to the House, 

but he agreed, as the original sponsor of the BNHSC legislation, to submit a bill for a oneyear extension of its term. Both men pledged additional support for addressing the 

proposed housing project.75 In the meeting with Hampton Turner at Air Force 

Headquarters, Turner agreed that “actual construction on the historic roadside could 

doubtless be forestalled provided authority were created”76 to set aside or transfer the 

historic land. 

The time had come to draft the required legislation, and Small stayed in Washington 

the next week to assist the NPS in this endeavor. The resulting draft bill called for the 

establishment of “Minute Man National Historical Park.” This draft bill summarized a series 

of park units totaling no more than 750 acres, “beginning at but not including the Lexington 

Green,” and then lying along Massachusetts Avenue, State Route 2A, Monument Street in 

Concord, and the North Bridge, “including also those lands on both sides of the Concord 

River in the vicinity of the North Bridge.” The draft bill authorized the Secretary of the 

Interior to acquire lands for the park by donation, with donated funds, or by purchasing the 

lands. The draft legislation also authorized the Secretary of the Interior to enter into 

cooperative agreements and erect and maintain tablets or markers. An advisory committee 

of five members would advise the Secretary of Interior on matters of park development.77

The NPS did not expect the bill to be introduced until after the BNHSC had submitted its 

Interim Report.

78

While waiting for the Air Force to present its re-study of the housing project, the 

BNHSC proceeded with its planning for the proposed NHP. Its ideas about the shape of the 

park continued to evolve during this period. Consultant Samuel Snow, an experienced 

landscape architect and director of the Lexington planning board, provided initial data 

concerning parcels of land that might be included in the park and estimated values for 

acquisition. Figures for land between Fiske Hill and the Paul Revere Capture Site indicated a 

total cost of approximately $1.1 million. Snow needed more time to assess parcels west of 

the Paul Revere Capture Site.79

In early March 1957 the BNHSC held another meeting with representatives from 

the Town of Lincoln. The planning board members from the November 1956 meeting were 

 

75 Small, Summary of Special Meeting, Washington, DC, Friday, January 25, 1957, and Events 

Subsequent Thereto, 5 February 1957, 1-3, File A2015 Washington Conference, Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, 

NARA Waltham. 

76 Ibid., 3. 

77 Draft Bill, 1-2, attached to Ibid. 

78 Memorandum, Rogers W. Young to Chief, Division of Interpretation, 30 January 1957, and attached 

copy of the bill, File MIMA Legislation, NRHE Files. 

79 Small, Report of Conference with Selectmen and Planning Board, Town of Lexington, regarding 

Proposals on Lexington-Concord Battle Road. Proposal for Consultant in Landscape Architecture, 7 

January 1957, File Town of Lexington Correspondence, Box 3; and Estimates of Land Values, 

Lexington-Concord Battle Road, 24 January 1957, File Assessed Values of Land and Buildings, Box 2, 

both in RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 
Preservation 

 48 

in attendance, joined by Charles Fitts, Elliott Grabill, and William King from the Board of 

Selectmen. While looking at the modified plans from the BNHSC, the Lincoln 

representatives continued to plead for a “continuous parkway” along the entire stretch of 

the Battle Road. The plans left an unprotected gap from the Paul Revere Capture Site to the 

Capt. William Smith House and Hartwell Farm. Fitts argued that leaving this space would 

allow encroachment of industrial development and “detract from the project’s value.” 

Small explained that the BNHSC had “considered only things of historic survival value 

which could be preserved and made attractive.” The gap was omitted from the plans 

because its acquisition cost would have brought the totals for the project to well over one 

million dollars. He also noted that the modern highway ran over the ancient road and the 

original stone walls were largely submerged.80 The Town of Concord Parks and Historic 

Monuments Commission also reaffirmed the town’s interest in continuous protection of the 

Battle Road. It wrote to the BNHSC and requested that the land acquisition encompass the 

area from Meriam’s Corner to the Lincoln town line.81

The Lincoln representatives also wanted both sides of Route 2A controlled to 

eliminate any future possibility of encroachment. As Planning Board member Borgner 

noted, the Eisenhower administration’s $30 billion interstate highway program would 

eventually make changes in all the nation’s highways, and the BNHSC needed to consider 

the repercussions of such an extensive building project. NPS Regional Director Tobin 

agreed that the NPS needed to “enlarge upon the Commission’s proposal.”82 One potential 

threat near Fiske Hill involved a proposal for a 38-acre motel site, which the Lexington 

town planning board favored. The development would sit where Route 2A crossed Route 

128. This intersection was a key access location for traveling throughout the metropolitan 

Boston area and could easily attract other development proposals. Small believed that 

“Time is of the essence” to revive and safeguard the remaining properties.83

One final item discussed at the meeting was a separate access road for the park. As 

the minutes reflect, people commented on “The possibility of continuing to use the present 

highway for through traffic and building a separate connecting road to link units of the 

proposed park together.” As proposed, the park would encompass discrete units, but a 

separate road system from the state route might provide access. Significantly, as of March 

1957, the BNHSC had not considered removal of Route 2A from the proposed park’s 

boundaries.84

On 15 March 1957 the BNHSC met with Air Force representatives to review the 

military’s re-study for the housing project. The Air Force presented two possible scenarios 

for protecting the stone wall and transforming the Minute Man Boulder into a monumental 

 

80 Minutes, BNHSC, 6 March 1957, 2, File A2015 22nd Meeting, Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. 

81 Minutes, BNHSC, 15 March 1957, 5, File A2015 23rd Meeting, Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. 

82 Ibid., 4 

83 Small, Report of Conference with Lexington, 7 January 1957, 1. 84 Minutes, BNHSC, 6 March 1957, 4. 
Preservation 

 49 

space with stairs, a tablet on the boulder, and a base. The Air Force would add plantings and 

parking areas. One proposal included building a natural wall of fieldstone to further shield 

the area from houses. None of these proposals mentioned the fate of the Josiah Nelson 

House foundation, and it is unclear whether the new plans involved the removal of any 

houses.85

The BNHSC rejected both proposals outright, with Chairman Bortman arguing that 

deliberate “monumentation was a thing of the past and the spirit of independence could not 

possibly be represented without preserving the natural conditions of the area.” Tobin 

agreed, saying that a formal treatment was “totally foreign to the basic concept of the 

National Park Service.” The agency’s fundamental preservation practice involved 

“retain[ing] or re-captur[ing] the historic scene.”86 After additional discussion, Air Force Lt. 

Col. Edwin Moses assured the BNHSC that the military had explored every possible 

alternative and “it had no choice but to go ahead with the housing development as planned 

or practically abandon the whole project.” The Air Force would honor the preference of the 

BNHSC “to leave the area as much in its natural state as possible.”87

This impasse between the Air Force and the BNHSC continued into April and May. 

The Air Force offered to screen or fence off the historic area from its houses, but it refused 

to reduce the number of housing units. Financial considerations played a large role in this 

stance, with the Air Force arguing that it could not justify the extra expense of relocating the 

housing when that decision depended on whether Congress would establish the NHP. 

Senator Saltonstall counseled Bortman, saying that “it is necessary to be very cautious in 

making a decision here because there is the possibility of losing a substantial sum of defense 

funds”88 if the Air Force moved the housing project and the site never became protected as a 

park. Senator Saltonstall summarized the situation, writing, “Secretary Quarles is quite 

firmly set against making any change,” though willing to save and mark the historic 

landmarks.89 

The BNHSC remained steadfast in its objections, revealing its ideas for preserving 

the Battle Road. Small wrote in February 1958 that it was the commission’s desire to save 

“enough of the natural setting to provide an adequate image of conditions in 1775.” 

Members of the BNHSC did not want additional landscaping or plantings if the end result 

was “distinctly formalized or highly monumental in character.”90 At the May 1 1958 BNHSC 

meeting, members continued to voice their frustration about the close proximity of the 

proposed housing project. Lt. Col. Woodrow W. Dunlop offered to move 7 of the housing 

 

85 Minutes, BNHSC, 15 March 1957, 1-2. Walett, “Minute Man Boulder and Capehart Housing,” 38. 86 Minutes, BNHSC, 15 March 1957, 2. 

87 Ibid., 4. 

88 Saltonstall to Bortman, 11 April 1957, 2, attached to Bortman to Saltonstall, 15 April 1957, File 

Saltonstall Correspondence, Box 4, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 89 Saltonstall to Bortman, 18 April 1957, File Saltonstall Correspondence, Box 4, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. 

90 Small to Saltonstall. 20 February 1957, 2, File Saltonstall Correspondence, Box 4, RG 79 BNHSC, 

NARA Waltham. 
Preservation 

 50 

units back about 80–100 feet from the Minute Man Boulder. Small replied that this step 

“wouldn’t do much to help the situation” because it would only provide an additional 40 or 

50 feet of natural setting for the Boulder. Tobin agreed, believing that the “space 

contemplated in the original scheme [proposed by the Commission] is practically a 

minimum in relation to NPS requirements and justification for establishment of a national 

park.” Tobin reiterated what the other members of the BNHSC already knew: that this 

parcel represented the “largest untouched area of the entire Battle Road” and not to save it 

would make the “area relatively insignificant.” As newest commission member Walter Muir 

Whitehill stated emphatically, he “would rather see the whole thing [historic site] destroyed 

than to see a pure travesty made of it.”91

Doggedly trying to convince the Air Force of its position, the BNHSC heightened its 

efforts to apply political and public pressure. As Bortman astutely summarized the situation 

at the May 1 meeting, “public opinion was the only thing stopping the Air Force from going 

ahead with their plans.”92 Local newspapers were carrying the story, and the individual 

towns had been watching the developments closely. Bortman sent impassioned letters to 

Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton and members of the House Armed Services 

Committee, including its chairman, Representative Carl Vinson. Bortman also met with the 

mayor of Boston and the governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The entire 

congressional delegation from Boston, including Senator Saltonstall and Representative 

McCormack, continued to make known its support for the historic site.93

On Patriot’s Day, the public heard and read more impassioned pleas for the historic 

site. At ceremonies in honor of the day, Governor Foster Furcolo appealed directly to the 

Secretary of the Air Force, asking him to alter the housing project to spare the Battle Road. 

The Boston Globe ran a feature article warning about the threat of Air Force housing taking 

the “Site of Revolutionary Heroism.” The next day, the paper ran an inflammatory editorial, 

probably based on statements by an unidentified member of the BNHSC. The author of the 

editorial accused the Air Force of being “either exceedingly careless or exceedingly callous” 

in planning its housing project, which “encroaches on the Concord battlefield.”94 These 

articles angered Air Force personnel, and Bortman personally called the base and 

apologized “for the recent scandalous write-ups in the local newspapers.” He instructed his 

fellow BNHSC members to refrain from making any further statements regarding the affair. 

 

91 Minutes, BNHSC, 1 May 1957, 1-3, File A2015 25th Meeting, Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 

Whitehill took the vacancy left by the passing of Watkins. 92 Ibid., 2. 

93 Bortman to Seaton, 5 April 1957; Bortman to Vinson, 7 May 1957; and Bates to Bortman, 9 May 1957, 

all in File L58 1956-1961 (1 of 2), Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Minutes, 

BNHSC, 3 April 1957, 2, File A2015 24th Meeting, Box 3, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. No author, 

Preservation of the Lexington-Concord Road, Massachusetts, 20 August 1957, 1, File MIMA 

Correspondence 1941-1959, NRHE Files. Bortman to Furcolo, 23 May 1957, File Massachusetts 

Correspondence, Box 3, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. “Air Force Housing Plans Are Revealed,” 

Lexington Minute-Man (24 January 1957); and Emilie Tavel, “Patriots Skirmish with – Air Force,” 

Christian Science Monitor (19 April 1957). 94 Walett, “Minute Man Boulder and Capehart Housing,” 38. 
Preservation 

 51 

However, Bortman could not reverse the damage. As the Hanscom AFB Historian noted in 

his account, “many people adopted the attitude that the Middlesex countryside was again 

being invaded—this time by the bluecoats of the Air Force rather than by the British 

redcoats.”95

Everything changed in early May. A general Air Force re-analysis of housing needs, 

combined with a “severe economy drive” led the military to reduce planned housing units at 

many bases, including the Capehart project at Hanscom AFB. Considered a “severe blow” 

to the Hanscom AFB planners, they decided to redesign the project from the initial 670 units 

to the now allowed 395 and proceed.96 They also made the decision to withdraw completely 

from the area under dispute with the BNHSC. The Air Force planners could contain the 

reduced housing project without that land, and officials feared court action (and related 

delays) if they attempted to use this contested land.97

The Massachusetts delegation of elected officials accepted praise and 

congratulations for their roles in achieving this favorable result. On 15 May 1957 Senator 

Saltonstall wrote to Secretary of the Interior Seaton that he had “just been informed that a 

substantial portion of the houses to be built by the Air Force in this project have now been 

eliminated by the Department of Defense.” Senator Saltonstall concluded that the site “may 

be made a national historic site” using the Secretary of Interior’s powers under the Historic 

Sites Act.98 In mid-1959 the Hanscom AFB chronicler expressed “serious doubt whether the 

rather grandiose plans of the Boston National Historic Sites Commission will ever come to 

pass.”99

The BNHSC did gain an early sign of victory. On 17 November 1958 the General 

Services Administration transferred ownership of the 8.08-acre tract of declared surplus 

property to the NPS. On 14 April 1959 Secretary of the Interior Seaton designated the site. It 

consisted of two parcels, one equaling approximately 1.19 acres and the second measuring 

approximately 6.89 acres. The Air Force reduced its housing units by approximately onethird, from 670 to about 400 units. The NPS named the tract Minute Man National Historic 

Site (NHS). According to correspondence, Regional Director Tobin had suggested the 

name, with Minute Man spelled as two words, and it had received a favorable reaction from 

Director Wirth.100 Small agreed, writing that “As the property embraces the scene of one 

 

95 Ibid., 39. 

96 Ibid., 40. 

97 Ibid., 41. 

98 Saltonstall to Seaton, 15 May 1957, 1, File L58 1956-1961 (1 of 2), Box 4, RG 79, MIMA Subject Files, 

NARA Waltham. 

99 Ibid., 42. 

100 Order and attached correspondence, Memorandum, Scoyen to Secretary of the Interior, 4 March 

1959, File MIMA Correspondence 1941-1959, NRHE Files. See also Press Release, Secretary Seaton 

Establishes Minute Man National Historic Site in Massachusetts, 16 April 1959, File L58 (1 of 2), Box 4, 

RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Regarding the housing reduction, see James Douglas to 

McCormack, 22 May 1957, attached to McCormack to Small, 24 May 1957, File McCormack 

Correspondence, Box 4, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham; and Memorandum, Small to Regional 

Director, Region Five, 20 June 1957, File L58 (1 of 2), Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. Regarding the land transfer, see Memorandum, Tobin to Director, 19 March 1958; Request 
Preservation 

 52 

Minute Man’s private way with the retreating British, the name would appear to be 

particularly suitable.”101

Tobin’s office recommended that the superintendent of Salem Maritime National 

Historic Site, where Small served as superintendent just prior to accepting his position with 

the BNHSC, administer the MIMA site. Tobin did not foresee the need for separate 

custodial (or other) staffing in the immediate future. Congress would soon consider the idea 

of a full NHP, and the small size of the historic site required only routine visits to check for 

vandalism and other adverse uses.102 Small did make some specific suggestions for 

landscaping the site, cautioning the NPS to refrain from cutting any trees or brush until it 

could ensure an “adequate screen of greenery will be retained” to conceal the military 

housing. He figured that at a later date “it would be preferable to revive the pasture and 

portion of the field to conditions more nearly like those of 1775.” The NPS would 

eventually place markers at the site, after considering the idea of marking the entire battle 

route between Concord and Charlestown.103

MIMA

With the Air Force housing project behind them, BNHSC members could focus on 

the larger goal of the NHP. By September 1957 the BNHSC had decided to follow the 

wishes of the three neighboring towns and delineate the proposed MIMA as a “continuous 

park area” from Route 128 in Lexington to Meriam’s Corner in Concord.104 The NPS was 

very impressed with the “anchor spots” of Lexington Green and the North Bridge, and it 

was “much aware of the problem of continuity between same.” However, the NPS 

recognized that, at least for Lexington Green, the town did not support its inclusion in the 

NHP. Town officials believed that “their historic districts legislation [took] care of the 

situation.”105 Delays in completion of the Interim Report occurred partially due to the time it 

 for Transfer of Excess Real Property, 1 April 1958; E. T. Scoyen to R. W. Heald, 3 April 1958; 

Memorandum, Small to Regional Director, Region Five, 1 August 1958; Memorandum, Tobin to 

Director, 19 August 1958; Jackson E. Price to Assistant Solicitor, 26 September 1958; and J. M. 

Geogheian to Tobin, 17 November 1958 [letter of final transfer], all in File L58 (1 of 2), Box 4, RG 79 

MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Regarding the name, see Memorandum, E. T. Scoyen to 

Regional Director, 21 April 1958, File MIMA Correspondence 1941-1959, NRHE Files; and 

Memorandum, Tobin to Small, 22 April 1958, attached to Memorandum, Small to Regional Director, 

Region Five, 24 April 1958, File L58 (1 of 2), Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 101 Memorandum, Small to Regional Director, Region Five, 24 April 1958. 102 Memorandum, Scoyen to Regional Director, 21 April 1958; and Memorandum, Tobin to Small, 22 

April 1958. 

103 Small, Data and Recommendations, Historic Roadside, North of Nelson Road, 7 June 1957, File 

Saltonstall Correspondence, Box 4, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. Quotes on p. 2. 

104 Memorandum, Small to Regional Director, Region Five, 16 September 1957, 2, File L58 (1 of 2), Box 

4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. See also Memorandum, Small to Director, 11 

December 1957, File Correspondence Establishment and Extension of BNHSC, Box 1, RG 79 BNHSC, 

NARA Waltham. 

105 Minutes, BNHSC, 16 August 1957, 2-3, File A2015 27th Meeting, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 
Preservation 

 53 

took to identify, map, and appraise so many individual parcels of land. Consultant Samuel 

Snow accepted the somewhat tedious task, and was assisted by Small.106

By early 1959 the BNHSC could proceed with the congressional review of its report 

and recommendations for the Battle Road. The Interim Report detailed the historical 

justifications for setting aside the Battle Road.107 On 18 December 1958 the report was 

submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for transmittal to Congress. The BNHSC also 

recognized Shurcliff’s influence in shaping its views and recommendations.108 The report 

includes one large appendix, outlining the events of 19 April 1775. This appendix was based 

on an extensive review of the sources. In another appendix, the BNHSC described the 

historic structures and markers that remained along the route. The report also clarified the 

reasons for preservation. Burgeoning development, migration of people from the city to the 

suburbs, and the “intermittent and unpredictable expansion of defense activities by the 

United States Air Force” required immediate action.109 Most of the Battle Road had already 

succumbed to development, but this continuous four-mile stretch held promise if Congress 

acted immediately. “These recommendations,” according to the BNHSC, “will afford the 

very last opportunity to regain and to pass on to future generations any appreciable and 

meaningful segment of the setting” of the beginning of the War for Independence.110

What did the BNHSC envision for the proposed MIMA? In broad terms, it saw the 

park as the “best opportunity that may still be realized to bring before the American people 

a comprehensive and vivid picture of the beginning of their struggle for national freedom.” 

Legislation would save two distinct units, the largest of which would follow the historic 

Battle Road from Route 128 to Meriam’s Corner. The smaller second unit would include the 

properties adjacent to the North Bridge in Concord. The BNHSC encouraged the 

establishment of a cooperative agreement with the Town of Concord for preservation and 

interpretation of the North Bridge.111 Though the park could not encompass the entire 

stretch of the British route from Boston to the Colonel Barrett House in Concord, the 

BNHSC believed that the park could serve as a “center of information and orientation for 

the entire historic route.” 

The BNHSC urged the NPS to serve as a “mainspring” for developing a coordinated 

program with all groups and organizations in the Boston area concerned with the outbreak 

of the Revolutionary War. In addition, cooperative agreements would facilitate the 

protection of historic properties outside the park’s boundaries and aid in development of a 

system of historical markers for the entire length of the route. Finally, the BNHSC 

 

106 Minutes, BNHSC, 11 December 1957, 1, File A2015 29th Meeting, Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. See also Memoranda, Small to Regional Director, Region Five, 30 April 1958, 2 June 1958, 

and 3 June 1958, all in File Assessed Values of Land and Buildings, Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. 

107 Memorandum, Small to Director, 13 January 1959, 1, File O’Neill Correspondence, Box 4, RG 79 

BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 

108 Interim Report, 34-35. 109 Ibid., 2. 110 Ibid., 19. 111 Ibid., 5-6 and 39-40. 
Preservation 

 54 

recommended the removal of Route 2A from the park. “As the park comes into existence,” 

the report states, “this road [Route 2A] can be relocated beyond park boundaries and bear 

an even closer relationship to the major highway—Route 2—that now parallels it a mile to 

the southward.”112

On 9 January 1959, in response to the submission of the Interim Report to Congress, 

Representative O’Neill introduced the H. R. 1932 bill to provide for the establishment of 

MIMA. Senators Saltonstall and John Kennedy submitted an identical bill, S. 1460, on 19 

March 1959. In recognition of her role in representing the communities immediately 

affected by the proposed legislation, Representative O’Neill withdrew his bill and offered 

for Rep. Edith Nourse Rogers, who represented the communities where the park would be 

located, to submit an identical version as H. R. 5892.113

In August 1959 the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs reviewed and 

amended this bill. It removed words “or acquire by purchase” from Section 2 to remove any 

implication that the Secretary of the Interior may acquire properties for the park only by 

donation or through voluntary sales. The committee clarified the Secretary’s authority to 

condemn, and for the federal government to take land and then determine a fair price. 

Condemnation authority provided protection against possible irreparable threats to land or 

structures of significance to the park, and it allowed for the clearing of legal title in certain 

cases. The committee also amended H. R. 5892 by adding a new Section 6, limiting 

authorized appropriations to $8 million for land acquisition and development costs. Of this 

amount, not more than $5 million would be available for land acquisition.114

Otherwise, the bills all resembled closely the draft first crafted by Small and the NPS 

two years earlier. The park would comprise no more than 750 acres, from Fiske Hill through 

the Town of Lincoln and to the North Bridge in Concord. The Secretary of the Interior had 

acquisition authority, and exact boundaries of the park would follow once the park had 

acquired the land. The draft legislation encouraged cooperative agreements, along with the 

placement of markers and tablets. A five-member advisory commission was organized, 

composed of representatives from each of the three towns, the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts, and a representative designated by the Secretary of the Interior. This 

commission would advise the Secretary of the Interior about the park’s development. The 

bill did not place limitations on the length of individual service or commission existence.115

The NPS recommended passage of the legislation. To answer questions and build 

support for the park, Director Wirth met with local residents in Lincoln the same day 

 

112 All quotes, Ibid., 20-21. 113 HR 1932, 86th Cong., 1st sess., 9 January 1959; S 1460, 86th Cong., 1st sess., 19 March 1959; HR 5892, 

86th Cong., 1st sess., 20 March 1959, amended 14 August 1959. 114 Memorandum, Scoyen to Assistant Secretary, Public Land Management, 17 July 1959, 1; and 30 July 

1959, 1, both in File MIMA Legislation, NRHE Files. House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 

Minute Man National Historical Park, Mass., 86th Cong., 1st sess., 11 August 1959, H. Rep. 900, 6. 115 Quote, p. 2, HR 5892, 86th Cong., 1st sess., 20 March 1959, as amended, 14 August 1959; HR 1932, 

86th Cong., 1st sess., 9 January 1959; S 1460, 86th Cong., 1st sess., 19 March 1959. 
Preservation 

 55 

Representative O’Neill introduced the first bill.116 As reported in the local papers, people 

responded warmly to his assurances that the rights of property owners whose land fell 

within the proposed boundaries of the park would be “zealously respected.” Wirth also 

offered that residents within park boundaries would be given ample time to adjust, “even if 

it takes the lifetimes of people living there.”117 NPS staffer Allen Edmunds recorded most of 

the questions people asked during the meeting, but gave brief summaries of how Wirth 

answered some of them. According to the notes, Wirth’s declaration that land acquisition 

would be done by donation elicited laughter. Land acquisition would also result from 

“negotiations with land owners, life tenancy, etc.”118

At the April 1959 meeting of the Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, 

Buildings, and Monuments, Wirth reported on this Lincoln meeting. He said that some 

people expressed concern “that we would come in and seize their property.” People 

worried about the federal government’s right under the draft legislation to condemnation 

authority. According to the Advisory Board minutes, the following statement by Wirth is the 

only known official recollection of what he told the townspeople: 

They were told we would be willing to buy the land subject to life occupancy or 

a certain number of years provided they do not destroy any of the existing 

values, in which case we would have to take the land. It is a long time program 

and will not be entirely completed in our lifetime.119 

At the Lincoln meeting, Lexington Selectman Alan Adams discussed the importance 

of saving this historic shrine in light of outside development. “I hope all the townspeople in 

this area,” Adams stated, “will cooperate in seeing that this park is established.” Concord 

Selectman Robert Parks agreed, saying, “This area should be preserved as a shrine.”120

Enthusiastic applause followed the remark by one property owner who said the plan was 

“the best thing that could happen to us.”121 White, from the Lincoln Planning Board, 

summed up Wirth’s impact when she wrote to him that “your talk did more to help us 

locally to advance the establishment of the [park] than anything else we could have 

done.”122

Support within Lincoln continued throughout the process. Lexington also 

continued to support the proposal, incorporating the park into its town planning. In 

Concord, some protests erupted over the methods of setting up the park, but legislation was 

 

116 Memorandum, Small to Director, 13 January 1959, 1, File O’Neill Correspondence, Box 4, RG 79 

BNHSC, NARA Waltham; Press Release, Interior Department Recommends Legislation to Create 

Minute Man National Historical Park in Massachusetts, 18 June 1959, File L58 (1 of 2), Box 4, RG 79 

MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. See also Advisory Board, Summary Minutes, 20-22 April 1959, 

14-15, Advisory Board Files, NRHE Files. 117 “No Evictions Due on ‘Battle Road,’” Boston Herald (10 January 1959). 118 Memorandum, Daniel Tobin to Director Wirth, 13 January 1959, 2, File L1417 Correspondence 

5/59-5/60, NRG-079-00-0260, Box 6, RG 79, NARA-Denver. 119 Advisory Board, Summary Minutes, 20-22 April 1959, 14-15, Advisory Board Files, NRHE Files. 120 All quotes from “No Evictions Due on ‘Battle Road,’” Boston Herald (10 January 1959). 121 Edward G. McGrath, “Lincoln Applauds U. S. Park Plan,” Boston Globe (10 January 1959). 122 White to Wirth,16 January 1959, File Town of Lincoln Correspondence, Box 3, RG 79 BNHSC, 

NARA Waltham. 
Preservation 

 56 

not jeopardized.123 Individual property owners who had land within the proposed park area 

expressed guarded support for the proposal, as evidenced in letters sent to the NPS and 

congressional representatives. As one family wrote to Wirth, “we are generally in favor of 

the proposed park,” but “the plan is something less than a blessing,” as it affected their 

residence.124

The congressional committees in the House and Senate held little debate on the 

bills.125 At the July 16 meeting of the House Subcommittee on Public Lands, Representative 

Wayne Aspinall inquired about the relationship between the proposed historical park and 

the designated Minute Man NHS. Representative John Chenoweth wanted more 

information about how local groups and governmental bodies had preserved the historic 

properties. Acting Regional Director E. T. Scoyen remarked in his summary to the hearing 

that “questioning by committee members indicated little in the way of critical reaction” to 

the legislation.126 At the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands meeting on July 27 questions 

centered on whether the bill authorized condemnation (yes) and how the bill authorized 

land acquisition (through special appropriations). No Senate subcommittee members 

registered a critical response to the bill.127

The most substantive discussion came before the full House on 17 August 1959. Still, 

no one critiqued or challenged the bill.128 Instead, members of Congress reminded each 

other of the importance to save this land before suburban development engulfed and 

destroyed it. Rep. Thomas Lane (D-MA) used vivid imagery to make his point. “The scene of 

the events that gave birth to the American spirit,” he said, “is in danger of being overrun by 

ranch houses, suburban shopping centers, and express highways. The bulldozer, symbol and 

instrument of impersonal materialism, is leveling everything before it.”129 The House 

responded by voting to pass the legislation. The Senate followed suit. President Dwight D. 

 

123 Memorandum, Small to Regional Director, Region Five, 8 May 1959, 1; and Memorandum, Allen T. 

Edmunds to Regional Director, 3 August 1959, 1, both in File Town of Lincoln Correspondence, Box 

3, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. Walter E. Beatteay to Saltonstall, 26 June 1959, attached to Scoyen 

to Saltonstall, 27 July 1959, file L58 1959-1960, Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

Wilfrid C. Rogers, “Minute Man Park Plan Running into Opposition,” Boston Globe (12 August 1959). 

Town of Lexington Annual Report, 1958, 210, Carey Memorial Library. Bortman to Rep. Gracie Pfost, 

16 July 1959, 2, File MIMA Legislation, NRHE Files. 124 Alvin and Betty Levin to Wirth, 8 February 1959, 1, attached to J. H. Gadsby to Levin, 20 April 1959, 

File L58 1959-1960, Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 125 Minutes, BNHSC, 17 August 1959, 2, file A2015 30th Meeting, Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA 

Waltham. 

126 Memorandum, Scoyen to Assistant Secretary, Public Land Management, 17 July 1959. Quote on p. 

2. See also HR Rept. No. 900, 86th Cong., 1st sess., Minute Man National Historical Park, 11 August 

1959. 

127 Memorandum, Scoyen to Assistant Secretary, Public Land Management, 30 July 1959, 1, File MIMA 

Legislation, NRHE Files. See also S. Rpt. No. 860, 86th Cong., 1st sess., Minute Man National Historical 

Park, 1 September 1959. 

128 Interestingly, reference is made in the floor debate to 1925 when supposedly the US Congress had 

rejected a bill to have the Battle Road saved as a national park. A review of the Congressional Record for 

1925 and 1926 indicates that such a bill was not introduced. 

129 Minute Man NHP, 86th Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record (17 August 1959): 16071. 
Preservation 

 57 

Eisenhower signed the legislation on 21 September 1959, establishing MIMA (See Appendix 

for a copy of the act).130 

Ronald F. Lee, who replaced Tobin as Regional Director for Region 5, remarked 

that “he didn’t know of any measure of as significant historical character as MIMA to go 

through the various stages of legislation with such little trouble.” He credited the BNHSC 

for its preparation for the legislation.131This work later translated into the establishment of 

another national park site, the Boston National Historical Park. As the final BNHS report 

clarified, the sites preserved under the 1974 Boston NHP “are readily recognized by titles 

that strike a responsive chord because of their indissoluble association with events that 

upset the equilibrium of the British Empire, that fomented a bold and patriotic spirit of 

rebellion against parliamentary vindictiveness and royal misrule and, in the end, 

precipitated the Revolutionary War.” Using cooperative agreements with state and private 

organizations, plus federal acquisition of a few properties, the NPS succeeded in completing 

the vision of the BNHSC to preserve the most important sites and buildings of the colonial 

and Revolutionary War period in the Boston area.132

 

130 “U.S. House Passes Historic Park Bill,” Lexington Minute-Man (20 August 1959); “Park Bill Passed 

By U.S. Senate,” Lexington Minute-Man (10 September 1959). 131 Minutes, BNHSC, 21 June 1960, 3, File A2015 31st Meeting, Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 132 Quote from BNHSC, Final Report of the Boston National Historic Sites Commission, 87th Cong., 1st

sess., 15 March 1961, H. Doc. 107, xiii. Boston NHP now includes a visitor center at 15 State Street, 

Dorchester Heights, a portion of the Charlestown Navy Yard, and Bunker Hill Monument and 

grounds. USS Constitution is owned and operated by the US Navy. The rest of the historic sites that 

constitute the park - Faneuil Hall, Old South Meeting House, Paul Revere House, Old North Church, 

and Old State House -are municipally or privately- owned or managed. Cooperative agreements 

between the National Park Service and each site assist in the coordination of management and 

maintenance responsibilities. All of these areas had been identified by the Commission. 
Preservation 

 58 

Figure 5. North Bridge, 1956 version. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 
Preservation 

 59 

Figure 6. NPS Director Conrad Wirth sits on the far right and future MIMA Superintendent Edwin Small 

stands second from the left in this 1956 photo. Courtesy National Archives and Records Administration, 

RG79, BNHSC, Box 1, File A2015. 
Preservation 

 60 

Figure 7. Contemporary house with Captain William Smith House in the background. Reprinted from Deborah 

Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: Battle Road Unit, Figure 55. 

Figure 8. Paul Revere Motel. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: Battle Road 

Unit, Figure 57. 
Preservation 

 61 

Figure 9. Buttrick Ice Cream Stand. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 

Figure 10. Hinds Turkey Farm, 1960. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: 

Battle Road Unit, Figure 61.
Preservation 

 62 

Map 4. Arthur Shurcliff Map, 1925. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: Battle 

Road Unit, Figure 52. 

Map 5. Roads and structures, western Battle Road, 1958. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural 

Landscape Report: Battle Road Unit, part of Figure 66. 
Preservation 

 63 

Map 6. Roads and structures, eastern Battle Road, 1958. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural 

Landscape Report: Battle Road Unit, part of Figure 66. 

Map 7. Minute Man NHS, 1958. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: Battle 

Road Unit, Figure 62.

65 

CHAPTER THREE

MAKING A PARK

Imagine what Edwin Small saw in late summer 1960 as he drove through the area 

designated for inclusion in Minute Man National Historical Park (MIMA). While driving on 

Old Massachusetts Avenue, heading to Route 2A and Concord, he saw a small community of 

affordable housing on the right at Fiske Hill. On his left was the Hinds family’s extensive 

turkey farm. He soon crossed under the imposing transmission lines and towers of the 

Boston Edison Company. As he drove further west and joined Route 2A, Small saw more 

signs of modern development that would have to be removed eventually. Dr. Carl Benton’s 

veterinary hospital and residence sat on more than six acres of land adjacent to Marrett 

Street, now Airport Road. The Paul Revere Motel and gas station beckoned tourists with its 

small cabins and open setting. The Geophysics Corporation Laboratory and the Lincoln 

Town Dump stretched along the south side of Route 2A. On a warm day, he could have 

stopped at the Buttrick Ice Cream Stand. He might have seen some sheep in the pasture 

where Alvin and Betty Levin lived. Now, so close to Hanscom Air Force Base (AFB), he heard 

airplanes roar overhead at regular intervals as they took off and landed.1

With a little extra time on his hands, Small opted to take a slight detour to see The 

Bloody Angle along what was then Virginia Road and Bedford Lane. He drove past 

numerous contemporary residences near the historic Capt. William Smith House and the 

Ephraim Hartwell Tavern. He considered stopping at the Samuel Hartwell House, where 

Marion Fitch and her late business partner Jane Poor operated a country restaurant well 

known for its brown-sugar rolls and chicken soup. The Hartwell Farm restaurant, 

established in 1925, had a ready supply of nearby customers from the nearly 40 modern 

house lots that sliced through the former battleground.2

Back on Route 2A, Small looked behind him and saw Fritz’s Cider Mill and Garden 

Center, a popular stopping place for tasty drinks, fresh fruits and vegetables, and bedding 

plants.3

 Ahead, he saw the historic complex of Brooks Houses. The Noah Brooks Tavern had 

successfully competed against the older Hartwell Tavern during the post-Revolutionary War 

era. It now served as a residence, as did the other three houses in the Brooks cluster. Just past 

them sat the historic Widow Olive Stowe house and the white colonial-styled Fairway 

 

1

 This imagined tour with Edwin Small is based on reviewing the land status maps, boundary maps, and 

lands files all held in the Resources Management Division at MIMA. 

2

 In addition to the maps, see Kay Bodkin, “A Women’s View” [about Hartwell Farm and Marion 

Fitch], Supplement to local newspapers, no date [around 11 March 1969], File Fitch, Marion A., Tract 

No. 02-140, Lands Files, MIMA. 

3

 James D. Mahoney to Sen. Sparkman, 6 July 1965, 1, File Mahoney Brothers, Tract No. 03-149, Lands 

Files, MIMA. 
Making a Park 

 

66 

Restaurant, another thriving establishment serving the area for the past 40 years.4 More 

modern housing lots stretched into former farmlands to the north of Route 2A before Small 

passed the Meriam House at Meriam’s Corner. Down the street, he saw the Willow Pond 

Kitchen, a favorite roadside stop for the locals. 

Small left the designated park area along the Battle Road and drove past lovely large 

homes, many with their own historical connections. He saw The Wayside, former home of 

muster master Samuel Whitney, the Alcott’s, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and children’s novelist 

Margaret Sidney (Harriett Lothrop). Next to The Wayside sat the Orchard House, where 

Louisa May Alcott wrote Little Women. Further west, Small passed the Ralph Waldo 

Emerson House, where the author had hosted Henry David Thoreau and many of America’s 

literary and philosophical luminaries of the nineteenth century. Into Concord Center, Small 

drove past the First Parish Meeting House, the site of the previous church building where the 

Provincial Congress had met. He saw Wright Tavern, which had served as the British 

headquarters during the Concord Fight. Turning onto Monument Street, more graceful 

houses greeted Small. 

As he entered the second designated unit of the park, he saw the Elisha Jones House, 

known for its famous bullet hole, and the Old Manse, the parsonage of Rev. William 

Emerson who had observed the battle at the North Bridge. Small parked and walked up the 

pathway to the bridge. He passed the 1836 Battle Monument and the Grave for British 

Soldiers before stopping for a moment of reflection at the base of the North Bridge. Ahead he 

saw the Minute Man statue. A gentle hill of green grass sloped up the opposite bank of the 

Concord River. Further to the north and east stood the imposing Stedman Buttrick House 

with its gardens full of bearded irises, peonies, and other eye-catching plants. 

This imagined tour of the park encapsulates the many challenges Small faced as he 

contemplated the future of MIMA. He would not be the only park superintendent to face 

these challenges, as these issues have shaped and defined MIMA throughout its history. 

Historic buildings shared space with modern residential dwellings and a wide array of 

commercial establishments. The roads carried increasing amounts of traffic. Military aircraft 

flew overhead. Old stone walls, marking historic property lines, vanished from successive 

road building projects and strangling overgrowth. Trees had long taken over the areas where 

open fields once rolled. Small had worked passionately for the designation of this park. 

Through his efforts with the BNHSC, the area gained national park status for the Battle Road 

and North Bridge units in September 1959. He remained with the BNHSC to prepare its final 

report. In March 1960, he turned his attention back to MIMA to serve as Acting Project 

Manager. In March 1961, he became the park’s first superintendent. Harold Lessem, 

superintendent at the Salem Maritime National Historic Site, had supervised the park until 

that time.5

 

4

 “The Concord Tradition and Your Vote, Articles 37 and 38,” unpaginated, File Denisevich, George 

W., Tract No. 04-120, Lands Files, MIMA. 

5 Justification for Meritorious Service Award, Edwin Small, 3, File Edwin W. Small, Biographical 

Materials, NPS History Collection, Harpers Ferry Center (HFC). 
Making a Park 

 

67 

Small was an effective administrator. He was well respected, and he was considered 

an authority on the history and architecture of New England. He had many friends and 

professional contacts within the historic preservation circles in the region. His entire 

professional career, excluding military service in the United States Navy during World War 

II, was spent with the NPS in New England. Under the New Deal’s emergency conservation 

work, he conducted field investigations and wrote reports about the historical features of 

state parks in the region having Civilian Conservation Corps camps under NPS supervision. 

Between 1937 and 1938 he had conducted the NPS Historic Sites Survey of the region, as 

authorized under the 1935 Historic Sites Act. In 1938 he became the first superintendent of 

Salem Maritime, a post he kept (except for his time in military duty) until he joined the 

BNHSC in 1955.6

During his historic sites survey work and his time as superintendent at Salem 

Maritime, Small sought connections with influential people who advanced the work of the 

NPS. He developed close relationships important figures including William Sumner 

Appleton, founder of the Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities, and 

Louise du Pont Crowninshield, a well-known preservationist and private collector. Appleton 

and Crowninshield had considerable influence over the fate of Derby Wharf (the key historic 

structure in Salem), and Small gained their confidence to the benefit of the park. When Small 

went to the BNHSC, he continued to interact regularly with Crowninshield, who served as a 

member. Small’s research for the NPS also brought him into contact with Walter M. 

Whitehill, director of the Boston Athenaeum and a fellow BNHSC member.7

Small fared well within the upper crust of New England’s historic preservation 

circles, but he had to face a different crowd in Concord-Lincoln-Lexington. There, the old 

guard of preservationists mixed with rural immigrant farmers, small business leaders, 

government officials, middle-class homeowners with growing families, retirees, 

environmentalists, and a host of professionals from both the corporate and academic worlds. 

Salem Maritime was a small, contained park that required limited land acquisition; it had 

significantly fewer historic structures than MIMA. Land acquisition at MIMA entailed 

hundreds of small properties owned by a range of people and businesses. Small made 

significant headway at MIMA, most notably by obtaining the cooperative agreement with the 

Town of Concord for the North Bridge unit. He also established much of the vision for the 

original Master Plan. He maintained good relations with the Minute Man National Historical 

Park Advisory Commission and many of the leaders in each of the towns. But, he was not a 

presence in the park; he kept his office in the Post Office and Courthouse Building in Boston. 

There, he continued to maintain responsibilities with other historic sites in the area, play a 

role in the Registry of National Landmarks, and continue fostering his connections with 

 

6

 Ibid., 1-2. 

7

 Pauline Chase-Harrell, Carol Ely, and Stanley Moss, Administrative History of the Salem Maritime 

National Historic Site (Boston: NPS North Atlantic Regional Office, 1993), 6, 12, 35-36, 41, 78, 103, 107. 

Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 175-76, 655-56. 
Making a Park 

 

68 

Boston-based organizations and officials. He also faced some significant potential obstacles.8

For example, state authorities had to examine possible relocation alignments for Route 2A 

and find a way to obtain the money through state and federal channels. Hanscom AFB had its 

own directives to expand its technological capabilities while providing housing to its base 

personnel. The park’s land acquisition program relied upon other NPS personnel, with Small 

providing guidance. The early years of MIMA depict this mixture of success and challenge. 

BOUNDARIES

Before MIMA could exist as a true park and welcome visitors and educate them 

about the opening hours of the American Revolution, the park needed land. Many factors 

influenced which areas of land the NPS would acquire and when that would take place. 

Congress had laid out the basic parameters, limiting total acreage to 750 and total 

appropriations for land acquisition to $5 million. By the time of Small’s imagined drive in 

summer 1960 MIMA could boast only the eight-acre parcel obtained from the Air Force. Any 

further acquisitions required definitive ideas about park boundaries and congressional 

appropriations. To decide on acquisitions, however, meant confronting the very heart of the 

reasons compelling Congress to set aside the park. 

Busy roads cutting through the park and development at Hanscom AFB continued. 

What lands should the park acquire if the Massachusetts state government relocated Route 

2A? Where would the Hanscom AFB access roads go with such relocation? Would any 

potential rerouting of Route 2 influence boundaries for the park? William Failor, chief of 

Region 5 boundary studies, admitted the need for more than a boundary for the new park. 

All of the interests noted in Lexington-Lincoln-Concord needed to be coordinated. In the 

February 1960 MIMA boundary study, Failor wrote that “The basic problem, as I see it, 

is...how best we can adapt our proposals to the planning needs of the area and at the same 

time satisfy our own standards of park planning.”9

Failor recommended 630 acres for Unit A, the Battle Road section of the park, and 

117 acres for Unit B around the North Bridge. Two considerations guided his selections. 

First, he wanted to ensure adequate landscape protection of the historic scene. Second, he 

wanted to provide enough space for development and interpretation of the park. The park 

needed room items including parking areas, interpretive devices, maintenance areas, and 

visitor facilities. Removing Route 2A from parkland was an idea tied closely to these 

considerations. As Failor envisioned the park, a relocated Route 2A would serve as a 

southern boundary along the stretch of Unit A from Marrett Road in Lexington to Meriam’s 

Corner in Concord. Failor strongly endorsed the removal of 2A from the park, arguing that 

the NPS would have maximum flexibility in developing and administering MIMA. The park 

could adapt or obliterate existing roads to meet interpretive needs, rather than having to 

 

8

 Final Approved Master Plan, MIMA [1966 Master Plan], 9, MIMA Archives. A copy is also available at 

FRC, Waltham. 

9

 William R. Failor, Report on Boundary Study of Minute Man National Historical Park Project, February 

1960, 1, File L14 Boundary Survey, Park Administrative Files, MIMA. 
Making a Park 

 

69 

address the transportation demands of the area.10 Failor believed that Unit A was “too 

narrow to function properly” if traffic continued to use Route 2A through the park.11

Regional Director Ronald Lee agreed. He recalled other park development, noting that when 

local and visitor traffic shared the same roads, the interpretation of parks “tends to lose its 

continuity and creates confusion” for visitors about the importance of the parks’ 

Values.12 Instead, Lee and Failor envisioned that with Route 2A gone, the proposed 

boundaries with would create a “permanent park, well-planned and air-tight, so that it will fit 

into the community satisfactorily.”13

For the eastern boundary at Fiske Hill, Failor followed the right-of-way along Route 

128. Failor set the northern boundary to encompass much of the Colonial Heights residential 

community along Hayward Avenue to give “adequate scenic and space protection for the 

Battle Road and the park area as a whole.” With these houses so close to important historic 

features, Failor believed that they “constitute[d] a definite encroachment on primary park 

values.” Next, the northern boundary line followed south of Hanscom AFB and continued 

toward Meriam’s Corner, approximately 400 feet north of Route 2A. He estimated that “Any 

distance substantially less than 400 [feet] would be detrimental to park values.” The western 

boundary for Unit A would end at Meriam’s Corner along existing property lines. Failor set 

Unit B boundaries to follow the property lines for the Bullet Hole House, Maj. John Buttrick 

House, and Hunt-Hosmer House. In addition, he located other boundary lines to protect the 

marsh and river scene around the North Bridge.14

To aid planning with other federal, state, and local authorities to realize this 

boundary recommendation, Failor included analyses of the most pressing issues in his 

boundary study. Relocating Route 2A south of the park would remove its traffic from the 

historic scene. Another thoroughfare, Route 2, already ran to the south of 2A, and Failor 

believed Route 2 should remain to the south in the event that the state decided to relocate it. 

People in Lincoln had long wanted Route 2 removed because it cut the town into two 

separate sections and brought heavy traffic through what many townspeople thought should 

remain a rural area. A northern alignment might better address these concerns, but Failor 

argued that taking Route 2 north of the park, necessitating two crossings of the proposed sixlane highway through parkland, could “play havoc with landscape and historical values.” 

Tunnels would help reduce the impact, but Failor cautioned that the NPS might easily end up 

footing the bill.15

 

10 Ibid., 5-6, 9. Ronald Lee to Chairman, Lexington Board of Selectmen, 29 April 1960, 1, File L58 (2 of 

2), Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 11 Failor, Boundary Study, 6. 

12 Lee to Chairman, Lexington Board of Selectmen, 29 April 1960, 1. 13 Minutes, First Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 21 June 1960, 

4, File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

14 All quotes from Failor, Boundary Study, 6-7. 15 Ibid., 2, 8-9. In nearly every annual report for the Town of Lincoln, going back to the 1960s, 

relocation of Route 2 is discussed. In 1977, the state finally decided against any relocation, and the 

annual report notes the reasons why Lincoln had long wanted this done. See Lincoln Annual Report, 

1977, 3, Lincoln Public Library. 
Making a Park 

 

70 

Regardless of where Route 2 rested, officials at Hanscom AFB wanted to build a fourlane divided access road to it. Again, a tunnel would help reduce the intrusion on the park. 

Hanscom AFB officials also wanted an access road to the relocated Route 2A. Failor made 

clear that any ramps or interchanges required for such access should be designed so as not to 

encroach on any parkland. This factor made the shifting of Route 2A further south a 

consideration. Aside from planning access roads between Hanscom AFB and the park, Failor 

also called attention to the long-range expansion plans for Hanscom AFB. He cautioned that 

the NPS and the Air Force should “get together on land acquisition” to avoid unnecessary 

land severance costs. One piece of land owned by the Air Force caught Failor’s eye. He noted 

that the NPS should add a triangular lot, located across from the Hasting House to the park 

to provide a buffer for the Battle Road. Once all lands had been acquired and a firm 

boundary was set between the two entities, Failor recommended that adequate screening 

between the Air Force and the park would become important and that “close coordination 

and cooperation will be essential.”16 

To develop those ties of cooperation and coordination, NPS officials began writing 

to and meeting with key officials from the area. They found willing listeners. In May 1960, 

Regional Director Lee, along with Small, Failor, and NPS landscape architect Andrew Feil, 

met with the Lincoln Board of Selectmen. Lee was surprised to discover that the town 

favored relocating Route 2 up to the park’s proposed southern boundary, connecting it to 

Route 2A. He wasn’t sure the state would agree to such an idea, but he admitted in his 

meeting report that “our strategy of staying out of the Route 2 squabble paid dividends.” The 

Lincoln Selectmen also urged the NPS to move forward with land acquisition, especially 

where commercial interests had taken notice. Sun Oil had its eye on a piece of property 

within the park for a filling station, and Lee agreed to rank this land as a high priority for 

acquisition. Lee wrote, “I was impressed by the enthusiasm of the Selectmen and their 

willingness to help out wherever possible.”17

Members of the Concord Selectmen chose not to meet with the NPS, but the town 

had already registered its favorable attitude toward the park. The town had voted in March 

to seek historic district designation through the state legislature for four areas. Three of these 

areas had been identified by the BNHSC for such a designation, and the town had added the 

road to Barrett Farm as a fourth historic district. State action supported this request.18 Lee 

did meet with officials from Lexington. Again, Lexington’s leaders urged for NPS acquisition 

of property, including the Hinds turkey farm and Dr. Carl Benton’s veterinary hospital. The 

 

16 Failor, Boundary Study, 3-4, 7-8. Quotes, in order, on pp. 3, 4. 17 Memorandum, Ronald Lee to NPS Director Conrad Wirth, 1 June 1960, File Town of Lincoln 

Correspondence, Box 3, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 18 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 16 March 1960, File Town of Concord Correspondence, Box 3, RG 79 

BNHSC, NARA Waltham. The state legislature concurred with the historic district designations in 

1960, as referenced by Small in his memorandum to Director Wirth, 28 July 1961, 6, File Minute Man 

Park Project Correspondence, Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 
Making a Park 

 

71 

encouragement for MIMA that existed prior to its establishment continued strong 

afterward.19

Cordial, productive communications also continued with Hanscom AFB officials. 

Samuel Snow, the consultant who had worked with Small to list potential properties for 

eventual designation in the park, surveyed and set boundary disks for MIMA. Snow found a 

discrepancy while examining the land in relationship to the written descriptions. Part of the 

northern boundary for the historic site fell within a few feet of the rear entrances of several 

houses on Hanscom AFB. To reduce the potential for intrusion, Snow set the boundary a few 

feet south of its original designation, bringing it closer to the stone walls and farther from the 

houses. 

Regional Director Lee and Hanscom AFB officials approved of this adjustment. On 

30 September 1960 Director Wirth effectively terminated the historic site and 

administratively designated MIMA, composed in part of the lands formerly included in the 

historic site.20 Additional evidence of productive relations between the Air Force and the 

NPS surfaced. In response to Failor’s recommendation for acquisition of a triangular piece of 

Air Force land to assure protection of the Battle Road, the Air Force countered with an 

acceptable alternative. To allow for future expansion of the base’s Sciences Library, the two 

parties agreed to reduce the size of the parcel by two-thirds while preserving a buffer along 

the Battle Road near the Hasting House.21

Formal establishment of the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory 

Commission prompted more opportunities for cooperation and coordination between the 

local towns and the park. On 21 May 1960 Secretary of the Interior Fred Seaton announced 

the appointment of five members. Mark Bortman, chairman of the BNHSC, served as the 

Secretary’s representative. The governor of Massachusetts appointed Donald Loveys. 

Katharine White, who had been active on the Lincoln Planning Commission, served for that 

town. Edward Chase represented Concord, and Donald Nickerson served for Lexington. 

According to its charter, the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission 

advised the Secretary of the Interior on the “development and administration”22 of the park. 

In reality, as the press release quoted Seaton, the commission functioned as a “community 

 

19 Memorandum, Lee to Wirth, 1 June 1960. 20 Memorandum, Regional Director Ronald Lee to Superintendent, Salem Maritime (Lessem), 26 

February 1960; Memorandum, Lessem to Regional Director (Lee), 2 March 1960; Memorandum, Lee 

to Acting Project Manager, Minute Man (Small), 14 October 1960, and attached memorandum from 

Wirth to Lee, no date, all in File L58 (2 of 2), Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. It 

should be noted that the Air Force waited until all authorities, including mortgage holders, had had a 

chance to review and affirm the boundary revision. Final confirmation came in August 1962. See 

Memorandum, Carlisle Crouch to Wirth, 17 August 1962, File L58 (2 of 2), Box 4, RG 79 MIMA 

Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

21 Stephen Noonan to George Palmer, 9 August 1960; Memorandum, Lee to Director Wirth, 14 

September 1960; and Memorandum, Jackson Price to Lee, 4 October 1960, all in File MIMA 

Correspondence 1960-1964, NRHE Files. 

22 Charter, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, no date, 1, File A18 CY 1960? 

Charter, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Making a Park 

 

72 

organization representing the views of the towns most affected”23 by MIMA. Commission 

members could expect to meet between two and four times a year. Appointments lasted 

indefinitely at first, but soon came under annual review. The commission had a biennial 

review and renewal, with 31 December 1976 listed in its charter as its suggested termination 

date. Authorization for the commission came from the park’s enabling legislation.24

At its first few meetings, the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory 

Commission learned about the boundary study and early efforts for land acquisition. Actions 

taken indicate that the towns wanted clear and steady progress in park development. The 

actions also reminded the NPS to remain pragmatic when identifying possible properties for 

acquisition. Worries that rising land prices would quickly outstrip the park’s $5 million limit 

for land acquisition led to one significant action—commission members endorsed a 

recommendation of the BNHSC in its final report. 25 This statement urged Congress to “give 

renewed emphasis to the import and urgency”26 of completing acquisition within a much 

shorter time period than the original projection of 15 years (in time for the Bicentennial). 

While deliberating the 1960 boundary recommendations, the commission argued 

that revisions should consider which buildings sat on identified pieces of property. In a 

motion made at the 26 June 1961 meeting, commission members asked that the Secretary of 

the Interior exclude residential properties “not absolutely necessary and that would rapidly 

consume” land acquisition funds “without adequate effect.” White specifically pointed at the 

Colonial Heights subdivision, arguing that cutting too far into this residential community 

would present a landscaping problem for the park. Small cautioned that the park could not 

reduce boundaries enough to endanger the desired landscape effect, but he did agree that 

screen planting “was much cheaper than buying houses and tearing them down.”27

Echoing what Failor had written in the boundary study, Minute Man National 

Historical Park Advisory Commission members also urged the Secretary of the Interior to 

 

23 Press Release, “Secretary of the Interior Appoints Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory 

Board,” 21 May 1960, File MIMA Correspondence 1975-1980, NRHE Files. 24 Charter, Advisory Commission, 1-2. Minutes, Sixth Meeting, Minute Man National Park Advisory 

Commission, 1 December 1962, 1, File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

Correspondence or other materials do not indicate what sources the NPS used to design the Advisory 

Commission’s charter. Certainly, the need for cooperation and support from the three towns made 

establishment of such a commission attractive. Any correspondence noting establishment of the 

commission focused on appointments. See, for example, Hillary Tolson to Secretary of the Interior, 9 

October 1959, File MIMA Correspondence 1975-1980, NRHE. In justifying the continuation of the 

commission in 1962, the NPS noted that for “harmonious and productive relations with the three 

towns,” the commission was “essential for the Secretary of the Interior. ” See Memorandum, Leland 

Ramsdell to Administrative Assistant Secretary, 17 May 1962, and attached justification, 1-2, File 

MIMA Correspondence 1975-1980, NRHE. 25 Minutes First Meeting, Minute Man NHP Advisory Commission, 21 June 1960, 1, 3; Minutes Second 

Meeting, Advisory Commission, 18 January 1961, 3, both in File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject 

Files, NARA Waltham. See also BNHSC, Final Report (Washington, DC: GPO, 1961), 33, File BNHSC 

Final Report, NPS Reports Collection, MIMA Library. 

26 BNHSC, Final Report, 33. 27 Minutes Third Meeting, Advisory Commission, 26 June 1961, 2, File A18, RG 79 MIMA Subject 

Files, NARA Waltham. 
Making a Park 

 

73 

coordinate park and highway planning with other involved authorities. This stance came as a 

result of having representatives from the NPS, the Hanscom AFB, and the Massachusetts 

Department of Public Works at the 18 January 1961 commission meeting to discuss joint 

highway concerns. Air Force officials stated that they planned to build a direct access road 

between Route 2A and the base. This step would allow the NPS to close Marrett Street, the 

current access road to the base, to protect the historic resources at MIMA. In addition, the 

Air Force would address its own security concerns by removing general traffic from the 

access road. The base also considered acquiring additional land to build 220 more housing 

units. These actions would sever identified properties for MIMA and would force decisions 

about relocating Route 2A before all interested parties could complete their planning. 

The meeting ended with a call for coordination.28 In a letter to Secretary of the 

Interior Stewart Udall in June 1961 the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory 

Commission asked that park planning proceed as “quickly as possible,” especially aspects 

addressing highway changes. By the time of the letter, Hanscom AFB had announced that it 

expected completion of the new access road by 1962 and commission members believed that 

this “kind of piecemeal procedure...should be avoided.” Instead, members favored “unified 

construction of all highways” within an integrated park plan. Such an approach would 

eliminate construction duplication and any waste in taxpayer money.29

ROADS

Roads carry visitors to see the historic sites of MIMA. Roads route residents between 

their homes and a myriad of destinations. Roads funnel commuters through the area. Roads 

direct people to centers of activity, whether for work, play, shopping, or schools. Just as 

roads twist and turn across the landscape, the history of roads in MIMA sometimes curved 

and veered in unexpected directions. The story does not end in 1962 or 1972 or even later. 

Examining the many configurations, though, helps to understand the park’s development 

and the planning decisions. 

One road in particular—Route 2A—would continue to vex the park’s 

superintendents. Route 2A carried about 5,000 cars per day when the federal government 

established the park. By the late 1980s, due to development of the surrounding region, that 

road carried close to 20,000 cars per day. Until the late 1990s, when the park had completed 

its walker/biker historic trail through the Battle Road Unit, people drove on Route 2A 

without knowing that they traveled through a national park. Attempts to relocate this road 

continued to challenge Small and his successors, until the state finally declared the issue 

closed, largely due to environmental concerns. Did the NPS lose opportunities when looking 

 

28 Minutes Second Meeting, Advisory Commission, 18 January 1961, 4. Interoffice Memorandum, W. 

T. Hue to E. J. McCarthy, 29 November 1962, 2, attached to Memorandum, Small to Lee, 10 January 

1963, File D30 Roads and Trails, Box 1, RG 70 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 29 Mark Bortman to Stewart Udall, 28 June 1961, 1, File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. See also Memorandum, Small to Regional Director, Region Five, 23 June 1961, 1, File D30 

Roads and Trails, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 
Making a Park 

 

74 

back at this history? The chief opportunity loss came at the very beginning, when the NPS 

first met with state authorities to discuss relocating Route 2A but had no money to help 

complete the job. Without this financial commitment, the NPS lost ground from which it 

could never recover; developers continued to build homes and businesses. 

Within the area of MIMA, increasing numbers of cars and trucks have followed these 

roads as Lexington-Lincoln-Concord steadily transformed from country towns to suburbs. 

And, as the BNHSC explained in its final report to Congress, the Hanscom air field drove 

much of this change. Expanded activities under the auspices of the Air Force required access 

roads of sufficient size and location to carry people to and from their commitments on the 

base. The “science city” comprising the Air Force Command and Development Division in 

nearby Bedford acted with Hanscom AFB as a magnet for corporate development. By the 

1970s, Hanscom AFB would have a reduced presence, but the civilian air field would roar 

forward under the management of the Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport). Massport 

would also spawn development and traffic. Supporting businesses grew along the roads 

leading around the Hanscom air field, spurring further residential and commercial building. 

“They will shortly consume the remaining lands and landscape,” wrote the BNHSC, 

“including those inside the boundaries of the authorized park itself” unless land acquisition 

speeds its pace.30

In the early 1960s, two proposed road projects caused debate at MIMA. The Air 

Force put forth a project that involved building a roadway to replace the Marrett Street 

access to the airbase.31 The NPS wanted the state to relocate Route 2A out of the proposed 

boundaries so the NPS could turn the Battle Road into a visitor route. Officials readily 

acknowledged the value of coordinated planning, as noted in the Minute Man National 

Historical Park Advisory Commission minutes. Visions of coordination, however, relied on 

funding of each project and a dedicated staff for design and implementation. Coordination 

attempts stalled as the Air Force access road obtained initial congressional appropriations, 

and the Route 2A relocation remained solely a discussion point. However, there were 

problems and delays with the new access road, providing a powerful reminder of the 

obstacles awaiting the NPS in its quest to relocate Route 2A. 

Before the Air Force could build its access road to connect with the state highways in 

the area, it had to submit its proposal to the state for review and study. This process started 

just as MIMA became a NHP. The Massachusetts Department of Public Works hired 

engineering consulting firm Whitman and Howard to prepare a traffic study and analysis for 

the area surrounding Hanscom AFB. As part of its background research, Whitman and 

Howard asked the NPS for information about the proposed layout and design of MIMA. 

Assistant regional director George Palmer responded to this request in January 1960. Palmer 

reiterated the BNHSC recommendation of relocating Route 2A to “preserve and recreate the 

historic scene” within the park. He noted that moving Route 2A to the south from its present 

 

30 BNHSC, Final Report, 33. 31 Robert Barrere to Benjamin Zerbey, 25 June 1965, File D30 1964-1965, Box 2, RG 79 MIMA Subject 

Files, NARA Waltham. 
Making a Park 

 

75 

alignment “would make a desirable southern boundary for the park.” He also informed the 

firm that the NPS requested that any access roads connecting the airbase and proposed 

industrial sites to Route 2 (or presumably Route 2A) “go around the park rather than across 

it.” If the access roads had to cross the park, Palmer urged that there should be only one 

crossing, and it should be depressed within a location where topography “lends itself best to 

this type of construction.”32

As the state and others awaited the Whitman and Howard study, the NPS realized the 

impracticality of tying the Route 2A relocation to the southern boundary of the park. Land 

acquisition would become tied to the fluctuation of that relocation project, leaving the NPS 

without clear knowledge of which properties to pursue. Instead, on July 1961, Small made a 

new offer during a planning meeting with NPS Director Wirth and Regional Director Lee. 

Small suggested that the NPS abandon the idea of using the relocated Route 2A as a southern 

boundary. The state’s public works department would determine the exact location of Route 

2A “as a separate and distinct project from land acquisition and development of the park.” 

Wirth and Lee readily agreed to this change. In the meantime, the NPS continued its own 

planning efforts, hoping that someday it would have a park-only road where Route 2A now 

carried traffic.33

Despite the promise of speedy construction of the Air Force access road, work on 

this project stopped by August 1961 in reaction to pressure from the Town of Lincoln, which 

was still wary of an expanded airbase within its boundaries.34 In addition, the state public 

works department had not received the final transportation study from Whitman and 

Howard, delaying construction for the access road. In the meantime, the analysis of Route 2A 

moved slowly forward. When Small contacted Lester Olson of the public works department, 

he found that the state was cognizant of the need for coordination between the two projects. 

Small reported to regional director Lee that Olson “made it very clear that one [road] could 

not be laid out without taking into consideration the other...”35

However, correspondence details that the two projects remained separate, driven by 

which agencies had the time and money to address them. As work on the airbase access road 

halted, efforts for relocating Route 2A gained speed. In early 1962, the state took a little more 

than an acre of land off Massachusetts Avenue opposite the Bluff. Primarily concerned with 

providing access to a transformer station once Route 2A was moved, this action still 

represented one of the first tangible events toward the larger NPS vision of removing nonvisitor traffic through MIMA. In discussing this development with Small, Olson also 

 

32 George Palmer to Whitman and Howard, Inc., 6 January 1960, File D30 CY 1960 Route 2A 

Relocation, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

33 Memorandum, Small to Wirth, 28 July 1961, 2, File Minute Man Project Correspondence, Box 2, RG 

79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham. 

34 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 16 August 1963, 2, File D30 Roads and Trails, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA 

Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

35 Quote from Memorandum, Small to Lee, 8 September 1961, 1-2, File D30 Roads and Trails, Box 1, 

RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. See also Memorandum, E. T. Scoyen to Lee, 25 August 

1961, attached to previous memorandum. 
Making a Park 

 

76 

confirmed that the state favored a southern alignment for the relocated Route 2A. Olson 

recommended that the NPS “wait and act concurrently” with the state public works 

department to negotiate for certain parcels in Lexington around the area of this transformer 

station.36

Clarifications of responsibilities represented the next step toward relocating Route 

2A. Washington office personnel believed that the NPS needed to go directly to the state to 

enlist support for the project. Small checked with Olson and found that instead, the state 

needed the NPS to go to the federal Bureau of Public Roads to initiate funding and direction. 

The Bureau of Public Roads would then ask the state to conduct a study for designing the 

new alignment and would supply the funding for this endeavor. With an approved layout, the 

state would then inform the Bureau of Public Roads about the amount of funds needed to 

complete the construction project. The state needed the federal government to provide 

funding beyond what was annually allotted through the federal-aid program. Olson also said 

what Small and the NPS certainly understood: that unless money for the relocation of Route 

2A and the airbase access road came at the same time, the state would have to “temporarily at 

least...dump traffic” from the new access road onto the present Route 2A. While reviewing 

the state’s plans, Small realized that the most probable location for the interchange of the 

access road and the relocated Route 2A would sit in Lincoln near Folly Pond.37

In opposition to the state’s suggestion, the NPS pursued the idea of the state using the 

federal-aid highway program to fund the relocation of Route 2A. In November 1962, after 

checking with the Bureau of Public Roads, Secretary of the Interior Udall sent a letter to 

Massachusetts Governor John Volpe to enlist the state’s support for the relocation idea and 

ask the state to submit a proposal to this program. A change in governors did not change the 

state’s response. The state’s view was firm: funding had to come from other than the federalaid program. The state explained that since Route 2A was classified as a secondary road 

system, it had to compete with a host of other secondary road systems within the state for the 

annual federal-aid program appropriation of about $2 million, matched by another $2 million 

by the state. 

The Federal Highway Act further dictated that half the total money under this 

program be used on roads other than state highways. Initial calculations indicated that 

relocating Route 2A would cost $2.329 million, and the Hanscom AFB access road would 

cost about $1.7 million. The state estimated that another $2.4 million was needed to relocate 

Route 62 in Concord so that it came down Old Bedford Road as opposed to Bedford Road, 

bypassing the park area north of the Meriam House. Small calculated that the NPS was 

responsible for approximately $2.25 million, plus the cost of a tunnel or other sunken road 

for the airbase access road to the new Route 2A. MIMA legislation did not include 

 

36 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 8 June 1962, 1-2, File D30 Roads and Trails, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA 

Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Quote from p.2. 

37 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 13 September 1962, File D30 Roads and Trails, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA 

Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Quote on p. 3. 
Making a Park 

 

77 

authorization for funding such construction work, requiring Congress to appropriate special 

funds.38

In February 1963 representatives from the NPS, Bureau of Public Roads, 

Massachusetts Department of Public Works, Massport (in charge of the civilian air terminal 

at Hanscom AFB), Hanscom AFB, and Lincoln Board of Selectmen met to discuss the 

highway situation. This group readily agreed that division of costs by state or federal agency 

for the proposed highway work “would be very difficult to determine.” However, NPS 

officials argued that their agency should not cover costs beyond “in kind” replacement of 

roads. 

Rumors surfaced about the relocated Route 2A becoming larger than a single lane 

each way. In response, state public works authorities noted that fewer roads would be built 

to replace those being closed for the park, forcing more traffic to use the limited numbers of 

roads and requiring upgrades and expansions.39 At the time of the meeting, only the airport 

access road had dedicated funds from the USAF. Funding had recently cleared for a land 

survey to prepare for construction, and the NPS requested that the Air Force keep it apprised 

of the start of land acquisition for this access road. Both agencies agreed that they should 

coordinate land takings to reduce costs. All the representatives agreed that the projects 

required special funding from both federal and state sources. They decided to meet again in a 

few months to discuss cost breakdowns and proposals for funding requests.40

Instead of meeting, the state sent a preliminary cost breakdown to the NPS in April. 

State public works official Olson also informed Small that it would take approximately two 

years for initial field work to end and construction drawings and layout to gain approval. 

Olson desired some indication from the NPS of its intention to pursue funding.41 After 

further internal discussion, Regional Director Lee requested approval from Director Wirth 

to move forward with the project. Lee recommended that the NPS request legislation from 

Congress to authorize $1.6 million of the estimated $2.8 million cost of the Route 2A and 

airbase road relocations. The Route 62 relocation was removed from the new estimates. The 

new Route 2A would be replaced “at a higher standard for a part of its length to meet modern 

traffic conditions.” Lee justified this expense by writing, “This relocation is more expensive 

than anyone desires, but it is the only way” to complete an effective historical park at 

 

38 Udall to John Volpe, 7 November 1962; Memorandum, Small to Lee, 28 November 1962; 

Memorandum, Small to Lee, 10 January 1963, and attached copy Interoffice Correspondence, W. T. 

Hue to E. J. McCarthy, 29 November 1962, all in File D30 Roads and Trails, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA 

Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

39 The roads changes would include: relocation of Route 2A for about 2.5 miles, closing of the present 

access road from Route 2A to Hanscom, and the closing of three local roads which also serve as access 

roads to the airport and associated local industries. See Hue to McCarthy, 29 November 1962. 40 Interoffice Correspondence, Hue to Chief Engineer, 6 March 1963, 1-3; and Memorandum, Small to 

Lee, 11 January 1963, both in File D30 Roads and Trails, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. 

41 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 16 August 1963, 1, File D30 Roads and Trails, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA 

Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 
Making a Park 

 

78 

MIMA.42 Wirth’s assistant director for design and construction approved Lee’s 

recommendation, authorizing Lee to begin negotiations with the state. In December, Lee 

wrote to the state’s chief engineer and requested that the NPS and the state develop an 

agreement. In exchange for federal financial participation to construct a new Route 2A, Lee 

asked for transfer of the right-of-way to the existing 2A, allowing for subsequent closing of 

that road to non-park traffic.43 

Progress was slow in 1964. Evaluating details for the possible relocation of Route 2 

(as desired by the Town of Lincoln) was time consuming for the state. In addition, the public 

works department was reorganized. Small was certain that Route 2A would sit for the time 

being. In March 1964 the state submitted a draft agreement for review, but it fell short of NPS 

requirements. The state proposed that the federal government cover the entire cost of the 

road relocation work for Route 2A and the airbase access road. Based on the wording, the 

NPS was unsure whether the state meant a combination of the Department of the Interior 

and the USAF in its use of the term “federal government” or whether the state simply meant 

the Department of the Interior. In addition, the draft agreement did not delineate which 

entity would take responsibility for land acquisition costs related to the road relocation. 

Surprisingly, the state took responsibility in the draft agreement for all development on the 

relocated Route 2A in excess of a two-lane “in kind” highway. These concerns prompted the 

NPS to try another agreement.44

As discussion about relocating Route 2A reached a high point, its progress ebbed, and 

the airbase access road project continued. In October 1964 the suspended project gained 

new momentum with a change of command at the base. With the baseline survey and 

plotting survey data previously completed, the project focused on design plans and property 

identification for land acquisition. A public hearing in the Lincoln town hall in January 1965 

gave neighbors the opportunity to voice their concerns and raise questions about right-ofway acquisitions. Two property owners directly affected by the proposed routing of the 

airbase road objected to its close proximity to their yards. Many people were concerned 

about increased traffic and whether the existing access road would remain open until the 

state relocated Route 2A. However, no serious objections threatened to impede final 

development of the project. 

By June 1965, the state had submitted a complete preliminary project plan to 

Hanscom AFB. The state also began preparing a submittal to the federal Bureau of Public 

Roads for secondary highway funds. Air Force funding covered construction of a new twolane access road, but traffic studies indicated the need for a four-lane road. Appraisals for 

 

42 Memorandum, Lee to Wirth, 13 September 1963, 1-2, File D30 Roads and Trails, Box 1, RG 79 

MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Quotes on p. 2. 43 Memorandum, A. Clark Stratton to Lee, 27 September 1963, 1; and Lee to Chief Engineer, 

Department of Public Works, 19 December 1963, both in File D30 Roads and Trails, Box 1, RG 79 

MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

44 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 11 May 1964, File D30 Roads and Trails 1964-1965, Box 2, RG 79 

MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. File D30 Route 2A Relocation CY 1964, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 
Making a Park 

 

79 

land acquisition began soon afterward, but another snag halted work for a short time. State 

planners had to redesign the intersection on the north side of Bedford Road to avoid the 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) building. In May 1966, the NPS received word that 

the state had worked around this obstacle, and construction on the new airbase access road 

was scheduled to start in the summer.45

With the access road set, the state disclosed its thoughts for relocating Route 2, 

presenting two possible options for review. These potential routes had a direct bearing on 

how the state conceptualized Route 2A. A southerly alternative for Route 2 would place the 

relocated, limited-access highway just south of its existing alignment and fix a connector 

road between it and new airbase access road. A northerly alternative would sit at the 

southern boundary of MIMA. A relocated Route 2A would feed into this relocated Route 2 at 

the airbase access road, combining the two roads from that point westward. These roads 

would also have limited access. The northern alternative generated several complaints from 

interested parties.46 David Rogers of Lincoln wrote that this plan would cost a lot of money, 

destroy homes, and “disrupt the privacy and purpose of the Park.”47 Frederic Eppling, also of 

Lincoln, agreed with Rogers. Referring to having a superhighway along the park’s southern 

border, Rogers asked, “Doesn’t it, in part, destroy what the park is trying to create?”48

Citizens for the Preservation of the Minute Man National Historic [sic.] Park sent a petition 

to the NPS. The petition, signed by more than 2,000 concerned citizens from many states, 

argued that the northern alternative would “effectively nullify the Seventeenth Century [sic] 

authenticity and environment” of the park.49 In each instance, the NPS reiterated its position. 

Removal of Route 2A from the park was “essential if the park is ever to serve the purpose for 

which it was established.” The state also had to determine the exact location of the new 

highway. The NPS could only continue to give “every encouragement” for relocating Route 

2A.50

 

45 Bureau of Public Roads, October Monthly Status Report, Defense Access Road, Hanscom Field, 20 

October 1964; Bureau of Public Roads, November Monthly Status Report, Access Road, 30 November 

1964; Bureau of Public Roads, January Monthly Status Report, 31 January 1965; Bureau of Public Roads, 

June Monthly Status Report, 1 July 1965; Bureau of Public Roads, July Monthly Status Report, 2 August 

1965; Bureau of Public Roads, Status Report, 12 November 1965, all in File D30 1964-1965, Box 2, RG 79 

MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Memorandum, Small to Lee, 13 August 1964, File D30 Route 2A 

Relocation CY 1964, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 46 Location Proposals for Route 2, no date [1965-1966], File D30 Route 2A Relocation CY 1966, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. 

47 David Rogers to Senator Leverett Saltonstall, 13 December 1965, File D30 Route 2A Relocation CY 

1966, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

48 Frederic Eppling to Senator Edward Kennedy, 22 October 1965, 2, File D30 Route 2A Relocation CY 

1966, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

49 M. A. Gheith to George Hartzog, 2 December 1966, File D30 Route 2A Relocation CY 1966, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. 

50 Assistant Director to M. A. Gheith, 21 December 1966, 1, File D30 Route 2A Relocation CY 1966, 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Making a Park 

 

80 

LANDS

Slowly and steadily, the NPS acquired its first properties at MIMA. Congressional 

authorizations began in summer 1961 with half a million dollars, and continued through the 

mid-1960s. The authorizations allowed for 123 properties encompassing 392 acres acquired 

by the end of November 1966. A little more than half of that acreage represented improved 

properties including commercial establishments, homes, or other structures.51 The NPS 

followed long-established guidelines that Small and Director Conrad Wirth had reiterated 

during the park establishment phase. As Wirth wrote in a letter to one Lexington resident in 

1960, the NPS gave priority for acquisition to undeveloped lands to preserve them in their 

natural state and avoid costly developments. Lands threatened by adverse development or 

needed at an early date for park facilities also had a high acquisition priority. Qualified, 

impartial appraisers familiar with land values in the area would determine fair market value 

for identified parcels. Owners might have the option at life tenancies when park purposes 

“would not be frustrated by it.”52

The issue of eminent domain deserves special mention. Eminent domain involved the 

immediate taking of land and then determining its fair value. Wirth stated in his letter to the 

Lexington resident that the NPS had the power of eminent domain but was “reluctant to 

resort to condemnation.” Scenarios in which the NPS might exercise it, according to Wirth, 

included those necessary as a “legal device to clear title, to obtain a property absolutely 

necessary for park development, or to stop a development which would damage a park.”53 As 

the Lexington resident revealed in his letter to Wirth, “everyone I have talked with in 

Lexington has a different story as to the extent of the Park and the mode of acquisition.”54 

Which lands would become part of the park, and when would the lands be acquired? 

By this early date, the NPS had not revealed its initial boundary study with its delineations of 

properties for inclusion. Without concrete information, people living close to the presumed 

boundaries speculated and shared their concerns with others, leading to additional questions 

and misunderstandings. People also referred back to Wirth’s January 1959 visit to Lincoln to 

discuss the proposed park. It is unclear whether Wirth had any notes to use at the meeting, as 

they are not with the remainder of the records from this period. Newspaper reports clarify 

that residents applauded his statements and raised few if any objections. Wirth is quoted as 

saying, “The rights of property owners will be zealously respected...”55 and that “Court 

action would be taken only when necessary to protect historical buildings or lands from 

 

51 Minutes, 14th Meeting, Advisory Commission, 9 November 1966, 3, File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA 

Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Minutes, Advisory Board on National Parks, 17-22 September 1960, 19, 

NRHE Files. Rogers Young, Status Report, Minute Man National Historical Park, 10 May 1961, File 

MIMA Legislation, NRHE Files. 

52 Wirth to Ralph Stevens, 29 March 1960, 1, File L58 1959-1960, Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, 

NARA Waltham. 

53 Ibid., 2. 

54 Ralph Stevens to Wirth, 19 February 1960, attached to Ibid. 55 “No Evictions Due of ‘Battle Road,’” Boston Herald (10 January 1959). 
Making a Park 

 

81 

desecration.”56 Wirth’s appearance in Lincoln was noticed at the April 1959 meeting of the 

Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments. The minutes 

indicate that some audience members worried about the government seizing their property. 

“They were told,” according to the minutes, “that we [the National Park Service] would be 

willing to buy the land subject to life occupancy or a certain number of years provided they 

do not destroy any of the existing values.”57

The manner in which the NPS addressed one attendee, who would remain a longtime 

opponent of MIMA, provides additional early clues about how the agency handled eminent 

domain concerns. Walter Beatteay lived along Lexington Road (Route 2A) in Concord on 

land that the NPS wanted to include in the park. He gathered almost 40 signatures of fellow 

Concord residents to protest establishment of the park. The petitioners opposed the 

possibility that the federal government could use eminent domain to obtain property for the 

park. In addition, these citizens wondered about their status as Concord residents—would 

they have a more nebulous state if they remained living within park boundaries?58 In another 

letter to Senator Leverett Saltonstall, Beatteay wrote, “Many of the property owners along 

the Battle Road have already experienced the process of eminent domain as exercised by the 

Federal Government, and have developed a defensive attitude against any repeated action.”59

Presumably, Beatteay is referring to takings for the Air Force Base. Saltonstall forwarded the 

petition and letters to the NPS for review and comment. Acting Director E. T. Scoyen 

assured Senator Saltonstall that the NPS had always been “extremely reluctant” to use 

eminent domain to acquire park lands. Scoyen listed the conditions under which the agency 

would resort to condemnation: as a legal device to clear title, to obtain lands necessary for 

park structures and obtainable by “no other means,” or to stop detrimental land use that 

would seriously impair the conservation objectives of the park.60

Beatteay and others also wondered about selling their property or passing their 

property to their heirs. Scoyen replied that, until such time that the NPS acquired the 

property, “owners, of course have a right to sell to whomever they wish.”61 On the other 

hand, depending on the reasons the NPS needed the property, owners could negotiate term 

leases or life tenancies to stay on their property after the federal government had acquired it. 

However, extension of possession by heirs would perpetuate private use and “defeat the 

long-range purposes” of the park.62 Life tenancies, as explained by Scoyen, “automatically 

expire[d]” upon the death of the last tenant of record at the time the NPS acquired the 

property. Such rights did not pass onto heirs or other assigned citizens. If Beatteay meant to 

 

56 Edward G. McGrath, “Lincoln Applauds US Park Plan,” Boston Globe (10 January 1959). 57 Minutes, Advisory Board, 20-22 April 1959, 14, NRHE Files. 58 Walter Beatteay to Senator Leverett Saltonstall, 22 April 1959, plus petition, L58 1959-1960, Box 4, 

RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 59 Walter Beatteay to Senator Leverett Saltonstall, 26 June 1959, 1, File L58 1959-1960, Box 4, RG 79 

MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

60 E. T. Scoyen to Senator Leverett Saltonstall, 28 May 1959, 1, File L58 1959-1960, Box 4, RG 79 

MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

61 Ibid., 2. 

62 Ibid. 
Making a Park 

 

82 

keep his property and pass it to his heirs, Scoyen remarked that NPS hoped to eventually 

acquire all private property within the authorized park.63 

In practice, early land acquisition efforts occurred smoothly. Among the first historic 

areas obtained, the NPS gained title to 17 acres of the Fiske Farm on Fiske Hill and the Jacob 

Whittemore House (also known as the Muzzey House), both in Lexington. The Whittemore 

House was once home to a father and son who stood up to the British on Lexington Green in 

the early morning of 19 April 1775.64 A November 1962 Boston Globe article explained how 

owners of modern houses faired during land acquisition. At least two families had positive 

experiences with the NPS. Both families had relatively new homes on Virginia Road near the 

Bloody Angle. Once they had sold their homes to the NPS, they exercised the option to rent 

the houses until builders finished their new ones. Mrs. Daniel Spaeth remarked that, “It is 

working out very well for us. If there is any delay [in getting our new house built], we know 

we needn’t worry about being put out of this house.”65 Mrs. Walter Salmon admitted that she 

and her husband felt they had been compensated insufficiently for their home’s custom 

features when selling to the government. However, she did note that they did not have to pay 

a real estate broker’s fee. They were also waiting for builders to complete a new house in 

South Lincoln.66

Some grumblings and concerns surfaced about land acquisition. The November 1962 

Boston Globe article vaguely described some of this discontent. As reported, the NPS policy 

did not encourage the acquisition of private property by eminent domain. The article also 

noted that some property owners “have responded to the idea of a national park 

commemorating the first fight for freedom with more fire than the Revolutionary muskets 

displayed.” According to the article, “dollars, sentiment or both may be at stake” for these 

park opponents.67

By September 1965, with a new superintendent at the park, the NPS could identify 

only a few times in which the agency had resorted to eminent domain. Benjamin Zerbey, who 

replaced Edwin Small that year, clarified that the park’s policy on condemnation had not 

changed. The NPS would not take properties unless the owners misused them or the park 

needed a particular property for development. As of that date, Zerbey reported that the NPS 

had used condemnation procedures in only a few cases to clear title and, in one case, to 

prevent a commercial development along the Battle Road.68

Such possible commercial or residential developments were a constant worry for the 

NPS during the early land acquisition period. Lincoln had two proposals for building filling 

 

63 Scoyen to Saltonstall, 27 July 1959, 2, File L58 1959-1960, Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. 

64 No author, Brief Description of Minute Man National Historical Park, 1 January 1962, 3, File MIMA 

Legislation, NRHE Files. Russell V. Keune, The Jacob Whittemore House, Historic Structures Report, 

Part I (January 1963), 1, File Jacob Whittemore House, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 65 Virginia Bright, “Speed Now Would Defeat Minute Man Park,” Boston Globe (25 November 1962). 66 Ibid. 

67 Ibid. 

68 “Progress Report on Park Given by Superintendent,” Fence Viewer (30 September 1965). 
Making a Park 

 

83 

stations on land identified for MIMA. One of these proposals involved the Sun Oil 

Company’s plans to build a station on the vacant lot associated with the Geophysics 

Corporation property. Park officials also received notice that the Hinds family, which had a 

turkey farm on a sizeable 22-acre lot in Lexington, had offers to subdivide their property, 

presumably for housing.69 Working quickly, the NPS acquired the turkey farm and 

Geophysics Corporation lot by 1965. The turkey farm acquisition helped complete the Fiske 

Hill site. The Geophysics Corporation building would serve as the park’s temporary 

headquarters and visitor services. Addressing these possible development intrusions so 

quickly helped abate further intrusions. However, the park’s ability to act so quickly was 

contingent on the availability of sufficient funds. Even as early as 1962 Superintendent Small 

cautioned the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission that, “rising real 

estate costs were increasingly becoming a deterrent to any expansion of the original concept 

for the park.”70 

Assistance appeared from time to time. The Town of Concord acquired parcels south 

of Lowell Road near the North Bridge and turned them over to the Concord Land Trust, a 

nonprofit agency created by the town. Small believed that this land could be “more properly 

managed as part of the wetlands program than of the Park” and hoped other land might also 

receive such attention by the agency.71

The NPS realty officers handled the land acquisition negotiations. Park 

superintendents provided guidance about property priorities, but Small (and later 

superintendents) had no role in the acquisition process. Property owners often contacted 

park superintendents to voice their concerns or ask questions, and superintendents passed 

the information to the appropriate officials.72 At the start, Robert Foster served as the park’s 

realty officer and Miles Denno was the land acquisition project manager. However, property 

owners soon shared their displeasure with the Minute Man National Historical Park 

Advisory Commission and Small. Citizens complained that appraisals by outside appraisers 

and price negotiations had taken a long time to complete. Small recommended putting more 

appraisers on the job.73 To help Lincoln residents better understand the entire process, the 

town’s committee on the park sent a series of letters to affected homeowners to explain land 

acquisition policies and procedures. Keeping citizens informed helped quiet their concerns.74

 

69 Minutes, Second Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 18 January 

1961, 3, File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files; and Lee to Wirth, 1 June 1960, 1, File Town of 

Lincoln Correspondence, Box 3, RG 79 BNHSC, both in NARA Waltham. 70 Minutes, Fifth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 24 May 1962, 

3, File A18 1960-1969, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 71 Minutes, Fifth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 24 May 1962, 

3, File A18 1960-1969, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Memorandum, Small to 

Regional Director, 17 December 1964, 1, File MIMA Correspondence 1986-, NRHE Files. 

72 Benjamin Zerbey, transcription of oral history interview with author, 13 April 2005, 7, MIMA 

Archives. 

73 Minutes, Fourth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 13 

December 1961, 2-3, File A18, Box 1, MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 74 Copies of these letters to homeowner have not been located. It is not known if the NPS reviewed 

these letters before their dispersal, but this Lincoln committee had worked well with the Service 
Making a Park 

 

84 

More concerns surfaced in spring 1963 when Walter E. Bryant (known as Ed Bryant) 

joined Denno to work as the park’s new realty specialist. Minute Man National Historical 

Park Advisory Commission member Katharine White questioned whether having Bryant on 

the job meant a hastening of the land acquisition procedure. She suggested that property 

owners had understood the NPS policy “to permit them to choose the time” when they 

would sell to the government “rather than to be pursued and persuaded.” Regional Director 

Ronald Lee responded to this concern, stating that the NPS policy had not changed. 

Recourse to eminent domain would continue “to be used sparingly, but it was inevitable that 

property owners should feel they are being pushed.” Lee indicated that “Congress expects 

progress to be made that does not always coincide with the local situation.”75 This exchange 

between White and the NPS hints to a shift in thinking in Lincoln, at least. Whereas White 

and others in the town had first urged the NPS to proceed rapidly in establishing the park 

and acquiring lands, Lincoln residents now wanted a slower approach. Perhaps the reality of 

having to leave established homes had set in. However, later Minute Man National Historical 

Park Advisory Commission minutes show that many would view Bryant as an asset to the 

acquisition process, and he received a commendation for his “very competent and amicable 

manner.”76

For property owner Betty Levin, the process of acquiring her home and sheep farm 

for the park was heartbreaking. Betty and Alvin Levin had purchased land at the LexingtonLincoln border along Route 2A in the early 1950s for a house and farm. Alvin, a lawyer, built 

what would become a four-bedroom, two-bath house, using 10-inch steel beams that were 

surplus property at the Boston Naval Shipyard. In 1955 as he finished the house, he and his 

wife contracted polio. The disease left Alvin with no use of his legs or shoulders and only 

partial use of his hands and forearms. In 1957 they hired builders to add a bedroombathroom-office complex to the house to provide him with the space and safety features he 

needed to live at home.77

With news that a national historical park would most likely encompass their land, the 

Levins began corresponding with NPS representatives. They learned that the proposed park 

would take at least part of their land and that Hanscom AFB access road would most likely 

run through their house to the relocated Route 2A. Wanting to remain in their home, they 

emphasized the rural character of the property noting that it “is pretty nearly in the same 

condition it must have been in...1775.” Sheep grazed in the fields around their house, and 

many large trees covered the backland. “The old stone walls still exist,” the Levins wrote, 

 previously and Small knew of these letters, as reported in the advisory commission meeting. See 

Minutes, Fifth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 24 May 1962, 3. 75 Minutes, Seventh Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 27 May 

1963, 2, 4. Quotes on p. 4. 

76 Minutes, Twelfth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 4 

December 1965, 2, File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 77 Alvin Levin to Thomas Anderson, 5 September 1963, File Alvin Levin, MIMA Lands Files. Betty 

Levin, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 26 April 2005, 10, MIMA Archives. 
Making a Park 

 

85 

“and run back for a good distance from the road.”78 They argued that their land had much of 

the rural character the park would ultimately embrace in its “commemorization and 

symbolization of the area at the time of the Revolution.”79 They inquired, why not adjust the 

proposed boundary and include their land but allow them to stay and keep farming? As a 

good faith token, they offered a portion of their backland for inclusion in the park.80

An appraisal and negotiations began in 1963 for the Levin property. The government 

offered $40,000 for the house and property, but the Levins argued that, by taking proper 

account of the addition with its special features for Alvin’s use, a more proper price would be 

$58,000. Land acquisition project manager Myles Denno noted that appraisers had 

accounted for these special features and offered to go as high as $45,000, but the Levins 

would only reduce their price to $57,200.81 Negotiations stalled at this point, with some bad 

feelings on the part of the Levins. In one exasperated letter to the NPS, the Levins write of 

their “resentment at being compelled to leave” their home, despite attempts to continue 

occupancy within the park.82

In the end, the NPS gave the Levins two years to relocate due to the difficulty of 

finding appropriate housing.83 Betty Levin recalls that they, along with many of their 

neighbors, were scared into selling. “We were threatened with eminent domain,” she stated 

later, “as everybody else was, something they had sworn they would never do.”84 Reassuring 

articles in the local newspapers had asserted the friendly basis for NPS land acquisition 

efforts. Lincoln selectman Charles Fitts had reported this continued good feeling based on 

his conversations with NPS Director Conrad Wirth. According to Fitts, Wirth affirmed that 

except in emergencies when historic buildings might be affected, “the process of eminent 

domain will not be used by the NPS to acquire residential property in the Park.” In addition, 

Fitts repeated what Wirth told him: “There will be no pressure to buy from an unwilling 

seller.” For commercial properties within the park, condemnation would be used only if 

negotiation failed.85

The article in which Fitts reported his conversation with Wirth also notes some 

disgruntlement. “Park residents are asking for a definition of the term ‘opportunity to 

negotiate.’” They found it difficult to discuss counteroffers.86 Levin agreed, later saying that 

 

78 Alvin and Betty Levin to Conrad Wirth, 8 February 1959, 1, File L58 1959-1960, Box 4, RG 79 MIMA 

Subject Files, NARA Waltham. See also Levin interview, 4. 79 Levins to Wirth, 8 February 1959, 2. 80 Ibid., 3. Alvin Levin to Benjamin Thompson, 20 March 1959, 2, File L58 1959-1960, Box 4, RG 79 

MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

81 Alvin Levin to Myles Denno, 3 May 1963, 1; Negotiator’s Report, 2 May 1963; Alvin Levin to Thomas 

Anderson, 11 July 1963; Thomas Anderson to Alvin Levin, 15 August 1963; Memorandum, Allan 

Edmonds to Small, 11 September 1963; Andrew Feil to Alvin and Betty Levin, 14 October 1963, all in 

File Alvin Levin, MIMA Lands Files. 

82 Alvin Levin to Thomas Anderson, 5 September 1963, 1, File Alvin Levin, MIMA Lands Files. 83In January 1964, correspondence makes clear that the Levins had accepted a price from the 

government. See Alvin Levin to Denno, 31 January 1964, File Alvin Levin, MIMA Lands Files. 84 Levin, transcript of interview, 4. 

85 “Park Policy Unchanged, NPS Head Tells Lincoln,” Fence Viewer (1 March 1962). 86 Ibid. 
Making a Park 

 

86 

their attempt at negotiations “wasn’t even like a dialogue...It was as though they were deaf. It 

was completely unresponsive, no, no, no.”87 In addition, Levin remembers the NPS 

implementing a new policy in its land acquisition approach. The NPS could take, by 

condemnation, any private property contiguous with currently owned park property. One 

example involved a woman who had retired in Lincoln and owned the adjacent vacant lot in 

which she gardened. 

According to Levin, the NPS offered to buy the vacant lot, noting that she could 

remain in her house and keep gardening. However, once she sold the property, the NPS 

threatened condemnation if she did not sell her house lot. She sold, only to find out later 

(with the 1970 boundary revisions) that the NPS had excluded this piece of property from 

the authorized park. When she asked to reclaim the property with her house on it, the 

government told her she would have to bid on it at public auction. That story, like all the 

others about land acquisition, laughed Levin, “went around” the neighborhood.88

Neighbors shared their stories and worked out arrangements the best they could. 

Levin later told some of these experiences to illustrate why bad feelings had persisted, 

providing a valuable perspective for NPS managers. Charles Moody and his wife opted for a 

life tenancy, partly because he harbored great resentment against the park. One day, his 

house burned badly while he and his wife were gone. As Levin recalled, Moody always 

believed that someone, maybe even the NPS, had burned the house, but he used this loss as a 

challenge. He would not let the park get the best of him, Levin stated later, and he remained 

on the property “You know what kept him alive?” Levin reflected, “he hated the park.”89

Believing the NPS had taken advantage of them, the neighbors felt more distrust and 

hatred toward the agency. Levin described the section of Lincoln north of Route 2 and south 

of Route 2A as its own entity apart from the more upscale section of Lincoln south of Route 

2. Many of Levin’s neighbors were old-time residents, going generations back and land poor, 

or were Italian immigrants or descendants from Italian immigrants. Not highly educated or 

sophisticated, Levin believes that some of them lost significant amounts of money without 

fully realizing the true value of their land. Some of their children greatly resented the NPS for 

its treatment of their parents.90 Levin believed the land acquisition officers “were absolutely 

ruthless and they had no conscience...It’s like the worst kind of land grabbing...”91

Levin remembers the whole affair with some sadness. After her family had moved, 

she and one of her children stopped by the former house one day and saw workmen 

dismantling its interior. The workers invited them to take anything they wanted, because it 

would be discarded otherwise. “They felt so badly for us,” Levin recalled. “We must have 

been standing there looking aghast at what happened...We were just looking at the 

devastation of our house and our handmade cabinets and the living room.” The house had 

 

87 Levin, transcript of interview, 11. 

88 Ibid., 7-8. Quote on p. 8. 

89 Ibid., 6. 

90 Ibid., 8-9, 11. 

91 Ibid., 9. 
Making a Park 

 

87 

been her husband’s “great achievement.” 92 Because of its steel beams, the workers had to 

dynamite it. “My husband’s last great physical creative act was that house,” Levin stated, 

“and they blew it up, and they didn’t pay us very adequately, and the negotiation was 

unpleasant, and all these people [neighbors] kept coming to the house and weeping. You 

know, what can I say?”93

CONCORD AGREEMENT

With lands being brought into the park, planning for interpretive and visitor services 

began. For the most important historic land associated with MIMA—where the North Bridge 

and monuments stood—the NPS needed to establish a formal relationship with its owner, 

the Town of Concord. Cooperative agreements, provided for under the Historic Sites Act of 

1935 and recommended by the BNHSC for application in select situations at MIMA, offered 

the means to this end. During park establishment, no specific correspondence or meeting 

minutes indicated the prevailing attitude of Concordians toward such an agreement with the 

NPS. Lexington representatives made clear that they did not want to have a formal 

agreement with the NPS, arguing that their historic district laws protected the Lexington 

Green suitably. The fact that recommended park boundaries never included the Lexington 

Green but always enveloped the North Bridge area suggests a difference in attitude between 

the towns.94

Donald Nickerson, Lexington’s representative on the Minute Man National 

Historical Park Advisory Commission, reiterated the town’s refusal to consider an agreement 

in the early 1960s.95 Although Concordians may have accepted the idea of their land around 

the bridge being included in the park, but they never expected to sell or donate the 

historically rich land to the federal government. John Finigan, chairman of the Concord 

Selectmen when the cooperative agreement was signed in 1963, later explained. “The town 

does recognize,” Finigan remarked, “that it is, in fact, a trustee of a very important piece of 

real estate that signifies the birth of the country of the United States, and that this was the 

place where we stood up against the tyrannical ruling of the English government.”96 To 

Finigan, being Concordian meant accepting “the responsibility of what a Concordian is,” as 

a good citizen of both the United States and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and also 

as a “good person with a great love and respect for the history of probably the finest little 

town in the United States.”97

 

92 Ibid., 10. 

93 Ibid., 12. 

94 Interim Report, 30-34. Review of Town of Concord annual reports for 1956-1960 reveals discussion 

of the park but no concerns aired about a potential cooperative agreement. See Chapter 1, last section 

on Lexington’s view toward a cooperative agreement. 95 Minutes, Sixth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 1 December 

1962, 4, File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 96 John Finigan, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 20 January 2005, 5, MIMA 

Archives. 

97 Ibid., 11. 
Making a Park 

 

88 

Superintendent Small encountered this deep sense of responsibility when he began 

discussions with Concord representatives. He first approached the town manager, who 

informed him that to negotiate such an agreement, the Board of Selectmen would have to 

obtain authorization through a vote at the town’s annual meeting. The board echoed the 

town manager’s sentiment when Small and Edward Chase (Concord representative on the 

Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission) appeared on 4 December 1961. 

Small and Chase found the board “anxious to assist and cooperate as much as possible,” but 

the democratic practices of the town dictated that the Selectmen exercise power only 

specifically voted or delegated to them.98 Walter led the small yet vocal opposition to having 

the park within the town. Acknowledging this opposition, the Selectmen also knew it would 

be “foolhardy” to present a proposed agreement at the next town meeting in March 1962. If 

citizens of the town felt they had not discussed a matter sufficiently beforehand, they would 

likely vote to eradicate the measure or postpone it. Instead, the Selectmen recommended that 

the town and the NPS “precisely” work out the terms of the agreement and have a public 

airing before the 1963 annual meeting.99

Aside from taking responsibility for ensuring success of the proposed agreement, the 

Selectmen also took great care in determining the actual substance of the proposal. Small 

wrote about the December meeting, noting that the matter of the agreement “is not being 

dismissed as an ordinary routine procedure.” He noted that the town proposed to transfer 

maintenance responsibilities to the NPS. Even so, the idea of NPS saving money and saving 

personnel for the town do “not appear to be important incentives for effecting an 

agreement.”100 Both the Selectmen and Chase were instead concerned about “what is 

primarily and in the long run best for the town.” Small cautioned the regional director, 

stating that the NPS would have to “walk a diplomatic tightrope” until an agreement 

materialized. Small also urgently suggested that “no ideas about changes and improvements 

at the North Bridge should be breathed by officials of the National Park Service.”101

To start the process, the Board of Selectmen requested that Chase and Selectman 

Herbert Wilkins draft an agreement for review. Small provided a copy of the cooperative 

agreement between the City of Philadelphia and Independence NHP as a template. He also 

warned that the Concord agreement could not place any serious restrictions on the scope of 

the authority and functions of the NPS.102 Chase completed the first draft of a proposed 

agreement within a week of the meeting and submitted it to Small for review. The only 

section of the draft that concerned Small included emphasis on the town’s long history of 

tending to the North Bridge area. He recognized that the town did not want the NPS to 

 

98 Minutes, Board of Selectmen, Town of Concord, 4 December 1961, Concord Library. 

Memorandum, Small to Lee, 6 December 1961, 1, File A44, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files; and 

Memorandum, Small to Wirth, 28 July 1961, 5, File MIMA Project Correspondence, Box 2, RG 79 

BNHSC, both in NARA Waltham. 

99 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 6 December 1961, 2. 

100 Ibid. 101 Ibid., 3. 102 Ibid., 2. 
Making a Park 

 

89 

“monopolize credit for the area to the exclusion of the town.” Small cautioned Regional 

Director Lee that the Selectmen might add a phrase to Chase’s draft to make the agreement 

subject to annual review or revocation.103 With one slight revision, various offices within the 

NPS read the draft agreement and considered it satisfactory. The NPS officials also indicated 

that the agreement could include a review or revocation clause if the town did not require the 

NPS to build a museum or other “fixed financial investment” on the site. Interpretive 

exhibits and signs did not constitute such a permanent improvement.104

With the internal review completed, the NPS sent a slightly revised draft of the 

agreement to the Board of Selectmen. By late August, the Selectmen had read the revised 

draft and recommended four changes. By now, David Little had replaced Edward Chase as 

Concord representative on the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission 

and would serve as liaison between the Selectmen and the NPS. On 5 November 1962, Small 

and Little met with the town’s Selectmen to discuss the agreement.105 The Selectmen agreed 

to drop their first request of having an explicit statement of town jurisdiction over the path 

from Monument Street to the monument and the area immediately around the monument. 

They canceled this request because Article III (e) already specified that nothing would 

deprive the state or town of its jurisdiction over the structures, objects, and grounds.106 Their 

second concern involved the use of the North Bridge area for celebrations and observances. 

The town wanted to continue holding its annual festivities, and wanted some influence over 

other “substantial” observances. “One battle per bridge is enough,” Wilkins wrote to Little 

when he first submitted the Selectmen’s recommendations.107 Small later learned that town 

officials wanted the ability to reject requests for exercises at the North Bridge that they 

viewed “would not be appropriate.” Town leaders had previously not approved such 

proposals.108 The Selectmen agreed to Small’s suggested clause, requiring the NPS “to 

consult the Selectmen in advance with regard to all observances and celebrations in which 

use of the area and its facilities is contemplated.”109 The third request involved having the 

town manager and each Selectman sign the final agreement. Everyone agreed that only the 

town manager needed to sign the document to make it binding for the town, but the 

Selectmen felt that for a “document of such significance for the town,” all members of the 

board should sign the agreement.110

 

103 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 5 January 1962, 1, File A44, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. 

104 Memorandum, Jackson Price to Lee, 12 March 1962, 1, File MIMA Correspondence 1960-1964, 

NRHE Files. Memorandum, Small to Chase, 1, File A44, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. 

105 Minutes, Board of Selectmen, Town of Concord, 5 November 1962, Concord Library. 106 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 7 November 1962, 1-2, File A44, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, 

NARA Waltham. For a copy of the letter from the Selectmen to Little, see Herbert Wilkins to David 

Little, 27 August 1962, attached to memorandum, Small to Lee, 23 October 1962, File A44, Box 1, RG 

79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 107 Wilkins to Little, 27 August 1962, 2. 108 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 7 November 1962, 2. 109 Ibid. 110 Ibid. 
Making a Park 

 

90 

The fourth suggestion involved some kind of revocation clause, as Small had 

predicted. The Selectmen argued that after reviewing the agreement, the town’s citizens 

would want to have as much ability to terminate the agreement as the United States 

Congress, as provided in Article III(h) of the draft. Small emphasized that such a clause 

would forestall any capital improvements authorized by Congress at the site. At this point, 

the conversation seemed to turn toward the existing visitor comfort station at the North 

Bridge area, and the Selectmen agreed that the town “could well afford” to address the 

plumbing situation if complaints continued. The proposed revocation clause, added to the 

end of Article III(h), stated that the agreement would continue “until the Town at an annual 

or special town meeting, held after January 1, 1968, shall vote to terminate this agreement.” 

Small summarized this addition in his memorandum to Lee, clarifying that the “Park Service 

will be on trial before the Town of Concord during the next five years.” After the trial period, 

Small hoped that a revision of the agreement would make it more permanent.111

The NPS officials essentially accepted the town’s proposed changes. Frank Rhuland, 

from the agency’s Officer of the Solicitor, provided the most substantive additions. He 

recommended changing Small’s proposed wording about celebrations at the bridge in Article 

II(d) to read, “That he [the NPS director] will encourage and cooperate with the Town, civic 

groups and patriotic societies in the annual observance of Patriot’s Day and other 

celebrations in which the area and its facilities may be appropriately used and which have the 

approval of the Selectman.” For Article III(h), Rhuland suggested giving a “cooling-off” time 

to the town before revocation actually took place.112 Jackson Price, the agency’s assistant 

director of Conservation, Interpretation, and Use, also pointed out that the director of the 

NPS had authority to sign most cooperative agreements. Price requested that the director, 

replace the Secretary of the Interior as the party listed for the agreement. Price also revised 

Article III(h) to provide the NPS with the same termination ability as the town: “or until 

terminated by the Director, National Park Service, who shall give six months’ notice to the 

Town of such limitation.”113

With these changes in place, the revised cooperative agreement went before the 

Town of Concord. The author has not found references to a public hearing about the 

agreement, as recommended by the Board of Selectmen, but the town did vote unanimously 

at its March 1963 annual meeting to authorize the town manager and Selectmen to enter into 

negotiations with the NPS to obtain such an agreement. On 6 June 1963 Director Wirth 

joined Concord’s selected representatives to sign the cooperative agreement (see Appendix 

for a copy of the agreement).114 

 

111 Ibid., 3. 112 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 9 November 1962, 1-2, File A44, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, 

NARA Waltham. Quote on p. 1. 

113 Memorandum, Jackson Price to Lee, 4 December 1962, 1-2, File MIMA Correspondence, 1960-

1964, NRHE Files. Quote on p. 2. See also Memorandum, George Palmer to Wirth, 21 November 1962, 

1, File A44, Box 1; and Minutes, Seventh Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory 

Commission, 27 May 1963, 4, File A18, Box 1, both in RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 114 Article 34, Concord Annual Town Meeting, 4 and 11 March 1963; Memorandum, Small to Lee, 12 
Making a Park 

 

91 

Finigan examined the relationship between the NPS and the town, and remarked that 

his fellow townspeople felt that by signing the cooperative agreement, “they had fulfilled to 

some degree their obligation as guardians to join with the country in protecting the property 

that related to the events of 19th of April in 1775.” Finigan also believed that with this 

agreement in place, “There has not been any animosity that I can recall or friction between 

the national park and the governing authority of the town.” He credited the “general attitude 

of the national park,” and the town for these good relations. The NPS had a “strong feeling 

for how the townspeople felt and how close they felt their responsibility was, as well as the 

country’s responsibility to keep up and maintain this national heritage.” Over the years, 

Finigan saw that the park’s personnel “came in low key and performed well and cooperated 

well and jointly ruled to the best interests of all, the whole area.” Finigan believed that the 

acceptance of joint responsibility created the productive relationship between Concord and 

the federal government.115

HOUSES

So far, the focus of this chapter has been about how Small (and later Zerbey) 

addressed external issues. These superintendents attended regular meetings with a host of 

officials and representatives to develop avenues for achieving park requirements from 

relocating Route 2A to obtaining a cooperative agreement for the North Bridge area. They 

kept the members of the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission 

informed while considering the board members’ concerns. NPS regional office personnel 

routinely received progress reports and offered guidance. During Small’s time as 

superintendent, he remained in Boston and made trips as needed to the park. He had 

completed his work with the BNHSC in July 1960, but he remained the principal professional 

representative of the NPS in New England throughout his career. His presence in Boston 

enabled him to interact easily with other preservation-minded individuals and keep MIMA 

and other parks within the public eye.116

What happened inside the park on a regular basis during the early years? Who served 

as some key staff members? What did they do, and how did their work shape the park? 

Information in the staff’s architectural, archeological, and historical research efforts can help 

answer these questions. Land acquisition brought some historic structures under federal 

control, and park officials had the opportunity to work with these structures and understand 

the stories interpreters would tell visitors. These properties also posed some challenges 

regarding their preservation and use. Master planning benefited from this research, leading 

to substantial decisions for the future of these structures and the park. 

 March 1963; Memorandum, Assistant Regional Director to Small, 9 May 1963, all in File A44, Box 1, 

RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. See also Cooperative Agreement, NPS and Town of 

Concord, 6 June 1963, MIMA Archives (and reproduced in the Appendix). 115 Finigan, transcript of interview, 5. 116 Justification for Meritorious Service Award, Edwin A. Small, 1, File Edwin A. Small, NPS History 

Collection, HFC. 
Making a Park 

 

92 

Staffing at MIMA remained limited in its early years. Park Historian Robert 

Ronsheim led the historical research effort and trained seasonal employees (hired for the 

busy summer season) for interpretive positions. Between April 1962 and August 1963, NPS 

Architect Russell Keune completed architectural data section reports for the historic houses 

and structures controlled by the park. In 1963, contract Archeologist Vincent Foley 

conducted initial investigations at Fiske Hill and other discrete sites in the LexingtonLincoln area. NPS Archeologist Leland Abel followed Foley, and completed the bulk of the 

park’s early archeological work. By 1964 Maurice Kowal worked as park horticulturalist and 

chief of the maintenance division with assistance from Joseph Guerra. After the Jacob 

Whittemore House was acquired, one of its wings became the initial park headquarters. The 

remainder of the building became quarters for Ronsheim and his family. Park headquarters, 

with space for exhibits and information about area historic sites, moved to the former 

Geophysics Laboratory.117

Despite the restricted staff, MIMA could point to some early research and 

interpretation accomplishments. During the summers of 1961 and 1962 architectural 

students completed measured drawings for the Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) of 

seven historic buildings controlled by the park. They also completed drawings for seven 

other notable buildings in the area, including The Wayside. A University of Florida professor 

supervised the students over the first summer, and Keune led their efforts in 1962. The park 

displayed the drawings and associated photographs, constituting the first exhibitions at 

MIMA. To aid study and interpretive efforts, the park had a topographical model created of 

its Lexington portion. Interpretation proved slower than research. Not having a cooperative 

agreement for the North Bridge area until 1963 NPS interpretive efforts were restricted. 

Once officials signed the agreement, the NPS began posting seasonal employees at the bridge 

to answer visitors’ questions. In the summer of 1965 park interpreters began conducting 10-

minute talks every half hour at the bridge.118

The need for more details about the events of 19 April 1775 drove additional research 

efforts. Ronsheim convinced Northeastern University to have select students engage in 

 

117 Ronald Lee to Ernest Outhert, 17 March 1961, File L58 (2 of 2), Box 4, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files,; 

and Memorandum, 28 July 1961, Small to Wirth, 3, File MIMA Project Correspondence, Box 2, RG 79 

BNHSC, both in NARA Waltham. Rogers Young, Minute Man National Historical Park, 10 May 1961, 

File MIMA Legislation, NRHE Files. Vincent Foley, Initial Archaeological Investigations at Minute Man 

National Historical Park, ca. 1964, ii, 1, MIMA Museum Collection. Leland Abel, Archeological 

Excavations at the Site of the Josiah Nelson House in Lincoln, Massachusetts, January 1966, 8, File Josiah 

Nelson House, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 1964 Statement of Accomplishments, 3, File L34 

Recreation Activities 70/72, MIMA Park Admin Files. Russell Keune, Jacob Whittemore House, Historic 

Structures Report, Part I, January 1963, I, File Jacob Whittemore House, NPS Reports Files, MIMA 

Library. “Exhibits at Minute Man are Open to Public,” Fence Viewer, 30 September 1965. 118 Keune, Summary Report, Architectural Research, 1-2. Minutes, Third Meeting, Minute Man 

National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 26 June 1961, 3. Minutes, Fifth Meeting, Minute Man 

National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 24 May 1962, 4. 1964 Statement of Accomplishments, 

1. Minutes, Twelfth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 4 

December 1965, 3, File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. “Acton Historical 

Society Hears National Park Head,” Lowell Sun, 23 November 1965. 
Making a Park 

 

93 

internships at the park. Under Ronsheim’s guidance, the interns conducted research and 

contributed to reports. This research involved reviewing tedious deeds and probate records 

in an attempt to uncover who owned each piece of land in 1775 and how the land was used. 

Boundary divisions often remained fuzzy as people moved, destroyed, abandoned, or built 

houses. This important work served as the basis of historical research reports, interpretive 

planning efforts, and architectural studies.119 Orville Carroll, who began working as the 

park’s historical architect in 1966, later remarked that he had used Ronsheim’s “voluminous 

file system” of research for much of his work.120

Ronsheim did have his critics, though. Carroll remembers one NPS official’s criticism 

about the amount of time Ronsheim took to accumulate the research files without 

completing an equally large number of reports.121 Many years later, Ben Zerbey volunteered 

that Ronsheim was “very much research oriented” and that such focus sometimes conflicted 

with Zerbey’s goals of providing services to visitors.122 Part of the problem lay with the lack 

of qualified staff for an extended period of time. In his Statement of Accomplishment for 

1964 and 1965 Small reported that the interpretation division was “severely weakened” by 

the loss of one historian and that the park was “sorely in need” of historians who were 

capable of providing both research and interpretation.123 This situation came through in the 

park’s Master Plan, which declared the MIMA research program “inadequate” for “not 

producing data in time for use in planning and in land acquisition and development 

programs.”124

Ronsheim’s strength and weakness centered on his dedication to research. His 

collection of files served as the basis for all other park research. Like many dedicated 

historians, he always thought he should find more information and investigate more places. 

In his Historic Grounds Report for the Ebenezer Fiske Farm, he wrote that researchers 

needed to do more work on “some of the finer, but rather important points” raised in his 

study, even doing “extensive research on land outside the park boundary.” He also admitted 

in the report that he had “relatively [full] information” for the farm prior to 1800.125

However, there were looming questions that he could not let sit, as planning depended upon 

accurate research. Of the Jacob Whittemore House, Ronsheim declared that “Planning can 

only be done when the facts are in; otherwise it is guesswork.”126 While developing 

 

119 1964 Statement of Accomplishments, 1. Minutes, Eighth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical 

Park Advisory Commission, 14 December 1963, 3. Orville Carroll, transcription of oral history 

interview with the author, 22 October 2004, 5, MIMA Archives. 

120 Carroll, transcript of interview, 5. Carroll did not serve under Minute Man’s superintendent. 

Instead, he worked first out of the Denver Service Center, then the NPS Regional Office, and finally 

through the Boston Group, based at Minute Man. 

121 Ibid. 122 Zerbey, transcript of interview, 5. 123 1964 Statement of Accomplishment, 1; 1965 Statement of Accomplishment, 1. 124 Final Approved Master Plan, MIMA [1966 Master Plan], MIMA Archives. 125 Robert Ronsheim, Ebenezer Fiske Farm and Benjamin Fiske 25 Acres, Historic Grounds Report, 

September 1965, Preface, File Ebenezer Fiske Site, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 126 Robert Ronsheim, Jacob Whittemore House, Historic Structures Report, Part I (March 1963), 7, File 

Jacob Whittemore House, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 
Making a Park 

 

94 

recommendations for use of the Whittemore House, he displayed his allegiance to research 

as a planning aid. “We do not know enough about the story,” he wrote, “in relation to the 

park; we do not know enough about overall development plans; we do not know enough 

about the other houses in the park and we do not know enough about visitor habits and 

needs to make an intelligent decision as to the use of the house.”127 

Historical research within the NPS changed significantly at the same time Ronsheim 

was vexed about having all the sources he needed to understand the people and structures 

associated with the events at MIMA. NPS Director George Hartzog (who assumed that 

position in January 1964) used reorganizations to help the agency progress in its management 

of resources and public dealings. Historical research offered support in one area in need of 

assistance. As remembered by chief historian Robert Utley, Hartzog questioned the status of 

the agency’s historical research program, and Utley confessed that the NPS did not have such 

a program. 

Individual park historians conducted such research as they had the time and need. Of 

course, no one from Washington supervised this work, and it was not automatically shared 

with administrators from other parks. To remedy these failings, Hartzog tasked Utley to 

design a program based in the Washington office. Utley’s creation, which initially 

encompassed both park history and the Historic Sites Survey work, continues in basic form 

today. Hartzog also centralized scientific research, having professional biologists report to a 

newly established chief scientist’s office. With the establishment of the Harpers Ferry Center 

in 1970, he consolidated the creation of exhibits and audiovisual programming.128 

Historical research and MIMA intersect further during this period. According to 

former Bureau Historian Barry Mackintosh (in his history of interpretation in the NPS), 

Hartzog made an unannounced visit to the park in 1965 and found a historian, probably 

Ronsheim, conducting open-ended research. Mackintosh states that in reaction, Hartzog 

pulled this activity from the individual parks. However, it was more than likely that the 

director had already asked Utley to oversee the changes. On the other hand, assistant 

regional director George Palmer wrote of one Hartzog visit to MIMA in June 1965. Palmer 

noted that Hartzog wanted Ronsheim pulled from all interpretive work so he could serve in 

an independent position in charge of park research. Palmer did not differentiate on the type 

of research Hartzog expected Ronsheim to conduct.129

Other professionals also contributed to the research efforts at MIMA. Vincent Foley 

and Leland Abel conducted archeological research at the Josiah Nelson House site, which 

 

127 Ibid., 6. 128 Ellen K. Foppes and Robert M. Utley, “Pioneers of Public History: Present at the Creation: Robert 

M. Utley Recalls the Beginnings of the National Historic Preservation Program,” The Public Historian

24 (Spring 2002): 70, 74-76. 

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

DC: National Park Service, 1986), chapter 5, 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/mackintosh2/interp_in_crisis.htm, accessed 22 

September 2006. Palmer to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 29 June 1965, 2, File D18 CY 1965 

Master Planning, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Making a Park 

 

95 

was originally part of the Minute Man NHS. This work revealed the valuable information 

that could result from archeological digs and the challenges of executing digs in metropolitan 

areas. The original house stood for 150 years until it burnt to the ground in 1908, leaving the 

brick chimney with part of its fireplaces and hearths intact. By 1963 when Foley began his 

work, the chimney had fallen. Only a shallow depression covered with trees and brush 

revealed the location of the remaining foundations. Foley partially cleared the house and 

nearby barn foundations, but did not completely excavate the ruins. 

When Abel began working at the site in the following season, he found some minor 

damage. The exposed bricks had attracted the watchful eyes of neighborhood children, who 

“were quick to recognize the value of the bricks in the construction of forts and playhouses.” 

The children removed an unknown number of bricks. Abel later located several hundred 

stray bricks that might have been from the Nelson site, but they no longer had archeological 

value so he collected them for restorations and repairs. The bricks were from the eighteenth 

century. The NPS repaired and stabilized the existing foundation walls at the site. Abel’s 

archeological work established that the Nelson House had been built in two sections. The 

first section was built in 1755 and the house was completed before 1800. It had been a 

rectangular-framed building with a large central chimney and a southern entrance.130

Between August 1964 and October 1965 Abel conducted digs on the historic Muster 

Field, which was a recently acquired property for the NPS. Abel’s team found three historic 

roads. The British and Patriot forces used two of the roads (on the west side of the Concord 

River), on 19 April 1775. Concordians had already abandoned the third road by 1775. 

According to Abel’s findings, a single causeway, made primarily of sandy clay with gravel, 

extended from the western end of the North Bridge, continued southwestward in a straight 

line for approximately 430 feet, and then curved north to the foot of the hill. The causeway 

then branched, with the Acton Road continuing along the river bank and the Groton Road 

climbing the hill to the north. By mowing and laying gravel, the park revealed the outlines of 

these historic roadways for visitors. During the course of this archeological work, Abel also 

located the pre-Revolutionary foundations of a Buttrick House and well.131

Abel was able to complete this archeological work on the historic roads largely due to 

the October 1963 acquisition of the Stedman Buttrick House and its 34 acres.132 Commenting 

on the acquisition process, Stedman Buttrick Junior recalled, “no price negotiation at all. We 

put forward a price we thought would be fair, and the Park Service, after a little—after some 

deliberation, agreed.”133 The Buttricks and many people living in the immediate area 

 

130 Foley, Initial Archeological Investigations, 26-27. Abel, Josiah Nelson Archeological Excavations, 8-9, 

36-38. Quote on p. 9. 

131 Leland Abel, Archeological Explorations for Traces of the Historic Roads West of the Great North 

Bridge in Concord, 1965, 1, 33, 35-39, File Roads West of North Bridge, NPS Reports Files, MIMA 

Library. Minutes, Twelfth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 4 

December 1965, 3. 

132 Land Ownership Record, Tract Unit B, Stedman Buttrick Estate, 29 October 1963, File Buttrick 

Trustees, Stedman, Tract No. 05-122, Lands Files, MIMA. 133 Stedman Buttrick, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 23 November 2005, 3, 

MIMA Archives. Three people had legal control over the Buttrick Estate at the time of the acquisition, 
Making a Park 

 

96 

welcomed the NPS. They felt a sense of relief that the land would be “protected by 

something that would stay relatively the same,” and not support big developments or 

radically alter the rural openness.134 In some ways, this sale represented a true passing of the 

ways. As Buttrick declared, “only Buttricks and Indians had ever lived on that property. It 

had always been in the family since 1635.”135

This parcel provided wonderful opportunities and challenges for the NPS. It was the 

historic land where Patriots rushed to confront the British at the North Bridge. Through 

agreements with the Buttrick family over the generations following 19 April 1775 the Town 

of Concord had slowly added memorials and other fitting tributes to this landscape. Now 

under federal control, this land could again look like the historic scene and illustrate its story 

of liberty for visitors. Yet this land had experienced changes, most visibly with the 1911 

addition of the stately Classical-Revival Buttrick House on the hilltop overlooking the bridge. 

Its resident owner, Stedman Buttrick Senior, and his gardener, Henry Murray, had poured 

their attention into developing hybrid irises, some given names such as “Concord River” and 

“Concord Town” to reflect their origins. These gardens and prize-winning irises had long 

attracted attention. Once the NPS took control, much debate ensued about the future for the 

gardens and the large residence. Small hired one of the Buttrick’s former employees to serve 

as caretaker of the grounds.136

Discussions about whether to keep the residence and gardens brought forward 

strong opinions. David Little and James DeNormandie, local residents and members of the 

Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, declared their support for 

demolition. Little stated early on that “persons of judgment in the town [Concord] did not 

regard the brick house as an important specimen of architecture” and that people would not 

miss it.137 Both men pointed to Bunker Hill, its view ruined by the surrounding tenements. 

The Buttrick family, on the other hand, had (over the generations) largely kept intact “one of 

the choicest and most representative [areas] of New England.” By removing these twentiethcentury intrusions, the NPS could treat and preserve the historic scene.138 Local historian 

Ruth Wheeler agreed. She wrote, “All the local people who have a sense of history agree” that 

the Buttrick House and gardens were “completely unsuitable within the battlefield area.”139

The strongest declaration for demolition came from J. O. Brew, director of Harvard 

University’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology. Brew, a friend of NPS 

 Stedman Buttrick, his father of the same name, and a partner of Buttrick senior, William Kimball. See 

Buttrick, transcript of interview, 2. 

134 Ibid., 1. 135 Ibid., 3. 136 1964 Statement of Accomplishments, 1. Elizabeth Gardner, “Minuteman National Park Threat to 

Famed Garden,” Boston Globe, 23 August 1964. 137 Minutes, Seventh Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 27 May 

1963, 4. 

138 Minutes, Fourteenth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 9 

November 1966, 6. 

139 Ruth Wheeler to George Hartzog, 27 May 1965, File H30, Buttrick Mansion, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 
Making a Park 

 

97 

Director George Hartzog, wrote, “It is a shame that you did not pull that building down as 

soon as you got hold of it.” He continued, nothing that its commanding position on the hill 

overlooking the bridge “will be a constant hindrance to an interpretation of the historical 

meaning of the site.” Brew minced no words about the garden. “The formal garden is even 

worse. I can’t think of anything less appropriate.” He wrote that he knew “enough about 

gardens in Eastern Massachusetts to say to you emphatically that this one is not worth 

keeping at the expense of ruining our interpretive program” at such an important historic 

site. The garden was a “miserable piece of nonsense” that threatened desires to develop the 

site.140

Many other people offered heartfelt reasons for saving the residence and gardens. 

Bedford resident Stephen Lord wrote that it would be a “senseless tragedy” to destroy this 

“Concord landmark.” The estate had been a “symbol of Concord’s glorious past and 

promising future.” Lord argued, “that house is Concord and everything that Concord stands 

for.”141 Shirley Barnes of Wayland, Massachusetts, echoed Lord’s sentiment. She believed it 

would be an “utter crime” to bulldoze the gardens and residence. People could use “a little

imagination as to how it was in 1775,” or all of Concord would have to be redone, “which is 

ridiculous.” Barnes reminded the NPS that Concord was a “living, breathing community.” By 

keeping the gardens, people would have a “quiet, lovely place to go near at hand.”142

Stedman Buttrick Jr. recalled that neither his father nor his mother liked the 

residence. “The house itself was solid, but lacking in any...architectural imagination.” The 

Buttricks were sentimental about the land, given its historical roots to their family. Buttrick 

Jr. recognized his father’s attention to the gardens, yet, they all knew the NPS could not 

maintain them to the same degree. “We knew they’d have to be cut back,” Buttrick Jr. said. 

Having the vistas opened around the house and across the river concerned his father more 

than the gardens.143 “Back in my grandfather’s day,” the younger Buttrick recalled, “you 

could look down the river and just see open land for a long time.”144

The disposition of the Buttrick estate created mixed feelings among NPS personnel. 

Benjamin Zerbey remembers that Small advocated strongly to remove the residence and 

return the hillside to its 1775 appearance.145 Small revealed his opinion when describing his 

phone conversations with concerned garden-club members. When speaking with callers, he 

stressed that congressional mandate required MIMA development to focus on the events of 

19 April 1775 and “that mandate cannot be subverted” for retention of a twentieth-century 

 

140 J. O. Brew to George Hartzog, 22 July 1965, 1, File H30 Buttrick Mansion, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 141 Stephen Lord to the President, no date, attached to A. Clark Stratton to Stephen Lord, 13 August 

1964, File MIMA Correspondence 1960-1964, NRHE Files. 142 Shirley Barnes to Stewart Udall, 23 August 1964, File MIMA Correspondence 1960-1964, NRHE 

Files. 

143 Buttrick, transcript of interview, 3. 144 Ibid., 6. 145 Benjamin Zerbey, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 13 April 2005, 8, MIMA 

Archives. 
Making a Park 

 

98 

horticultural display. “Taken by itself,” Small reminded his callers, “the horticultural display 

would never have received any mandate from Congress.”146

In 1963, Regional Director Ronald Lee wrote that the basic act establishing MIMA 

had to guide decisions about its development. Although many striking examples of plant 

material graced the hillside, the NPS had to make the roadside from the North Bridge and 

views from it “a prime example of the Nation’s historical heritage.” Screening of modern-day 

additions might be an option, but Lee also admitted that as the historic causeway, stone walls, 

and Muster Field took shape, “that which is not historic will appear as an obvious intrusion 

in the historic scene” and would require removal.147

George Hartzog decided the future of the Buttrick estate. In April 1964 Hartzog 

introduced a stalling tactic to give the NPS more time to make a decision about the estate. He 

ordered that “before starting any action whatsoever on that project, please send to me for 

personal review and approval any and all plans for obliteration of the estates’ gardens and 

removal of its buildings or portions of buildings.”148 Following a June 1965 visit to the park, 

Hartzog further revealed his intentions. Assistant Director George Palmer recounted that 

when Hartzog reviewed the archeological research, he was impressed that the Buttrick 

residence did not infringe on any of the historic remains. He left Palmer with the impression 

that he would not approve removal of the residence or construction of a “‘concrete and glass 

building’ to take its place.”149

By December 1965 Hartzog had made his decision. The Buttrick House would 

remain as an “example of the result of the establishment of the new nation following the 

Revolution and the effect it had on permitting the growth of a free enterprise nation.” When 

pressed with local sentiment in favor of removal, Hartzog held his ground, stating that “he 

himself was not going to authorize its demolition.”150 Later, Zerbey recalled that Hartzog’s 

wife was from the Boston area and indicated that such a personal connection may have 

influenced his decision. He liked to visit the park and, in Zerbey’s recollection, had decided 

from the beginning that he did not want to tear down the Buttrick House. When later asked 

about the residence and his decision to save it, Hartzog replied that he sought a cost-effective 

way to have a visitor center in the North Bridge area. The NPS would adapt the residence to 

use as a visitor center and administrative office space.151

 

146 Memorandum, Small to Lee, 14 October 1963, File H30 Buttrick Mansion, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

147 Memorandum, Lee to Director, 16 September 1963, 2-3, File H30 Buttrick Mansion, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 

148 Memorandum, Hartzog to Lee, 15 April 1964, File MIMA Correspondence 1960-1964, NRHE Files. 149 Memorandum, George Palmer to Lee, 29 June 1965, 2, File D18 Master Planning, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

150 Palmer to Zerbey, 22 December 1965, 2, File D18 Master Planning, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 151 Zerbey, transcript of interview, 4. Douglas Sabin, MIMA Administrative History for Calendar Year 

1992, 29, MIMA Archives. According to Nancy Nelson, Hartzog told her that he had proposed to his 

wife on the North Bridge, explaining some of his interest in the park. See Nancy Nelson, comments on 

first draft, administrative history of MIMA, 5, MIMA Archives. 
Making a Park 

 

99 

Another historic house acquisition offered additional avenues for research and 

planning at MIMA. From its perch on the Battle Road, The Wayside towered over the 

advance and retreat of the British Regulars in 1775. Originally built around 1714, The 

Wayside had endured many owners and had been transformed. It was originally a two-story, 

central-chimney structure with one room on either side on each floor. The renovated version 

was a graciously expanded home with a three-story tower addition and a piazza for summer 

entertaining.152

By the time MIMA was established in 1959 Margaret Lothrop had already established 

herself as the protector and caretaker of The Wayside. As the only child of Harriett (the 

children’s author with the penname Margaret Sidney) and publisher Daniel Lothrop, 

Margaret Lothrop wrote The Wayside: Home of Authors in 1940 to document the lives and 

contributions of the former writers who occupied the house. Margaret followed in her 

mother’s footsteps. Harriett was an active preservationist of The Wayside and its neighbor, 

the Orchard House. After pursuing an academic career at Stanford University, Margaret 

returned to The Wayside to save its history. She assembled a large collection of letters and 

other documents relating to the history of the house, and she welcomed tourists to impress 

upon them the long, rich history of the place.153

Margaret was aging, and wanted to find a new owner who would be sympathetic to 

her opinions about preserving the house. The NPS presented one promising prospect: Mark 

Bortman. Margaret had talked with Bortman when he was chair of the BNHSC. According to 

one Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission member, people in 

Concord “would be grateful if the NPS could see its way to purchase” the property. Small 

indicated that such a purchase could be allowed under the MIMA legislation if the park 

obtained a boundary modification.154

Margaret still needed some convincing. Park historian Robert Ronsheim laid the 

groundwork. Tasked by the NPS chief historian, Ronsheim approached Margaret with some 

trepidation in mid-1962. Ronsheim knew that she had “very definite ideas about the proper 

treatment of the house,” and wanted to emphasize its “continuity of history.” He surmised 

that she feared the “NPS would emphasize one period rather than the entire history.”155 His 

opportunity to address this concern came when Margaret invited Ronsheim and his family to 

tour the house. At the successful conclusion of the tour, Ronsheim offered the idea that some 

NPS employees favored acquisition of the house. Ronsheim later wrote that Margaret “was 

elated...It would seem that she had almost been waiting for the NPS.”156 To alleviate her 

 

152 Orville W. Carroll, The Wayside: Historic Structure Report, Part II (June 1968), 2-3, File The Wayside, 

NPS Report Files, MIMA Library. 

153 Ibid., 1-2. “Addition to National Park: Wayside, Concord,” Concord Journal, 24 June 1965. 154 David Little, as paraphrased in Minutes, Sixth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park 

Advisory Commission, 1 December 1962, 4. See this entry for Bortman’s recollections and Small’s 

response, too. 

155 Ronsheim report, no date, attached to Small to Herbert Kahler, 16 November 1962, 1, File MIMA 

Legislation, NRHE Files. 

156 Ibid. 
Making a Park 

 

100

concerns about what the NPS might do to the house, Ronsheim took her to see the Adams 

NHS, where the agency had captured different eras in its interpretation of the house.157

Ronsheim also talked long and thoughtfully with Margaret, gaining her confidence. 

He recognized that she was “unique” and knew more about The Wayside and its contents 

than anyone. She had a “passion for accuracy and backing statements with proof.” He 

encouraged her to document her knowledge so others could use it for interpretation and 

care of the house. She considered The Wayside a “teaching tool” beyond a single era or 

author. She believed that the house showed the history of the country. “After facing and 

overcoming the hardship of settlement and establishment of a nation,” Margaret argued, “the 

people were able to turn their attention to ‘thoughtful living.’” The Wayside and its various 

owners represented “the history of the best of our country and its development,” which 

Margaret considered its true significance. Ronsheim agreed that it was a special house, and 

he shared his insights about Margaret with NPS officials.158

Following a boundary revision and review by the NPS director and Secretary of the 

Interior, the NPS acquired The Wayside in June 1965.159 At a ceremony marking the transfer, 

Ronsheim confirmed that the NPS would “work with Miss Lothrop to accomplish the work 

of preserving the house and interpreting all of its significance” for future visitors. Margaret 

expressed her confidence about the transfer, calling the event “a celebration” and remarking 

that the transfer fell on her mother’s birthday. “Mother should really have the honor,” 

Margaret stated. Acknowledging the house’s meaning, added that “the present is built on the 

past—we are all building for the future.” She believed that The Wayside would continue to 

aid young people of the present and future.160

MASTER PLAN

In December 1966 Acting Director Howard Baker approved the Minute Man Master 

Plan. By then, Benjamin Zerbey had served as superintendent of the park for more than a 

year, with Edwin Small remaining in Boston coordinating the many area national park sites. 

This final plan evolved from various earlier versions. Small drafted a narrative section for an 

April 1962 draft, and he likely drafted sections of a 1961 version. Then, in March 1963 more 

revisions led Regional Director Ronald Lee to approve the plan. However, as Small reported 

in his annual statement of accomplishments for 1964, a revised Master Plan Handbook halted 

work. New procedures and revised schedules sent the park master plan back to the drafting 

stage. The NPS staff completed detailed maps in March 1965, just as Zerbey came to the 

park. The planning staff from the Northeast Regional Office, including David Kimball and 

Donald Humphrey, revised the master plan for final approval. Unlike their previous 

 

157 Ibid., 1, 3. 158 Ibid., Quotes in order on pp. 2-3, 5-6. 159 Memorandum, Director to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 14 June 1963; and Director to 

Secretary of the Interior, 29 July 1963, both in File MIMA Correspondence 1960-1964, NRHE Files. 

Small to Regional Director, 25 March 1963, File MIMA Legislation, NRHE Files. 160 “Daughter of Famed Author Sells ‘The Wayside’ to National Park,” Lowell Sun, 23 June 1965. 
Making a Park 

 

101

approach with the General Management Plan process, the NPS did not seek public 

participation while developing the Master Plan. In the 1960s, NPS master planning consisted 

largely of internal discussions. In 1961 Small met with Regional Director Lee and Director 

Wirth to address overall park planning. Wirth’s successor, George Hartzog, also visited the 

park. His ideas were incorporated into the approved Master Plan. There are no records 

pointing to public hearings or requests for comments from the public.161

Which key issues did this approved Master Plan address? First, the plan clarified that 

MIMA was a developing park and its focus should be on the opening of the American 

Revolution. At the start of its 20 oversized pages with seven maps, the plan detailed the park’s 

mission: “The purpose of Minute Man National Historical Park is to consolidate and bring 

into focus retrieved and yet retrievable portions of the Lexington-Concord Battle Road and 

associated structures, properties and site so that the visitor may better appreciate and 

understand the beginning of the War of the American Revolution.”162 Reference to a “yet 

retrievable” past suggests the perceived need to continue archeological and historical 

research on lands owned by the park and lands not yet acquired. 

The April 1963 proposed mission statement did not have this wording. The MIMA 

mission, according to this 1963 revision, was to 

provide the visitor with an understanding of the historic route and 

related features of the countryside from Lexington to Concord 

forming part of the setting of the armed conflict between aroused 

American Patriots and British forces on April 19, 1775; and to 

stimulate appreciation of this historic day marking the outbreak of 

the American Revolution and a milestone in both American and 

world history in the struggle for independence and liberty.163 

 

161 Interestingly, the only known copy of the Minute Man Master Plan does not have signatures on it. 

For a reference to who approved the Master Plan and when, see Orville Carroll, The Wayside Historic 

Structure Report, Part III (June 1968), 1, File The Wayside, NPS Reports, MIMA Library. 

Memorandum, Small to Lee, 12 June 1964, and attached Statement of Accomplishments, Operating 

Programs, Fiscal Year 1964, 1, File L34 Recreation Activities 70/72, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Master 

Plan for the Preservation and Use of Minute Man National Historical Park, April 1962 [1962 Master 

Plan], File April 1962 Master Plan, Unprocessed Materials, Museum Collection, MIMA. Master Plan for 

the Preservation and Use of MIMA, 15 November 1961 with sections dating from April 1962 and April 

1963, stamped “Approved” [1961-1963 Master Plan], File Master Plan Narrative, Box MIMA, NPS 

History Collection, HFC. Please note there are no consistent page numbers in the two draft master 

plans. Final Approved Master Plan, MIMA [1966 Master Plan], MIMA Archives. Memorandum, Zerbey 

to Regional Director, 18 September 1967, 2, File L1425 Holdings CY1967, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

For a discussion of master planning within NPS during this time period, as recalled by David Kimball, 

see Joan M. Zenzen, Reconstructing the Past, Partnering for the Future: An Administrative History of Fort 

Stanwix National Monument (June 2004), 38, Fort Stanwix NM Archives. For examples of planning 

meetings, see Memorandum, Small to Wirth, 28 July 1961, File MIMA Park Project Correspondence, 

Box 2, RG 79 BNHSC, NARA Waltham; and Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, 30 June 

1965, File D18 Fiske Hill CY 1965, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

162 1966 Master Plan, 2. Note that pages 13 and 18-20 are missing from the master plan as saved at the 

park. Pages are marked 1 to 24 despite these missing pages. 163 1961-1963 Master Plan, no page numbering. 
Making a Park 

 

102

The NPS recognized the continued importance of research efforts and reinserted the 

“retrievable past” wording. In addition, the approved Master Plan mission statement noted 

the need for further land acquisition and gently pushed it forward, using the term 

“consolidate” with reference to properties along the Battle Road. Again, the April 1963 

version lacked such language. The approved mission statement also put full park resources 

toward helping visitors understand the beginning of the Revolutionary War. A 1962 version 

of this statement used more colorful language, saying that the park should bring into “vivid 

focus for all time to come” the historic landscape that provided some of the “celebrated 

incidents and colorful actions that mark the outbreak” of the American Revolution.164

Planners dropped these striking words, but the idea remained to devote park development to 

telling the story of the outbreak of the American Revolution. 

Second, the approved Master Plan laid out an overall development plan that relied on 

consolidation of park lands (by eminent domain if necessary) and removal of non-park 

traffic. On page 3, the Master Plan stated that “Land acquisition should be mission oriented.” 

The NPS planners understood that MIMA would become a full-fledged park after hundreds 

of individual land parcels were assembled. Much effort had already been undertaken to 

purchase key properties, but the NPS had more to do. Due to the statutory limitation on 

funds for land acquisition and the practicality of readying certain sections of the park for 

visitor (and other) services, the plan stated that “land acquisition should seek to block[-]in 

ownerships on historic grounds that are particularly desirable for immediate park 

development.” The NPS had already worked diligently toward this goal, but as the plan 

stated, “It must be continued as a well-defined project.” To meet this need, “Eminent domain 

should be resorted to where necessary in order that consolidation and park development of 

certain portions of land may be completed.”165 

Priorities for land acquisition emphasized parcels along the Battle Road, especially 

those along Marrett Street, the existing Hanscom AFB access road. After replacing this access 

road with the new base road, the NPS expected to return Marrett Street to its historic 

appearance and surfacing as a pedestrian way. Other streets identified for eventual 

pedestrian usage were Massachusetts Avenue from Fiske Hill to the Bluff in Lexington, 

Nelson Road in Lincoln, Virginia and Old Bedford Roads in Lincoln, and Lexington Road at 

Meriam’s Corner in Concord. Arthur Shurcliff and the BNHSC identified these areas 

because they contained sections of the original Battle Road that the NPS could restore once 

the state removed traffic. The Master Plan recommitted the NPS to this vision. A bicycle path 

along the main park tour road would supplement these pedestrian ways.166

Once acquired from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Route 2A would cease to 

be a commuter roadway and become a two-way road for park visitors.167 None of the Master 

Plan maps marked proposed locations for a relocated Route 2A or delineated where the new 

 

164 1962 Master Plan, no page numbering. 165 1966 Master Plan, 3. 166 Ibid., 6, 10. 167 Ibid., 6. 
Making a Park 

 

103

base access road might run. Instead, the maps incorporated Route 2A as it existed in the mid1960s while the plan’s language suggested where a bypass might be built. Such a bypass might 

begin off Marrett Road just west of the existing interchange of Routes 2A and 128. The 

bypass would end, as suggested by the Master Plan, south of Meriam’s Corner where the 

existing Routes 2A and 2 crossed. The NPS officials justified the relocation of Route 2A for 

three reasons. First, the relocation permitted the separation of local and park traffic. Second, 

it allowed for “proper restoration and treatment” of selected portions of the Battle Road for 

pedestrians. Third, it controlled traffic and entry points into the park by allowing for the 

closure of local feeder roads into the existing Route 2A. The removal of Route 2A from the 

park would create the possibility for recreation of the historic scene and engage visitors in 

this setting.168

A third issue addressed in the Master Plan involved visitor use and interpretation. 

Along the various roadways, walkways, and bicycle routes, the Master Plan included a 

coordinated series of interpretive contact stations. These stations would present visitors with 

key information about the events associated with the historic scene.169 Planners hoped that 

having many identified interpretive staging areas would diffuse visitor usage and protect the 

many historically important structures and landscapes. Total visitation could also increase 

without “an untoward increase at each point of visitor interest.”170

Recognizing that many visitors would exit the major Boston artery of Route 128 and 

enter the park from the east, park planners placed the largest interpretive center at Fiske Hill. 

At this visitor center, visitors would learn about the major themes of the park and additional 

stops. Spaces in the visitor center would allow for general orientation, audiovisual 

presentations, comfort facilities, and parking. Heading further west from the Fiske Hill 

visitor center, park planners expected to place an unmanned contact station along Bedford 

Lane near the Ephraim Hartwell Tavern. This small, unobtrusive structure would have a 

minimal number of interpretive displays and direct visitors to the historic tavern. At 

Meriam’s Corner, planners placed another contact station that could accommodate a ranger 

for interpretive talks or remain unstaffed. Interpretive displays would guide visitors at this 

station also. 

More ideas for interpretation stretched to the park’s other two units. At The 

Wayside, visitors would learn about the building’s long history while appreciating the 

nineteenth and twentieth-century literary subthemes of the park. Not wanting to intrude 

upon the house for interpretive and visitor services, the NPS planned to remodel The 

Wayside barn and to use it as the base for interpretive displays, minimal comfort facilities, 

and a collection area for tours. Finally, in the North Bridge area, the NPS planned to adapt 

the Buttrick residence for use as a visitor contact station. The station would encompass 

interpretive displays, comfort facilities, and accommodations for a ranger during peak 

 

168 Ibid., 10. 169 Ibid., 11. 170 Ibid., 3. 
Making a Park 

 

104

visitation periods. The Master Plan also included a recommendation to have a park overlook 

structure at the North Bridge contact station, either integral to the building or not.171

The fourth major issue addressed by the Master Plan involved the historic structures 

and landscapes. Park planners wanted MIMA to reflect the historic scene of 19 April 1775. 

Using stabilization, preservation, and restoration, such historic features as houses, stone 

walls, ruins, and outbuildings would draw visitors into the park to learn its stories. Planners 

allowed for limited reconstruction, mainly for certain outbuildings of historic house 

museums, to lend authenticity to the site. The plan called the North Bridge a “complete 

reconstruction,”172 although later professionals would argue that not enough information 

about its exact appearance in 1775 has been uncovered. Plantings similar to those from the 

historic period would aid in demarcating woodlands, pastures, croplands, and orchards. 

Vegetation could also serve as an effective screen of any modern intrusions, whether 

adjacent to park land or on it. When practical, planners recommended using livestock to add 

a farming dimension to the scene.173 The Master Plan also urged that park officials give 

“imaginative consideration” to maintenance efforts, to “break new ground, if needed, to 

devise techniques necessary” to achieve the feel of the historic scene. “Maintenance should 

be seen as the effective tool,” according to the plan, “of preserving the historic integrity of the 

landscape...”174

What should the park do with the many buildings dated after the 1775 historic 

period? The approved Master Plan includes general guidance, but drafts and other 

documents provide more specifics. According to the 1966 approved plan, the NPS should 

remove post-1775 structures “to justify the costs of land acquisition and to re-create the 

historic scene.” The plan also acknowledges that a number of buildings with “such intrinsic 

merit” should be preserved. However, the 1966 plan states that “funds should not be 

expended on these unless needed to carry out the primary purpose of the park.” The NPS 

should remove all other buildings unless “their retention is specifically called for to further 

the purpose of the park.” Modern buildings, save those for administrative or other 

designated purposes, should be removed so as “not to be inimical to the re-creation of the 

historic scene.” Visitor facilities may be allowed on the historic scene to provide “good 

visitor use of the area.”175 

These general guidelines left much room for negotiation, but previous drafts provide 

some indication of where the NPS leaned. Small wrote in his April 1962 draft of the master 

plan that one park objective involved preserving buildings of period and character 

constructed “not only prior to 1775 but down through the period of late Federal architecture 

or approximately to 1830.”176 A 1964 Management Programs document (with no listed 

author or specific date) states, “a clear policy must be formulated which will justify the 

 

171 Ibid., 11. 172 Ibid., 15. 173 Ibid., 7, 10, 15. 174 Ibid., 3. 175 Ibid., 3. 176 1962 Master Plan, Vol. I, chapter 1. 
Making a Park 

 

105

retention of any structures post-dating 1830 or thereabouts.”177 Clearly, park officials and 

planners considered 1830, or roughly 50 years after the American Revolution, a cut-off date 

for historic structures. Historian Ronsheim also intimated this preference during his 

December 1963 presentation before the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory 

Commission. The minutes for this meeting state Ronsheim informed members that, “in 

accordance with guidelines set up for the development of the Park, houses built after 1830 

will not be retained as exhibits or as part of the setting in the Park.”178

To address the literary subtheme represented by The Wayside, the Master Plan

included strong emphasis on the contributions and wishes of its former owner, Margaret 

Lothrop. The Wayside should reflect the “flow of history” from its initial construction as a 

farmhouse, through its many additions and changes to the time when Lothrop’s mother lived 

and wrote there. With the barn rehabilitated for visitor services, the house would suffer 

fewer intrusions. Park planners also recommended making Hawthorne’s path to the ridge 

behind the house, available. The path was a favorite haunt of that author.179

Finally, the Master Plan made clear that research should serve as the bedrock for all 

subsequent development of MIMA. Research was the “basic first step” to achieve accurate 

re-creation of the historic scene. Historians, historical architects, and archeologists needed 

to uncover the history of land ownerships, locations of boundaries and stone walls, locations 

of crops, locations of wood lots, and information about historic structures, including those 

that had since disappeared except for trace ruins. This mission-oriented research had to 

precede development to ensure accuracy. The Master Plan described the park’s existing 

research efforts as inadequate, as they did not produce data on time for planning, 

development, and land acquisition efforts. This inadequacy likely stemmed from a 

combination of factors. The park encompassed a number of historic structures and a lot of 

ground where the Patriots battled the British Regulars. Finding documentation about these 

people and buildings would take time. In addition, staffing did not meet park needs. This 

situation did not show signs of changing. Ronsheim tried to combat the staffing deficit by 

using interns. Hartzog had Ronsheim’s interpretive duties reassigned so that he could focus 

on research. However, the workload still loomed. Many people from NPS personnel to local 

residents, wanted to see the park emerge as a truly historical recreation of American 

Revolutionary times. The Master Plan called for additional means, not specifically identified, 

to gain timely results.180

Achieving the goals within the Master Plan would create a large reservation 

reminiscent of the days when the American colonists transformed into American Patriots. As 

stated in Small’s 1962 draft and detailed in the approved version, MIMA would provide 

visitors with a “sizeable sampling of the terrain and countryside in which the formal struggle 

 

177 Management Programs: The Land, Historical Features, [1964], 2, File D18 CY 1964 Master Planning, 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

178 Minutes, Eighth Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 14 

December 1963, 3. 

179 1966 Master Plan, 7. 180 Ibid., 3, 6, 10. 
Making a Park 

 

106

for American liberty began.” The recreated natural landscape and built features would 

embrace the era of the embattled farmers. Small believed the park’s mission went beyond 

telling that story. Small had high expectations for the park he helped establish, wanting it to 

“stir the imagination” and “inspire sentiments of patriotism and pride in the Nation’s 

heritage.” This language never made it into the approved Master Plan, but its essence 

touched each page.181

 

181 1962 Master Plan, vol. 1, chapter 1, p. 4. 
Making a Park 

 

107

Figure 11. Elisha Jones House, also known as The Bullet Hole House. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph 

Collection. 

 Figure 12. Stedman Buttrick Residence. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape 

 Report: North Bridge Unit, Figure 69. 
Making a Park 

 

108

Figure 13. The Wayside. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 

 . 

Figure 14. The Wayside, Rose Hawthorn bedroom. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 
Making a Park 

 

109

 Figure 15. The Wayside Parlor. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 

 Figure 16. Jacob Whittemore House. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 

 
Making a Park 

 

110

Map 8. Battle Road Unit. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: Battle 

 Road Unit, Figure 2. 

Map 9. North Bridge Unit. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: North 

Bridge Unit, Figure 2. 
Making a Park 

 

111

Map 10. Proposed realignment for Route 2, 1968. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape 

Report: Battle Road Unit, Figure. 68. 

113 

CHAPTER FOUR

GETTING READY

Ben Zerbey understood what he and the NPS had to accomplish at MIMA.1 This was 

the site of the opening shots of the American Revolution and where the first American blood 

had been lost in the name of liberty. Historic buildings dotted the landscape and reminded 

passersby of the sacrifices made on 19 April 1775. Those sacrifices made possible the 

freedoms and responsibilities of United States citizens today. From the time of his 1965 start 

at MIMA to 1976, Zerbey and the NPS had to give the American people a park that could 

serve as a proud reminder of the nation’s 200th birthday and plan the looming Bicentennial 

celebration. 

Fortunately, Zerbey had a plan to guide him. He had a slowly growing staff of 

exceptional skill to bring this Master Plan to life. He had the interest and support of regional 

and Washington office park personnel. Zerbey also had the background and the capabilities 

to bring these people and his plan together. After completing four years in the United States 

Navy and his undergraduate studies in government at the University of New Mexico, he 

interviewed for a position serving as a summer park guide at Carlsbad Caverns National Park 

in New Mexico. He returned for a second summer as park guide, and then had the 

opportunity to take the park ranger examination. This was the first time in several years the 

NPS had offered the exam. Zerbey was awarded the position of park ranger at Saguaro 

National Monument (Arizona), starting in May 1950. By the time he left Saguaro in 1958 

Zerbey had been promoted to chief ranger. He served next at Isle Royale National Park in 

Michigan, again as chief ranger, before serving as superintendent at Hopewell Village 

National Historic Site in his home state of Pennsylvania. Zerbey, with his wife Jane and their 

children, left Hopewell Village in 1965 for MIMA.2

As David Moffitt recalled from his days as chief of maintenance under Zerbey, he 

involved “people into things other than what their job description required. He allowed you 

to participate in the total management of the park.” Such an approach made him friends with 

everyone, from “the lowliest maintenance man to the chief ranger.” Moffitt believed that 

Zerbey “didn’t have favorites, he didn’t pick on people, and he treated them all well.”3

 Such 

 

1

 Roy Appleman, NPS chief, Branch of Park History Studies, made this assessment during his 1969 visit at 

the park. See Memorandum, Appleman to Chief Historian, 24 November 1969, 24, File MIMA 

Correspondence 1965-1972, NRHE Files. 

2

 Benjamin Zerbey, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 13 April 2005, 1-2, MIMA 

Archives. “Supt. Zerbey Speaks Nov. 18,” Hear Ye (November 1968). NPS Press Release, “Personnel 

Changes for Boston Area Announced by National Park Service,” 18 March 1965, File Edwin W. Small, 

NPS History Collection, HFC. 

3

 David Moffitt, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 23 April 2005, 5-6, MIMA 
Getting Ready 

114 

a managerial approach gave park staff permission to contribute their own ideas and have a 

commitment to see them through. 

Zerbey needed that commitment to accomplish his goals for the park, especially in 

the face of some huge obstacles. Within three years of his arrival at MIMA, the NPS depleted 

the $5,000,000 allotment for land acquisition.4

 But, about 35 percent of the identified acreage 

remained privately owned, including important historic structures. The park needed 

renewed legislative authority and congressional appropriations to complete its land 

acquisition program, but the Vietnam War shifted nonessential federal dollars and attention 

to that conflict. Zerbey could also see and hear more and more traffic zooming along Route 

2A through the park. In 1968 Hanscom Air Force Base completed its new access road, 

spitting vehicles onto the Battle Road, and Honeywell Corporation opened a new operation 

across from the Fiske Hill area.5

 Neither the state nor the federal government had made any 

further progress on relocating this road so that the park could concentrate on restoring the 

eighteenth-century character of the environs. There was also the question of what to do with 

the expected one or two million people visiting for the Bicentennial. The park needed a fullfledged visitor center, with exhibits, an audio program, and facilities, to accommodate the 

expected crush of tourists. Interpreters needed reliable programming in place to educate 

visitors and disperse them throughout the park so as not to degrade or overwhelm the 

primary commemorative area at the North Bridge. Zerbey had a few suggestions on how to 

resolve these issues, but now he and his staff had to implement them. Would they be 

successful by 19 April 1975? 

This chapter examines the period from 1965 through 1972 from the time of Zerbey’s 

appointment as superintendent of MIMA until the start of David Moffitt’s tenure in the 

position. NPS reorganizations added a few additional supervisors at MIMA between Zerbey 

and Moffitt. Robert Perkins served as unit manager of MIMA following Zerbey’s promotion 

to General Superintendent of the Boston Group. The Boston Group represented a collection 

of national park sites in the Boston area with its headquarters in Concord. Edwin Small had 

served between 1965 and 1969 as project coordinator of the Boston Historic Sites Project 

before becoming Assistant to the Regional Director (New England Field Office) with his 

office remaining in Boston. Zerbey eventually moved to the regional office, and Herbert 

Olsen replaced him as general superintendent, with Boston Group offices still in the Stedman 

Buttrick House. Another reorganization removed the Boston Group designation, and David 

Moffitt came to MIMA as a full superintendent. This history does not make comprehensive 

evaluations of how the Boston Group arrangement worked for the overall NPS presence in 

Boston, but some discussion looks at its effects on Minute Man administration. 

 Archives. 

4 National Park Foundation Project Prospectus, 1, attached to Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, 

Northeast Region, 24 March 1969, File H30 1963-1969, Box 3, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. 

5

 Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 13 December 1968, 1, File D30 CY 1968 

Route 2A Relocation. 
Getting Ready 

115 

FISKE HILL

Big ideas had long circulated about what MIMA would look like once the state had 

relocated Route 2A and the NPS had restored an eighteenth-century feel to the landscape 

and its historic structures. However, such a long-range plan did not help present visitors 

who came in increasing numbers to learn about the beginnings of the Revolutionary War. In 

addition, people traveling along Route 2A would be hard pressed to identify the NPS and its 

work, beyond the temporary park headquarters building in the former Geophysics 

Laboratory site. George Hartzog, when he first became Director of the NPS in January 1964, 

toured MIMA and insisted that the park provide an interim visitor area at Fiske Hill. This 

site, which had easy access to major roadways thanks to its proximity to Route 128, offered 

historic interest and sufficient space to allow visitors to immerse themselves into 

Revolutionary War times. Hartzog did not want to lose even another visitor season without 

such a contact area and gave Zerbey and the regional office just a few short weeks to develop 

some initial ideas.6

Zerbey’s ideas involved restoring about 40 acres of landscape and providing a 

minimal number of visitor facilities. Where trees had taken root in the area of the Fiske Farm 

site, Zerbey advocated clearing this land to return it to the look and feel of a historic field and 

pasture. Mowing, grazing, and clearing of brush in another section would keep vegetation 

down and further retain the appearance of a pasture. Zerbey estimated that about one and a 

half miles of stone walls needed restoration and the historic trace of the Battle Road in this 

confined area required attention. Archeological studies would provide necessary clues for 

this work. In keeping with Hartzog’s vision, Zerbey included in his suggested plans a lunch 

area with picnic tables and a public contact facility. The lunch area would sit near the site of 

the former turkey farm while the contact station might reuse an old residence at the site. 

Zerbey argued that such adaptation of a building would save money and allow for quick 

operation. Plus, he was always interested in finding environmentally positive alternatives. A 

loop trail would take visitors to the nearby historic sites, providing a hands-on lesson in the 

Revolutionary War history of the area.7

Regional and other sources further refined Zerbey’s initial thoughts. Lack of parking 

space and concerns over visitor safety in crossing an intersection near the former residence 

led park planners to consider other options for the contact station. Zerbey then pointed to a 

recently acquired small service building that could be moved and adapted for the purpose, 

again with an eye toward reusing and recycling.8

 However, the chief of the Eastern Office of 

Design and Construction recommended a new structure. He wrote that “The visitor’s 

impression of the Park Service in a situation like this is critical and must be enhanced as 

 

6

 Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 30 June 1965, 1, File D18 CY 1965 

Developed Area Plan Fiske Hill, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

7

 Ibid., 2-3. Moffitt, transcript of interview, 7. 

8

 Memorandum, George Palmer to Director, 2 July 1965, 1, File D18 CY 1965 Developed Area Plan, Fiske 

Hill, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 14 January 

1966, 2, File D18 CY 1966 Developed Area Plan, Fiske Hill, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Getting Ready 

116 

much as possible.”9 Placed next to the proposed parking area, the shelter would offer 

“uninterrupted viewing of the historic Bluff.”10 NPS personnel considered this location 

important also for public relations purposes. With a properly designed structure, 

accompanied by an outdoor terrace where visitors could mill around, this location would be 

in a “position readily noticeable to visitors coming from any direction.” The information 

shelter would establish “The first real identity of the Service at the beginning of the park near 

the confluence of the important avenues of travel.”11 Completed in 1967, the information 

shelter had shingled walls to “reflect the use of native materials,”12 giving it a distinctive “Park 

Service” look and making clear that the area was a national historical park site. 

As originally planned, the loop trail went to the luncheon area, up the gently sloping 

Fiske Hill, and on to the Fiske Farm and Hayward Well sites. Visitors could then walk along 

a restored section of the Battle Road back to the parking area. By December 1969 Zerbey 

and his interpretive staff began exploring the idea of expanding the history emphasis of the 

trail to include environmental awareness. This heightened interest in the environment 

reflected both social concerns and a longstanding responsibility of the NPS toward nature 

and environmental issues. By 1971 park interpretive staff had prepared a booklet for visitors 

to use along the trail, pointing out evidence of glacial action and its remnants, as marked in 

one place by a red maple swamp. A hardwood forest offered the opportunity to explain the 

many uses of tree products for the colonists while a historic stone wall with its algae and 

fungi provided evidence of symbiosis. This initial exploration in environmental topics 

quickly exploded as people gained interest. Park historian Cynthia Kryston reported in 1972 

that interpreters led regularly scheduled walks during the summer and for a local 

Environmental Education Week in September. Teacher workshops attracted representatives 

from nine nearby towns as well as the Massachusetts Department of Education. As a result 

of special presentations for non-educators, the park established ties with scouting groups 

and worked with them on developing programs for badges. All of these activities stepped 

beyond the historical themes and incorporated environmental studies.13

 

9

 Memorandum, Robert Hall to Zerbey, 13 January 1966, File D18 CY 1966, Developed Area Plan, Fiske 

Hill, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 10 Memorandum, Eugene DeSilets to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 17 June 1966, 1, File D18 CY 

1966, Developed Area Plan, Fiske Hill, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 11 Memorandum, Eugene DeSilets to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 20 September 1966, 1, File D18 

CY 1966, Developed Area Plan, Fiske Hill, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 12 Memorandum, Hodge Hanson to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 28 December 1966, 2, File D18 

CY 1966, Developed Area Plan, Fiske Hill; Photo of completed structure, File D18 CY 1967, Developed 

Area Plan, Fiske Hill, both in Park Admin Files, MIMA. 13 Memorandum, DeSilets to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 17 June 1966, 2; Minutes, 19th Meeting, 

Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 6 December 1969, 2, File A18 CY 1969, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA; Interpretive Prospectus, MIMA, 1971, 12-13, File Interpretive Prospectus, NPS 

Reports, Park Library, MIMA; Fiske Hill booklet, no date, Eastern National Park and Monument 

Association, Margie Hicks Files, MIMA; Memorandum, Cynthia Kryston to Supervisory Park Ranger, 

MIMA, 26 October 1972, 1-2, File K1815 CY 1972, Interpretive Activities, Services, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 
Getting Ready 

117 

The information shelter, loop trail, and picnic area provided an interim solution for 

the NPS and gave them time to work on the Master Plan of building a full-fledged visitor 

center at Fiske Hill. Park officials admitted the incongruity of combining in a fairly limited 

space both interpretive (shelter and trail) and recreational (picnicking) elements. Planners 

opted to use the parking lot as a physical divider between the two activities, keeping 

recreation and interpretation separate. Once the NPS had successfully completed land 

acquisition, the visitor center complex as envisioned in the Master Plan would take shape. 

Yet, the information shelter and trail would remain as additional ways to explore and learn 

about the historical and environmental influences shaping the MIMA landscape.14

ROADS

Further planning for Fiske Hill and its immediate area tied directly to an upsurge in 

discussions about relocating major roadways around MIMA. Significantly, during this 

period, both the state and the NPS were at odds on how best to address the relocation 

proposal. The state opted to engineer its way through the problem with expanded roadways 

capable of carrying many vehicles through the area as quickly and efficiently as possible. The 

NPS found itself caught between wanting to support any feasible relocation proposal and 

ensuring that its preservation mandate remained intact. No decisions would be made before 

the Bicentennial, but clearly the NPS had to reckon its desire to remove Route 2A from the 

park and dealing with the consequences upon its landscape and historic structures. 

As described in the previous chapter, state planning by 1965 had proposed a 

Northerly Alternate, having Route 2 skim the southern boundary of the park through 

Lincoln. It dipped well south of the park at Meriam’s Corner. A relocated Route 2A would 

begin at Route 128, the main connecting roadway around the Boston metropolitan area, and 

feed into Route 2 at the new Hanscom Air Force Base access road. A major interchange 

would join these two roadways. Routes 2 and 2A would continue as combined highways, 

removing the necessity of constructing an additional roadway for 2A. The Southerly 

Alternate for Route 2 swung well below MIMA and required an extensive rebuilding of 

Route 2A. In June 1966 state authorities held a public hearing for review and discussion of 

the two Route 2 relocation proposals. Members of the Minute Man National Historical Park 

Advisory Commission submitted a statement supporting the Northerly Alternate, 

recognizing that it removed Route 2A from the park and it eliminated the substantial expense 

of totally and separately relocating Route 2A. In June 1966 the NPS did not give formal 

preference to either the northern or southern alternatives. However, after review, Director 

Hartzog did agree to give NPS personnel authority to negotiate a cooperative arrangement 

for federal and state financing of relocating traffic out of the park.15

 

14 Memorandum, DeSilets to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 20 September 1966, 2. 

15 Minutes, 13th Meeting, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 2 June 1966, 1-2; 

Annual Report, 1966, Town of Lincoln, 125, Lincoln Public Library. Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional 

Director, Northeast Region, 17 May 1966; and Memorandum, Charles Krueger to Director, 20 June 1967, 

both in File D30 Roads and Trails 1966-1967, Box 2, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 
Getting Ready 

118 

For the NPS, these discussions had to focus on the larger goal of removing heavy 

traffic from the park and returning the landscape to the feel of the eighteenth-century 

Revolutionary War period. Road improvements had to clear park boundaries to ensure the 

historical integrity of park. But, further refinements of plans for Route 2A indicated that the 

state wanted to add a western extension of Route 2A beyond Route 2. Route 2A in each 

section would be a divided highway. The state also decided to go forward on the Northerly 

Alternate for Route 2, making it a limited access highway of interstate quality. In March 

1968, NPS and state representatives met to review these updated plans, airing design 

concerns and financing issues for relocating Route 2A. How would the relocated road 

connect future visitors to the proposed major visitor center near Fiske Hill? What exactly 

did the NPS envision for a tunnel or depressed passageway for the new Hanscom Air Force 

Base access road as it crossed the park and joined the relocated Route 2A? Would a stoplight 

at a crossing for Meriam’s Corner be sufficient or would traffic load measurements require 

an interchange? What level of financial contribution could the state expect of the NPS? 

From this exchange came the clear message that the NPS needed to crystallize its own plans 

for development of roadways and visitor services at MIMA so that state and NPS plans could 

join seamlessly. Yet, the demands of other park projects kept the Eastern Office of Design 

and Construction from focusing on MIMA.16

In the meantime, the state further expanded its plans and submitted them in 

December 1968 to the park for review.17 When Zerbey first saw what the state had in mind, 

he exclaimed, “My God, I shot the wrong Civil Engineer.” Zerbey questioned why the plan 

made not only Route 2A but also Massachusetts Avenue into divided limited access roads, 

requiring extensive interchanges to funnel traffic to the different roads. He wanted to 

remove one proposed separate entranceway at the Honeywell Corporation location that 

threatened a “most picturesque and interesting bog.” 18 Zerbey also questioned the need for 

the proposed interchange at Mill Street and the new Route 2A since it encroached on 

parkland. Other NPS reviewers echoed Zerbey’s concerns. Landscape architect Arthur 

Beyer wrote that the “park is in serious trouble if the state builds the highways” as 

proposed.19 Charles Krueger of the Philadelphia Service Center’s Design and Construction 

Office questioned the state’s plans to build numerous connections and large interchanges to 

 Memorandum, Howard Baker to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 22 November 1967, 1, File D18 

Trails and Structure Plan, 1968; and Charles Krueger to F. C. Turner, 12 December 1967, File D30 CY 

1967 Route 2A Relocation, both in Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

16 Memorandum, Lemuel Garrison to Director, 2 April 1968; and Memorandum, David Turello to Regional 

Director, Northeast Region, 1 February 1968, 2, both in File D30 Roads and Trails 1968-1969, Box 2, RG 

79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Selectmen Annual Report, Town of Lincoln, 1968, 2, Lincoln 

Public Library. 

17 John Hannon to Zerbey, 4 December 1968, File D30 CY 1968 Route 2A Relocation, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

18 Both quotes, Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 13 December 1968, 2, File 

D30 CY 1968 Route 2A Relocation, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

19 Memorandum, Arthur Beyer to Chief, Design and Construction, PSC, 31 January 1969, 1, File D30 CY 

1969 Route 2A Relocation. 
Getting Ready 

119 

support Route 2A as a limited access highway.20 And at the Boston Group staff meeting in 

March 1969 the “general consensus was that everybody was rather upset by the number of 

interchanges proposed.”21 Team members agreed that before the NPS could offer an 

alternative, it needed the traffic counts used by the state to develop the roadway plan. 

Zerbey found, however, that the state was then only collecting traffic counts and had not 

used traffic numbers in developing its plans. Landscape architect Beyer replied that the state 

had “apparently overdesigned their plans” for relocating Route 2A. The proposed 

“complicated interchanges” would eat up sizeable areas of the park without necessarily 

addressing actual traffic needs.22

Beyond the interchanges, NPS personnel recognized that decisions had to be made 

regarding the proposed major visitor center near Fiske Hill. Beyer noted that the state’s 

intention to have an interchange for the current (Massachusetts Avenue) and new Route 2A 

would “cut up this area [near the visitor center] excessively.” Topography, historic features, 

and natural features already curtailed use of the space without adding the complications of a 

major interchange. Beyer recommended instead that park officials talk to the state and 

recommend the state’s former idea of having a divided highway with breaks in the median for 

turns and cross traffic.23 These discussions successfully resulted in deletion of one 

interchange and removal of the separate entrance for the Honeywell plant and associated 

industrial development at another interchange. The state, however, held fast to its proposal 

for a limited access highway. The major interchange at Route 2A and the proposed visitor 

center location near Fiske Hill would serve as a major entrance point for the park. Pressure 

from the state to obtain NPS approval “points up the need,” wrote landscape architect 

Charles Schuster, “for us to come to grips with our planning for Minute Man and coordinate 

our plans with the State.” Schuster went on, admitting that for years the NPS had desired 

removal of traffic on Route 2A. “We are now faced with both the opportunity of obtaining 

our goal and the problem of coordinating our development plans” with the proposed 

highway plans.24

Further discussions and walking around the area to see how the proposed roadways 

would lay on the land brought the NPS and state even closer together. Beyer optimistically 

concluded that the revised Route 2A relocation plan “can be adapted suitably to the purposes 

of visitor entrance to the Park with some modifications.” A key change involved shifting the 

Massachusetts Avenue interchange further east to “preserve the attractive and historical 

area” around the Bluff and Fiske Hill. The park’s visitor center would then stand where the 

 

20 Memorandum, Charles Krueger to Chief, Design and Construction, Philadelphia Service Center, 20 

February 1969, File D30 Roads and Trails 1968-1969, Box 2, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. 

21 Minutes, Boston NPS Group Staff Meeting, 20 March 1969, 1, No File Name, Orville Carroll Papers, 

MIMA. 

22 Memorandum, Arthur Beyer to Chief, Design and Construction, PSC, 3 April 1969, File D30 CY 1969 

Route 2A Relocation, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Quote on p. 2. 

23 Ibid, 2. 

24 Memorandum, Charles Schuster to Assistant Director, Design and Construction, 28 May 1969, 2, File 

D30 CY 1969 Route 2A Relocation, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Getting Ready 

120 

animal hospital sat, immediately north of the proposed Route 2A interchange. Beyer 

cautioned that the state would cooperate with making some modifications, but the NPS 

needed to act expediently. “The sooner we can present our proposals for modifications to 

the State,” he wrote, “the more I think they will cooperate with us with these changes.”25 In 

response, NPS planners prepared in December 1970 a Developed Area Plan which evolved 

into the formal Development Concept.26 In presenting this plan to representatives from the 

Town of Lincoln, the NPS made clear its “general acceptance of the limited access [highway] 

proposal of the State” for Route 2A. As Charles Schuster reported after the meeting, the NPS 

does “not object as long as encroachment is at a minimum.” In pointed language, Schuster 

also wrote that “Removal of 2-traffic from the park . . . is of prime importance to the park’s 

future development, and we should make every effort to offer encouragement to the State 

and should give no impression that we opposed their efforts.”27 

With this statement, the NPS effectively handed the road planning back to the state. 

Park officials continued developing ideas for visitor services and waited. In the meantime, 

state and federal authorities gathered more data and made more recommendations about 

relocating and enhancing roads. A May 1972 meeting with the Federal Highway 

Administration, NPS, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation discussed the 

Route 2 plans with respect to Section 106 concerns. Benjamin Levy, Executive Director of 

the Advisory Council, determined that screen planting and earthen berms would minimize 

adverse effects on historic structures. In Levy’s opinion, “the positive aspects of the project” 

more than offset these negative influences.28 NPS authorities also kept an eye on the larger 

goal of removing traffic from MIMA. Even before the state had released its Environmental 

Impact Statement for the road relocations, the Sierra Club and some local residents 

expressed opposition to the project. In answer to these potential threats, the NPS 

Washington Office registered its intention to make a “strong recommendation for this 

relocation” because without it, “the park can never be fully achieved.”29

BICENTENNIAL PLANNING

Ever since establishment of MIMA, 19 April 1975 had loomed as a deadline. By the 

time of the nation’s Bicentennial, NPS officials had hoped the park would have all or most of 

 

25 Memorandum, Beyer to Chief, Design and Construction, PSC, 4 June 1969, 2-4, File D30 Roads and 

Trails 1968-1969, Box 2, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Quotes, in order, on pp. 2, 3, 4. 26 Design Analysis, Fiske Hill Development, attached to memorandum, Beyer to Director, Northeast, 2 

December 1970, File D18 DCP’s Fiske Hill VC (1969-1973). Fiske Hill Development Concept, 1970, File 

Fiske Hill, NPS Reports, MIMA Research Library. 27 Memorandum, Charles Schuster to Director, Eastern Service Center, 17 November 1969, 2-3, File D30 

Roads and Trails 1969-1969, Box 2, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. Quotes, in order, on 

pp. 2, 3. 

28 Memorandum, Herbert Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 24 May 1972, 1, File H34 National Survey 

of Historic Sites and Buildings and National Landmarks, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

29 Memorandum, Raymond Freeman to Director, Northeast Region, 12 September 1972, 4, File IV 

(Administrative History), Unprocessed Materials, Museum Collection, MIMA. See also MIMA Master 

Plan Revision Study Meeting, 26 September 1972, 3, File D18 Master Plan Revision Study 1972, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. 
Getting Ready 

121 

its land, have Route 2A relocated, have its historic buildings spruced up, and have 

interpretive facilities and programming in place to greet the expected throngs of visitors. 

Zerbey’s 1966 Master Plan still set 1975 as an important date for accomplishing these goals. 

There were, however, a few obstacles standing in the way. As of 1968, the park had depleted 

its $5 million land acquisition budget. The NPS would have to go back to Congress for new 

legislation for additional funds. How and when this legislation came through will be 

discussed later in the chapter. Nothing could be done until the land acquisition office at 

MIMA got congressional approval to continue its work. Bicentennial plans also stumbled 

over the issue of Route 2A. As late as 1972 the park waited for the Environmental Impact 

Statement. Review and incorporation of probable changes would not be completed until 

1973. That left only two years, at most, to build the new road and restore the original to its 

historic context. Clearly, the NPS could not meet this tight time schedule. Route 2A would 

still have to carry traffic through the park, requiring some interim solutions to enhance the 

Revolutionary War character of the park’s landscape. 

Roy Appleman, as chief of the NPS Branch of Park History Studies, made clear his 

concern following a trip to MIMA in summer 1969. He wrote about the need for extensive 

historical, architectural, and archeological research to support development planning. “It 

will take a lot of man-year effort and a great deal of money,” Appleman concluded in his trip 

report, “to get this park ready for the Bicentennial. Whether it can be done must remain a 

serious question.”30 MIMA would encounter difficulties and setbacks, but also many 

successes when it opened to the public in 1975. This chapter and the next two recount these 

stories. 

Beyond the particulars of MIMA, thinking about the 200th anniversary had started at 

the national level. By the late 1960s President Nixon had made appointments to the 

American Revolution Bicentennial Commission, giving its members responsibility for 

envisioning the overall form of the celebration and how individual agencies and cities might 

contribute. This commission soon found itself embroiled in a competition for a world’s fair 

among three major cities: Boston, Philadelphia, and Washington, DC. Any decisions about 

the Bicentennial hinged upon whether the United States would host a fair, slowing down 

planning on any other possibilities. A decision not to have a world’s fair came in 1970, 

leaving planners scrambling for other ideas to celebrate properly the historic anniversary. As 

time slipped away, the commission decided to have the individual towns and cities across the 

nation determine their own celebrations, leaving out any national event.31 

One federal agency would work with cities and towns to mark the event. That 

agency, the NPS, with its national collection of historic sites relating directly to the 

Revolutionary War period, carved out its own significant slice of the planning. High-level 

 

30 Memorandum, Appleman to Chief Historian, 24 November 1969, 24. 

31 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 6 December 1969, 4, File A18 

CY 1969 Advisory Groups, Park Admin Files, MIMA. “Let’s Hear It for the Bicentennial,” Boston Globe

[no date], attached to Memorandum, Jerry Wagers to All Superintendents, North Atlantic Region, 20 May 

1974, File #1 Jan-Sept 1974 A8215 Bicentennial, Box 4, Acc. 79-83-0001, Waltham Federal Records 

Center (FRC). 
Getting Ready 

122 

administrators, especially from the regions having the most pertinent sites, assembled 

committees, drafted plans, and developed their ideas into working orders. In 1973, Congress 

finally backed up these plans with $100 million. Bricks and mortar changes, the focus of NPS 

Bicentennial plans, began appearing. MIMA would get its Battle Road Visitor Center. Fort 

Stanwix National Monument gained a fully reconstructed fort. Restoration efforts made it 

possible for visitors to see the earthworks and other military fortifications at Yorktown. 

These and other capital improvement projects significantly enhanced the physical shape of 

the parks. Interpretive planning, especially living-history programs, talks, and dramatic 

offerings, made them come alive.32

Not surprisingly, the little towns that would eventually host their fellow Americans 

and other visitors in celebrating the Bicentennial got organized a bit earlier than the federal 

government. Certainly, recognition of the national importance of the event drove this early 

planning. Towns associated with the historic actions of 1775 as opposed to 1776, when 

Americans officially asserted their independence, also had one less year to plan. Plus, such 

simple logistics as figuring out how smallish towns could accommodate hundreds of 

thousands or more people in a confined space sparked concern. Concord, home of the 

North Bridge, began giving the Bicentennial celebration serious consideration as early as 

1960. Its Public Ceremonies and Celebrations Committee urged the reinstitution of minute 

man companies from the original towns that had sent troops against the British in 1775. 

These groups would then, in the committee’s mind, march in the town’s parade in 1975. As a 

result of a special committee report, in 1967 the Selectmen appointed a nine-member 

Executive Committee of the 1975 Celebration Committee to oversee planning. John Finigan 

chaired the entire effort. 

By 1970, before the federal government had moved on from the world’s fair idea, the 

Celebration Committee had carefully evaluated the town’s goals and responsibilities for the 

event, using these to guide all future planning.33 “We should seek to develop a program 

which will be simple and non-political,” the committee wrote, “with emphasis on the 

principles for which the battle was fought rather than on the glorification of the battle 

itself.”34 John Finigan remembered that the town’s vision for the Bicentennial 

was to see if we could celebrate, not in the way that the 

celebrations the next year [1976] would take place, but more in a 

spiritual way, in a thanksgiving way, and in a commemorative way 

 

32 For an overview of NPS Bicentennial building projects, see Merrill J. Mattes, Landmarks of Liberty: A 

Report on the American Revolution Bicentennial Development Program of the National Park Service

(Washington DC: NPS, 1989), 1-13. An example of early NPS planning for the Bicentennial can be found 

in memorandum, George Palmer to Director, 7 August 1972, and attached National Park Service Action 

Plan, File Admin—Action Plans, Group 2, Series I, RG 18 Bicentennial Records, NPS History Collection, 

Harpers Ferry Center (HFC). 

33 National Park Study Committee, “A History of the Fight at Concord on the 19th of April, 1975,” 1976, 

MIMA Archives. Concord’s planning for the Bicentennial will receive full attention in the next chapter. 34 Ibid., 3. 
Getting Ready 

123 

so that the events that took place would be appropriately honored 

and respected by a thankful population of our country.35

This ambitious goal could not be accomplished without careful and attentive 

planning. By 1967 the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission began to 

worry about the logistics and how best the towns and park could prepare. How would the 

towns accommodate overnight guests and requests for camping spaces? Where would 

visitors picnic as they enjoyed the festivities? Where would people park? At first, 

commission members supported the suggestion of its Concord representative, William 

Faxon, to have the towns address planning for the expected heavy traffic and visitation 

through a joint committee. This joint committee, made up of two or three representatives 

from each of the three towns and led by the advisory commission, would work together on 

mutual problems associated with preparing for the Bicentennial.36 The advisory commission, 

in Faxon’s mind, would function as a “catalytic agent” in encouraging cooperation among the 

towns.37 However, upon further reflection, Faxon and his fellow commission members 

decided that the towns should make the first attempts at addressing issues. If problems arose 

that had become of “such common interest, magnitude and comprehensive scope as to 

require coordination and solution” between the towns and parks, then the commission could 

step in.38 For now, commission members stood ready to hear reports from the towns and 

assist. It would also prod the park and even the state in addressing such concerns as facilities 

for public events and camping locations in nearby state parks.39 Chapter five of this history 

examines how the Bicentennial planning played out. 

1970 LEGISLATION

Bicentennial planning at MIMA largely depended upon developing interpretive 

facilities and services within an intact and recognizable park. Commercial properties, 

including the veterinary hospital near Fiske Hill, restaurants, and a gas station, still sat along 

the Battle Road within the designated boundaries of the park. Crucial land acquisition 

depended upon funding, and the park reached its legislative limit of $5 million less than a 

decade after its establishment. To address this situation, even before MIMA had depleted its 

land acquisition funds, NPS officers sought an increase in this legislative ceiling. In spring 

1966, Zerbey presented justifications for an increase of $3 million above the original $5 

million limitation. He justified this amount by stating that over the past several years, land 

 

35 Finigan, transcript of interview, 8. 

36 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 15th Meeting, 21 June 1967, 1-2; 

and Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, Special Meeting, 20 September 

1967, 1, both in File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

37 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, Special Meeting, 20 September 

1967, 3. 

38 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 16th Meeting, 6 April 1968, 4, File 

A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

39 Ibid. Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 17th Meeting, 14 December 

1968, 4, File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 
Getting Ready 

124 

costs had increased about eight percent per year in the area, eating up the land acquisition 

funds much faster than Congress in 1959 had anticipated. Zerbey felt in 1966 that the 

additional $3 million would suffice since appraisers had formally appraised more than 50 

percent of the still-designated lands and had firm estimates for the remaining lands.40 He 

pointed at the Bicentennial as reason for action as soon as possible. “It behooves us,” Zerbey 

wrote, “to move ahead more rapidly with our land acquisition program so that the necessary 

development of the park may be completed” by 1975.41

Further concerns about MIMA prompted discussion on possible legislation. Zerbey 

watched closely the $3 million development ceiling for the park and asked for consideration 

of a $2 million increase of this limitation. The park had accomplished some construction and 

interpretive work, but much remained, especially building the new visitor center at Fiske 

Hill. Having The Wayside refurbished and ready for public tours offered challenges not 

originally envisioned in the MIMA legislation. He worried that these and other development 

costs would outstrip the funding ceiling and leave the park incapable of meeting its goals in 

time for the Bicentennial.42 Route 2A relocation presented another cause for congressional 

action. As described earlier, state plans by the late 1960s had fixed on building a northerly 

version of Route 2 in which Route 2A would feed. This new combined highway with rightsof-way would in certain places skim the park’s southern boundary. To facilitate this 

important road building, Zerbey asked in June 1966 that future legislation provide for the 

ability of the NPS to conduct land exchanges within the park area, allowing for “evening out 

of the boundary along the proposed highway right-of-way.”43

Beginning in 1967 Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission 

members pushed for the new legislation. Initial steps focused on land acquisition. State 

Senator James DeNormandie (Republican), with support from his commission members, 

talked to United States Representative F. Bradford Morse (Republican). Agreeing to the 

necessity of the proposed legislation, Morse and other members of the Massachusetts 

delegation in the US House of Representatives on 13 July 1967 introduced HR 11463. This 

bill provided for another $5 million in land acquisition funds for MIMA, but it did not 

address land exchanges or the development ceiling. Upon further reflection and study at 

subsequent meetings, the advisory commission wondered if the acreage ceiling should also 

be raised to 1,000 acres. This increase would allow the NPS to acquire all the lands along 

Lexington Road from The Wayside to Meriam’s Corner. DeNormandie and others wanted 

to thwart plans to relocate Route 62 to Old Bedford Road, another aspect of state road work 

being contemplated. In April 1968 DeNormandie asked Zerbey to consult with NPS officials 

 

40 Memorandum, Zerbey to Chief, Office of Land and Water Rights, 23 May 1966, 1, File L1425 CY 1966 

Holdings; and Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 2 January 1969, and 

attachment, Justification to Increase Legislative Ceiling on Land Acquisition, MIMA, 2, File L1425 CY 

1969 Holdings, both in Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

41 Memorandum, Zerbey to Chief, Office of Land and Water Rights, 23 May 1966, 1. 

42 Ibid., 2. 

43 Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 22 June 1966, File L1425 CY 1966 

Holdings, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Getting Ready 

125 

and compile a complete list of changes that might be included in a revised bill.44 Planning 

within the NPS collided with the demands of the Vietnam War. The Northeast Regional 

Office directed Small and Zerbey in July 1968 to stop working on revision of such legislation. 

Raising the ceiling on funding was not “practical at this time in view of the war economy.” 

New legislation would wait until such time when “the rigid fiscal policies of the Federal 

Government have been relaxed.”45

Undeterred, the advisory commission continued to voice support for new legislation. 

At its December 1968 meeting, members voted to submit a resolution to Congressmen Morse 

and Philip Philbin (Democrat) for increased acreage and higher funding for land acquisition 

and development. This resolution sparked further congressional involvement, despite 

renewed threats to funding initiatives. As Small reported to the advisory commission in April 

1969, the federal government had cut all land acquisition funds normally available to the NPS 

and the Forest Service for that year.46 But, Representative Morse and other Massachusetts 

delegates submitted HR 13934 on 23 September 1969. This bill allowed for boundary 

revisions to accommodate relocation of Route 2, so long as any net acreage increase from 

these land exchanges did not count toward the overall acreage limitation. Instead of revising 

the funding limits for land acquisition and development, the bill’s sponsors opted to remove 

these restraints. HR 13934 required that “There are authorized to be appropriated such 

sums as are necessary to carry out the purposes of this Act.”47 On 28 October 1969 Senator 

Edward Kennedy introduced a companion bill. The Senate version, however, contained 

funding limitations, allowing for an additional $5.9 million for land acquisition. The Senate 

version did not provide for an increase in the development ceiling. Language similar to the 

House bill allowed for land exchanges for accommodation of the Route 2 relocation. 

Neither bill included language to increase the acreage limit for the park.48

Further visible progress followed collection and study of information. On 2 June 

1970 Zerbey and DeNormandie both attended the hearing before the House Subcommittee 

on National Parks and Recreation. The Interior Department presented a formal statement of 

support. With visitation levels already surpassing half a million in 1969, the Interior 

Department believed that MIMA needed the next four years to finish land acquisition and 

 

44 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 15th Meeting, 21 June 1967, 4; 

and Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 18th Meeting, 26 April 1969, 3, 

both in File A18 Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. By June 1970, thanks to strong 

opposition from the Town of Concord, the state had withdrawn its proposal for relocating Route 62. See 

Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 17 June 1970, 2, File A18 CY 1970 

Advisory Boards, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

45 Memorandum, Lemuel Garrison to Small, 25 July 1968, File L1425 CY 1968 Holdings, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 

46 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 17th Meeting, 14 December 1968, 

3; Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission Meeting, 18th Meeting, 2; and 

Resolution, rev. of 11 September 1969, all in File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission Meeting, 19th Meeting, 2, 

File A18 CY 1969, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

47 HR 13934, 91st Cong., 1st sess, 23 September 1969. Quote on p. 2. 48 S. 3090, 91st Cong., 1st sess., 28 October 1969. 
Getting Ready 

126 

prepare for the expected crowds for the 200th anniversary of the battle. Departmental 

estimates now set acquisition costs for the remaining identified 144 acres at $5.9 million, 

recognizing the realities of escalating land values. Some of that amount might be recouped 

through authority of the leaseback-sellback arrangements provided under the amended Land 

and Water Conservation Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-401). Fourteen historic homes, six of 

which the NPS already owned, could have scenic easements placed on them to allow for 

private ownership. The NPS would have to acquire and rehabilitate the remaining eight 

homes before reselling them with the easements. With respect to land exchanges with the 

State of Massachusetts for Route 2, the Interior Department emphasized that the federal 

government would not incur any expense for land acquisition under this authority. Instead, 

administration of the area would benefit greatly by adjusting the boundary to accommodate 

the new highway right-of-way. The land exchanges elicited the only serious comment from 

subcommittee members. Zerbey easily laid to rest the concern that the state might have the 

primary advantage instead of the park in such an exchange program. DeNormandie, in 

reporting to the advisory commission later that month, remained optimistic that the 

subcommittee and full House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs would report 

favorably on the bill.49

He assessed the situation correctly. In August the House committee recommended 

some changes but reported favorably for passage of HR 13934. The land exchanges 

remained, but the committee inserted language requiring that such exchanges “be 

accomplished without cost for land acquisition.” Not surprisingly, based on the Senate 

version of the bill, the committee replaced the authorization limitation for land acquisition 

and development that the original House bill had deleted. The development ceiling 

remained unchanged at $3 million and land acquisition rose to $10.9 million, providing an 

additional $5.9 million for new acquisitions, just as the Senate version had done. With regard 

to sellbacks and leasebacks, the committee recommended some caution. Such arrangements 

“should be thoroughly and carefully considered,” and the committee wished the NPS to keep 

it informed of any tentative leases or other conveyances in advance of any binding 

arrangements. “A reasonable lapse of time should be allowed for consideration” before 

execution of any agreement. Both the Interior Department and the Bureau of the Budget 

agreed to the changes recommended by the House committee and supported passage of the 

legislation.50

With this favorable report in hand, the House in September 1970 debated and passed 

the revised bill. Most questions related to the expected costs of finishing land acquisition at 

 

49 Statement, Department of Interior before the House Subcommittee on National Parks and Recreation, 

June 1970, File W3823 MIMA Legislation History, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. Examples of the 

study materials collected for Congress include visitation trends, current and projected staffing 

requirements, land ownership analyses, and land acquisition estimates, all found in this file. Minutes, 

Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 20th Meeting, 17 June 1970, 2, File A18 CY 

1970 Advisory Boards, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

50 House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, Amending the Act of 21 September 1959, 91st Cong., 2d 

sess., 10 August 1970, H. Rep. 91-1398, 1, 3, 4, 6. Quotes, in order, on pp. 1, 4. 
Getting Ready 

127 

the park. Representative Morse explained to his colleagues that the additional $5.9 million 

would cover land acquisition of the final 144 acres designated for inclusion in the park. He 

said that the development ceiling of $3 million would not need revision, so that the only 

other expected expenses would involve maintenance and administration. Representative 

Philbin made clear the urgency of the bill, reminding his fellow members that the 200th

anniversary of the battle approached and the park needed to finish its land acquisition to 

prepare for this important commemoration. Philbin believed that action now on HR 13934 

“will do much to promote patriotic sentiment and assist the Nation and the American people 

in appropriately celebrating this great anniversary.” The House agreed and voted for 

passage.51 

The Senate followed suit. After a November 1970 presentation before the Senate 

Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation, the full Senate voted for passage of the House’s 

revised bill. The Congressional Record indicates that the bill passed without debate. After the 

voice vote, Senator Kennedy marked the bill’s passage in a speech before his colleagues, 

reminding them that the events of 19 April 1775 “have inspired each succeeding generation 

of Americans.” He also referred to the importance of preserving historical areas, “areas of 

quiet and peace which have been so meaningful and important in the development of this 

country.” Such a call for quiet and peace may be a long-term wish in light of the noisy traffic 

both along Route 2A and above from Hanscom, but Kennedy’s language made clear the 

inspirational and meditative spirit he at least envisioned for MIMA. President Richard 

Nixon signed the bill on 14 December 1970 (see Appendix for a copy of the act).52

ACQUIRING LANDS

The 1970 legislation came with a notable shift in public perception towards land 

acquisition at MIMA. Even before park establishment in 1959 a group of Concord residents, 

led by Walter Beatteay had publicly opposed the designation. Beatteay and a few other 

neighbors, most notably the Quinns, had continued to express their concerns to Concord 

officials and others until quietly, as the first round of acquisitions ended in 1968 both of these 

families submitted to appraisals and sold their properties to the federal government. With 

the new round of land acquisitions beginning after 1970, the NPS encountered a surprising 

uproar against its work from Lincoln residents. Individuals from this town, such as the 

Levins, had sounded their frustrations in previous years, but these had stayed within the 

affected neighborhoods and had not involved town representatives. Elected officials from 

Lincoln had largely expressed support for the park and its acquisition efforts over the years. 

In the 1970s this cordial relationship between park and town suffered some battering with 

 

51 Revising Boundaries of MIMA, HR 13934, 91st Cong., 2d sess., Congressional Record (14 September 

1970): H 31441-43. Quote on p. 31443. See also “MM National Park Gets $5.9 Million More, after Iowa 

‘Hard Time,’” Minute Man Supplement, 24 September 1970. 52 Quote from MIMA, HR 13934, 91st Cong., 2d sess., Cong. Rec. (4 December 1970): S 39930. See also 

Statement, Department of the Interior before the Senate Subcommittee on Parks and Recreation, November 

1970, File W3823 MIMA Legislation History, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA; and “US Senate Passes 

MM Natl. Park Funds on Voice Vote, Fri.,” Minute Man Supplement, 10 December 1970. 
Getting Ready 

128 

the renewed land acquisition. As a result, the NPS opted to use such devices as term leases 

and life estates to accomplish its larger goal of incorporating all of the designated land into 

the park’s boundaries.53

Fueled by a $1.8 million congressional appropriation for fiscal year 1972, the park 

began acquiring some long-awaited properties. Maurice Timmerman led the MIMA effort 

this time. Almost 20 acres of land came under NPS control in Lincoln, including sizeable 

contributions from the McHughs, who owned Hartwell Tavern, and Alfred Rogers, who 

owned the historic Brooks Tavern. The park Master Plan had identified Hartwell Tavern for 

composite restoration of the exterior and restoration-reconstruction of the interior for use 

while the Brooks Tavern would serve as headquarters space. In Concord, large plots of land 

came from the Sargents and Ruggieros. The park planned to use the Sargent land to expand 

parking and comfort facilities for the North Bridge area, as described in the next chapter. By 

the end of the fiscal year, though, Timmerman had left the park due to illness, and Daniel 

Farrell, from Cape Cod National Seashore, had replaced him. Some delays resulted from this 

transition.54

Before leaving, Timmerman heard the uproar from Lincoln. Upon receiving NPS 

letters asking to have their properties appraised as the first step toward acquisition, residents 

resisted. These families remembered when former NPS Director Conrad Wirth had visited 

their town. They supported establishment of MIMA because they felt assured from Wirth’s 

statements that they would not be forced out of the park. They also expected to have an 

option of life tenancy, as they remembered being promised by NPS officials back in 1959.55 

One park resident described the feeling of fellow protesters, saying that “we’re not against 

the park. It’s just that we’re the old hardcore group. We want to live our years out in our 

homes.”56 These park families all saved and shared a March 1962 letter from Wirth to the 

then chairman of the Board of Lincoln Selectman, Roger Fitts. In this letter, previously 

discussed in Chapter 3, Wirth wrote that the NPS would not condemn residential property 

unless the owners had misused it or if the property was necessary for park development. 

Wirth also stated that the NPS would acquire property with homes on them “if the owners 

wish to sell.”57 These two points led the Lincoln protesters to demand the right to stay in 

 

53 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 14th Meeting, 9 November 1966, 

2; Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 15th Meeting, 21 June 1967, 3. 54 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 21st Meeting, 29 April 1971, 2; 

Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 22nd Meeting, 21 October 1971, 3, 

both in File A18 CY 1971, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park 

Advisory Commission, 24th Meeting, 10 March 1973, 2, 13, File A18 CY 1973, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

Memorandum, Maurice Timmerman to Acting Chief, Office of land Acquisition and Water Resources, 

ESC, 19 July 1971, File Alfred Rogers, Tract No. 03-114, Lands Files, MIMA. 1966 Master Plan, 15. 

55 “Residents in Park Bounds Say Land Takings Imminent,” Concord Journal (20 April 1972); 

Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 2 May 1972, 1, File L1425 CY 1972 Holdings, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. “Park Residents United against Takings,” Fence Viewer (4 May 1972). 56 Joan Mahoney, “Park Residents Resist Eviction,” Boston Globe (11 July 1972). 57 This letter has already been discussed in chapter two. A copy of it is found attached to Memorandum, 

Herb Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 2 May 1972, Meeting with Special Assistants, File L1425 CY 

1972 Holdings, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Getting Ready 

129 

their homes until they were ready to sell. They chose to ignore another statement by Wirth 

in his letter, emphasizing that the NPS wanted “to move ahead with the acquisition of the 

land as expeditiously as possible” although the agency would “give landowners every 

reasonable consideration consistent with the conducting of an orderly and fair land 

acquisition program.”58

This initial protest against having appraisals done on these Lincoln properties soon 

escalated. People began looking more critically at the way the NPS had handled its past 

acquisitions. Many non-historic houses remained standing beyond their acquisition by the 

park. Some became eyesores while others served as housing for sometimes non-park 

employees. In fact, many Air Force families rented these houses due to housing shortages on 

the base. The Town of Lincoln, feeling a bit overwhelmed, maintained fire service to these 

residences and welcomed any children to its schools, though the town argued that it did not 

receive any tax benefit from these now federal properties.59 Some Lincoln residents 

remarked that the park itself appeared “progressively run down,” littered by cans and trash 

along roadways.60 By late May 1972 the town’s selectmen had joined with the protesters by 

unanimously opposing “any family being forced out” of the park boundaries.61 

And the displeasure and confusion grew. Even Katharine White, who had served as 

the Lincoln representative on the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory 

Commission since its founding, expressed surprise over the perceived change in NPS policy. 

She and others wondered why the park had stepped up its land acquisition efforts and had 

set 1975 as its deadline instead of adopting a gradual pace. Park officials and planning 

documents had long set 1975 as the date to complete the park, but as that date neared, people 

in Lincoln searched for more time. White and the Lincoln selectmen sent their congressional 

representatives and senators identical letters requesting that these park residents will not 

have their homes taken from them against their will. The town also established a Relocation 

Committee to assist families affected either by the park or the Route 2 relocation to find new 

house lots within Lincoln. White and the selectmen wanted assurances that these residents 

could stay until they chose voluntarily to sell. This request soon gained the full formal 

support of the town. At a special town meeting in June 1972, the people of Lincoln 

 

58 Ibid. 

59 “Park Residents United against Takings,” 4 May 1972. Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast 

Region, 5 May 1972, 1; and Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 12 May 1972, 2, both in 

File L1425 CY 1972 Holdings, Park Admin Files, MIMA. “Town Opposes MM Park Forcing Families to 

Move,” no publication information [probably Fence Viewer] (25 May 1972), File IV, Unprocessed 

Materials, Museum Collection, MIMA. Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory 

Commission, 23rd Meeting, 27 April 1972, 2, File A18 CY 1972, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Moffitt, 

transcript of interview, 2. For a sampling of building rentals in 1967, showing eight USAF families, see 

Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 18 September 1967, 4, L1425 CY 1967 

Holdings, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

60 “Park Residents United against Takings,” 4 May 1972. Cynthia Kryston, “Minute Man National Park,” 

Concord Free Press (19 December 1968). 61 “Town Opposes MM Park,” 25 May 1972. 
Getting Ready 

130 

unanimously supported a resolution of support for residents living within the park’s 

boundaries and opposed any efforts at condemnation.62

The experience of the Rooneys provides an insight into land acquisition soon after 

the 1970 legislation. Edward and Elizabeth Rooney received a letter in 1972 from the land 

acquisition office asking for permission to have their property appraised. The Rooneys 

replied that they did not want their property appraised at that time. In June 1973, they 

received another letter, this time from Chester Brooks, the regional director. Brooks wrote 

that the Rooneys had asserted their “prerogative” and refused appraisal of their property in 

preparation of negotiations for land acquisition for MIMA. As a result, “I have reluctantly 

instructed my staff to prepare a condemnation proceeding.”63 The Rooneys shot an angry 

letter back. They wrote that “in your letter, you have threatened to resort to the subterfuge 

of condemnation in order to deprive us of what you call our ‘prerogative’ but what we call 

our Civil Right.” They went on to refer to the principles and ideals of the Minute Men whose 

memory the park memorialized. They believed the actions of the NPS in its land acquisition 

dealings made “a mockery” of those ideals.64

How did MIMA respond to this growing discontent? Herbert Olsen, who replaced 

Zerbey as general superintendent of the Boston Group and who worked out of the Stedman 

Buttrick House, worked directly with Unit Manager Bob Perkins to resolve the situation. 

With the advisory commission, Olsen, Perkins, and Land Acquisition Officer Timmerman 

reiterated NPS policy and answered questions. Olsen also explained that appropriations for 

land acquisition did not include maintenance or demolition funding, leaving the park with 

some buildings that it could not afford to maintain or remove.65 In a meeting with the 

Lincoln Board of Selectmen, Olsen and Perkins again fielded questions and discussed the 

value of having appraisals done. The selectmen agreed that with appraisals completed and 

negotiations opened, the park residents would learn what their options were. The benefits of 

the Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1970, which offered the possibility of helping with 

moving costs, might also prove a deciding factor. And, the efforts of the town to assist 

through its relocation committee gained the ear of some park residents.66

In the end, though, the NPS used life estates and term leases to gain control over the 

properties of these reluctant residents. At first, Olsen had only agreed to offer long-term 

leases for historic houses. But, interest in this option grew among residents of modern 

 

62 Ibid.; “Letter Supports Park Residents, but Seeks ‘Voluntary Relocation,’” Fence Viewer (8 June 1972); 

“Lincoln Rejects Taking Land for Park,” Boston Globe (20 June 1972); “Bleacher Vote Reversed; Heat 

Sensors, Resolution Approved at 4th Session,” Fence Viewer (23 June 1972). Lincoln Annual Report, 1972, 

152, Lincoln Public Library. 

63 Chester Brooks to Edward and Elizabeth Rooney, 22 June 1973, 1, File Rooney, Edward, Tract No. 03-

108, Lands Files, MIMA. 

64 Edward and Elizabeth Rooney to Chester Brooks, 26 June 1973, File Rooney, Edward, Tract No. 03-108, 

Lands Files, MIMA. 

65 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 23rd Meeting, 27 April 1972, 3. 66 Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 2 May 1972, Meeting with Special Assistants. 

Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 2 May 1972, Land Acquisition, 1, L1425 CY 1972 

Holdings. Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 12 May 1972, 1-2. 
Getting Ready 

131 

houses, too, and the NPS agreed to its extension to all property owners.67 As Acquisition 

Officer Farrell explained later, the NPS accepted the possibility of life estates along Route 2A 

because it saw “redevelopment of that area as being probably about a 25-year proposition.” 

This admission recognized the delays the park had encountered over the past almost 15 years 

to relocate Route 2A. Farrell and the rest of the park also knew that the amount of work 

needed to complete the restoration of the Battle Road and realize the vision of the Master 

Plan required funding over a long period of time.68 While waiting for these factors to play 

out, the park could accommodate having private citizens living in houses on park land, being 

a good neighbor while also fulfilling its congressional obligations. In 1976 Edward Rooney, 

by then a widower, sold his property to the NPS with a life estate.69

Despite this concession, the NPS did not intend to slow down or halt its land 

acquisition efforts. Under the mandate of the 1970 law the agency had an obligation to 

undertake acquisition of the remaining private properties designated for inclusion in the 

park. Park officials could not accommodate a gradual process when land values continued to 

escalate, potentially hindering further settlement of properties.70 The NPS did offer, in 

certain situations, to temporarily “back off for awhile and wait” until the owner had some 

time to re-evaluate the offer.71 As Olsen stated for a newspaper, “We’re not pressing.” He 

went on to emphasize that the NPS hoped to “conclude amicable agreements with all those 

still living inside the park.”72

HISTORIC HOUSES

These new properties came with many buildings to remove or rehabilitate. The park 

slowly but steadily made progress on completing these tasks, as it had before the new 

legislation. Zerbey’s interest in environmental alternatives led him to find willing buyers for 

some modern houses. Buyers paid a flat fee for the modern buildings that were later moved 

to a new lot off park property. Zerbey also supported proposals for having some of these 

houses used for moderate-income housing or to form a new neighborhood in Lincoln for 

relocated residents. Research continued on the older park houses, whether to trace legal 

ownership or uncover foundations. Robert Ronsheim stayed long enough to complete the 

Historic Structure Report on The Wayside, to be discussed later in the chapter, and he started 

the furnishing plan for the house. He left in 1969 just as Zerbey took over the General 

Superintendency of the Boston Group and Robert Perkins became unit manager. Two new 

people devoted considerable talent and energy to making MIMA’s buildings come alive: 

 

67 Lincoln Annual Report, 1973, 125; and Lincoln Annual Report, 1974, 119, both in Lincoln Public 

Library. 

68 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 24th Meeting, 10 March 1973, 17. 69 Memorandum, Thomas Coleman to Files, 4 November 1982, File Rooney, Edward, Tract No. 03-108, 

Lands Files, MIMA. 

70 Olsen to Robert Gargill, 2 June 1972, 2; and Chester Brooks to Edward Brooks, 10 July 1972, both in 

File L1425 CY 1972 Holdings, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

71 Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 12 May 1972, 3. 

72 Mahoney, “Park Residents Resist Eviction,” Boston Globe (11 July 1972). 
Getting Ready 

132 

Cynthia Kryston and Orville Carroll. Kryston joined the staff in April 1967 as a park 

historian/ranger. Carroll served as historical architect, first assigned to MIMA in March 

1966 through the Denver Service Center but eventually working under the Boston Group. 

The next section of this chapter describes one aspect of Kryston’s important influence upon 

MIMA’s interpretation. Carroll played an equally influential role in preserving the historic 

buildings. Both people continued to shape the park in succeeding years, as later chapters 

demonstrate.73

Carroll had a passion for old buildings. Although trained at the University of Oregon 

in modern architectural design, he had also gained hands-on experience working in his early 

NPS career under some of the luminaries of historic preservation, including Historic 

American Building Survey founder Charles Peterson. Carroll immersed himself in the 

architectural details of each of his projects, whether restoring the courthouse at Appomattox 

or rehabilitating the fortifications of Fort McHenry. He sought every possible avenue to 

learn more about old buildings. At the invitation of owners, he studied and gave his opinion 

about the evolution of old houses around New England and worked with some people to 

save buildings slotted for demolition. He expressed surprise if someone offered him gifts for 

his efforts. For him, he gained immeasurably from the opportunity to add to his knowledge 

of architectural history. He took photographs and kept careful notes, saving notebooks filled 

with information that spoke of his breadth and depth of understanding in architecture.74

He also felt a responsibility to the original fabric, or historic building elements. He 

collected the odd weatherboarding and doors that accumulated from abandoned or lost 

buildings and saved them to study and reuse. If someone else replaced an original window or 

other feature with a modern version, he took such action as a personal affront. Herbert 

Olsen, at one point, had agreed to using an off-the-shelf lumberyard window for the Joshua 

Brooks House. Forty years later, this decision still “distressed me immensely,” as Carroll 

recalled it.75 David Moffitt affectionately called Carroll the “historic restoration expert par 

nobody.” But Moffitt also did not enjoy the battles he faced when Carroll tried to uphold his 

high standards for architectural integrity.76 Carroll personally held a high regard for Zerbey 

simply because this superintendent wouldn’t let anyone touch the buildings until he had 

approved the work. Carroll demanded that level of commitment from everyone.77

 

73 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 7. Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 

12th Meeting, 4 December 1965, 3; Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 

17th Meeting, 14 December 1968, 2; Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 

19th Meeting, 6 December 1969, 1, 3. Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 29 

March 1968, 1, File D18 Trails and Structure Plan 1968, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Robert Ronsheim, 

The Wayside: Home of Authors, Historic Structure Report, Part II, Historical Data Section (NPS: Office 

of Archeology and Historic Preservation, 1968). Cynthia Kryston, transcription of oral history interview 

with the author, 27 January 2005, 1, MIMA. Memorandum, Appleman to Chief Historian, 24 November 

1969, 20. Orville Carroll, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 22 October 2004, 2, 

MIMA. 

74 Carroll, transcript of interview, 1-2, 4-5, 9-10. 

75 Ibid., 3-4, 17-18. Quote on p. 18. 

76 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 20. 

77 Carroll, transcript of interview, 17. 
Getting Ready 

133 

Carroll understood what MIMA could ultimately achieve with its collection of 

historic structures. He and Ronsheim wrote to Zerbey in April 1968, asking that the park 

think about the explicit values of these buildings, beyond what these buildings could do to 

recreate the historic scene of the Battle Road. They wrote that the interiors and exteriors of 

these houses “are historical documents of the way of life” in rural Massachusetts in 1775. 

Only a limited number of such buildings still existed, and MIMA had, by far, the richest 

amount. Carroll and Ronsheim admitted that these buildings may not be the best 

architectural examples or the homes of outstanding leaders, but “they reflect the life of the 

majority of the colony, a society which produced the ideals for which men fought on 19 April 

1775 and the men who fought.” By saving these houses, Carroll and Ronsheim believed that 

the park would “in a unique way show the people.” Steps taken in the 1960s could open 

possibilities for interpretation that could not even be imagined for the twenty-first century. 

At the same time, not taking every step possible now to preserve these buildings as a whole 

would eliminate later explorations. Both men, driven by their devotion to history, urged the 

NPS to take the most preservation-minded course in restoring and rehabilitating these 

structures.78

How to put these high ideals into practice proved challenging. Exactly which 

structures required full restoration to the 1775 period? What should the NPS do with 

buildings constructed later than 1775 but before the unofficial 1830 timeline cut-off date for 

the park? How should the park address the interior and exterior of buildings changed by a 

succession of owners? The 1966 Master Plan provided guidance, based on the existing 

historic preservation standards and practices. The plan favored composite restorations or 

rehabilitation for the majority of the park’s historic structures. Yet, what was a composite 

restoration and how did it differ from rehabilitation? The Master Plan did not explain, 

except to argue that “rehabilitation will be given preference over restoration, and those 

increments to structures not clearly inimical to the visitor’s appreciation of the historic scene 

will be retained.”79 Administrative policies for the NPS, dating from 1964 and revised in 

1968, do not address composite restoration versus rehabilitation. Restoration, according to 

the policies, required that historic structures “be fully and exactly restored when of the first 

order of significance” or partially or adaptively restored when of second or third orders of 

significance.80 Underlying this idea of restoration is the favoring of one particular time 

period over all others. But, a composite restoration of structures at MIMA suggests the 

amplification of more than one time period. Such restoration work might be necessary due 

to incomplete documentation or the desire to showcase the changes within a family from 

colonial times, through the Revolutionary War period, into the Federal period, and beyond. 

Other terms relating to historic structures help to explain the strategies planners used at 

MIMA. The 1964 administrative policies do not define rehabilitation, although later 

 

78 Memorandum, Carroll and Ronsheim to Zerbey, 11 April 1968, No File, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. 79 1966 Master Plan, 3. 80 NPS, Compilation of Administrative Policies for the Historical Areas of the National Park System, 

(Washington, DC: GPO, rev. September 1968), 23. 
Getting Ready 

134 

meanings of the word suggest that extensive work would be needed to repair and replace 

deteriorated historic elements and that depiction to a particular time would not be 

appropriate.81 Rehabilitation allows, for example, use of a historic structure as housing 

stock. Reconstruction involves constructing a new structure using sufficient historical, 

archeological, and architectural data to approximate a vanished structure. This latter 

approach provides a less favored alternative in addressing historic structures. 

What did the Master Plan say about specific buildings? Keeping in mind the above 

definitions and suggested meanings, the Master Plan laid out its recommendations. Only a 

few buildings would serve as historic house museums and thus required both interior and 

exterior work. The Master Plan proposed rehabilitation of The Wayside, to take into 

account that little of its exterior or interior had been altered since 1924. The plan 

recommended for the Ephraim Hartwell Tavern composite restoration of the exterior and 

restoration-reconstruction of the interior for use as a historic house museum space. For the 

Nathan Meriam House, the Master Plan proposed composite restoration of the exterior to an 

appearance compatible with the historic scene and preservation of the old fabric, or historic 

elements, in the interior. To provide an alternative educational experience for visitors, the 

Master Plan identified the Job Brooks House as a site for a self-guiding museum on domestic 

building practices and methods. To accomplish this goal, the plan recommended 

restoration-reconstruction of the exterior and rehabilitation of the interior, leaving portions 

exposed to show 1775 fabric. 

The other 11 identified historic structures inside the park’s boundaries would receive 

varying levels of attention. Most, like the Jacob Whittemore House, would have composite 

restorations to appear compatible with the historic scene. The 1963 Historic Structures 

Report for the Whittemore House provided some guidance. If not enough architectural and 

archeological information could be found to restore the exterior to 1775 then the report 

advised that “a restoration to some date between 1775 and 1830 is likely to be preferable.”82 

The 1966 Master Plan identified a few others, such as the George Minot House (now known 

as the George Hall House), for preservation and maintenance. Brooks Tavern, identified for 

eventual park headquarters, would also receive maintenance status. Built between 1798 and 

1806 this tavern on the Battle Road had aesthetic architectural value. Carroll referred to this 

building as “swanky” with a chimney at each corner.83 The NPS would disturb the interior 

fabric of buildings not serving as museums as little as possible based on assigned uses. The 

Master Plan also urged that the park find uses for as many historic buildings as possible. 

Some could serve as quarters. Other options listed in the Master Plan included park office 

 

81 Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Structures: Rehabilitation, 

http://www.cr.nps.gov/hps/tps/standguide/rehab/rehab_approach.htm#top, as accessed 10 October 2006. 82 Edwin Small, Historic Structures Report, Part I, Jacob Whittemore House, 1, File Jacob Whittemore 

House, NPS Reports Files, Park Library, MIMA. 

83 Carroll, transcript of interview, 22 October 2004, 12. 
Getting Ready 

135 

space and rental leasing to private parties or organizations. Possible leasebacks and 

sellbacks, as explored with the 1970 legislation, might also result for some buildings.84

Carroll had the joy and responsibility of translating these few guidelines into practice. 

Upon arrival in March 1966 he first turned his attention to the Elisha Jones House, popularly 

known as the Bullet Hole House. This house had a whole set of challenges for any architect. 

First, thanks to an extensive renovation in 1865 by its then-owner Judge John Keyes, the 

house’s basic construction and design had changed almost beyond recognition. As NPS 

historian John Luzader wrote in his Historic Structure Report, Judge Keyes had “destroyed so 

much of the original fabric that the evidence that might have provided a record of its 

structural history” was lost. Researchers could not uncover what architectural features 

might have dated from the period just before the Keyes renovation let alone how the house 

may have looked at the time of the 1775 battle.85

Second, Carroll and others began to raise doubts about the story of the “bullet hole.” 

As recounted in the first chapter, a tradition in Concord had told that when the British 

retreated from the North Bridge on 19 April they marched past the Elisha Jones House. 

Jones had yelled out at the British, and one of the soldiers had fired upon Jones, missing him 

but, according to the story, leaving a bullet hole in the shed near where Jones had stood. 

However, when NPS historical architects George Wrenn and Hank Judd had examined the 

house and its famed bullet hole in 1965 they found no splitting of the framing member from 

the impact of the bullet, a result found in other buildings with a similar fate. Judd, in his 

report, also remarked that the story of the bullet hole first appeared nearly 100 years after the 

event, raising suspicions. Luzader, in his 1968 study of the house, noted that the diameter of 

the so-called bullet hole was actually smaller than what would result from a musket ball. The 

too-small diameter removed the likelihood that a musket ball had caused the hole.86 Luzader 

also uncovered that Jones’s daughter Mary, who had been four at the time of the 1775 battle, 

had shared the story with Judge Keyes when she was in her early 80s. Keyes had 

subsequently published the story and popularized it. With his extensive remodeling of the 

house, he wrote that he had moved the famed shed and connected it to the main house, 

raised its roof, and placed the bullet hole in the front. Luzader included Wrenn’s and Judd’s 

assessment that the framing members had come from other buildings, without any regard for 

how these older buildings may have looked. Nor could the architects determine from which 

buildings these members may have come. They might have been borrowed from the shed in 

question or they might have come from entirely unrelated structures. If the shed had been 

 

84 1966 Master Plan, 3, 11, 15. 85 John F. Luzader, Historical Data Section, Historic Structure Report, Parts I and II, Elisha Jones House, 

26 September 1968, 12, File Elisha Jones House, NPS Reports, Park Library, MIMA. 

86 Architectural conservator James Lee reported in his 2007 historic structure report on the Elisha Jones 

house that, according to his measurements, the questionable hole measured large enough for a musket ball. 

Lee concluded that there is still insufficient evidence to positively identify the hole as resulting from a 

British musket ball. Instead, Lee argues that the lore of the bullet hole serves to embellish the events of the 

day and adds to the commemorative nature of the site. See James J. Lee III, Elisha Jones House and Shed, 

Historic Structure Report, 2007, 40-42, File Elisha Jones House, MIMA Library. 
Getting Ready 

136 

moved, the NPS hoped to locate its original foundation through archeological explorations. 

However, test trenches in the most likely spots on the property, where level ground could 

have housed such a structure, turned up negative. Archeologist Leland Abel did offer some 

promise that the shed may have been originally located across Monument Street, but he 

could not excavate this private property.87

In April 1966 Carroll conducted his own architectural review of the shed. He found 

that the building could in fact date to pre-1775. He agreed that many of the framing 

members came second-hand to the shed, but close inspection revealed an earlier shed 

underneath the 1865 remodeling work. He could not specifically date this shed, but its 

building frame compared favorably with other eighteenth-century sheds in the area. Carroll 

then found a depiction of the shed in an 1875 Centennial edition of Harper’s Magazine. This 

illustration, providing no sources for its basis, purported to show the 1775 shed as it stood 

detached from the house. Using this drawing as a guide, along with his own architectural 

examination of the building, Carroll presented two alternatives for disposition: removal 

from the house and restoration of the shed based on the 1875 drawing or restoration of the 

shed to its 1865 appearance as attached to the house. Removal of the shed would, as Carroll 

noted, emphasize the story of the bullet hole while retaining its present location would 

“lessen the story’s impact.”88

Decisions on the Elisha Jones House spread over a period time. The first step 

addressed an immediate need to fulfill housing needs for NPS personnel. Unlike Edwin 

Small, who chose to live and work outside MIMA while serving as superintendent, Zerbey 

decided to stay with his growing family in the park. He chose the Bullet Hole House for 

quarters.89 This decision received a mixed reception within the community. As Zerbey later 

remembered, people in Concord liked the idea of having the superintendent living in their 

town. However, the “historical people,” as Zerbey characterized them, looked aghast at all of 

Zerbey’s young kids running around the front lawn. That didn’t “look historic” at all to 

them, he later chuckled.90 The house needed work to accommodate the demands of a 

modern family. As Carroll recalled, his first job as historical architect at MIMA involved 

 

87 Ibid., 10-16. H. A. Judd, Architectural Data Section, Part I, Historic Structure Report, Elisha Jones 

House, October 1965, 1, File Elisha Jones House, NPS Reports Files, Park Library, MIMA. Leland Abel, 

Archeological Data Section, Historic Structure Report Part II, Elisha Jones House, January 1967, 8-10; and 

Abel, Supplement for Archeological Data Section, Elisha Jones House, 2-3, both in File Elisha Jones 

Archeology, NPS Reports Files, Park Library, MIMA. Orville Carroll, Historic Structure Report, Part II, 

Shed, Elisha Jones House, May 1973, 1, 3, 5, 7-9, File Elisha Jones Shed, NPS Reports Files, Park Library, 

MIMA. Elisha Jones Historic Structures Report, Parts I and II, 26 September 1968, 16, File Elisha Jones 

House, NPS Report Library, MIMA Library. 

88 Carroll, Historic Structure Report, Part II, Shed, Elisha Jones House, May 1973, 1, 3, 19, 25-26. Quote 

on p. 25. Carroll, EODC Weekly Field Reports, 8 April 1966; 22 April 1966; 29 April 1966, all in No File, 

Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. Carroll, transcript of interview, 2-3. 

89 One NPS report noted that having the park superintendent live in the Bullet Hole House made for good 

public relations. See Office of Planning, Philadelphia Planning and Service Center, Special Study: 

Historic Motor Trails and Disposition of Structures in MIMA, February 1968, 10, File Historic Motor 

Trails: Special Study, NPS Reports Files, Park Library, MIMA. 

90 Zerbey, transcript of interview, 7. 
Getting Ready 

137 

“gutting [the Elisha Jones House’s] inside and remodeling it.” He put in a new kitchen and 

replaced the heating system.91 None too early. Zerbey had pleaded with the regional office 

to get the work done to put the house into “more livable condition.”92 Subsequent 

superintendents have lived at least part of their tenures at the Elisha Jones House. 

Ultimately, the NPS decided to keep the shed attached to the house. The roof over the 

kitchen lean-to, added on in 1865, could not be removed to restore the shed to its supposed 

1775 appearance. Beginning in spring 1974, Carroll oversaw park maintenance personnel in 

completing the restoration work, largely finished in time for the Bicentennial.93

With each historic structure at MIMA, as illuminated by the Elisha Jones House 

example, the realities of the existing structure and the limitations of historical research 

largely determined how the NPS preserved the buildings under its care. Carroll later gave the 

example of the Ephraim Hartwell Tavern. According to the 1966 Master Plan, the NPS 

would complete a composite restoration of its exterior to 1775 and do a restorationreconstruction of the interior to accommodate a historic house museum.94 Yet, architectural 

examination of the building demonstrated that later generations of the Hartwell family had 

made changes worth keeping. An addition on the side and a shed in the back spoke to the 

growth and changes of the family. Carroll asked, “Do we tear them down?” And he 

answered emphatically, “No!” “Why would you want to tear down this continuation of this 

family story just to get back to 1775?” He recognized how “complicated [it was] trying to 

make a particular story fit with the growth of buildings and the farmland.”95 In the end, he 

advocated for a preservation policy that fit both the 1775 mandate of the park and the 

realities of the buildings as they stood in the late-twentieth century. This “continuum 

approach” to historic preservation, discussed in greater detail in Chapter 6, eventually 

became adopted in NPS management policies. 

Carroll offered another twist on preservation to the 1775 story line with regards to 

the Jacob Whittemore House. This historic house had always served as quarters for park 

personnel. As a consequence, cars and trucks often parked around the lot in plain view of 

travelers. On another lot owned by the NPS, an old barn stood, the only remaining pretwentieth-century barn (aside from The Wayside Barn) in the park. Carroll wondered, why 

couldn’t the NPS move the barn to the Whittemore House and set it up as a garage to hide 

the cars?96 The barn itself dated from 1865-1875, but Carroll remarked that its size and 

exterior character retained “much of the quality built into colonial barns.”97 By using the 

 

91 Carroll, transcript of interview, 11. To see the completion report for the work, see Orville Carroll, 

Historic Structure Report, Part III, Architectural Data Section, Elisha Jones House, January 1967, File 

Elisha Jones House, NPS Reports Files, Park Library, MIMA. 

92 Memorandum, Robert Smith to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 21 January 1966, File H30 1963-

1969, Box 3, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

93 Orville Carroll, Historic Structure Report, Completion Report, October 1975, 3, File Elisha Jones Shed, 

NPS Report Files, Park Library, MIMA. 

94 1966 Master Plan, 15. 

95 Carroll, transcript of interview, 8. 

96 Carroll, transcript of interview, 9. 

97 Memorandum, Carroll to Boston Group Superintendent, 12 May 1971, No File, Park Admin Files, 
Getting Ready 

138 

barn in this manner, the park would further meet its goal of recreating the historic scene of 

the Battle Road. Park managers agreed and in 1979 moved the barn to its new home.98

For the Samuel Hartwell House in Lincoln, destruction of the building by fire before 

ownership by the NPS brought a whole new set of challenges. Jane Poor and Marion Fitch 

had purchased and converted this house into a popular restaurant known as Hartwell Farms. 

Open since 19 April 1925, this country-eating establishment had gained many devoted 

customers from around the region. It held special memories for people thanks to its part in 

the story of Paul Revere’s Ride, as reenacted each year. Warren Flint, Jr., remembered being 

bundled up by his parents each April 19 around 1 AM and driving up to the restaurant for 

some warm beef stew and biscuits, all cooked in the original central fireplace. After this 

“magnificent feast,” the hundred or so people would anxiously await for the reenactment of 

Samuel Prescott knocking on the door to give the alarm that the British were coming.99

When this building burned on 18 February 1968 a significant part of Lincoln’s history 

burned, too. By then, Jane Poor had already passed away, and Marion Fitch had survived the 

fire with only her night clothes. Since Fitch had long anticipated that the NPS would buy the 

property, she did not endeavor to rebuild the restaurant. Unfortunately, MIMA’s ability to 

purchase the property relied upon the 1970 legislation. In the meantime, in spring 1968 Judd 

directed Carroll to measure the house’s remains as the NPS had not had HABS drawings 

done of the building. Carroll also interviewed Fitch several times for clues about the design 

and structure, and he photographed sections of the remaining frame.100 Carroll noted in his 

Historic Structures Report that although much of the house was beyond salvage, “the central 

chimney survived the fire with little damage and is one of the more interesting chimney 

constructions in this area.”101

Once acquired, what should the NPS do with this damaged building? Fitch and many 

people in Lincoln advocated for reconstruction. Carroll reported early on that “There is 

strong local interest in Lincoln to reconstruct this house.”102 Zerbey favored reconstruction, 

largely due to the “high level of local interest” and the connection of the property to the 

events of 19 April 1775.103 Going into the 1970s, fans of Hartwell Farms expressed their 

preference for having the Hartwell House reconstructed. Minute Man National Historical 

Park Advisory Commission member James DeNormandie remarked in one meeting that the 

 MIMA. 

98 Orville Carroll, Completion Report, Moving and Rehabilitation of Hargrove Barn, November 1979, File 

Hargrove Barn, NPS Report Files, Park Library, MIMA. 

99 Warren Flint, Jr., transcription of oral history interview by author, 28 April 2005, 3, MIMA Archives. 

100 Orville Carroll, EODC Weekly Field Reports, 23 February 1968; 8 March 1968; and 5 April 1968, both 

in No File, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. Robert Taylor, “Hartwell Farm Destroyed,” [no source], 

7/13/67-4/28/68 MIMA Scrapbook. 

101 Orville Carroll, Historic Structures Report, Part I, Samuel Hartwell House, May 1968, Section D Fire 

Damage of February 1968. 

102 Carroll, EODC Weekly Field Report, 23 February 1968. 103 Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 26 April 1968, File H30 1963-1969, Box 

3, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 
Getting Ready 

139 

Hartwell House had “tremendous sentimental value to Lincoln.”104 Miriam Lovins echoed 

this feeling when she wrote to the NPS describing “the very special place in the hearts of 

several generations of New Englanders” for the house and its former restaurant. With “Miss 

Fitch” around 80 years old, Lovins urged the NPS to reconstruct the house so that the former 

owner could answer questions about details of the house and see it standing again. In 

Lovins’s mind, “it would be a tragedy if [Miss Fitch] could not be present when the house is 

finally restored.”105 When Lincoln residents began opposing land acquisition following 

passage of the 1970 legislation, they reminded the NPS about the Samuel Hartwell House and 

their wish to have it refurbished.106

NPS philosophy and policy on reconstruction determined the final outcome for the 

Hartwell House. Strictly following the agency’s 1916 Organic Act, many NPS personnel have 

argued that preservation of the historic scene and original remains took precedence over 

building a reconstruction over a site. Reconstruction, in the minds of such antireconstructionists, meant creating a new resource of limited historical and archeological 

basis. These new buildings might be accurate, but they were not authentic. In fact, due to 

limited historical and archeological evidence, reconstructions often reflected more of the 

tastes and values of the time in which they were rebuilt instead of the historic times of the 

original building. Reconstructions also had the possible effect of watering down the truly 

original structures in a park. Yet, reconstruction had a place within the NPS’s official policy 

for historic preservation. The Historic Sites Act of 1935 authorizes the NPS to “restore, 

reconstruct, rehabilitate, preserve, and maintain historic or prehistoric sites, buildings, 

objects, and properties of national historical or archeological significance. . . .”107 The 

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 also defines historic preservation to include 

reconstruction. NPS policy itself placed careful restrictions on reconstructions. According 

to the 1968 policy the NPS could authorize reconstructions only when almost all traces of the 

original structure had disappeared and its recreation was essential for public understanding 

and appreciation of the site. Plus, sufficient historical, archeological, and architectural 

information existed for reconstruction.108

For many NPS reviewers, the Hartwell House did not meet these tight requirements. 

As a result, acting Regional Director George Palmer argued for stabilization of the building 

remains. “Better this,” he thought, “than to dilute the impact of the other historic Park 

holdings (all of them original) with a reconstruction.”109 Ernest Allen Connally, chief of the 

NPS Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation, agreed. Local pressures for 

 

104 Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 24th Meeting, 10 March 1973, 7. 105 Miriam Lovins to Walter Hickel, 8 July 1970, 2, attached to Carroll, Historic Structures Report, Part I, 

Samuel Hartwell House, May 1968. 

106 “Town Opposes MM Park Forcing Families to Move,” 25 May 1972. 107 Dilsaver, ed., America’s National Park System, 133. 108 Ibid., 303; Barry Mackintosh, “To Reconstruct or Not to Reconstruct: An Overview of NPS Policy and 

Practice,” CRM Bulletin 13:1 (1990): 7. See also Joan M. Zenzen, Reconstructing the Past and Partnering 

for the Future at Fort Stanwix National Monument (SUNY Press, in press). 

109 Memorandum, George Palmer to Director, 9 May 1968, attached to Carroll, Historic Structures Report, 

Part I, Samuel Hartwell House, May 1968. 
Getting Ready 

140 

reconstruction should not sway the decision. He pointed out that “other needed park 

developments” took precedence over such action. Plus, historical research had placed some 

doubts as to whether it was the Samuel Hartwell House or the Ephraim Hartwell Tavern that 

played a direct role in the story of Paul Revere’s Ride. Connally conceded that the Samuel 

Hartwell House “was very old, parts of it dating from the seventeenth century” but that this 

fact “cannot be considered a sufficient reason for reconstructing it.”110 However, the house’s 

central chimney intrigued Carroll and others, leading to other preservation steps, as 

described in Chapter 6. 

With each historic building at MIMA, NPS planners took into account the historic 

fabric (the remaining skin and bones of the historic building) and significance but also had to 

make decisions that later reviewers might critique. For example, the idea of a composite 

restoration does not exist in today’s lexicon of historic preservation terminology. 

Restoration should strictly focus upon a single identified time period. Preservation, which 

would allow for saving accretions in historic structures, might have offered an alternative, 

except that the park’s Master Plan made clear that interpretation and education would focus 

on 1775 and at most a period extending to about 50 years after the Revolution to 1830. The 

Master Plan did not support an extended time frame. In addition, Carroll’s suggestion to 

move a barn to a new location to hide modern transportation vehicles would also provoke 

concerns today. The barn’s period of architectural significance did not match the house it 

now stood beside, and the barn itself lost its architectural and historical significance in 

relation to its original location. Historic preservation has changed and developed over time. 

Keeping track of changes at particular sites aids understanding and informs subsequent 

decisions. 

THE WAYSIDE

Unlike the other historic houses within MIMA, the NPS had a clear idea of how to 

address the extensive architectural changes made to The Wayside over its 250 years. This 

vision largely came from Margaret Lothrop, who sold the property to the agency in 1965. As 

noted earlier, Lothrop had definite opinions of how the NPS should present the house to 

visitors, wanting to ensure that all time periods had a voice. She also did not want the house 

to become a mere museum, staid and lifeless. She had been born and raised in this venerable 

edifice, and she had felt the tangible presence of each of the authors who had made the house 

such a remarkable place in the literary history of the United States. As park interpretive 

ranger Margie Hicks explained, Lothrop “always wanted to see [The Wayside] as living, a 

continually living history,” giving people the feeling that Hawthorne, for example, had just 

put down his cigar and left. For this reason, interpretive ranger Cynthia Kryston placed 

eucalyptus leaves around the house because Lothrop’s mother, Harriett, liked that kind of 

 

110 Memorandum, Ernest Allen Connally to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 21 May 1968, attached to 

Carroll, Historic Structures Report, Part I, Samuel Hartwell House, May 1968. 
Getting Ready 

141 

leaf in her floral decorations.111 To guide interpretation of The Wayside, the NPS adopted 

Lothrop’s fluid approach to the history of the house, allowing the influences of each author 

to shine. Interpretation and rehabilitation of the house would extend through 1924, when 

Harriett Lothrop died.112

Before The Wayside could host visitors, the NPS had a lot of work to complete. As 

Carroll remarked in his Historic Structure Report for The Wayside Barn, both the house and 

barn were in “extremely poor condition” when acquired. Miss Lothrop’s energies “were 

completely spent,” according to Carroll, as a result of maintaining the house on a fulltime 

basis since 1932.113 However, she enthusiastically answered myriad questions about the 

house. Robert Ronsheim led the historical research effort, aided immeasurably by the 

donation of Lothrop’s meticulous research files. One NPS observer noted that Ronsheim’s 

work with Lothrop was “particularly exemplary.”114 Carroll, in charge of the architectural 

rehabilitation, interviewed Lothrop on several occasions in August and September 1966, 

asking how she and her family had changed the house over the years. Carroll also spent time 

examining the architectural details of the house and reviewing the historical documents 

assembled by Ronsheim, looking for clues as to when previous owners added their own 

stamp to the building. To prepare for the rehabilitation work, the NPS cleared out the 

furnishings and readied them for cataloging and appraisal by expert conservationists. 

Unfortunately, the park had difficulty finding available and qualified contractors to complete 

this work. After careful review of the house and source materials, Carroll and Ronsheim 

submitted in 1968 their sections of the overall Historic Structure Report for The Wayside and 

its barn. Anna Coxe Toogood completed in 1970 a Historic Grounds Report for the site.115

Rehabilitation work proceeded in two stages, driven by funding availability. Between 

April 1968 and August 1969, workers focused on the exterior of the house and a portion of 

the barn. The workforce ranged from six men in the warmer months to two fulltime men 

once winter hit. Workers completed enough interior work on the house so that once funds 

reappeared, they could apply a final finish. The Northeast Region provided critical 

additional funds in September 1970, backed by labor and supplies from the park. In memory 

 

111 Margie Hicks, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 21 January 2005, 8, MIMA. 112 1966 Master Plan, 15. 113 Orville Carroll, Historic Structure Report, Architectural Data Section, The Wayside Barn, March 1973, 

31, File Wayside Barn, NPS Report Files, Park Library, MIMA. 114 Memorandum, Horace Willcox to Regional Chief of Interpretation and Visitor Services, Northeast 

Region, 20 August 1965, File Minute Man (1 of 2), Unprocessed Material, Museum Collection, MIMA. 

115 Ibid., vi, 3; Ronsheim, Historic Structure Report, Part II, Historic Data Section, The Wayside, February 

1968, Preface; Carroll, Historic Structure Report, Part II, Architectural Data Section, The Wayside, June 

1968, Foreword, 2; Anna Coxe Toogood, Historic Grounds Report, The Wayside, March 1970, vii, File 

The Wayside Historic Grounds, NPS Report Files, Park Library, MIMA. Orville Carroll, EODC Weekly 

Field Report, 19 August 1966, No File, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. Carroll, Historic Structure Report, 

Part II Architectural Data Section, The Wayside Barn, March 1972, 27, File Wayside Barn, NPS Report 

Files, Park Library, MIMA. Memorandum, Willcox to Regional Chief of Interpretation and Visitor 

Services, Northeast Region, 20 August 1965. Memorandum, Frank Barnes to Zerbey, 14 December 1965, 

and attached Memorandum, Ralph Lewis to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 2 November 1965, File 

D6 223 Museums and Exhibits, Box 2, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 
Getting Ready 

142 

of Margaret Lothrop, who passed away on 14 May 1970 before seeing the house entirely 

refurbished, the National Society of Children of the American Revolution made a generous 

donation for purchasing wallpaper. Harriett Lothrop had founded this national organization 

and had named her daughter Margaret Lothrop its first official member.116

Carroll oversaw much of the work. Outside, to correct a serious undermining of the 

house’s foundation wall, caused by extensive soil excavation in addressing termites in 1952 

workers built concrete retaining walls around the east and north foundation walls of the 

kitchen and “Old Room.” In addition, workers poured a concrete slab around the interior 

base of the tower bay window to arrest soil erosion and keep water out of the crawl space. 

The lower front section of the kitchen chimney required reinforcement with concrete and 

then rebuilding. The brickwork had collapsed when workers had removed the subfloor for 

repair work. The park put new floor joists between the existing ones in the kitchen, “Old 

Room,” the west wing, dining room, and sitting room. The enclosed porch required new 

floor joists. Carroll had workers replace rotted sills in many rooms of the house with new 

pressure treated ones having the same dimensions as the original ones. Workers removed 

more than 300 clapboards from around the house and replaced them with spruce. Carroll 

could not locate a local mill that cut old-growth white pine clapboards with a vertical grain, 

as used on the house, but he did find in Vermont probably the last remaining clapboard mill 

in New England to do the work. Carroll noted in his report that “Every effort was made to 

repair the original clapboards wherever salvageable.” He did have workers replace western 

red cedar clapboards put on after 1924 as this wood type cannot hold paint. In reglazing 

many windows, and always with an eye toward historical accuracy, Carroll matched the 1860 

red-tinted putty.117

Inside, Carroll continued to exercise patience and attention for historical details in 

stripping away the post-1924 changes while also upgrading safety and convenience features. 

Contractors added a burglar alarm and fire detection system. Electricians put in a new 

distribution panel, rewired the house, and added convenience switches, hidden from view, to 

control wall fixtures. Workers salvaged several rotary wall switches and outlet receptacles 

from the Stedman Buttrick House, and a local company fabricated brass cover plates. Carroll 

had a radiator that had been moved to the “Old Room” around 1936 returned to its home in 

Una’s [Hawthorne] room and repainted. The piazza room gained a “new” radiator to match 

the design of the one in the first floor hallway. Workers put a new low radiator into the 

kitchen, removing the 1936 version. Decorative aspects received steady attention, too. 

Workers matched an original carpet dating from 1899 with a reproduction, replacing the 

worn first-floor sections but saving the old carpet and pad for later reference. With the funds 

from the National Society of Children of the American Revolution, workers either replaced 

 

116 Carroll, Historic Structure Report, Part III, Architectural Data Section, no date [circa 1971], Foreword. 

Obituary, Margaret Lothrop, Boston Globe (29 May 1970). Carroll, Office of Archeology and Historic 

Preservation, Weekly Field Report, 4 June 1970, No File Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. 117 Carroll, HSR, Part III, Architectural Data Section, [1971], no pagination—see Section III. A-B. Carroll, 

EODC Weekly Field Report, 5 April 1968, No File, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. 
Getting Ready 

143 

wallpaper in several rooms that had deteriorated or patched torn areas. Carroll borrowed a 

bi-ocular microscope and lamp from Concord-Carlisle High School to examine paint 

samples and determine the best color match for each room. He had workers mix all paint, 

except for the brick chimney stems, on the job using lead paint.118

The Wayside Barn received attention, too. Workers structurally repaired the west 

wall and rear addition for installation of a gas meter and regulator. Discovery of a rotten post 

in the northwest corner of the barn required cutting away all but the interior surface and 

inserting a pressure-treated post in its place. Workers also replaced sills at the northwest 

corner and under the track for the sliding door between the barn and the lean-to. In 1974 

additional work would involve re-roofing with cedar shingles and rehabilitating the interior 

for interpretive use. A kitchenette and rest room added to the rear shed served staff 

members.119

With work largely completed on the house, the NPS held a formal re-opening 

ceremony on 17 April 1971. Approximately 200 people attended and had the opportunity to 

tour the house throughout the day for free. Following this special day, admission fees would 

then apply, similar to those charged at other historic houses in the area. Speakers included 

Francis Moulton, Jr., Concord Selectman and representative on the park advisory 

commission, and Lance Ehmcke, president of the National Society of Children of the 

American Revolution. The Concord Minute Men provided colonial fife and drum music.120 

Northeast Regional Director Henry Schmidt emphasized in his remarks “the spirit of 

cooperation between governmental levels” and urged its continuation as the Bicentennial 

neared.121 

With The Wayside re-opening came publication of MIMA’s Interpretive Prospectus. 

This IP provides an indication of how the NPS originally wanted to handle visitors at this 

historic house. Self-guiding devices, including audio stations and a guide booklet, would lead 

visitors through the many rooms. Staff members, stationed in strategic locations, would 

answer questions, monitor the numbers of visitors, and provide protection for the house and 

its furnishings. Lothrop’s wish to keep the house alive comes through in the overall 

interpretive approach. The IP states that The Wayside “will be interpreted not as a house but 

rather as a home, a family home, altered by the needs of successive family occupations.” 

Interpretive efforts will describe the houses’ former occupants as “people living in a changing 

and growing house within the context of philosophical, literary, and other changes occurring 

in the Concord and broader national community –the American Renaissance.” The IP called 

 

118 Carroll, HSR, Part III, Architectural Data Section, [1971], Section III. E-H. Carroll, EODC Weekly 

Field Report, 23 June 1967, No File, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. 

119 Carroll, HSR, Part II, Architectural Data Section, The Wayside Barn, March 1972, 27-28; Joseph 

Godfrey, Completion Report, The Wayside Barn, no date [circa 1974], no pagination—see Narrative 

Statement. 

120 Carroll, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation Weekly Field Report, 20 April 1971, No Files, 

Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. Wayside Re-Opening Ceremonies, 17 April 1971, Program, File A8215 

Special Events CY 1971 Wayside Dedication, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 121 Draft Proposed Remarks for Henry Schmidt, The Wayside, 17 April 1971, 1, File A8215 Special Events 

CY 1971 Wayside Dedication, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Getting Ready 

144 

for the park to “humanize The Wayside,” to include interpretive touches, such as the 

eucalyptus leaves or decorative additions to match the changing seasons, that brought life 

into the house and left a lasting impact upon visitors.122

In practice, visitors kept asking questions and quickly the staff accommodated by 

providing guided tours. Before the NPS had outfitted the barn for interpretive purposes, 

interpretive ranger Hicks and her comrades sat in the piazza and waited for visitors to ring 

the front doorbell. The park staff then greeted the newcomers and took them throughout 

the house, even such rooms as the bathroom and maid’s room. Kryston, whom Hicks 

described as creative and collaborative, began various programs to add depth and interest to 

the interpretive programming. In 1972 the park held a Children’s Hour each week for seven 

weeks. Special guests gave presentations on topics ranging from colonial archeology to 

period clothing and lifestyles. Later programs, all near and dear to Kryston’s heart, gave 

children the opportunity to try their hand at writing a poem, for example, while learning 

about the various authors who had lived at The Wayside. Kryston also explored cooperative 

programs with local organizations. A staff member from next-door Orchard House shared 

items that once belonged to the Alcotts at a children’s hour. In the later 1970s, Kryston 

helped start the Concord Consortium, a collection of historic houses and museums in town. 

Every two years, the houses would “dress” based upon a common theme or time period and 

open their doors for free.123 Kryston remembered the first year hoping maybe one hundred 

people would show up. Instead, it was “wildly successful,” and Kryston stopped counting at 

the 2,000th visitor.124

ADMINISTRATION

Throughout this fairly short period between 1965 and 1972, with many big projects 

happening, park management shifted and changed. The park continued to advance its 

priority goals, with each person contributing his strengths. But, by the end of this time, some 

rumblings indicated that MIMA operated under some stresses and strains. 

In response to belt tightening and the desire to reduce duplication of effort among 

the various Boston national park sites, the Service instituted the Boston Group in late 1968 

with Zerbey as the Boston Group Superintendent. The Boston Group included MIMA, 

Adams National Historic Site in Quincy, John F. Kennedy Birthplace in Brookline, Salem 

Maritime NHS, and Saugus Ironworks NHS. The Boston Group combined some jobs across 

parks, such as Carroll being historical architect for all of these parks, to increase efficiency. 

How did the activities of the Boston Group differ from the work Edwin Small did as Project 

Coordinator of the Boston Historic Sites Project? The Boston Group had an inward 

administrative focus on the national parks of the Boston area while the Boston Historic Sites 

 

122 Allen Kent and Douglas Scovill, MIMA Interpretive Prospectus, 1971, 23-24 (includes quotes), File IP, 

NPS Reports Files, Park Library, MIMA.. 

123 Hicks, transcript of interview, 3, 8. Kryston, transcript of interview, 3, 7. Memorandum, Kryston to 

Supervisory Park Ranger, MIMA, 26 October 1972, 2. 

124 Kryston, transcript of interview, 7-8. Quote on p. 7. 
Getting Ready 

145 

Project had an outward focus of addressing the concerns and queries of history-minded 

individuals in the area. Small, for instance, took primary responsibility for ensuring regular 

meetings of the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission and offered 

recommendations to fill empty positions. He kept careful connections with the many 

historic preservation circles of the Boston area. With establishment of the Boston Group, 

Small continued this work but as assistant to the regional director in a New England Field 

Office in Boston, separate from the Boston Group.125

Zerbey, a personable man with a friendly disposition and unfaltering faith in his 

charges, extended these characteristics to the entire Boston Group. He and his wife Jane 

opened their already full house to any and all Boston Group employees for the annual 19th of 

April festivities, saying “Come early and stay late” for an open house following the parade.126 

In his statement for the December 1969 Group Scoop newsletter he established, he wrote 

that “The Group is not so much a group of parks as it is a group of people. People do things 

and make things happen. . . . The Group operation now is far from perfect, but any success it 

had, is the result of everyone’s energies and hard work.”127 Such a commitment shines 

through the folksy newsletter, with its hearty welcomes to new employees, announcements 

of twisted knees and cut feet of the children of Group employees, and its regular updates on 

the social activities of the park women’s organization. Zerbey used the newsletter to unite 

the disparate parks and people into a cohesive work force.128

By mid-1969, Robert Perkins had become unit manager of MIMA. Perkins’s 

responsibilities focused on the daily management of MIMA while Zerbey provided overall 

guidance on issues involving the public and higher NPS administrative levels. Zerbey 

remained at MIMA, for he kept the Boston Group’s offices in the Stedman Buttrick House, 

while Perkins maintained his presence in the former Geophysics Laboratory building along 

Route 2A. Like Zerbey, Perkins also had a long career with the NPS, starting as a seasonal 

ranger at Grand Teton National Park (Wyoming) in 1948. He went on to serve at six other 

national parks, including Everglades in Florida and Great Smoky Mountains in Tennessee 

before moving to MIMA. He had earned two unit citations from the secretary of the interior 

for his contributions to the Grand Teton Mountain Rescue Team.129

More changes came in the early 1970s. In May 1971 Zerbey left Concord for his new 

position as chief of the Employee Evaluation Division in the Northeast Regional Office in 

Philadelphia. Regional Director Henry Schmidt assigned Herbert Olsen as the new general 

superintendent, also keeping his offices in the Buttrick House. Olsen, a native of Denmark, 

had begun his NPS career in 1950 as a historian at Saratoga National Historical Park in 

 

125 Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 17th Meeting, 14 December 1968, 

2; Justification for Meritorious Service Award, Edwin Small, [1971], File Edwin W. Small, NPS History 

Collection, HFC. 

126 Group Scoop, 7 April 1970, 1, No File, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. See also Group Scoop, 13 April 

1971, 1, No File, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. 

127 Group Scoop, December 1969, 3, No File, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. 128 See for example, Group Scoop, 15 September 1970, No File, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. 

129 “Minute Man Has New Manager,” Concord Free Press (30 October 1969). 
Getting Ready 

146 

upstate New York. After a variety of historian assignments, he served as superintendent of 

Russell Cave National Monument in Alabama and Shiloh National Military Park in 

Tennessee. He then moved to the NPS Washington Office to serve as historian of the 

Division of Personnel Management and Manpower Development before accepting the 

general superintendency of the Boston Group.130

Olsen maintained a visible presence in MIMA, attending public meetings regarding 

land acquisition and keeping informed about developments relating to the Routes 2 and 2A 

relocations. This involvement in these clearly public issues certainly related to his 

responsibilities as group superintendent. In the case of the troubled land acquisition efforts 

in Lincoln, both Olsen and Perkins attended meetings and addressed concerns. Olsen’s 

reports of these meetings went to the regional director, as would be expected based on the 

organizational distinction between the two positions. However, some underlying tensions 

existed between the two men, leading to further problems with the MIMA staff. Perkins later 

alluded to these tensions in a letter to Moffitt. In talking about the North Bridge and the 

park’s relations with Concord, Perkins wrote that he was glad Moffitt apparently had a “free 

hand” to deal with the local citizens. “This is the way it should be,” Perkins wrote. “To have 

continued interference for a long period of time from others makes for a bad situation and 

makes it impossible for one to accomplish a job he was assigned to do.”131

This feeling of tension and interference came to the surface with a September 1972 

report on MIMA filed by Raymond Freeman, associate director of operations in the 

Washington Office. Freeman and a group of other NPS representatives from the 

Washington and regional offices visited MIMA to review how the park was addressing such 

issues as historic structures, non-historic buildings, management, personnel, and 

maintenance. In the course of meetings with Olsen, Perkins, and MIMA staff members, 

Freeman and his fellow reviewers found that Olsen and Perkins “did not see things from the 

same viewpoint.” In fact, Olsen dominated meetings and staff members failed to participate 

by providing their own perspectives or insights even when “virtually ordered to contribute.” 

Freeman found that MIMA staff seemed to “be more on the side of the Park Manager,” for 

“the ‘troops’ do not seem to be fully following the leader,” or Olsen. Freeman recommended 

interviews with staff members to resolve difficulties or reassign personnel if such actions 

failed.132

Freeman saw this flare up between Olsen and Perkins especially with regard to park 

maintenance. While Freeman agreed that the park maintained well the North Bridge area 

and the Fiske Hill information site, vacant areas along the Battle Road had trash that the park 

staff refused to pick up. Since sections of this route could be owned by the state, one of the 

towns, the NPS, or private individuals, park staff did not take responsibility for clearing out 

 

130 “New Superintendent of National Park Appointed,” Concord Free Press (6 May 1971). 131 Perkins to Moffitt, 16 April 1974, 2, File D18 1972-1974 Planning Program DCPs Fiske Hill VC and 

North Bridge, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

132 Memorandum, Raymond Freeman to Director, Northeast Region, 12 September 1972, 4, File IV, 

Unprocessed materials, Museum Collection, MIMA. 
Getting Ready 

147 

the litter. Freeman argued that the public when driving down this road would not know who 

owned the land but would see the trash and assign blame to the NPS, as already seen in the 

Lincoln land acquisition dispute. Olsen had discussed the situation with Perkins “in great 

detail,” according to Freeman, but Perkins did not seem “oriented to this type of 

maintenance.” No system seemed in place to address the situation, and the rough relations 

between Olsen and Perkins exacerbated the situation.133 

David Moffitt commented much later that he recognized the tensions between these 

two men. Olsen and Perkins did not get along well, Moffitt recalled, and Olsen “was an 

extremely demanding, probably the most demanding supervisor I ever had,” but a “good 

person, a perfectionist, and Bob was not a perfectionist.”134 After a rocky year or so together, 

the NPS transferred Perkins to Philadelphia. He resisted and retired early. Olsen remained 

as head of the Boston Group until its dismantlement following the December 1973 creation 

of the North Atlantic Regional Office. Moffitt, who had served first at MIMA as chief of 

maintenance, then had kept his position while also heading maintenance functions for the 

entire Boston Group, completed a NPS management training course and accepted his first 

superintendency at MIMA. Having trained under Zerbey and sharing Zerbey’s friendly 

disposition, Moffitt would have the public relations skills and long perspective that would 

serve him well under the pressures of the Bicentennial.135

 

133 Ibid. 134 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 4. 135 Ibid., 3-4. 
Getting Ready 

148

Figure 17. Fiske Hill Information Shelter. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 

Figure 18. Job Brooks House, 1962. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 
Getting Ready 

149

 Figure 19. Joshua Brooks House, 1962. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 
Getting Ready 

150

 Figure 20. Samuel Hartwell House, 1963. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 
151 

CHAPTER FIVE

BICENTENNIAL

One day while working at the North Bridge in the mid-1970s NPS interpreter Margie 

Hicks had two amazing encounters. First, a woman from Israel shared how she felt standing 

at this site of American liberty, saying that it reminded her of 1948 when Israel gained 

independence. The North Bridge represented for her the starting place where people 

around the world stood up for self-governance. Later that same day, Hicks met another 

woman, this time from Palestine. She shared her wish for self-governance with Hicks, saying 

that Palestinians struggled for that right. Years later, Hicks clearly remembers that day and 

her realization of the true significance of MIMA. “This park is just so much more than just 

this flag-waving patriotic place,” Hicks explained. “It actually talks to the ideals of human 

self-governance.” For Hicks and others, the park’s message goes beyond the buildings, the 

land, and the events to commemorate 19 April 1775. People around the world recognize that 

MIMA and the North Bridge represent the search for, the fighting for, and the fierce defense 

of human self-governance.1

Along with self-governance comes responsibility. The United States Constitution 

and Bill of Rights recognize that all kinds of people live in and contribute to the strength and 

endurance of this nation. Everyone has a voice, whether expressed individually under the 

protections of the First Amendment’s Freedom of Speech or exercised in the election of 

representatives who act on behalf of their constituents. By preserving and interpreting the 

North Bridge, the NPS has accepted its own responsibility for upholding the rights and 

responsibilities inherent in this sacred space. On 19 April 1975 the NPS renewed its 

obligation to preserving self-governance by allowing the People’s Bicentennial Commission 

to stage a peaceful, anti-Establishment protest on the same day the Town of Concord hosted 

President Gerald Ford at the North Bridge for a commemoration of the nation’s 

Bicentennial. Many people in Concord and the surrounding area vociferously opposed the 

NPS’s decision to grant the permit to the protesters, but the NPS held firm. Then-associate 

regional director for operations Denis Galvin remembered vividly the discussions within the 

NPS. His boss, Regional Director Jerry Wagers, had said, “We’re not going to do anything to 

celebrate the Bicentennial that besmirches the Constitution of the United States.”2

 

Within this mix of controversy and commemoration stood a tall, lanky Texan named 

David Moffitt. Moffitt had a broad smile, great sense of humor, and easygoing personality 

that readily collected friends and supporters. These qualities bolstered him during his years 

 

1

 Hicks, transcript of interview, 17. 

2

 Denis Galvin, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 13 March 2003, 6, Fort Stanwix 

National Monument Archives. 
Bicentennial 

152 

at MIMA. Trained as an ornamental horticulturalist at Texas A&M University, he applied 

these skills to the NPS first in Washington, DC, and then in the Philadelphia regional office. 

He started at MIMA in 1969 working as chief of maintenance under Zerbey and then Perkins 

before his assignment as the Boston Group’s Maintenance Specialist. He continued to 

address the maintenance demands of MIMA while offering training workshops and 

providing overall direction for maintenance within the Boston Group. After participating in 

an NPS Mid-Level Manager Development Program under the mentorship of Zerbey, in 1972 

Moffitt was assigned the superintendency of MIMA. He stayed until 1976. Usually, the NPS 

would assign a superintendent to another park rather than keep a person at the same park he 

or she had already worked, but Moffitt had certain advantages to offer. He loved the park 

and its neighboring towns and had developed good relationships with some organizations, 

such as local garden clubs. He had also contributed to early planning for the Bicentennial. 

With the Bicentennial date looming, it made sense to choose a superintendent who had an 

understanding of the issues and a familiarity with the people and land. Moffitt served for a 

few months under the Boston Group framework. The Group dissolved in December 1973 

leaving Moffitt solely in charge of MIMA.3

This chapter examines in a fair amount of detail how the NPS handled the 

Bicentennial celebration at MIMA. The Bicentennial and other significant anniversaries 

provide NPS managers with an opportunity to consider the challenges that may accompany 

the 250th or 300th anniversaries. Specific actions taken by Moffitt and the NPS rankled many 

local people, leading to divisive and unproductive relationships years after the Bicentennial 

celebration. What changes might the NPS have made to prevent these relationships from 

souring? By looking carefully at the Bicentennial, later managers might have the opportunity 

to thwart such negative outcomes, or at least be prepared for their possibility. Finally, in the 

life of MIMA, 1975 had always loomed large with respect to planning and developing the 

park. Edwin Small had set the Bicentennial as the deadline for readying the park for visitors. 

The NPS accomplished much of its vision, and this chapter describes its successes and 

continuing projects. 

NORTH BRIDGE AND CONCORD 

The North Bridge captured increased public attention even before the Bicentennial as a place 

of contemplation and remembrance, protest and defiance. Many people recognized the 

site’s historic significance and used this connection to the past to advance their own midtwentieth-century causes. This need to find symbolically laden places for public protests 

came hand-in-hand with the social fervor of the 1960s and 1970s. Americans of different 

backgrounds and beliefs marched for civil rights for Blacks, demanded equal rights for 

women, and urged an end to the Vietnam War, among many other issues. Two protests 

provide a sense of how the public used the North Bridge just before 1975. In 1970 more than 

 

3

 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 1-5; Hicks, transcript of interview, 6; Kryston, transcript of interview, 4. 

The Group Scoop, 12 August 1969, 1; 10 February 1970, 1; 15 January 1971, 2, all in No File, Orville 

Carroll Papers, MIMA. 
Bicentennial 

153 

400 students from Concord-Carlisle High School staged a peaceful protest on the meadow 

by the North Bridge in the aftermath of the Cambodian incursion and deaths of four 

protesting Kent State University students.4 

A year later, over Memorial Day Weekend in 1971 Vietnam Veterans Against the War 

“reversed” Paul Revere’s ride and marched from Concord’s North Bridge to Boston 

Common in protest of the nation’s continued involvement in Indochina. Upon first 

receiving the request, the NPS granted permission for the group to spend one night at the 

bridge, and Concord police assisted with additional patrols. Robert Perkins described the 

150 protesters as orderly and cooperative, even clearing trash. As part of the ceremony at the 

bridge, Betty Levin’s daughter Jennifer dressed as a young Paul Revere and presented the 

protesters with a List of Grievances of veterans.5 Levin later remarked that the NPS was 

“very decent” in its handling of the anti-Vietnam War protest. “They stood up well on that 

one,” she said, in contrast to how she viewed the park’s handling of land acquisition.6

 Many 

local residents joined the veterans when they lunched at Fiske Hill the following day, 

showing support for the cause. In contrast to the reception at the North Bridge, Lexington 

officials refused to grant permission to the veterans to spend a night on that town’s Battle 

Green. At 3 AM, Lexington police began arresting the now more than 450 protesters, who 

spent the rest of the night in jail before appearing in court and paying $5 fines for violating 

curfew.7

 Former Navy Lieutenant John Kerry, as a leader in Vietnam Veterans Against the 

War, spoke following his own arrest, saying that the government “shouldn’t be concerned 

with the legalities of sweeping people from a village green, but with the legalities of bombing 

and dying.”8

 Perkins wondered aloud to the regional office about future cooperation with 

Lexington, especially since many in that town voiced opposition to the NPS and Concord for 

allowing the veterans group in the area. In this case, Concord clearly aligned with the NPS in 

supporting the constitutional rights of the war protesters.9

In contrast to these two peaceful protests, the North Bridge also served as a magnet 

to more violent episodes. Before dawn on 20 June 1969 unknown individuals set and 

exploded sticks of dynamite on the bridge. One cross stringer, guard rails, and planks 

connected to that location on the north side of the bridge suffered damage from the blast. 

Police investigated but never apprehended anyone. A newly hired park carpenter, Mike 

Fortin, completed the repairs with “superb craftsmanship,” according to Zerbey. Fortin 

 

4 Group Scoop, 18 May 1970, 1, No File, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. 5

 Memorandum, Perkins to Director, Northeast Region, 2 June 1971, 1, File A8215 CY 1971 Vietnam 

Veterans, Park Admin Files, MIMA. “Over 400 Arrested, Fined in Lexington, Sunday, as Antiwar March 

Stalled,” Minute-Man Supplement, 3 June 1971. 6

 Levin, transcript of interview, 9. 

7

 Don Sarvey and Bob Whitcomb, “458 Seized in Lexington Protest,” Boston Herald Traveler, 31 May 

1971. 

8

 John Kerry, as quoted by Gerry Maraghy, “Kerry says Vets Point to US ‘Mistake,’” Boston Herald 

Traveler, 31 May 1971. 9

 Memorandum, Perkins to Director, Northeast Region, 2 June 1971, 2. 
Bicentennial 

154 

simulated adze marks on the timbers to give the appearance of hand-hewn lumber, then 

applied a wood bleach to match the coloring of the remaining portions of the bridge.10

On 26 November 1973 other unknown individuals set a bomb on the Minute Man 

statue. A young man from Bedford High School had been reading the statue’s inscription 

when he saw and picked up a brown paper bag at the base of the pedestal. When he heard 

ticking inside the bag, he quickly dropped it onto the path and went to report the device. 

NPS officials cleared the area and provided support to the police. State explosives expert 

Leo Voight used a device to flip the bag, emptying a tackle box inside of which were four 

sticks of dynamite and a timing device set to go off in 15 minutes. Voight disarmed the bomb 

in 10 minutes. Despite investigations by local and federal authorities, no arrests were made 

in connection with this incident. The NPS and Concord strengthened surveillance of the 

area.11

In investigating the ramifications of the bomb threat, Moffitt quickly learned some 

disconcerting news: no mold or duplicate of the bronze statue existed. The traditional wax 

casting process that originally created the bronze statue naturally destroyed the mold by 

sculptor Daniel Chester French. Moffitt wondered, what if the bomb had succeeded and 

destroyed the statue? With this horrible thought in mind, he asked his counterpart at SaintGaudens National Historic Site, preserving the New Hampshire home of American sculptor 

Augustus Saint-Gaudens, for advice on locating a suitable place for making a duplicate cast. 

With this information in hand, Moffitt asked if such a casting could be done onsite, knowing 

that the Town of Concord would probably refuse any idea of removing the statue. However, 

the Boston sculpting firm made clear that the casting would best be accomplished in its 

facility. Trying to do the casting at the park would involve building a covering around the 

statue and bringing in water, electricity, and a range of specialized tools to do the work. In 

addition, casting would require doing complicated individual sections to capture the fine 

work of French’s original.12 Moffitt gulped when he realized the enormity of the idea, losing 

the statue for two months during the casting or possibly losing the statue forever with 

another well-placed bomb. He admitted to one Concord resident that “I gave up the idea 

until I had time to think it over.”13 He then started talking unofficially to Concord officials, 

 

10 Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 20 June 1969, and attached report; NPS 

Press Release, Repairs to Old North Bridge Completed, 10 December 1969; and Memorandum, Zerbey to 

Regional Director, Northeast Region, 19 December 1969, 1, all in File A2623 Damage to North Bridge, 

Unprocessed Materials, Museum Collection, MIMA. Quote from Zerbey in 19 December 1969 

memorandum, 1. 

11 “Bomb Almost Blew Up Minute Man Monument,” Concord Journal, 29 November 1973. “Bomb 

Dismantled Monday at Old North Bridge Site,” Concord Free Press, 29 November 1973. “Box Bomb 

Defused at Concord,” Boston Herald American, 28 November 1973. 12 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 18. Moffitt to Adio di Bicarri, 25 October 1974; Adio di Bicarri to 

Moffitt, 3 December 1974, both in File D66 CY 1974 Minute Man Statue, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 31st Meeting, 19 December 1974, 4-

6, File A18 CY 1974 Advisory Boards, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

13 Moffitt to Robert Parks, 17 December 1974, File D66 CY 1974 Minute Man Statue, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 
Bicentennial 

155 

who gave him the “distinct impression that the Town will never permit removal of the Statue 

for any purpose.”14

Moffitt continued to push this issue. He sent a formal letter to Concord’s Town 

Manager, Paul Flynn, asking for further consideration of the idea. He included the letter 

from the sculpting firm, making clear the delicate work that would need to be done to make a 

faithful copy of the statue. Moffitt admitted that he disliked having to remove the statue, but 

he also knew that the park and town “should take every precaution to insure that if the statue 

was ever damaged we would have the opportunity to recreate it.”15 The town slowly came 

around. One local resident, Robert Parks, encapsulated the thoughts of many. He wrote to 

Moffitt that the NPS and Concordians had a serious responsibility as “custodians of this 

most historic monument” and that Moffitt’s proposal deserved careful consideration. In the 

end, Parks trusted that the “citizens of Concord will join me in supporting your 

recommendation that future generations will never be deprived of seeing this visible 

memorial which so truly depicts the spirit of 1975.”16 At their 23 December 1974 meeting, 

the Concord Selectmen concurred that having the casting done was a “needed and 

worthwhile project.”17

Removal of the Minute Man statue for casting on 16 January 1975 prompted further 

preservation action.18 Moffitt had expected to find an 1875 time capsule underneath the 

statue, but none appeared.19 Instead, he suggested that the Town of Concord capture a 

record of life in the Bicentennial year and insert it under the statue after the casting. John 

Finigan, as Chairman of the 1975 Celebrations Committee, accepted this offer and asked the 

Girl Scouts of Concord to collect worthy items for inclusion. Members of each of the 25 

troops in town wrote to elected officials, citizens of ancestors who had fought at the North 

Bridge, leaders in various professions, and other esteemed Concord residents, asking their 

thoughts about the town and its place in American history. The Girl Scouts also collected 

current and historical photographs, coins, stamps, and other meaningful documents. They 

even recorded sounds of children playing in Concord. The Eastman Kodak Company 

assisted by microfilming the mass of material so that it would fit. At a special ceremony on 29 

March 1975 the Girl Scouts filled the time capsule and saw its placement beneath the base of 

the newly returned Minute Man statue.20

 

14 Memorandum, Moffitt to Regional Director, NAR, 9 December 1974, File D66 CY 1974 Minute Man 

Statue, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

15 Moffitt to Paul Flynn, 9 December 1974, File D66 CY 1974 Minute Man Statue, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

16 Robert Parks to Moffitt, no date [December 1974], File D66 CY 1974 Minute Man Statue, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 

17 Minutes, Selectmen’s Meeting, Town of Concord, 23 December 1974, 1, Concord Library. 

18 All correspondence and the purchase order for the work indicate that a casting of the statue would be 

done. At the end of the two months, the park received sections of a plaster copy of the statue. This plaster 

copy, held within the park’s museum collection, can be used to make a replica if necessary. 

19 The time capsule actually sat underneath the granite pedestal upon which the statue stands. 20 Mrs. Arvin Smith, Time Capsule Report, March 1975, No File, Box 6, 1975 Bicentennial Records, 

Concord Public Library; Concord Girl Scouts’ Bicentennial Time Capsule, March 1975, File Time 

Capsule, Terrie Wallace’s Files, MIMA. Jason Korell, Report of the 1975 Celebrations Committee, 1979, 
Bicentennial 

156 

Taking care of the preservation and security of the Minute Man statue reflected the 

larger NPS goal of ensuring the overall successful management of the many historic features 

of the park. Parking garnered additional concerns in the North Bridge area. Originally, the 

Town of Concord had a parking area on the east side of Monument Street, directly across 

from the walkway to the bridge. This lot, which remained under town ownership after 

establishment of MIMA, could contain around 60 cars and five buses but often failed to 

accommodate the large numbers of vehicles during peak visitation times. Visitors also faced 

a potentially hazardous situation because they had to cross Monument Street to walk to the 

bridge. Inadequate comfort facilities included a pit privy, with no municipal sewage disposal 

available at the site. With the opening of the Stedman Buttrick House to visitors, the NPS 

built a nearby parking lot that could hold another 50 cars and five buses, helping to alleviate 

the traffic directly across from the bridge. But, the safety concerns and continued crush of 

vehicles forced NPS officials to consider more parking alternatives.21

Two ideas eventually emerged. First, the NPS in 1971 investigated relocating 

Monument Street so that it would pass further east of, or behind, the existing Town of 

Concord parking lot. In this way, visitors would simply walk to the bridge without crossing 

any roads. However, Monument Street would have to take a sharp curve in the short 

distance between the Elisha Jones House and the vehicle bridge over the Concord River, 

thereby constricting traffic flow and introducing a new safety hazard. The park would not 

gain any new parking spaces from such relocation, nor would it have the ability to improve 

the existing comfort facilities. Excavation and fill for the new road would also intrude upon 

the pastoral landscape. Initial work on the North Bridge Development Concept fleshed out 

this plan until General Superintendent Herbert Olsen suggested another approach.22

Olsen recommended that the NPS consider acquiring land on the west side of 

Monument Street. One four-acre vacant lot, known as the Prescott lot, had been on the 

market for some time. Next door, Winthrop Sargent had recently put his almost nine acreproperties up for sale. The park had long identified acquisition of a little more than three 

acres of the back portion of the Sargent property, paying some kind of severance for the 

remaining acreage. All of this land sat next door to the Old Manse and thus in close 

proximity of the North Bridge. Why not acquire the Sargent and Prescott properties and 

build a new parking lot on them? The existing Sargent house could even serve as a visitor 

 Preliminaries and Opening of the Celebration Section, File 3, Box 2, Bicentennial Records, MIMA 

Archives. 

21 Memorandum, Nathan Golub to Director, Northeast Region, 8 September 1972, and attached Briefing 

Statement, North Bridge Developed Area, MIMA, 1, File D18 MIMA Jan-Dec 1969, Box 12, Acc. 79-88-

0002, Waltham Federal Records Center (FRC). Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory 

Commission, 16th Meeting, 6 April 1968, 3, File A18, Box 1, RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA 

Waltham. Memorandum, Zerbey to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 23 July 1968 and attached 

Progress Report, 1968 Goals for MIMA, 1, File L34 Recreation Activities 1970/1972, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. Exact numbers of vehicles that could park in the town lot vary from 50-60 cars with five buses. 

22 Memorandum, Golub to Director, Northeast Region, 8 September 1972, and Briefing Statement, 1; 

Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 11 August 1971, 1, File D18 MIMA Jan-Dec 1969, 

Box 12, Acc. 79-88-0002, Waltham FRC. 
Bicentennial 

157 

contact station with municipal sewage capabilities. Such an arrangement would remove the 

cost and disturbance of relocating Monument Street. Plus, the park would gain a larger 

parking lot that did not intrude on the historic scene. The town could even remove its 

existing lot by landscaping it or converting it into a picnic area.23

NPS officials agreed to this new approach and began the land acquisition process. 

Olsen and Robert Perkins appeared before the Concord Board of Selectmen to advise its 

members of the park’s plans. The selectmen appreciated hearing of these developments and 

expressed no opposition. The finalized January 1972 North Bridge Development Concept, 

incorporated this west-side parking lot proposal. In addition to having space for around 80 

cars and five buses, the new location offered the possibility for expansion if needed in the 

future. However, further investigation of the site determined that it sat within a Flood Plain 

Conservancy District subject to local and state restrictions regarding construction. These 

restrictions led the NPS in the Development Concept Plan to suggest some new designs in 

using the site. To avoid encroachment on wetlands, the park would obliterate the existing 

house and establish an Environmental Study Area along the Concord wetlands area. Bus 

parking would sit closest to the street so as to avoid having to fill in wetlands on the back 

portion of the property to accommodate the size and weight of the buses. To provide 

interpretive opportunities, the plan called for constructing a wayside exhibit area along the 

access trail between the lot and the bridge. A separate comfort facility would go next to the 

access trail just north of the parking area. Due to the close proximity to the Old Manse, the 

Development Concept Plan recommended having an agreement between the Service and the 

Trustees of Reservations, who owned the Old Manse, to allow access across the property and 

removal of the Old Manse parking lot. Old Manse visitors would then use the NPS lot.24

Proceeding with this plan, the NPS acquired the Sargent property in March 1972 and 

obtained an option on the Prescott lot. Keeping in mind the April 1975 Bicentennial date, the 

NPS proceeded at a steady pace toward construction of the new parking lot. Fine points on 

parking angles and screening received careful attention at a December 1972 planning 

meeting hosted by the regional office. The park also worked out where to place the access 

trail and how to work out a long-term arrangement for building a low stone wall to funnel 

pedestrian traffic past the Old Manse to the North Bridge without harming the Trustees 

property. Further consideration by the Concord Board of Selectmen in April 1973 indicated 

tacit approval of the parking plan. The selectmen voiced support for converting the town’s 

parking lot to a natural condition once the NPS’s lot opened. Throughout 1973 the NPS 

made an environmental assessment of the North Bridge area, following federal government 

regulations for taking into account environmental consequences of construction and 

development work. A Section 106 review of the proposal received a favorable result, 

 

23 Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 11 August 1971, 1-2. 

24 Memorandum, Olsen to the Files, 26 August 1971; Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 

26 August 1971, 1; Memorandum, Olsen to the Files, 31 August 1971; Memorandum, Olsen to Director, 

Northeast Region, 17 September 1971, 1; Memorandum, Chester Brooks to Olsen, 22 September 1971; 

North Bridge Development Concept, January 1972, 2-3, all in File D18 CY 1971 North Bridge Area, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. Memorandum, Golub to Director, Northeast Region, 8 September 1972, 2-3. 
Bicentennial 

158 

providing the required approval of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. In 

December 1973 NPS review of the potential environmental effects of the proposed parking 

lot resulted in a negative declaration for a full-fledged Environmental Impact Statement, or 

acceptance of action without further study.25

NPS officials informed the towns and local organizations of this negative declaration, 

following the procedures as laid out in the 1969 National Environmental Protection Act. A 

negative declaration precluded any further study of the environmental impact of the parking 

lot and also removed the necessity for a public hearing.26 However, the Town of Concord 

urged the NPS to gather “vital public opinion” for an “impartial evaluation.” In the town’s 

mind, “every action to expand or develop the Park has an effect on the quality of life of the 

residents of Concord” and those residents should be “invited to comment publicly . . . .”27 In 

response to these concerns, the NPS held a public hearing in March 1974 at ConcordCarlisle High School. While many Concord residents simply asked questions to clarify the 

project and some even voiced support for the lot, others expressed skepticism. One couple 

noted that the extra twenty spaces gained from the new lot would make little difference on a 

sunny Sunday afternoon when visitors typically park up and down Monument Street. In 

addition, they argued that the new parking lot would lessen the enjoyment of the residential 

properties on the street.28 Ultimately, they asked, “is it worth it for the net gain?”29

Following this meeting, a group of Concord residents sent a petition to the Board of 

Selectmen detailing their reasons for opposing the new parking lot. They worried about the 

diesel fumes from the buses, parked in the area closest to the street. No amount of screening 

from plants could fully mask those vehicles and their fumes, the petitioners wrote. In 

addition, the net gain of only about twenty spaces for the new lot made clear that safety 

concerns, rather than increased parking spaces, drove the decision. The petitioners argued 

that such modifications as a walk light, an overpass, or an underpass, would address visitor 

safety without adding a new lot. But, most importantly, the concerned residents turned to 

the issue of the “reverence for the spirit of Concord.” The North Bridge area recalled the 

 

25 Memorandum, Olsen to Acting Chief, Office of Programs and Budget, NER, 5 May 1972, 2,File D22 CY 

1972 Battle Road Restoration, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Memorandum, Moffitt to Olsen, 1 December 

1972, plus Olsen’s handwritten notes regarding the planning meeting, File D34, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

Memorandum, William Redmond to Assistant Director, Operations, Northeast Region, 28 February 1973, 

1, File D18 MIMA Jan-Dec 1969, Box 12, Acc. 79-88-0002, Waltham FRC. Memorandum, Olsen to 

Director, Northeast Region, 22 May 1973, and attached 17 April 1973 letter Arthur Stevenson to Francis 

Moulton, File D18 CY 1973 North Bridge Area, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Memorandum, Moffitt to 

Director, Denver Service Center, 19 March 1973; Kay Tapman to Chester Brooks, 9 October 1973; 

Memorandum, David Kimball to Superintendent, Boston Group, 11 December 1973, all in File D18 1972-

1974 Planning Program DCP’s Fiske Hill VC and North Bridge, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 26 Moffitt to Conservation Commission, 21 January 1974, plus attached list of other addressees, File D18 

1972-1974 Planning Program DCPs Fiske Hill VC and North Bridge, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 27 Paul Flynn to Moffitt, 20 February 1974, 1, File D18 1972-1974 Planning Program DCPs Fiske Hill VC 

and North Bridge, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

28 Moffitt to F. Bradford Morse, 6 March 1974, and attached Department of the Interior New Release; and 

Minutes, Public Meeting, 14 March 1974, 6-12, both in File D18 1972-1974 Planning Program DCPs Fiske 

Hill VC and North Bridge, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

29 Minutes, Public Meeting, 14 March 1974, 13. 
Bicentennial 

159 

patriotic acts of courage and cultural glories of Americans from past times. “The past 

nourishes the present,” wrote the petitioners, “and in this troubled era, we need the peace, 

we need the pride that this small shrine gives us. To despoil that shrine, to cover quiet fields 

with parking lots and cars is to rob millions of Americans of a bit of their inheritance.” For 

these reasons, the residents urged the town selectmen to oppose the new parking lot.30

The Concord Board of Selectmen concurred. In an early April 1974 letter to Moffitt, 

the board asked the NPS to abandon the new parking lot. Echoing the concerns in the 

petition, the selectmen wrote that “placing another parking facility in such close proximity to 

the Historical site will be detrimental.” The aesthetic tone of the visitor experience would 

suffer. Instead, the selectmen urged that the NPS “leave this parcel open as a buffer strip, 

separating the site from the residential homes further back on Monument Street.”31 The 

selectmen also believed that having more parking spaces, even the “token” amount provided 

by the new lot, would only encourage more traffic and more problems. “Realistically,” they 

argued, “there is no way to provide ENOUGH parking at the North Bridge.”32 Using minibuses in a kind of shuttle system offered an attractive alternative in their minds. Such a 

system would reduce the numbers of vehicles while also serving visitors with quality 

interpretive programming during the rides. If a new lot still figured in NPS plans, the 

selectmen offered the idea of having one placed off Liberty Street, closer to the Stedman 

Buttrick House.33

In response to this opposition, the new North Atlantic Regional Director Jerry 

Wagers removed the new parking lot from NPS planning. Wagers cited the town’s 

opposition to the lot as his reason. He did worry about the proposed comfort facilities that 

the Service also would not build. The town’s privies at the North Bridge desperately needed 

upgrading, and he instructed the park to cooperate with the town to find a solution. 

However, the town would remain primarily responsible for these facilities.34 

Within the NPS, Moffitt quietly voiced to his predecessor Perkins that the park 

needed the new lot. The town parking lot was “unsightly, unsafe, and too close to the North 

Bridge.” Moffitt also believed that even with a mini-bus shuttle system, which would only 

effectively run four months of the year, the park needed a place to drop off and board 

passengers. Using Monument Street did not make sense. In his mind, the NPS had carefully 

planned to landscape the new lot so that it “would not be one large blacktop field.” So, in 

exasperation, Moffitt remarked that “this is beside the point. We are going to do as the 

Selectmen requested. To heck with the visitor!”35 Perkins disagreed. He liked the idea of 

 

30 Petitioners to Board of Selectmen, 29 March 1974, File D18 1972-1974 Planning Program DCPs Fiske 

Hill VC and North Bridge, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

31 Concord Board of Selectmen to Moffitt, 2 April 1974, 2, File D18 1972-1974 Planning Program DCPs 

Fiske Hill VC and North Bridge, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

32 Ibid., 3. 

33 Ibid., 3-4. 

34 Memorandum, Jerry Wagers to Moffitt, 16 April 1974, File D18 1972-1974 Planning Program DCPs 

Fiske Hill VC and North Bridge, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

35 Moffitt to Perkins, 10 May 1974, 1, File D18 1972-1974 Planning Program DCPs Fiske Hill VC and 
Bicentennial 

160 

using the Sargent property as a buffer of green space and protection for the North Bridge 

area. He did not think that the new parking lot would substantially alleviate the crush of 

vehicles during peak visiting times. Perkins also encouraged Moffitt and the rest of the 

agency to continue listening and conferring with the town. Although MIMA came into 

existence in 1959, the Town of Concord had been around since 1635. “One must relate to 

consider the past, present, and future historical values,” Perkins wrote to Moffitt. “This 

value is one of the main items that makes Concord what it is.”36

PREPARATIONS

Keeping track of MIMA’s Bicentennial plans requires looking at three different levels 

of involvement: the NPS as a whole, the individual towns, and the park itself. Each acted 

based on its own institutional background and vision. As related in the fourth chapter, 

Concord wanted its celebration to serve as a spiritual thanksgiving, having a solemn tone. 

This approach resulted in part from Concord’s long history of having simple parades and 

cannon firings to mark April 19. At the back of everyone’s mind also sat the experience of 

1875 when too many people had flooded and overwhelmed the town. Human comfort and 

safety figured prominently in Concord’s 1975 planning. The NPS, on the other hand, had a 

history of addressing big occasions by building or rehabilitating visitor service areas to meet 

the demands of the expected throngs. During the Mission 66 period between 1956 and 1966, 

for example, the NPS had celebrated its 50th anniversary by building visitor centers, roads, 

and accommodations for the crush of post-World War II visitors. In a similar manner, 60 

percent of the total $100 million allocated by Congress to the NPS for the Bicentennial went 

into building projects. One of the largest construction projects involved an ultimately failed 

National Visitor Center in the nation’s capital. Many projects also involved historic structure 

preservation and rehabilitation, while three projects, such as Fort Stanwix, included 

reconstruction. MIMA, on the other hand, approached the Bicentennial without any big 

plans for the actual day of 19 April 1975. In the past, the park had established a regular 

pattern of acting as a supportive host to the Patriot Day celebrations planned by Concord 

and the other towns. Park superintendents and interpreters acted as resources of 

information and guests at North Bridge commemorations, but the park itself shied away 

from any direct planning. Interpreters saved their special presentations for other days, and 

this model served in 1975 too.37

Dignity and respect guided Concord’s planning for the Bicentennial. Citizens wanted 

to have a simple program. It would have to accommodate the demands of many people 

interested in this significant anniversary, but Concordians repeatedly made clear in meetings 

and committee work that its observance would be non-political, with an emphasis on the 

principles for which the battle was fought, not on the glorification of the battle itself. They 

 North Bridge, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

36 Perkins to Moffitt, 16 April 1974, 2, File D18 1972-1974 Planning Program DCPs Fiske Hill VC and 

North Bridge, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

37 Mattes, Landmarks of Liberty, 4-5. 
Bicentennial 

161 

planned to have a reenactment of Dr. Samuel Prescott’s ride to warn Concord of the British 

march, accompanied by a sunrise flag raising and firing of a salute by the North Bridge. A 

large parade would wind its way through Concord Center to the bridge. Following the 

tradition of 1875 in which President Ulysses S. Grant attended the festivities, Concord 

invited President Gerald Ford for the Bicentennial. As a permanent marker for the event, the 

town planned to dedicate its new Performing Arts Building at 51 Walden Street and later that 

evening show the premiere of A Flurry of Birds, winner of a special contest initiated by the 

town to honor the occasion. Committees and subcommittees planned other activities for the 

days surrounding April 19, ranging from athletic events to dancing and musical performances 

for young and old, plus the town offered a special commemorative coin.38

Keeping close to its vision, the town also took tremendous steps to make sure it could 

accommodate safely the crush of expected visitors. One of the major lessons learned from 

the 1875 experience dealt with the 50,000 people who had crammed into an unprepared 

Concord, leaving the town at a standstill without clear transportation channels or enough 

food. Concord would not allow a repeat of that overwhelming time, which reduced the very 

sense of dignity and respect sought by the town. In reaction, twentieth century planners set 

about their task with precision and vigor. Using mathematical formulas, they determined 

that the town could handle up to 120,000 people on that day, including the expected 40,000 

residents and their guests. Once visitation reached that magical number, the selectmen 

expected to seal the town off and keep any others out. Citizens also voted at the 7 May 1974 

Town Meeting to limit the parade to 6,000 marchers. Priority went to regional regiments 

over national ones and historic units over contemporary ones to focus attention on the fact 

that soldiers from the local towns had opened the shots of the American Revolution. As 

many as 14,000 marchers had expressed interest in the parade, but town members believed 

that that number overwhelmed resources. To keep visitor numbers low, the town refused to 

advertise its events in state Bicentennial brochures, nor did it ask for increased commuter 

train service to Concord.39 Repeatedly in newspaper articles, town representatives 

emphasized a “low-key role” for Concord in Bicentennial observances.40 As Town Manager 

Paul Flynn stated six months before the big day, “we don’t want to over-publicize the events 

or encourage too many people to come.”41

With 120,000 people expected in Concord for the day, planners anticipated anything 

that might go wrong. School buses would take marchers, along with town residents and their 

guests, to the parade area and back out to designated dispersal areas. Box lunches, provided 

 

38 National Park Study Committee, A History of the Fight at Concord on 19th of April, 1975, 1976, 3, 

MIMA Archives. The 1975 Celebrations Committee, Tentative Program, 1 February 1975, File Minute 

Man, Series IV, Group 2, RG 18, NPS History Collection, HFC. Philip Suter to David Moffitt, 1 April 

1975, 2, File 3, Box 1, 4/19/1975 Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 

39 National Park Study Committee, History of the 1975 Fight, 4. “With 23 Weeks to Go, Town Manager 

Outlines Many 1975 Plan Details,” Concord Journal, no date [November 1974]; and “Selectmen Ask 

Questions about Bicentennial; ’75 Committee Replies,” no provenance [Concord Journal (February 1975)], 

both in File Minute Man, Series IV, Group 2, RG 18, NPS History Collection, HFC. 

40 “Concord & Lexington Brace for Battle of Bicentennial,” New York News (10 March 1975). 41 Flynn, as quoted both times in “With 23 Weeks to Go,” Concord Journal, no date [November 1974]. 
Bicentennial 

162 

by the town, would feed parade marchers. Kiwanis volunteers would have food booths set 

up in various locations to meet the needs of on-lookers. A military helicopter would 

constantly survey the scene and give personnel an opportunity to re-route traffic to reduce 

build-ups. The basement of the post office would serve as an emergency operations center 

with its own communications system. Concord hired 400 auxiliary Civil Defense police 

officers to support efforts by the local service to maintain crowd control while the National 

Guard and Red Cross expected to establish first-aid units every half-mile of the parade route 

and in other high-volume areas. Coast Guard boats would patrol the Concord River.42

Underlying these extraordinary Bicentennial efforts was a great worry for the 

residents of Concord. Concord, with a population of 17,500, had resolutely over the years 

rejected its status as a tourist town. Residents certainly welcomed visitors and prided 

themselves on the nationally significant pieces of history within the town boundaries. Yet, 

the town did not extend this welcome by having hotels, restaurants, large parking facilities, 

comfortable rest stops, or even a prominent visitor center to direct people to the sights. As 

ranger Hicks stated later, many Concordians preferred that tourists stop to see the sights, 

shop in Concord Center, and then leave. They did not want visitors to stay and think about 

living in Concord, forcing the town to grow and become another commercialized suburb of 

Boston.43 Michael Ryan wrote in Boston Magazine that “Concord is a charming town, a little 

pocket of affluence just far enough away from Boston to be able to live by its own lights.” 

Ryan went on to describe the typical Concordian, who had “flaxen hair, sturdy tweeds, 

tortoise shell glasses, and sensible shoes.”44 That typical Concordian also had a fierce belief 

in the ideals fought for at the North Bridge. John Finigan, chairman of the 1975 Celebrations 

Committee, wrote that “Concord is among the few places left in the world where one is 

allowed to exercise the spirit of freedom our predecessors fought for” and Finigan hoped 

that “all those who live in this Town will carry on in the same spirit.”45 Would that 

commitment to freedom and its practice in daily town affairs survive if Concord became 

suburbanized? Town Manager Paul Flynn encapsulated this fear when he wrote, “I think the 

major concern of the Town in this year of 1975 . . . is the fear of losing the small townness 

that we presently enjoy; the small village areas; the ruralness; the social involvements; the 

gentility and open and friendly climate; all of those attributes and characteristics which 

describes Concord in 1975.” He went on to describe the alternative: “Is our community to 

retain its village character and amenities, or is it to follow the path of so many suburban 

 

42 Ibid. Town of Concord, Patriot’s Day Information Brochure, 18 March 1975, File 1, Box 1, 4/19/1975 

Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. “Concord & Lexington Brace,” New York News (10 March 1975). 

“Selectmen Ask Questions,” no provenance [Concord Journal (February 1975)]. Moffitt, transcript of 

interview, 11. 

43 Hicks, transcript of interview, 16. 

44 Michael Ryan, “The Spirit of ’75,” Boston Magazine 67(June 1975), n.p., 1975 Bicentennial Materials, 

Special Collections, Concord Public Library. 

45 John Finigan to Kathy Bailey, 10 March 1975, Box 6, 1975 Bicentennial Materials, Special Collections, 

Concord Public Library. 
Bicentennial 

163 

communities and become part of an urban sprawl?”46 That question hung above Concord’s 

residents as the Bicentennial approached. 

Lexington residents also shuddered when they thought of how many people would 

choose to attend Bicentennial events on their town’s green. As Robert Tarlin, head of 

Lexington’s Bicentennial Commission, told reporters, “All the [national and state] publicity 

urges visitors to come to Boston—which we think is a good idea. But if people come to 

Boston, they will almost certainly come to Lexington and Concord, too. And we’re not so 

sure we want them to do that.”47 Lexington planned to begin 19 April 1975 with bells ringing 

the alarm at 5 AM. Half an hour later, men dressed as militia men and British Regulars would 

reenact the battle at Lexington Green. The town also scheduled a parade and hoped to have 

President Ford participate in the observances. Lexington was a different place than 

Concord, though. Close to Boston, on major commuter routes, and more than double the 

size of Concord, Lexington had managed to combine its historical charm with a knowing 

cosmopolitanism that set it apart from its quiet neighbor.48

Lincoln embraced an entirely different identity from Concord and Lexington, as seen 

in its Bicentennial observances. Residents of Lincoln valued the rural and natural character 

of their land and actively sought mechanisms to preserve it. Bicentennial planning involved 

creating a new conservation district along the borders of the town and MIMA, along both 

sides of the Sudbury River, and extending into Weston and Wayland. By the year 2000, the 

town would permanently preserve roughly one-third of its land. Its 1975 Bicentennial Study 

Group, led by Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission member 

Katharine White, also recommended restoration of the old mill site on Mill Street as a 

permanent marker. To preserve Lincoln’s documentary history, White’s committee urged 

that the town collect, organize, and store for safekeeping and access records of the town and 

its residents. These would eventually go into the Lincoln Public Library, a historic building 

in Town Center. For 19 April 1975 the town hosted its own small parade and ceremonies 

honoring the day.49

The NPS had big ideas for celebrating the Bicentennial but a limited budget and even 

more limited time. The $100 million congressional appropriation did not come on top of its 

regular construction outlay but rather as a substitution, requiring deferral of many nonBicentennial related projects. This money also started pouring in about a year later than 

would normally be expected to complete construction projects. NPS budget cycles had 

typically used a three-year period for preliminary design through drawings to contracting 

 

46 Paul Flynn to Karen Kelsall, 5 March 1975, Box 6, 1975 Bicentennial Materials, Special Collections, 

Concord Public Library. Both Flynn and Finigan wrote these letters to Girl Scouts who were putting 

together a time capsule to fit under the Minute Man statue once returned to its base after the re-casting had 

been completed. A discussion of the statue and time capsule follows in a later section in this chapter. 

47 David Langworthy, “The Tourist Invasion of ’75,” Christian Science Monitor no date [1975], File 

Minute Man, Series IV, Group 2, RG 18, NPS History Collection, HFC. 

48 “Concord & Lexington Brace,” New York News (10 March 1975). Hicks, transcript of interview, 16. 

49 Lincoln 1975 Bicentennial Study Group, The Bicentennial Celebration in Lincoln, 15 May 1972, 7-9, 

File 14, Box 1, Town of Concord Comm Materials, Concord Fight Bicentennial 1975, Special Collections, 

Concord Public Library; Levin, transcript of interview, 3-4; Warren Flint, Jr., transcript of interview, 1. 
Bicentennial 

164 

through initiation of construction. But, the congressional money began in July 1973, and the 

NPS Director made clear that all Bicentennial work should be completed by December 1975. 

That gave only two and a half years. As Merrill Mattes described in his administrative history 

of the agency’s Bicentennial construction program, the prevailing mood in summer 1973 

ranged from “skepticism to downright pessimism.” Slowly, though, motivations shifted 

when people realized “the specter of ingloriously ‘flubbing it’ when handed the greatest crash 

program in the history of the National Park Service. . . .” Mattes characterized the “flowering 

of a quixotic attitude” within the agency as, “All right, it’s ridiculous and it seems impossible, 

maybe it really is impossible, but on the other hand maybe it’s possible if we give it an allAmerican try”50 and see these projects completed. The NPS mostly succeeded in its task, 

with most buildings opening on time for the big event. At MIMA, despite attempts to open 

the Battle Road Visitor Center for the April 1975 festivities, as described in the next chapter, 

it did not open until 1976. 

Along with working on these major construction projects, the NPS developed 

guidelines for interpretive programming geared to recognizing the Bicentennial throughout 

the system. MIMA acted as one of 22 officially recognized Bicentennial park sites, having a 

direct connection to the events of the American Revolution. However, the National Park 

System included approximately 300 units, with nearly 200 of those classified as historical 

areas. Why shouldn’t all of the sites mark the occasion? This attitude fit with the local slant 

in Bicentennial planning that the federal government had adopted. Plus, this approach 

allowed people from all over the country to honor America’s beginnings without having to 

travel to one of the 22 official sites. William Everhart, then serving as NPS assistant director 

of interpretation, laid out guidelines for all parks in readying for the Bicentennial. He 

emphasized that successful programs had their base in local programming. Parks should 

seek the assistance and cooperation of local community organizations to develop sustained 

activities. Decisions about what programming would fit best with which parks relied upon 

local considerations, understanding what the local communities wanted. Not leaving the 

parks alone in their efforts, the NPS provided starting kits that parks could adapt to fit local 

circumstances. Slide kits, for instance, included visual slides and audio tape addressing 

cultures, politics, and the land during the late 1700s. Park interpreters could adapt these kits 

for use in off-site presentations. School kits developed by the agency also aided parks as 

interpretive rangers visited local schools. 51

Everhart also reported on the results of a task force, providing a list of considerations 

to structure discussions and guide planning. Bicentennial interpretation, according to the 

interpretive task force, should celebrate the nation, not the war, and tell a representative 

story about the United States in addition to that of an individual park. The park story should 

 

50 Mattes, Landmarks of Liberty, 5. 51 Memorandum, William Everhart to Field Directorate, 30 August 1974, 1-2, and attached Summary 

Report, Interpretation for the Bicentennial, 6, 8, File Visit—Interpretation, Group 3, Series XIV, RG 18 

Bicentennial, NPS History Collection, HFC. The 10 themes are individualism, independence, equal justice, 

community, consent of the governed, natural/technological interdependence, private property/competition 

over land, cultural diversity, expansionism/mobility, and preservation of places. 
Bicentennial 

165 

introduce broad themes of the American experience, giving visitors the opportunity to 

examine their heritage and gain new insights. Everhart also reported on what broad themes 

relating to the Bicentennial that the NPS had adopted for its interpretive efforts during this 

period. These ten themes ranged from the ideas of individualism and independence to 

cultural diversity and equal justice.52

A desire to tell stories about everyday Americans of the past to relate to everyday 

Americans of the present lay beneath this interpretive planning. This emphasis reflected the 

social upheavals of the past two decades, with different groups of people demanding notice 

not just in the courts and in their cities but also in the history books. Social historians began 

compiling data and telling stories that went beyond what the generals and political leaders 

had done to change the course of American history. The NPS incorporated this approach in 

its Bicentennial programming. In addition, a combination of the environmental focus of the 

1970s and the NPS’s longstanding preservation role in land management translated into 

interpretive approaches that looked at the changing relationship between people and land. 

The NPS produced two films for circulation throughout the system. “The Early Americans 

1776” told the story of different people and their cultures who lived beyond the Appalachian 

Mountains at the time of the Revolutionary War. “The Americans 1776” film demonstrated 

the importance of the land to how people lived, worked, and played from colonial times to 

the Revolution. Living history also provided many opportunities for telling stories about 

everyday people for everyday visitors. The NPS put together three traveling units with 

equipment and facilities to present living-history interpretation throughout the country in 

summer 1976 (with a pilot program circulating in fall 1975). Each traveling unit had actors 

who represented different aspects of military and civilian life during the eighteenth century. 

The program emphasized “the common man” to allow viewers “maximum identification 

with members of the troupe.” Another traveling program had professional actors play 

famous historical figures taking a little look around and comparing life during their time 

period with the twentieth century.53

MIMA incorporated many of the programming suggestions from the NPS for the 

Bicentennial years, except for the actual day of 19 April 1975. Following the tradition set by 

previous superintendents, Moffitt embraced a supportive role to the parades and 

observances hosted by the towns. When NPS planners asked what MIMA would do on the 

big day, Moffitt made clear that Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington each acted of their own 

accord and firmly resisted any attempts to combine activities. Instead of competing with the 

towns by offering additional programming, Moffitt intended park personnel to assist the 

towns, especially Concord with its North Bridge ceremonies.54

 

52 Ibid. [Summary Report], 1-3. 

53 Ibid. [Summary Report], 5-6. Quote on p. 6. See also Memorandum, Jerry Wagers to David Pickman, 

10 December 1974, 2, File #2 Oct-Dec 1974 A8215 Bicentennial, Box 4, Acc. 79-83-0001, Waltham FRC. 

Wagers writes that there will be a strong emphasis in Bicentennial programming in the North Atlantic 

Region on “the roles of minorities, women, ethnic groups, the young and the volunteer” with “an activities 

program with literally something for everyone.” 

54 Memorandum, Ben Butterfield to Jack LaCovey, 16 December 1974, File Minute Man, Series IV, Group 
Bicentennial 

166 

Beyond the big day, 1975 planning at MIMA incorporated guidelines from both the 

agency’s Bicentennial efforts and the park’s 1971 Interpretive Prospectus. The IP reinforced 

the central message of MIMA’s 1965 Master Plan. The park should educate visitors about the 

political and social environment in England and America that led to the events of the 

Revolution, examine the subsequent issues, dramas, and events of the armed conflict of 19 

April 1775, and discuss the social, political, and military consequences of that clash.55 In 

addition, the interpretive planners urged the park to “provoke thought on the contemporary 

relevance of the fundamental issue of self-determination through representative government 

to its citizens.”56 The planners wrote that the responsiveness of local, state, and federal 

governments had recently been “severely and sometimes violently at issue” and that what 

had happened at Concord and Lexington was “far from a dead issue . . . . Rather it is the 

essence of the contemporary relevance of the drama enacted almost two centuries ago . . . –

the firing of shots which still reverberate around the world.”57

Cynthia Kryston and her staff worked to realize this interpretive approach for 

MIMA. Kryston, who had contributed to the IP, believed wholeheartedly in focusing on the 

national themes and national significance of parks. She approached this perspective in a 

creative way while seeking collaborations with the community. Thanks to the approaching 

Bicentennial, MIMA attracted many people who made it possible for the park’s 

programming to succeed. As many as 1,250 volunteers contributed to the park during this 

period, making MIMA the largest Volunteers-in-the-Parks program in the NPS.58 A “huge 

increase in excitement” fueled the commitment of these people.59 Many of these volunteers 

came as a result of the late 1960s establishment of independent Minute Man companies, 

which re-created the groups that had served during the American Revolutionary period. 

During weekends, the park hosted regular black powder firings. These proved popular and 

gave the reenactors an opportunity to talk with visitors, explaining the firearms and military 

actions at the North Bridge. These Minute Man companies also portrayed colonial fife and 

drum players, providing visitors with other sights and sounds from the past. Concerts 

featuring this music frequented the park’s summer interpretive schedule.60 However, 

Kryston carefully followed NPS policy and her own inclination to keep interpretation at the 

North Bridge low-key. The black powder firings never approached a full-scale reenactment 

 2, RG 18, NPS History Collection, HFC. Minutes, MIMA Advisory Commission, 24th Meeting, 10 March 

1973, 5, File A18 CY 1973 Minute Man Advisory Board, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

55 MIMA Interpretive Prospectus, 1971, 4. 56 Ibid., 5. 

57 Ibid., 4. 

58 Memorandum, Moffitt to Assistant to the Regional Director for Public Affairs, NARO, 6 January 1975, 

1, File K1815 CY 1975 Services, Park Admin Files, MIMA; Hicks, transcript of interview, 13. Minutes, 

Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 19 December 1974, 11, File A18 CY 1974 

Minute Man Advisory Board, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

59 Hicks, transcript of interview, 13. 

60 Kryston, transcript of 2005 interview, 3; Hicks, transcript of interview, 2; Memorandum, Moffitt to 

Regional Director, Northeast Region, 9 November 1973, 3-4; Memorandum, Moffitt to Regional Director, 

Northeast Region, 14 November 1973, 1, File A8215 CY 1973 Special Events April 19, 1975, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 
Bicentennial 

167 

of 1775 events, which NPS policy forbade. Instead, the combination of firings, talks by 

rangers, and even living history portrayals of people dressed in colonial attire provided 

essential context for visitors. Dressed in the garb of a Concord townswoman of the period, 

Hicks might answer questions about life in the eighteenth century or a Minute Man might 

describe farming methods of the time.61

To address the Bicentennial’s emphasis on telling stories of everyday life, Kryston 

further explored living-history possibilities. Park staff worked with seasonal employees and 

the volunteers to cultivate a kitchen garden, for instance, to reflect how local people lived 

during colonial times. By 1976 the Concord Public Schools began assuming major 

responsibility for the development and maintenance of the garden, using it as a teaching 

opportunity. Park staff and volunteers demonstrated colonial crafts, such as cooking, 

baking, and spinning, with the garden harvest. To give visitors the chance to understand the 

political mechanics of living in places like Concord and Lincoln, park interpreters and 

volunteers reenacted colonial town meetings. Here, the performers debated key issues that 

would have concerned colonists just before the events of 1775 and regularly engaged park 

visitors in the conversation. Hicks also started a “Touch and Try” room at the Stedman 

Buttrick House, allowing younger children the opportunity to play with wooden toys or 

work on a spinning wheel reminiscent of the period. This activity generated so much interest 

that it evolved into a more structured interpretive program with the Concord schools, 

moving into the Major John Buttrick House. School groups would make reservations and 

participate in educational programs based on the age groups of the students. Activities might 

include learning about Minute Men, with students drilling with fake muskets, rolling 

cartridges, and seeing how nurses cared for wounded soldiers. Older children might have a 

spirited debate about boycotting tea or fabric.62

PEOPLE’S BICENTENNIAL COMMISSION

Beginning in early November 1974 planning for the Bicentennial celebration at the 

North Bridge changed unexpectedly. Concord’s Town Manager Paul Flynn received word 

that representatives from the People’s Bicentennial Commission wished to join in the 

festivities. This organization’s followers sought alternative opportunities to celebrate the 

nation’s Bicentennial from what they believed to be the dominance of large corporations in 

officially sanctioned Bicentennial events. Flynn invited Randy Barber of the PBC to a 

meeting, where Barber outlined his organization’s ideas. The PBC asked for space in the 

 

61 Kryston, transcript of 2005 interview, 8. 

62 Ibid., 1-2, 4; Kryston, transcript of 2005 interview, 3; Memorandum, Moffitt to Regional Director, 

Northeast Region, 9 November 1973, 3, File A8215 CY 1973 Special Events April 19, 1975, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. Kryston to Seldon Whitaker, 31 October 1975, and attached letter from Whitaker, File 

K1815 CY 1975 Services, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Kryston to Chief of Interpretation, NARO, 25 

November 1975, 1, File K1817 MIMA, Box 13, Acc. 79-83-0001, Waltham FRC. Examples of brochures 

from this period, describing the “Touch the Past” program at the Buttrick House are available in Margie 

Hicks Files, MIMA. Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 31st Meeting, 

19 December 1974, 11-13, File A18 CY 1974 MIMA Advisory Board, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Bicentennial 

168 

parade for a marching group, to hold a non-denominational sunrise service at the North 

Bridge on April 19 to perform skits and other vignettes along the parade route, and to end the 

day by marching along the Battle Road from Concord to Lexington. Flynn urged Barber to 

approach various people with authority to obtain necessary permits and provide specific 

plans as soon as possible. Barber followed up by submitting five requests to MIMA for use of 

park facilities on the Bicentennial day. These requests included holding the sunrise service 

both at the North Bridge and on Fiske Hill, staging various activities at the former park 

headquarters grounds (at the Geophysics building along Route 2A), and performing 

ceremonies at the North Bridge following those of the Town of Concord. A short article in a 

local paper reinforced this low-key approach by the PBC, referring to having short speeches 

made by farm workers and a small ceremony. Flynn remained in touch with Barber either by 

meeting in person or via telephone contacts through mid-February 1975.63

In mid-March, broadsides started appearing in the Boston area advertising the PBC’s 

latest plans for the April 19 commemoration at Concord’s North Bridge. These plans 

differed radically from the original request submitted by Barber. Instead of a small sunrise 

service and street entertainment, the PBC invited supporters to take midnight ride caravans 

to Concord and assemble at the bridge for “on-going musical and theatrical entertainment, 

old fashioned oratory, hot soup and bread kitchens, and a host of surprises.” At 11 AM, a 

culminating event would include reading from speeches by Tom Paine, Sam Adams, and 

John Hancock and then having all participants sign a Declaration of Economic 

Independence. The 10-page broadside promised hot-air balloons, liberty pole raisings, 

patriotic music, and more. Adding fuel to the fire, the PBC estimated an “enormous” crowd, 

referring to some unknown sources that as many as a quarter million people could attend. 

Since the Town of Concord had already warned that it would close off access routes once 

visitation had reached 120,000, the PBC urged its followers to get to the North Bridge by 2 

AM.64

Jeremy Rifkin and John Rossen founded the PBC in Washington, DC, in 1971. They 

wanted their organization to provide an alternative to the government-sanctioned 

Bicentennial programming, which they saw as heavily connected to and indebted to the more 

than 300 corporations sponsoring activities under the presidentially-appointed American 

Revolutionary Bicentennial Administration. Instead, they envisioned nationwide citizen 

participation, especially by people from different economic and racial backgrounds. Rifkin 

and Rossen dedicated their organization to restoring the democratic principles that had 

shaped the beginnings of the United States.65 To present its views and build support, the 

 

63[Paul Flynn], Chronology of Contacts with PBC, no date [March 1975], 1; and Randy Barber to David 

Moffitt, 19 November 1974, both in File 2, Box 1, 4/19/1975 Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives; 

“People’s Bicentennial at Concord Bridge,” Fence Viewer [date incorrect, probably November 1974], File 

V, Unprocessed materials, Museum Collection, MIMA; National Park Study Committee, A History of the 

Fight at Concord on the 19th of April, 1975, 1976, 5-6, MIMA. 64 People’s Bicentennial Commission [PBC], Broadside, [March 1975], 3, File 3, Box 3, Bicentennial 

Records, MIMA Archives. 

65 Ibid; Seema Sohi, “The People’s Bicentennial Commission and the Construction of Public Memory,” The 
Bicentennial 

169 

PBC produced and Bantam Books published in early 1975 Voices of the American Revolution, 

a recounting of American history leading to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

More than half of the book includes quotes from the founding fathers (and mothers). The 

book also has a modern-day call-to-arms, urging Americans from the 1970s to consider the 

current situation and recognize the need for further action. “We Americans of today,” the 

PBC states, “must come to grips with the principles of that first Revolution of two hundred 

years ago. The great drama cries out to be re-opened. Will we stand by, allowing history to 

sweep our democracy aside? Or will we, like our ancestors, assert ourselves and the power 

that lies within us, to regain control of our lives and the institutions around us?”66 This call 

for action also permeates the broadside advertising programming for the North Bridge. The 

fourth page includes a call for volunteers to help promote the April 19 event. It states: “Sons 

and Daughters of Liberty TAKE NOTICE. The People’s Bicentennial Commission needs 

1,000 modern day Paul Reveres to spread the word. We’re planning an economic rally at 

Concord Bridge to commemorate ‘The Shots Heard Round the World.’ On April 19, 1775 

the patriots stood up for their rights and sent a message to King George. This time, we’re 

going to SEND A MESSAGE TO WALL STREET.”67

What message did PBC’s leaders have? Rifkin, Rossen, and their followers believed 

that the economic, social, and political issues that had prompted the Minute Men and other 

American patriots to fight the British for American liberty still existed in similar form in 1975. 

Massive unemployment combined with high taxes and rising costs for such things as food 

and gasoline had left twentieth-century Americans with a prospect on life not much different 

from that of the colonists. Rifkin and others argued that the top executives of large 

corporations had grabbed political and economic power well beyond their numbers, leaving 

citizen workers with little opportunity to change their bleak economic fortunes. As stated in 

the Voices of the American Revolution book, “we have resigned ourselves to the notion that 

our giant business corporations will continue to buy and sell our elected representatives, will 

continue to make record profits by fabricating shortages and raising prices, will continue to 

control our very lives without our consent.”68 The PBC wanted the people, not the corporate 

executives, to make the powerful economic decisions. But, the people had to act now. “If we 

who believe in the principles of our first revolution do not act,” the PBC wrote in its book, 

“others, who do not believe in them will act for us, taking our silence for cowardice, our 

despair for acceptance.”69 

To attract attention and gain support, the PBC dressed this essentially New Left 

argument in the cloak of the American Revolutionary War. By using quotes from such 

leaders as Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine, the PBC tried to convince listeners that just as 

 UVM [University of Vermont] History Review 10 (December 1999): 3-4. Jeremy Rifkin declined the 

author’s invitation for an interview. 

66 People’s Bicentennial Commission, Voices of the American Revolution (New York: Bantam Books, 

1975), 92. 

67 PBC, Broadside, [March 1975], 4. 

68 PBC, Voices of the American Revolution, 93. 69 Ibid. 
Bicentennial 

170 

American patriots had fought against the tyranny of the British monarchy, so American 

workers should fight against the tyranny of the corporate giants.70 PBC plans for the North 

Bridge included signing a revised version of the Declaration of Independence, calling for 

economic independence. As the broadside declared, “It’s time to reclaim our basic 

birthrights, just as our founders did 200 years ago. It’s time to challenge the stranglehold that 

the corporate monarchs exert over the life of our country. It’s time to join together in a new 

movement to apply democratic principles to the American economy. This April 19 at 

Concord Bridge, we plan to do just that. We’re going to take up the banner of Liberty and 

Freedom that Adams, Paine, and Jefferson led to victory two centuries ago. Join us.”71

David Moffitt remembers chuckling to himself when he first saw one of the PBC’s 

broadsides. This advertisement reminded him of the free spirited hippies that congregated 

around Cambridge, and he couldn’t imagine them organizing such a program and coming out 

to Concord. They were always stoned, he figured. But, a few days later, one of their 

representatives appeared in Moffitt’s office, requesting a permit for their program, what 

Moffitt now understood to be a political demonstration. Moffitt pointed out that the Town 

of Concord already had a permit, granted in September 1974, for April 19 from daybreak 

until after the parade came through the area. The organizer, who had helped to put together 

the well-known Woodstock rock concert a few years earlier, said that the PBC wanted the 

Buttrick hillside from the evening of April 18 through the morning of April 19, around the 

times the town had requested the bridge area. He referred to needing a sound system and 

other equipment for 10,000 or more people. Moffitt gulped, realizing that this request was 

real. He admitted later, “I began to panic just a little bit. I mean, this was my first 

superintendency.”72 He immediately called the North Atlantic Regional Director, Jerry 

Wagers, who happened to live in Concord, and asked for guidance. Wagers asked for a legal 

review of the request by people in his office and the Washington office.73

CONCORD RESPONSE

A range of emotions and reactions flared within Concord as a result of the PBC’s 

sudden change in plans. As Philip Suter, chairman of the Board of Selectmen, related in a 

personal oral history soon after the events, “this broadside was most upsetting to us when we 

saw it.”74 What specifically upset Suter and other town residents? First, the PBC had broken 

a sense of trust that the town felt had existed. In a list of items for discussion with the PBC 

for a 21 March meeting, the town expressed disappointment and embarrassment at the turn 

of events and called for the “absolute need for honesty and integrity” if cooperation could 

 

70 Sohi, “PBC and Construction of Public Memory,” 5-7; PBC, Broadside, [March 1975], 6, 8, 10. 

71 PBC, Broadside, [March 1975], 10. 

72 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 11. 

73 Ibid.; Denis Galvin, Chronology of Events, in North Atlantic Regional Office [NARO], MIMA 

Bicentennial Celebration, 19 April 1975, Report and Analysis, 18 June 1975, 1-2, File Bicentennial 

Celebration 4/19/1975, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 

74 Philip H. Suter, Bicentennial Celebrations, Town of Concord, transcription of oral history, 21 April 1975, 

20, MIMA Archives. 
Bicentennial 

171 

continue.75 Suter later emphasized this feeling of betrayal, saying that the PBC organizers 

“really deceitfully get your confidence and then do something entirely different on a 

different scale than they had been talking about all along.”76 

Second, the town worried that the PBC’s program would detract from and even 

overwhelm the theme of spiritual thanksgiving that had shaped the Bicentennial 

programming. Many factors contributed to this fear. If the broadside correctly predicted 

even half the numbers of people to attend the PBC event, then the crowd would certainly 

overwhelm the ability of Concord to provide safe and solemn ceremonies. Town manager 

Flynn expressed this consideration in a letter to one PBC supporter, writing that the limited 

planning and lack of organization by the PBC “can only have an adverse affect on what has 

presently been planned and detract from the significance of the day and the rededication of 

America that is needed.”77

Suter expanded upon these same feelings. To a Washington Post reporter just before 

the big day, he compared the situation to a “Brahms symphony which we had prepared for 

the celebration of the Town being interrupted and having a rock concert superimposed over 

it.”78 He said that the town worried about the danger of having so many people in a confined 

area all night, that sanitary and health issues would necessarily arise, that loud music would 

be playing. In another communication to the NPS, Suter referred to the “dangerous riot 

potential” of such a large crowd.79 When specifically asked at the 21 March meeting with the 

NPS and Town of Concord, the PBC representatives had expressly “denied any intention of 

fomenting acts of civil disobedience and affirmed their intention to have a peaceful 

demonstration of their views.”80 Suter and others continued to worry about what might 

happen. 

 Fear of the unknown, combined with knowledge of how the PBC and other similar 

groups of young people had acted in recent years, spurred Suter and others in their 

opposition. The August 1969 Woodstock Music Festival had attracted four hundred 

thousand young people to upstate New York, despite torrential rains. The world-class rock 

music accompanied recreational drug use and signaled another turn in the countercultural 

revolution storming the country in the late 1960s and early 1970s. Woodstock sat at the back 

of people’s minds, as something that could happen again, maybe prompting ugly and 

dangerous behavior. The PBC had already shown its ability to attract attention and make a 

political statement. On the 200th anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, the PBC had 

sponsored a commemoration and economic protest. In December 1973, 25,000 people 

braved a snowstorm and frigid temperatures to carry signs saying such slogans as “Put the 

 

75 Items for Discussion with People’s Bicentennial Commission on 21 March 1975, 1, File A8215 CY 

1975, April 19, 1975, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

76 Suter, transcript of interview, 53. 77 Paul Flynn to Ramsey Clark, 24 March 1975, 1, File A8215 CY 1975 April 19, 1975, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

78 Suter, oral history, 31. 

79 Philip Suter to David Moffitt, 1 April 1975, 5, File 3, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 80 Galvin, Chronology of Events, 2. 
Bicentennial 

172 

Heat on the Oil Co.,” “Make the Oil Companies Pay!” and “John Hancock Didn’t Sell 

Insurance.”81 The PBC considered this protest a success, but some Boston area residents 

thought differently, calling the exhibition a “travesty,” desecrating the solemnity of the 

original event.82

In looking at Concord’s response to the PBC proposal, one could easily describe 

many townspeople’s opposition as a signal of a generational gap. Established people like 

Suter and Flynn butted against the young revolutionaries Rifkin and Barber. Suter admits in 

his oral history of the event that he “got into a heated discussion” with one of his own 

teenaged children about the “merits and demerits of this kind of demonstration.”83 In its 

remarks to the PBC and NPS on 21 March, Concord urged for the park to “require and insist 

on proper deportment and decorum consistent with dignity and solemnity of not only the 

day but the Bicentennial,” a call for respect for the ceremonies as planned by the town’s 

elders. The young people of this Woodstock generation, with their ragged jeans and long 

hair, crying out for revolutionary action, did not fit the expectations of town planners, who 

had long sought a dignified program to commemorate the Bicentennial.84

Yet, Concord’s opposition reached beyond the generations. Town planners did not 

want anyone or anything to interfere with their planned ceremonies. When President Gerald 

Ford made clear that he would attend the North Bridge ceremony, many other politicians 

expressed interest in speaking at the event. 1975 Celebrations Chairman Finigan put his foot 

down and refused to allow anyone but the President and a few key Concordians take the 

podium. This day would be free of politics, with the town setting the rules. As Suter later 

commented, “Once you had politicians up on the TV stand it would become more of a 

political function, which we wanted to avoid.”85

The town showed its fierce resistance to another proposed celebration competing for 

the North Bridge on April 19. Michael Wadleigh, an Academy Award-winning documentary 

and educational filmmaker, asked, through his representative Geoff Cowan, to erect a sound 

system and stage at MIMA the weekend of April 18-20 to present educational oratory, music, 

song, dance, reenactments, and other activities related to the Bicentennial celebration. 

Wadleigh wanted to “restore a balance by presenting an educational program” alongside the 

already scheduled parade, entertainment events, and festivities. He established the 19th of 

April Society explicitly for this purpose and voiced in his 13 March 1975 letter to the NPS 

that the Society’s offerings would reflect the diverse cultural heritage of the nation. Wadleigh 

envisioned having African tribal music, Indian songs, folk dancing, readings of poems and 

speeches from the American Revolutionary era, and a host of other performances to reflect 

the country’s rich cultural background. Wadleigh also proposed inviting some well-known 

performers, including James Taylor, Arlo Guthrie, and John Voigt. Although Wadleigh’s 

 

81 PBC, Broadside, [March 1975], 3, 5. 

82 Catherine Boyle to Gentlemen, 27 March 1975, File 4, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 83 Suter, oral history, 49. 

84 Items for Discussion with PBC on 21 March 1975, 2. 

85 Suter, oral history, 32-34. Quote on p. 34. 
Bicentennial 

173 

letter insisted that he did not intend to bring more people to Concord than the 120,000 

already allowed by the town, the reference to these famous people heightened the concern. 

In addition, the NPS quickly realized that Cowan had produced the Woodstock film, 

bringing further red flags to this proposal.86 Again, the regional and Washington offices 

began their reviews of this new inquiry. Concord officials expressed unanimous opposition 

to the 19th of April Society’s ideas, just as they opposed the PBC’s plans.87

NPS PERMIT

Meetings among all concerned individuals happened in rapid succession, pushed by 

the looming presence of April 19, less than a month away. On March 21, the NPS met in the 

Massachusetts State Office for Communities and Development with representatives from the 

state, Town of Concord, and the PBC. State officials offered help in handling the events of 

the big day. This meeting ended with the state exploring possible places to allow overnight 

camping for PBC supporters. Following this meeting, the NPS met with the town and the 

PBC. Town manager Flynn used questions drawn up by the Concord Selectmen and 

“interrogated” Barber about the broadside and its impact upon the town. Barber insisted 

that his organization would readily comply with specific limitations set by a permit. At the 

meeting’s conclusion, he picked up a permit application from the NPS North Atlantic 

Regional Office. The following day, Regional Director Wagers hosted Moffitt, Associate 

Regional Director Denis Galvin, and other NPS officials at his Concord home to discuss the 

situation. This group made clear that “no position would be taken by the National Park 

Service in conflict with the First Amendment.” The agency would work towards developing 

a permit for the PBC. With regard to the 19th of April Society’s proposal, Wagers and the 

others did not see this request as a First Amendment issue and planned to turn it down.88

The NPS had learned in federal court rulings reaching up to the Supreme Court that 

it could not infringe the rights of citizens to gather and exercise their First Amendment Right 

of Freedom of Speech. In the Supreme Court’s 1939 ruling for Hague v. CIO, the court stated 

that “Such use of the streets and public places [for public assembly and communication] has, 

from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.” 

However, the court also noted that use of streets and parks for public communication “is not 

absolute, but relative, and must be exercised in subordination to the general comfort and 

convenience, and in consonance with peace and good order . . . .” Agencies could impose 

limitations, but the basic right “must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”89 

In 1972 the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit further refined the issue 

of First Amendment assemblies by stating in Women Strike for Peace v. Morton that “if the 

 

86 Geoff Cowan to Arthur Abell, 13 March 1975, 1-2, attached to Memorandum, Sandra to Charlie, 20 

March 1975, File Minute Man Celebration, Series IV, Group 2, RG 18, NPS History Collection, HFC. 

Quote on p. 1. 

87 Galvin, Chronology of Events, 1-2. National Park Study Committee, A History of the 1975 Fight at 

Concord, 9. 88 Galvin, Chronology of Events, 2. 

89 Hague v. CIO, 307 US 496, pp. 515-16. 
Bicentennial 

174 

state has allowed some to invade that interest [of holding a public assembly], it is obvious that 

the purpose of a restriction on others is to suppress their speech rather than to vindicate any 

independent interest.”90 As a result of these rulings, the NPS developed guidelines 

concerning demonstrations and other peaceable forms of assembly and free speech. People 

wishing to assemble had to obtain a permit specifying the purpose of the assembly, the 

expected number of participants, its organization or plan, and duration. In historic areas, the 

NPS reserved the right to hold assemblies where they did not threaten imminent danger, 

through crowding or other threats, to the historic properties. In addition, no group could be 

discriminated against or denied the right of assembly, so long as it followed the Service’s 

guidelines.91

Wagers and NPS lawyers viewed the PBC request as falling under the purview of the 

First Amendment, but they did not at first consider the 19th of April Society’s request 

similarly. In light of all the activities planned or proposed around the North Bridge for April 

19, and spilling into April 18 and April 20, the NPS did not feel equipped to assure crowd 

control and traffic control for the Society’s added presence. Concerns that performers such 

as James Taylor and Arlo Guthrie would draw many more people than might come simply for 

the Bicentennial ceremonies further convinced the NPS that it could not permit such an 

activity.92 Before the NPS sent its refusal93, though, the 19th of April Society’s legal 

representatives made clear in a March 27 letter to Moffitt that their client and its associates 

had “important messages and statements which they wish to communicate” and that 

“individuals assembled at Concord, Massachusetts for the events of April 18-20, 1975 should 

have the right to obtain, if they so desire, the information that Mr. Wadleigh and his 

associates seek to communicate.”94 The 19th of April Society’s legal representatives also 

noted that the lack of action by the NPS in granting a permit had almost effectively denied 

the Society from assembling its people and materials to present its program. The Society 

threatened to pursue litigation if the NPS failed to issue a permit. With this letter, the 19th of 

April Society asserted its First Amendment rights, and the NPS now had two proposals for 

permits.95

On March 28 the NPS invited representatives from the PBC, the Town of Concord, 

and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to MIMA for a meeting to discuss the PBC’s 

permit while Associate Regional Director Galvin worked on the 19th of April Society’s 

request. Suter, as the chief representative for the town, made clear that Concord opposed 

the granting of any permits. Using an agenda developed by Town Manager Flynn, Suter 

pointed out that the town opposed having amplified sound all night, which would potentially 

disturb residents living nearby. He raised concerns about the possibility of outdoor fires, 

 

90 Women Strike for Peace v. Morton, 472 F.2d 1273 (DC Circuit 1972), p. 1285. 

91 NPS Guidelines, VII-26 –VII-27, as compiled in File 1, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 

92 Moffitt to Michael Wadleigh, 28 March 1975, File 5, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 

93 Galvin notes in his chronology that the NPS did not send this letter. See Galvin, Chronology of 

 Events, 3. 

94 Terry Lenzner to Moffitt, 27 March 1975, 1-2, File 5, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 

95 Ibid., 2-3. Galvin, Chronology of Events, 3. 
Bicentennial 

175 

which normally required town permits, and the peddling of food. Parking issues and worries 

about tying up the roadways also received attention, especially as the PBC’s representatives 

stated their intention to attract as many as 40,000 to 50,000 people to their event.96 The 

meeting attendees then went to the Buttrick Hillside, and Suter recalled being “appalled at 

the way the PBC acted. They pointed out to the NPS just exactly where they wanted their 

bandstand, their stage and their other elements and were going around giving orders in effect 

to the Park . . . .”97 Suter particularly objected to the PBC’s proposed placement of the stage 

immediately behind the Minute Man statue, potentially detracting from it and getting in the 

way of floodwaters. The Concord River routinely flooded around the area of the Minute 

Man statue as the ice and snow melted and spring rains fell. 

But, he knew his objections only went so far. He recalled that “After coming back 

from that meeting I was most discouraged and upset because it looked to me like the Park 

was going to kowtow and bow down to everything that the PBC had requested.”98 Wanting 

the town’s objections in writing before the NPS granted the permit, Suter presented his 

thoughts before the Board of Selectmen and submitted the resulting letter to MIMA on April 

1. Key points raised in this letter involved limiting the proposed number of attendees to 

20,000 people, prohibiting the use of amplified sound during the hours of 1 AM and 6 AM, 

and eliminating any outdoor fires. Suter closed the letter by referring to the “sober 

responsibility” of the town’s elected officials to take every step necessary to protect the safety 

and health of the town’s residents. He also pleaded one last time for intervention, stating 

that “The size, scope and noise of PBC’s proposal on its face lacks common sense and is 

completely unreasonable and intolerable.”99

Suter and other town officials could not accept the PBC’s or the 19th of April 

Society’s proposals because they adversely infringed upon what the Town of Concord had 

planned. A key concern for town officials involved the rights of one group overwhelming the 

rights of another. Town manager Flynn had encapsulated this belief in his March 24 letter to 

a PBC supporter, acknowledging that “Politically, Concord is an independent community 

which focuses on issues rather than personalities and parties. . . . The thrust of the PBC is one 

in which many reasonable people in town could be intrigued. The concept may not be totally 

accepted but the right to express it would be carefully protected.” However, Flynn made 

clear that fellow Concordians “would be unanimous” in the view that “in protecting the right 

of the PBC to express its message, the rights of the townspeople or others not be trampled in 

the process.”100 It seemed to many Concordians that their own rights suffered as a result of 

these new intrusions into the Bicentennial commemorations. As Suter argued to the NPS on 

April 1, “The Park must balance the right of the citizens of Concord who live in this area 

 

96 Galvin, Chronology of Events, 3; Suter, oral history, 21-22. 97 Suter, oral history, 22. 

98 Ibid., 22-23. Quote on p. 23. 

99 Suter to Moffitt, 1 April 1975, File 3, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. Quotes on p. 7. 

See also National Park Study Committee, A History of the 1975 Fight at Concord, 8. 100 Flynn to Clark, 24 March 1975, 1-2. 
Bicentennial 

176 

against the PBC’s attempt to dominate a celebration which has been planned for six years.”101 

Suter also made clear in his oral history, “we had no problem with the fact that the PBC had a 

right to free speech but we thought that time, that place, and that hour was not the proper 

time for them to exercise that right.”102

When confronted with this view, Moffitt stood firmly on the side of judicial opinion. 

When walking through Concord Center just before the big day, he ran into one of the editors 

for the local paper. “How can you do this?” the editor asked Moffitt. Moffitt replied that the 

NPS’s stance was dictated by the Constitution and Freedom of Speech. As Moffitt 

remembers, the newspaper editor said, “Well yeah, but that’s okay, but not on April 19th.” 

And Moffitt, in a cajoling way, said “that’s the difference between you and me. I am not 

selective when I uphold the Constitution.” Moffitt later remembered that this viewpoint 

made its way into an editorial for the Boston Globe, congratulating him and the NPS on 

protecting the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.103

Another turn in the permitting story came on March 30. One of the state 

representatives informed the NPS that the 19th of April Society had dropped its request for 

April 18-20. In negotiating with the state, the Society had decided to find an alternative site 

on a later date for a program similar to the one requested at MIMA. The 19th of April Society 

did ask for, and receive, a permit to film the events of April 19, focusing largely on the PBC 

demonstration. Now the NPS could focus its energies on completing the permit process 

with the PBC. On April 2 the NPS invited the Town of Concord and the PBC to MIMA to 

discuss preliminary details of the proposed permit. In response to concerns raised by the 

town, the NPS revised the draft permit to limit the number of people to 25,000 (using a 

calculation of 12 square feet per person) and to establish sound levels at the periphery of the 

crowd. The agency also agreed to prohibit open fires. On April 3, the NPS released a second 

draft of the permit. This permit included the above changes and also moved the PBC stage 

further from the North Bridge, away from high water and more in line with the town’s 

preferences. The second draft permit also restricted PBC participation from midnight to 5 

AM, assuming the town could show its need for the area for the entire time afterwards. The 

NPS then met one more time with a PBC representative to review the draft permit. The PBC 

accepted all of the provisions except the restricted time span, ending at 5 AM. The 

organization had planned a focal part of its demonstration for one additional hour between 7 

and 8 AM. After more discussion, the NPS decided to allow this additional one-hour period 

in the permit. On April 4 the NPS issued the PBC the special use permit, which included 22 

specifications, and both groups held separate press conferences.104

 

101 Suter to Moffitt, 1 April 1975, 7. See also National Park Study Committee, A History of the 1975 

Concord Fight, 8. 102 Suter, oral history, 31. 103 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 12. 104 Galvin, Chronology of Events, 3-5. Leonard Frank, William McQueeney, and Donald Jackson, Analysis 

of 19 April 1975, in NARO, Report and Analysis of the Bicentennial Celebration, 2. For a copy of the 

permit, see Annex E, National Park Study Committee, History of the 1975 Concord Fight. See also John 

Finigan, transcript of oral history, 7. 
Bicentennial 

177 

Now the Town of Concord had to make a decision. Should it accept the provisions 

of the permit and move forward with its own final arrangements for the Bicentennial 

celebration or should it pursue some legal action against the NPS? Town Manager Flynn 

argued to move forward with planning. He wrote to the selectmen on April 7 that further 

action by the town would only give “more publicity to a matter which has already received 

too much publicity.” This adverse publicity could even attract “splinter radical groups who 

see confrontation developing” and give more ammunition to the PBC for advocating its right 

of free speech. Flynn also pointed out that thanks to the PBC’s aggressive advertising 

campaign, many thousands of people would make the trip to Concord on the night of April 

18, whether the NPS had issued the permit or not. NPS representatives had admitted to 

Flynn that they had no choice but to issue the permit, not just for constitutional reasons but 

because the agency needed some way to control the sheer numbers of people expected. 

Flynn warned that “An organized program provides a focal point and is used as a control 

technique. Without the organized program, a chaotic mob action can develop.”105 And, the 

permit specified that both the NPS and the PBC had responsibility for the proper conduct 

and use of the area. The permit also dictated that the PBC provide 250 trained and identified 

marshals to help ensure good order and compliance to the conditions of the permit. 

Spontaneous conflicts might arise without such additional personnel. In the end, Flynn 

believed that the town had a “distasteful problem.” By living with it, the town took a superior 

position in his mind rather than fighting it. “Let us not be the ones to force the 

confrontation.”106

Suter disagreed with Flynn. He argued in the executive session of the selectmen 

meeting that they had an obligation to do what they could to protect the town. In his view, 

the NPS had made a serious error in issuing the permit, especially allowing for the size and 

scope of the PBC’s attendance. To achieve the fastest and best relief, given the time 

constraints, Suter believed that the town should seek an injunction. In this way, even if such 

action failed, the town would know that the selectmen had done all they could to protect 

residents. The debate continued until a final vote put Suter alone in wanting to pursue an 

injunction. Instead, the town registered its protest to the permit with the Secretary of the 

Interior and asked for an immediate review. The Interior Department complied but did not 

make any further changes to the permit.107 In fact, the Interior Department defended the 

NPS’s handling of the entire situation. The Service had demonstrated “the highest standard 

of concern for the orderly and timely expressions of all interested parties.” The very events 

being celebrated on 19 April 1975, wrote the Interior official, “speak to the expression of 

individual rights for which our democratic form of government has paid such a high price.” 

But, the Interior Department reassured Concordians by stating that “We have no intention in 

 

105 Paul Flynn to Board of Selectmen, 7 April 1975, 1, Annex F of National Park Study Committee, History 

of the 1975 Concord Fight. 

106 Ibid., 2. 107 Suter, oral history, 26-27; Galvin, Chronology of Events, 5; Suter to Secretary of the Interior, 7 April 

1975, File 4, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 
Bicentennial 

178 

letting any group, no matter how patriotic their aspirations, disrupt the importance of the 

celebration so laboriously planned by our neighbors and your constituents.” The Interior 

official closed by affirming that by having a peaceful celebration, “we can again prove to the 

world that our form of Government still allows for dissent within our democratic system.”108

Moffitt also wrote to address Suter’s continuing concerns. The NPS believed that it 

had taken into careful consideration the First Amendment rights of the PBC and also the 

rights of the citizens of Concord. Moffitt noted that “Specifics of the permit are tailored to 

protect the legitimate interests and concerns of the citizens of Concord that you have 

expressed.”109 These concerns had resulted in the prohibition of open fires, the reduction in 

the accepted number of attendees to 25,000, and the ceasing of PBC activities so as not to 

conflict with the sunrise cannonade and reenactment of the arrival of Dr. Prescott. The NPS 

did allow for amplified sound, but the agency argued that such allowance met the needs of 

audience members to be able to hear the demonstration and gave the law enforcement 

officers good crowd control measures. Plus, the NPS specified amplification levels at the 

periphery of the audience and controlled the electrical power. The NPS kept elected officials 

from the area informed about the situation and logged many phone calls from the public 

registering reactions to the permit. People who called the North Atlantic Regional Office 

largely supported the issuance of the permit while calls to MIMA almost overwhelmingly 

opposed the NPS’s action.110

These negative comments also came to the park and its personnel through the mail 

and in one-on-one situations. One Concord woman wrote “disgustedly” that the PBC was a 

“trouble-seeking group” and that Moffitt had “blatantly demonstrated that you care not what 

happens to the carefully laid plans” or property of those living nearby.111 Another 

Concordian considered the issuance of the permit to the PBC a “hasty decision” and 

“violated our rights as citizens and taxpayers of this town.” She went on to write that the 

NPS had taken “more than a little of the joy out of the celebration,” and called for the park to 

be returned to the people of Concord.112 Park Interpretive Ranger Margie Hicks 

remembered being verbally assaulted when going to a local restaurant in uniform. Moffitt 

had insults slung at him at the grocery store and one distressed Concordian even woke him 

up one night, telling Moffitt to get out of town.113

Still smarting from the turn of events, Town Manager Flynn delineated Concord’s 

expectations and limitations. Flynn made clear, for example, that the town could not provide 

police services to the park as these had to ensure security and traffic and crowd control for 

 

108 Douglas Wheeler to Suter, 17 April 1975, File A8215 CY 1975 April 19, 1975, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

109 Moffitt to Suter, 4 April 1975, 1, File Minute Man Celebration, Series IV, Group 2, RG 18, NPS History 

Collection, HFC. 

110 Galvin, Chronology of Events, 5-6; NARO, Statement to the Public, 8 April 1975, 3, File 2, Box 1, 

Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. See also the NPS permit to the PBC, 4 April 1975, Annex E, 

National Park Study Committee, History of the 1975 Concord Fight. 111 Mrs. John Klinck to Moffitt, 7 April 1975, File 4, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 112 Pauline Eaton to Moffitt, 15 April 1975, File 4, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 113 Hicks, transcript of oral history, 5; Moffitt, transcript of interview, 12, 16. 
Bicentennial 

179 

the town’s own events. In addition, because the PBC demonstration would necessarily 

create extra demands on the town’s law enforcement officers, Flynn requested that the park 

employ routine cruiser patrol services around the park’s periphery. Envisioning possible 

disturbances but pleading that the town already had its own hands full, Flynn warned that 

“Under no circumstances will we allow firefighting personnel or equipment to be used to 

remove or quell a disturbance, incident or riot.” Flynn also made clear that the town would 

give priority medical and first aid care to its own residents, guests, and observers. With this 

attitude, the Town of Concord focused on the approaching big day.114

19 APRIL 1975 

From the perspective of native Concordian Larry Smith, who was finishing high 

school at the time of the Bicentennial, the parade and all of the special activities encapsulated 

the spirit of the day, the remembrance of the fight at the North Bridge. Growing up in 

Concord, he had long thought the parades were “just so vivid, and so real, it was just a 

fabulous time.” Each year at sunrise, he would race with friends on bikes to the North Bridge 

so that they could hear the cannons go off. He considered April 19 one of his favorite 

holidays. And, he thought the 1975 parade topped all the previous ones, being the biggest, 

“the epitome of April 19th. I thought it was fabulous. I thought it was very, very well done. 

The parade was huge.”115 Smith could have some innocence about the events of that day, 

having not been involved in all of the negotiations and worries. But, he also represented the 

average spectator who went to Concord’s celebration, wanting to share in the sheer joy and 

excitement. Many things would not go exactly as planned by the Town of Concord, but 

from the vantage point of the Larry Smiths, 19 April 1975 was a fabulous day. 

Careful attention to security made it possible for spectators to enjoy the parade and 

other festivities. MIMA requested and received from the NPS Washington Office 

confirmation that the agency would treat the Bicentennial celebration as a Law Enforcement 

Emergency. With this designation in hand, the park gained 60 park rangers and technicians 

from three regions and another 65 US park police, 12 of them on horseback, from the 

National Capital Parks. Concord had already planned to provide protection for all 24 square 

miles of the town, having more than 800 police officers from 47 towns helping. More than 

600 of these officers volunteered their services without pay. In addition, State Police 

controlled the town’s entrances, beginning at 5 PM on April 18. Due to the heavy influx of 

traffic, State Police closed these entrances earlier than expected, between 10 and 11 PM on 

that Friday and kept them closed, except to those with passes, until about noon on Saturday, 

April 19. Those who did not make it to Concord before these entrances closed left their 

vehicles outside town limits and walked as much as five or six miles to the Buttrick hillside. 

As dictated by the special use permit, the PBC also fulfilled its obligation by providing 250 

marshals, who, according to NPS reviewers, performed well in controlling the audience for 

 

114 Flynn to Moffitt, 11 April 1975, File 3, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. Quote on p. 2. 115 Larry Smith, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 1 December 2005, 12, MIMA. 
Bicentennial 

180 

its demonstration. Secret Service police provided an added level of security while ensuring 

the safety of President Gerald Ford during his appearance at the North Bridge.116

Park rangers and US park police intentionally followed a low level of law 

enforcement for the PBC demonstration.117 With all of the traffic and the size of the crowd, 

officers understood that “it would have been virtually impossible to have accomplished 

numerous individual or mass arrests.”118 Making those arrests would also have spurred 

confrontations, possibly spiraling to violence. People on the Buttrick hillside had brought 

plenty of beer and many illegal substances. Moffitt recalled that he got high just walking 

through the crowd, the marijuana was so thick. Finigan, when he toured the hillside at 1 AM 

with his son and two police officers, saw an “extensive use of foreign substances, I will say. It 

was controlled.”119 According to Moffitt, Suter requested that the park rangers arrest 

everyone smoking pot, but Moffitt argued they would have far worse trouble if they tried.120 

Such action would spark a riot, “there’s no question.”121 Not reacting to these infractions 

also reduced the chance of adverse publicity. The demonstrators certainly had the attention 

of the press and adding arrests and accusations of police brutality to the mix would have 

heightened the situation. When about 100 PBC demonstrators cut into the parade at the 

North Bridge on Saturday morning carrying a huge American flag, the NPS and Concordian 

town leaders chose not to react. As Finigan recalled, he counseled to let the demonstrators 

go by and leave the town quietly. “They did go quietly,” Finigan stated, “went by the 

reviewing stand, they had little attention paid to them as they went by the stand.”122 As Park 

Ranger Hicks stated in her journal about the Bicentennial, “most of the crowd responded 

with dead silence” to the PBC people under the flag. And, the demonstrators left, gladly, 

tired and wet from the night’s rain, recovering from all the substances they had ingested.123

A steady light rain and cold temperatures had kept the numbers of demonstrators 

down. Initially, young people of high school and early college age had populated the Buttrick 

hillside. Many of them probably came from the surrounding area or were guests of residents. 

By 11 PM, the crowd had shown signs of restlessness, and the NPS asked the PBC to begin its 

program. With the program going, the crowd settled down. It also started changing at this 

point. Many of the younger individuals left, replaced by an older, more subdued group, 

which had walked many miles in the rain to the site. According to NPS reports, at about 2:30 

AM, there were as many people leaving as arriving. Estimates put the PBC crowd at its peak 

 

116 Frank, McQueeney, and Jackson, Analysis of 19 April 1975, 4. National Park Study Committee, 

History of the 1975 Concord Fight, 10-11. Jason Korell, Report of the 1975 Celebrations Committee, 

Public Health and Safety Section. 

117 Memorandum, Andrew Hutchison to Assistant Director, Visitor Services, 21 April 1975, 1, File 6, Box 

1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 

118 Frank, McQueeney, and Jackson, Analysis of 19 April 1975, 7. 

119 Finigan, transcript of interview, 7. 120 Suter, oral history, 46, 49. Moffitt, transcript of interview, 14-15. 121 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 14-15. Quote on p. 15. See also Margie Hicks, oral history transcript, 7. 122 Finigan, transcript of interview, 7. 123 Margie Hicks, Please Don’t Trample the Purple Loosestrife: A Park Ranger’s Journal of Concord’s 

Bicentennial Days, draft, April 1975, 19, MIMA. 
Bicentennial 

181 

number of 30,000. After this point, the numbers slowly dwindled until about 5 AM when 

local townspeople started arriving in anticipation of the Town of Concord’s events. Another 

peak in crowd attendance came between 9:30 and 10:30 AM, during the President’s visit, 

reaching 75,000 people. However, PBC numbers had fallen to about 12,000. Once the 

parade had crossed over the North Bridge and gone into Town Center, people largely left the 

area, and the NPS commenced cleanup.124

The PBC’s program contained three elements: oratory, calls for action, and 

entertainment. Just as its book Voices of the American Revolution heavily quoted from the 

founding fathers and mothers, the April 19 program had individuals recite key statements by 

famous Revolutionaries of the period. Appearances by such entertainers as Arlo Guthrie and 

Pete Seeger interspersed this oratory. Speakers tied the Revolutionary War oratory to 

relevant topics of the day. Environmentalist Barry Commoner spoke about environmental 

issues and corporate America while union leader Richard Chavez related the experiences of 

farm workers. Actor Richard Dreyfus read selections from Thomas Paine’s Common Sense. 

Jeremy Rifkin and other PBC leaders urged action throughout the evening and in the 

morning read from the Declaration of Economic Independence. The organization recorded 

in its recap of the event that a resounding cry from the thousands of audience members 

ratified the document.125

Concordians and their visitors had mixed experiences with the PBC demonstrators. 

One resident considered the young people a “terrifying sight” until he took the opportunity 

to greet them and “found them to be not unlike his own children.” In Town Center, though, 

residents found “hangers-on, the followers of no ideology other than their own, abusers of 

drink and drugs, violent in word and deed.” 126 On Friday night, Finigan and others had 

planned to leave the Bicentennial Ball at the State Armory and visit the Youth Ball across 

town, but reports of revelers interfering with the removal of illegally parked cars kept them 

from this destination. Rocks thrown at the tow trucks had shattered windshields. Rumors 

added to the tension, with stories that young people had smashed windows and looted 

stores. The next morning, residents saw that the storefronts had suffered no physical 

damage. Around the North Bridge, PBC demonstrators did wander from the Buttrick 

hillside onto private property. Seeking some shelter and warmth from the rain, they lit some 

open fires and worried neighbors about the safety of their property. One family on Liberty 

Street reported afterwards that they spent the entire night patrolling their twenty acres of 

fields and woods, putting out campfires and politely urging the demonstrators to head back 

 

124 Frank, McQueeney, and Jackson, Analysis of 19 April 1975, 3-4; National Park Study Committee, 

History of the 1975 Concord Fight, 13. 125 PBC, Program, 12, 20, 28, 39, 43, as found in NARO, Report and Analysis of the Bicentennial 

Celebration. See also, “They Spoke and Sang for Economic Democracy” and “New Patriots Unanimously 

Adopt Declaration of Economic Independence,” both in Annex H, National Park Study Committee, History 

of the 1975 Concord Fight. 

126 National Park Study Committee, History of the 1975 Concord Fight, 12. 
Bicentennial 

182 

to parkland. They did not encounter any resistance, but they also saw people either drunk or 

under the influence of drugs.127

A cold grey dawn welcomed the Bicentennial revelers on Buttrick hillside. Suter 

recalled being “greeted with the most repulsive sight I had ever seen in that area” with beer 

cans and bottles strewn everywhere. He heard profanity everywhere, not belligerent, “just 

simply completely disrespectful it seemed to me for the occasion that we were about to 

celebrate.”128 Park rangers and PBC marshals started the slow task of clearing people from 

the space for the town’s planned activities. The reenactor playing Dr. Samuel Prescott made 

it over the North Bridge 30 minutes late due to the mass of people. At 6:35 AM, the Concord 

Independent Battery fired its two cannon in a 21-gun salute to mark the great day. At 7 AM, 

Secret Service requested park police to clear the road from Monument Street to the Minute 

Man statue in anticipation of the President’s arrival. Park police pushed about 8,000 people 

back to the stone walls lining the road to the statue, cleared the bridge, and made way for the 

parade. Starting at Thoreau and Everett Streets, the parade wound around to Liberty Street 

and down the old road across the Buttrick meadow to the North Bridge, where the forward 

echelon stopped. Rail fences and barricades, along with park rangers and US park police, 

kept the crowd back. Overhead, people could hear the whirling sounds of helicopters as 

President Ford arrived at the nearby Fenn School. Soon after 9:30 AM, the President’s 

limousines drove down Monument Street and arrived at the bridge.129

After welcoming remarks by John Finigan, the invocation by First Parish Church 

minister Dana Greeley, and an introduction by Philip Suter, President Ford gave a short 

speech. Up to this time, the remaining PBC supporters had cheered during the cannonade 

and marching of the parade, but they quickly turned their attention and ire to the President. 

As President Ford referred to the world-power status of the United States, the demonstrators 

booed, held up banners, and shouted obscenities. A few members attempted to break police 

lines, but park police restrained them. Town residents did not take kindly to these 

protestations, as the town’s history of this day states, “This was not the way Concord treats 

its guests, whether or not we agree with them, and the rudeness was widely resented.”130 

Suter recalled that his wife was visibly upset from the situation, wishing that visitors would 

come back another year and “see how we celebrate this occasion.”131 Ford pressed on with 

his remarks, despite further boos and jeering, calling for reconciliation of all threats to peace, 

not recrimination or rancor. He stated that “It is time to place the hand of healing on the 

heart of America – not division and blame. When all is said and done, the finest tribute that 

 

127 Ibid., 12-13; Suter, oral history, 46-47; Mrs. Charles Leighton to Gary Everhardt, April 1975, File 4, 

Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 128 Suter, oral history, 49. 

129 National Park Study Committee, History of the 1975 Concord Fight, 18. For a detailed schedule of the 

events at the bridge and locations of speaking platforms and stands, see Director’s Schedule and maps, 

[April 1975], File Minute Man Celebration, Series IV, Group 2, RG 18, NPS History Collection, HFC. For 

a description of the parade and its exact route, see Official Patriot’s Day Parade Map, April 1975, File 

A8215 CY 1973 April 19, 1975, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

130 Ibid., 19. 131 Suter, oral history, 50. 
Bicentennial 

183 

may ever be paid this nation and people is that we provided a home for freedom.”132 In 

concluding, Ford declared that “The volley fired here at Concord two centuries ago – the 

shot heard ‘round the world – still echoes today on this anniversary.”133 Ford then crossed 

the North Bridge and placed a wreath at the base of the Minute Man statue. British 

Ambassador Sir Peter Ramsbotham placed a wreath on the Grave of the British Soldiers. 

Both men then quickly exited, with President Ford riding in his motorcade to Lexington 

Green for further Bicentennial ceremonies.134

A few PBC supporters tried unsuccessfully to wade across the river toward the stage 

while Ford spoke. Park police held them back. The PBC would later publicize this action, 

saying “History was being made” with this “true-life re-enactment of the battle for Concord 

Bridge.” This article also referred to some police brutality, saying that the “uniform police 

clubbed him [someone wading in the water] to submission in a foot of water.” 135 Other 

reports did not characterize the action in this way.136 Following Ford’s exit, the parade 

continued across the North Bridge and followed Monument Street to Town Center and 

finally down Lexington Turnpike past the reviewing stand in front of the First Parish 

Church. The first four divisions proceeded without incident, with the Minute Man 

companies sporting their colonial uniforms and many different bands playing patriotic 

music. With the fifth division, though, PBC demonstrators with the huge flag made repeated 

attempts to join the parade. Consultations over radio between police and town officials 

resulted in allowing the intrusion. As the town history of the event later reported, “the 

television cameras were ready to transmit the action; the spectacle of uniformed police, some 

of them on horseback, beating earnest young patriots, their American flag trampled to the 

ground, would have been a propaganda victory for the PBC.”137 The protestors heckled the 

parade viewers in the stands and made obscene gestures, but they did not receive much 

attention in response. Town residents would not have the PBC or anyone else spoil their 

celebration.138

In remembering the Bicentennial, Finigan remarked of one thing he was most proud. 

He had reassured his fellow residents that on Sunday, the next day, “the town would be the 

same as it always was. It would be clean and neat and that we would all go to church if we 

cared to and enjoy Concord as we knew it to be.” He lived up to that statement, having the 

 

132 President Gerald Ford, as quoted by Dick Solito, “Pres. Ford Shares Bicentennial with Concord, 

Lexington,” Concord Journal, 24 April 1975. 133 Ford, as quoted by Judy Wasserman, “Crowds and Colors Converge on Concord April 19,” Concord 

Journal, 24 April 1975. 134 National Park Study Committee, History of the 1975 Concord Fight, 19. 135 “Thousands Boo Ford Speech, Recapture North Bridge,” Annex H, National Park Study Committee, 

History of the 1975 Concord Fight. 136 See National Park Study Committee, History of the 1975 Concord Fight, 19; Wasserman, “Crowds and 

Colors Converge.” US Park Police, Minute Man NHP, April 18-19, 1975, File 5, Box 2, Bicentennial 

Records, MIMA Archives. 

137 National Park Study Committee, History of the 1975 Concord Fight, 21. 138 Ibid., 22. 
Bicentennial 

184 

streets clean and ready for life as usual.139 Park rangers and city workers, aided by volunteers 

and the Boy Scouts, picked up tons and tons of trash throughout the event and afterwards, 

but the feared violence and destruction of private property never happened. The NPS, in 

reviewing its actions, concluded that the event went well and that for those who had 

“managed the affair [there was] a feeling of great accomplishment because it greatly 

exceeded their expectations.”140

ASSESSMENT

Both the NPS and the Town of Concord produced accounts of the event and 

presented some suggestions for future similar happenings. NPS reviewers gave positive 

marks to the agency for its handling of the event. No significant injuries had occurred, nor 

had the events been marred by violence or destruction. Always recognizing room for 

improvement, though, reviewers did offer a series of recommendations. Intensive planning 

should happen sooner, reviewers thought, and the park should invite neighbors to 

participate in planning meetings and be kept informed. Instead of having extra rangers and 

park police arrive on April 18 when the event essentially started, NPS reviewers also 

suggested that this help come a day earlier, and supervisors should arrive two full days ahead 

of time for briefings. Problems with knowing the terrain would best be handled by having 

trained dispatchers controlling the radios. Briefing packets sent ahead of time to participants 

would have provided helpful information about the area. The NPS also needed to provide 

specific guidelines on uniforms and defensive equipment for park rangers. But, despite these 

recommendations, the NPS came out well. 

The Bicentennial demonstration and celebration at the North Bridge was the largest 

of its kind on NPS land outside the nation’s capital, and it had gone forward with no deaths 

and no significant injuries, aside from about 20 emergency room visits for drug or alcohol 

overdoses.141 In terms of resource protection, the NPS found some broken tree limbs and 

rail fence damage requiring attention. A stone wall on Liberty Street needed repair, and the 

NPS reseeded the Buttrick hillside.142 As Moffitt later exclaimed, “it was a fantastic 

accomplishment on the part of Park Service and the part of the town.”143 Concordian Ruth 

Salinger echoed this sentiment, congratulating Moffitt for “your stand, your dignity in 

carrying through the PBC events and the traditional ceremonies on the Bridge and your 

restraint and good humor during the debate and BIG weekend.” She closed by recognizing 

 

139 Finigan, transcript of interview, 7. 140 Frank, McQueeney, and Jackson, Report and Analysis of 19 April 1975, 5. 141 Ibid., 4-7 142 Gary Everhardt to Barbara MacDonald, 12 June 1975, 2, attached to MacDonald to Rogers Morton, 26 

April 1975, File 4, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. Minutes, Minute Man National 

Historical Park Advisory Commission Meeting, 31 October 1975, 3-4, File A18 CY 1975, Minute Man 

Advisory Board. 

143 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 15. 
Bicentennial 

185 

Moffitt’s contribution in “exemplifying the principles for which the revolution was 

fought.”144

In its own review, the town expressed its concerns and gave recommendations for 

the future. The town wanted back some control over the space at the North Bridge, to set 

limitations on its use so that neither the park nor the town would be overwhelmed. In 

particular, the town’s National Park Study Committee, chaired by David Little, a former 

member of the MIMA Advisory Commission, urged that the town and NPS add to the 1963 

cooperative agreement that the town would have exclusive use of the North Bridge and 

MIMA areas for a 24-hour period each April 18-19. Little and other Concordians believed 

that the First Amendment rights of the town’s residents had been subsumed by the rights of 

the PBC protesters. He wrote in a position paper that he saw “no other course of action to be 

taken in future demonstrations” at the North Bridge, unless the “First Amendment rights of 

the local people can be given priority on the anniversary day.”145

The National Park Study Committee also made specific recommendations for action. 

Any permits proposed for the park had to be granted no later than three months prior to the 

event date and representatives for the permit should meet with the park and town to develop 

the ground rules for the permit. Wanting greater town involvement in park decisions, the 

study committee reminded readers of the cooperative agreement’s language, that the NPS 

would encourage and cooperate with the town in the annual observance of Patriot’s Day and 

other celebrations, using the area and facilities, which “have the approval of the selectmen.” 

By setting limits on the numbers of people at future events and banning the use of alcoholic 

beverages in the park at all times, the study committee also hoped to avoid another PBC-type 

of event.146

The NPS took seriously the town’s recommendations. In a meeting with the town 

selectmen and the National Park Study Committee in March 1976 Moffitt agreed to work 

with the town in establishing park hours, noting that “setting hours is the most critical aspect 

of future control.”147 As further evidence of a cooperative spirit, park rangers had also 

received training and responsibility as special police officers, allowing them to enforce local 

regulations within the park. In November 1976 the park met directly with the town’s 

National Park Study Committee. The town had designated Philip Suter as the selectmen’s 

representative for negotiating with the NPS. James DeNormandie of the MIMA Advisory 

Commission and NPS regional office representatives joined Moffitt at this meeting. The 

group agreed that the park would draft regulations on closing hours and the use of alcoholic 

beverages within its boundaries. Both Concord and Lexington had recently passed 

ordinances banning the open use of alcoholic beverages. Moffitt’s departure from the park 

in early 1977 caused some delay in implementing these rules. However, the park continued 

 

144 Ruth Salinger to Moffitt, 20 April 1975, File 1, Box 1, Bicentennial Records, MIMA Archives. 145 David Little to Moffitt, 6 August 1975, and attached position paper, 5, File A8215 CY 1975 April 19, 

1975, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

146 National Park Study Committee, History of the 1975 Concord Fight, 23, and Recommendations section. 147 Jason Korell, “National Park Study Leads to Discussion of New Regulations,” Concord Journal, 25 

March 1976. 
Bicentennial 

186 

to strive for open communication with each of the towns. The Bicentennial strengthened 

this commitment.148

Each of the recommendations calls for action provided by the town and the NPS 

address details relating to the specific events of the Bicentennial. What are some larger 

lessons that future managers can use? One lesson would reinforce the importance of 

upholding the United States Constitution in the face of multiple, conflicting demands. By 

using this document as a guide, the NPS cannot steer down a wrong path. Another lesson 

would emphasize the importance of building relationships with all key participants from an 

early stage in planning. Moffitt encountered some bitter and even resentful people, but he 

also had a host of supporters who helped buffer him from a full blunt attack. The 

Bicentennial event would have resulted in total disaster if he had not built and nurtured 

relationships early and often. In addition, those relationships relied upon open and honest 

communication with all parties, another lesson from the Bicentennial. People wanted and 

expected that their views and concerns would receive a thoughtful hearing and 

consideration. Moffitt tried to ensure such communication throughout the negotiations 

with the PBC and the Town of Concord. If he had met with only one side, his difficulties 

would have increased exponentially. Finally, one lesson would point to the importance of 

planning. Of course, managers cannot predict every possible action or outcome, but they can 

develop a firm foundation for dealing with the unexpected. That firm foundation includes 

making sure visitor services are in place and prepared, interpretive programs have been 

tested and modified, basic communication and access routes are secure, and parkland and 

structures are safe and protected. Well trained and committed employees, at all levels of 

service, ensure that this foundation is well grounded and adaptable to whatever 

circumstances may result. With these lessons in mind, future park managers have the basic 

tools for addressing other large public events. 

 

148 Moffitt to Suter, 20 December 1976, and attached meeting minutes, File A8215 Special Events CY 1976 

National Park Study Committee, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Jason Korell, “Route 2A Must Be Closed to 

Traffic if Natl. Park Completion Is To Be Met,” Supplement to Concord Journal, 24 June 1976. 
Bicentennial 

187 

Figure 21. Plaster casting of Minute Man Statue, 1975. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 
Bicentennial 

188 

Figure 22. Reenactors in Spring, 1972. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 
Bicentennial 

189 

Figure 23. People’s Bicentennial Commission protest, 1975. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph 

Collection. 

Figure 24. People’s Bicentennial Commission on the North Bridge, 1975. Courtesy NPS Historic 

Photograph Collection. 
Bicentennial 

190 

Figure 25. President Gerald Ford on North Bridge for the Bicentennial. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph 

Collection. 
191 

CHAPTER SIX

TOUCH THE PAST

An important aspect of a visitor’s experience in a national historical park is the mere 

act of touching the places where history happened. Through that sensory connection, 

people gain an appreciation for the historic moment. The North Bridge offers many 

opportunities for touching the past, whether crossing the Concord River at the same place 

the Patriots defended their liberty or running fingers across the rough granite bases of the 

monuments. The Wayside also has many sensory experiences. Visitors clutch the handrail 

while climbing the steep stairs to Hawthorne’s Tower Room or they feel the floors creak 

underneath as they enter one of the comfortable rooms. These brushes with the past ripple 

to the present and leave indelible impressions. 

In the Battle Road Unit, the NPS in the 1970s and 1980s made huge strides in 

providing ways for visitors to touch this history. For so long, the historic structures along the 

Battle Road remained either in private hands or under extended leases and life estates, 

leaving them closed to the public. Once the NPS gained control of each building, the agency 

had to work hard to incorporate the structure into the park. Architectural, historical, and 

archeological studies traced the building’s evolution and ensured historical integrity. Experts 

then analyzed the results of these studies and made recommendations for action. How 

would the NPS prepare each building for use and what kind of use would the building 

sustain? Would historical architects like Orville Carroll remove modern additions and 

changes? Would park personnel rehabilitate a building’s interior and exterior or just the 

exterior? Might a building serve as quarters for a NPS family? What interpretive possibilities 

did each of these structures suggest? Shifting historic preservation practices and policy 

recommendations within the agency guided this work. The NPS broadened its consideration 

of the historic fabric of structures, recommending a continuum approach for remembering a 

sweep of time in a building’s history. With each building came a decision. The end result 

gave new opportunities for visitors to touch the past. 

TAKING CARE OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS

Beyond the North Bridge area, the park’s imaginative ideas for rehabilitating and 

interpreting structures butted against reality, forcing the park to make do with less. Historic 

buildings and important spaces along the Battle Road offered many possibilities, but time and 

budget constraints often pushed these attempts to the side. Plus, Route 2A continued to 

carry increasing numbers of vehicles through the park, requiring park managers to adopt 

new strategies to accommodate these modern intrusions. The fact that so many buildings 

remained in private hands due to the use of life estates and term leases also restricted what 
Touch the Past 

192 

the park could do. The park’s 1971 IP had marveled that around Hartwell Tavern “this area 

has a delightfully rural atmosphere” reminiscent of 1775.1

 In the immediate period following 

the Bicentennial, though, visitors had to block from their vision the suburban neighborhood 

of a dozen houses and paved roads that surrounded Hartwell Tavern and this “rural 

atmosphere.” Much work remained. As initially suggested in the 1965 Master Plan, the 

Interpretive Prospectus recommended turning Hartwell Tavern and Farm into a major 

interpretive facility by restoring the tavern building and grounds and reconstructing some 

outbuildings. A gambrel roof added in the 1780s to the main building would remain, 

according to the IP, “as its presence is consistent with the period.”2

 At the nearby Bloody 

Angle, visitors would learn more about the British retreat after the North Bridge engagement. 

Using a proposed audio presentation, visitors would gain an appreciation of the panic felt by 

the British Regulars under fire from the colonists. The IP recommended restoration of the 

Samuel Hartwell House exterior to its 1775 appearance, a considerable feat since the building 

had suffered a catastrophic fire in 1968 and subsequent arson attempts. When considering 

Hartwell Tavern, though, Cynthia Kryston and David Moffitt suggested scaling back these 

ideas to accommodate the realities of its relatively small size and available documentation. 

They feared that a full-scale living-history activity would overwhelm the limited interior 

space and become a false reconstruction due to the lack of specific evidence about what the 

inside of the tavern looked like or how the Hartwells farmed the land. Instead, they wanted 

to interpret the building, Battle Road, and Hartwell family through self-guiding devices and 

reproduction furnishings and objects to suggest a typical colonial tavern.3 

Carroll started working on Hartwell Tavern in 1973 removing sections of plaster and 

floor finishes. He uncovered the original framing and determined the shape and design of 

the structure as it changed over two centuries. By July 1974 Carroll had identified building 

features dating from 1733, 1783, 1830, and later remodeling. Continued investigation relied 

upon an infusion of money from the Denver Service Center, as the federal Office of 

Management and Budget had removed the programmed $200,000 for the restoration. This 

sum threatened to exceed the legal authority of MIMA’s development funding. 

Construction of the Battle Road Visitor Center required the remaining amount allowed 

under the $3 million development ceiling. Using his own findings, plus archeological 

investigations and historical research by outside consultants, Carroll worked with fellow 

architect Christopher Mulhern. They completed the Hartwell Tavern Historic Structure 

Report, Architectural Data Section, in January 1975 and had the building painted and 

boarded up until the park could budget further work.4

 

1

 MIMA Interpretive Prospectus, 1971, 14. 

2

 Ibid., 15. 

3

 Ibid., 15-16. Memorandum, Hugh Miller to Chief Historical Architect, 19 February 1974, 1, File MIMA 

Correspondence 1973-1974, NRHE Files. See also Anna Cox Toogood, Historic Structure Report, 

Historical Data Section, Hartwell Tavern, 1973, File Hartwell Tavern, NPS Reports Files, Research 

Library, MIMA. 

4

 Memorandum, Carroll to Manager, Historic Preservation, DSC, 1 December 1973; 29 July 1974, both in 

unnamed file, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. Memorandum, Miller to Chief Historical Architect, 19 
Touch the Past 

193 

The fate of other historic structures in MIMA echoed that of Hartwell Tavern. NPS 

planners had grand ideas to restore buildings and tell important stories about colonial life. At 

the Job Brooks House site, for instance, planners recommended reconstructing part of the 

interior to show a progression of stages of completion from the stripped framing to a finished 

room. Demonstrations on woodworking techniques could accompany discussions about the 

role of craftsmen in colonial society. These ideas for the Job Brooks House site never went 

beyond the IP, suggesting that other priorities took precedence. In fact, this house would 

eventually serve as a major collections storage facility. Plus, Kryston and Moffitt had already 

shown their reluctance with Hartwell Tavern toward any kind of reconstruction work. 

Planners wanted the Meriam House and its associated land to capture at a “gut level how far 

the Colonials had committed themselves.” Using an audio message and brief interpretive 

signs, they hoped to convey the sense of determination the Patriots displayed as they 

committed themselves to war against Britain.5

 The Meriam House remained under a life 

estate, and the park had to wait another decade before it could begin interpretive 

development. 

For all of the historic structures under its care, MIMA had difficulty maintaining 

them as well as restoring them to their period of significance. NPS Historical Architect Hugh 

Miller reported in his February 1974 trip report that Hartwell Tavern and the other three 

vacant buildings owned by the NPS are “fast mouldering away” because the park could only 

give them minimal physical care. The tavern suffered from water damage caused by 

basement flooding. Foundation walls and the first-floor timber framing system showed signs 

of structural failure. These vacant buildings suffered from frequent vandalism, with one 

house losing its historic front door to thieves. Five other historic structures owned by the 

park served as residences, maintained adequately but not restored to the relevant period. 

Four other identified historic houses remained in private ownership as of early 1974, 

necessarily reflecting façade changes by current and previous owners.6

 

Miller did not take into account a range of extenuating circumstances when assessing 

the park’s historic structures. With the Elisha Jones House and The Wayside, for instance, 

both had undergone significant structural changes following the Revolution, and the NPS 

made the decision to retain those changes as opposed to tearing down significant sections of 

these houses to uncover how they might have looked in 1775. MIMA Advisory Commission 

member and State Senator James DeNormandie offered another idea for historic houses in 

the park. He had considered as far back as 1968 the idea of reconstructing each of the house 

sites along the Battle Road, along with restoring those still standing, to replicate the look of 

the road as Patriots and British Regulars would have seen it on that fateful day. 

 February 1974, 1; Memorandum, Harry Pfanz to Regional Director, North Atlantic Region, 7 March 1974, 

1, File MIMA Correspondence 1973-1974, NRHE Files. Christopher Mulhern and Orville Carroll, Historic 

Structure Report, Architectural Data Section, Hartwell Tavern, January 1975, vi, 4-6, File Hartwell Tavern, 

NPS Reports Files, Research Library, MIMA. 

5

 MIMA Interpretive Prospectus, 1971, 16-18. Quote on p. 17. 6

 Memorandum, Miller to Chief Historical Architect, 19 February 1974, 3. Vandalism is also reported in 

Minutes, MIMA Advisory Commission, 31st Meeting, 19 December 1974, 4. 
Touch the Past 

194 

DeNormandie believed that funds could be secured from private organizations. While the 

NPS certainly wanted to restore historic buildings that remained, the idea of reconstructing 

so many others based on archeological and historical research went against basic NPS policy 

that severely limited reconstructions in national parks. DeNormandie floated his idea in 

later years, hoping to generate more support, but it never did.7

 As Regional Director Lemuel 

Garrison wrote to the senator in May 1969, the park’s first commitment “must be toward 

those colonial houses which are extant. . . . It is better to preserve than to repair, better to 

repair than restore, better to restore than reconstruct.”8

 

The NPS had also been struggling since the late 1960s with the possible idea of 

arranging leasebacks or sellbacks of some of its historic buildings. Until the agency made a 

decision about ultimate dispensation of these buildings, it could not spend time and money 

on restoration. Former NPS Director George Hartzog had championed the sellback 

approach as a way to reduce the costs to the federal government of maintaining historic 

buildings, and Congress in 1970 allowed for discussion of this possibility, so long as caution 

prevailed. The NPS quickly decided against leasebacks since the properties would not return 

to public tax rolls, an issue for local towns. In 1972, the NPS identified two historic buildings 

for potential sellback with protective covenants: the Major John Buttrick House and another 

not yet owned by the agency, either the Widow Olive Stowe House, Farwell Jones House, or 

Minot House. According to this plan, other historic buildings in the park either would have 

public functions for interpretation or administration or would serve as quarters. Further 

investigation in 1973 reaffirmed the suggestion to sellback the Major John Buttrick House 

and to seek a preservation easement on the Widow Olive Stowe House. However, historical 

research determined that the Farwell Jones House and the Minot House (now known as the 

George Hall House) dated from the mid-nineteenth century, beyond the 1830 date that the 

park’s Master Plan identified for saving buildings, thus negating the need for preservation 

easements. Their proximity on the Battle Road required fee simple acquisition. When 

touring MIMA in September 1973, Miller noted that the park still awaited approval for the 

proposed sellback of the Major John Buttrick House so that it could continue with the 

essential work of maintaining the building to historic structure standards. An April 1974 

review of the status of all historic structures in the park reaffirmed the idea of a sellback of 

the two identified properties. However, the NPS took no further steps toward sellbacks.9

 In 

 

7

 Minutes, MIMA Advisory Commission, 16th Meeting, 6 April 1968, 3; and Minutes, Minute Man 

National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 18th Meeting, 26 April 1969, 2, both in File A18, Box 1, 

RG 79 MIMA Subject Files, NARA Waltham. 

8

 Lemuel Garrison to James DeNormandie, 6 May 1969, 1, File MIMA Correspondence 1965-1972, NRHE 

Files. 

9

 Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 29 February 1972, 4-6, File L1425 CY 1972 

Holdings, Park Admin Files, MIMA. See also Memorandum, George Palmer to Zerbey, 22 December 

1965, 1, attached to Memorandum, Palmer to Olsen, 13 June 1972, File MIMA Correspondence 1965-

1972, NRHE Files. This 1965 memo recounts Hartzog’s interest in scenic easements as a way to reduce 

the number of historic houses acquired by the park. Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 11 

May 1973, 1, File L1425 CY 1973 Holdings, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Memorandum, Chester Brooks to 

Deputy Associate Director, Operations, WASO, 23 May 1973, 1, File MIMA Correspondence 1973-1974, 
Touch the Past 

195 

October 1975 Moffitt admitted to the Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory 

Commission that the park considered the Major John Buttrick House one of its most 

important historic houses and “it would be desirable that the public at least have access to the 

house.” This statement closed the door on the sellback idea.10

Miller re-emphasized in 1974 the original Master Plan vision for the Battle Road. He 

wanted the historic houses restored and open to the public as the Bicentennial approached. 

But, the inability of the NPS to make a determination about sellbacks combined with funding 

limitations, land acquisition slowdowns, and the continued presence of commuter traffic 

along Route 2A forced deferral of this dream. The park did move forward in removing or 

demolishing modern houses vacated along the Battle Road. Three of the houses went to the 

Lexington Housing Authority to provide moderate and low income housing. This step 

helped to restore the historic look of the road.11 Yet, Miller reminded the NPS chief 

historical architect that this situation opened the agency to valid criticism. “It appears that 

the National Park Service,” wrote Miller, “may be in the embarrassing position of having 

constructed a new visitor center at a cost of over a million dollars and not having provided 

funds for preservation treatment of any of its historic resources.”12 Work did continue with 

historical, architectural, and archeological research on these historic spaces, but full 

restoration remained elusive. That would have to wait until after the Bicentennial and 

completion of the new park visitor center. 

BATTLE ROAD VISITOR CENTER

The NPS had planned to open its new visitor center at Fiske Hill in time for the April 

1975 Bicentennial celebration. Delays plagued this project, though, and the Battle Road 

Visitor Center, now known as the Minute Man Visitor Center, opened instead a year later in 

early May 1976. One of the continuing problems revolved around land acquisition. Since 

the park’s founding, land acquisition agents had approached Carl Benton, for example, and 

discussed his six-acre holding along Route 2A near the Route-128/Interstate-95 interchange. 

This site had long attracted NPS attention for an eventual visitor center, thanks to its ease of 

access to connector roads and location along the eastern end of the Battle Road. Benton, 

however, had established his veterinary practice there and had his home next door. He knew 

the location served him well, and he did not want to sell until he could find another attractive 

place for his business, preferably where the state relocated Route 2A. As the Route 2A 

relocation talks continued, Benton held out on selling. Eventually, he passed away, and his 

 NRHE Files. Memorandum, Miller to Chief Architect, 5 October 1973, 5, attached to Memorandum, 

Robert Utley to Regional Director, Northeast Region, 18 October 1973, File MIMA Correspondence 1973-

1974, NRHE Files. Memorandum, Philip Stewart to Deputy Director, 16 April 1974, File MIMA 

Correspondence 1973-1974, NRHE Files. 

10 Moffitt, as quoted in Minutes, MIMA Advisory Commission Meeting, 31 October 1975, 7, File A18 CY 

1975 Minute Man Advisory Board, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

11 Minutes, MIMA Advisory Commission, 31st Meeting, 19 December 1974, 7. Moffitt to Bradford Morse, 

30 October 1974, 1, File A18 CY 1974 MIMA Advisory Board, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

12 Memorandum, Miller to Chief Historical Architect, 16 February 1974, 2. 
Touch the Past 

196 

widow leased the space to another veterinarian. She remained living in her house. With the 

Bicentennial looming, in 1971 talks resumed between Barbara Benton and the NPS regarding 

her property. She asked for a life estate, as she remembered being promised when the NPS 

first introduced the idea of establishing MIMA in the late 1950s. The NPS responded that, in 

the case of her property, immediate plans included building a visitor center on the site. They 

suggested she might have the option of staying an extra year, but certainly no longer. After 

further negotiations, including an appeal to Senator Edward Kennedy, Benton agreed. In 

October 1972 the NPS gained title to this property. An individual bought and removed the 

house while the park donated the veterinary building to the Town of Lexington, saving the 

NPS from demolishing either structure.13

Across Route 2A from the Benton property sat another piece of land requiring 

continued attention of the land acquisition officers. Owned by the Hargrove family, this 

holding totaled about 19 acres, but the Park Service only needed the front 7 1⁄2 acres to 

construct an access road to the new visitor center. The back 11 1⁄2 acres would lose access, 

requiring the payment of severance damages to the Hargroves. At the same time, in 1972, 

representatives from the new Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School had 

identified the remaining Hargrove property for purchase for school construction. The NPS 

debated how best to approach this issue, whether to act separately or together with the 

school’s own land acquisition officers. In the meantime, the Hargroves resisted any attempts 

to purchase their land. In the end, the NPS acquired almost eight acres of the Hargrove 

property in January 1975 allowing the Hargroves one year to vacate the premises. The high 

school eventually took the rest of this holding.14

Before construction could begin, the NPS had to complete a review of the 

environmental impact of the proposed visitor center complex and draw up its recommended 

design for the project. In the course of completing this environmental assessment of the 

Development Concept Plan for Fiske Hill, the NPS followed procedures and consulted with 

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the State Historic Preservation Office for 

Massachusetts. These agencies agreed that the proposed construction project would have no 

adverse effect on National Register property. The environmental assessment found few 

adverse impacts, most of which the NPS could easily mitigate. These included additional 

run-off from the paved surfaces, additional congestion on Route 2A around the visitor center 

entrance, and reduced enjoyment of nearby residential properties. Using proper drainage 

and screening could largely handle two of these impacts. For this reason, the NPS in late 

1973 made a negative declaration, ending the environmental review. The regional director 

 

13 Memorandum, Zerbey to Files, 29 March 1971; Barbara Benton to Senator Kennedy, 4 March [1972]; 

Henry Schmidt to Barbara Benton, no date; Schedule A, File No. 33-22-1781, all in File Benton, Barbara, 

Tract Nos. 01-109 and 01-110, Lands Files, MIMA. Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park 

Advisory Commission Meeting, 10 March 1973, 10. Also cite MIMA Adv Commission about early talks 

with Benton? 

14 Memorandum, Maurice Timmerman to Chief, Lands Division, Northeast Region, 13 January 1972; 

Memorandum, Daniel Farrell to Moffitt, 27 March 1975, both in File Hargrove, Erma, Tract No. 01-107, 

Lands Files, MIMA. 
Touch the Past 

197 

affirmed this negative declaration in April 1974 at the same time he rejected the NPS 

proposal for a new parking lot near the North Bridge. Architectural drawings and 

construction plans could proceed for the visitor center.15

The NPS chose a striking modern design, full of angles and glass, to distinguish the 

new visitor center from the park’s historic structures. The NPS also cloaked the visitor 

center in cedar planking and nestled it within a stand of trees. This design reflects NPS’s 

continued interest in using modern design in the post-World War II period, specifically as 

expressed during the 10-year parks development program of Mission 66.16 Working further 

with the new vocational technical high school, the NPS also made arrangements to reimburse 

the high school for installing oversized water and sewer pipes, which would connect with the 

visitor center. In spring 1974 the park advertised for construction bids, with Vaghini 

Construction Company of Stirling Junction winning the contract at just under $540,000. 

MIMA hosted a formal groundbreaking for the visitor center on 2 August 1974. By this date, 

the park admitted that the center would probably not open until July 1975. Rep. Paul Cronin 

(R-MA) gave the keynote address, and David Richie, deputy regional director, provided 

welcoming remarks. Fife and drum corps music enlivened the ceremony.17

Construction proceeded slowly but steadily. Moffitt does not reveal the cause of 

delays, but he admitted to the MIMA Advisory Commission in October 1975 that “all sorts of 

delays have been experienced.”18 One major change happened with respect to the proposed 

parking lot. The NPS had planned to remove a small section of Route 2A so that the parking 

lot could go in front of the visitor center, where Route 2A had been. The Hargrove property 

would have allowed for such relocation. The NPS could not achieve this removal of Route 

2A, however, and the agency instead built a slightly smaller parking lot on the same side of 

Route 2A as the visitor center. This new location required a longer walk for visitors from 

their vehicles to the building so as not to intrude upon the natural setting. Visitors pass over 

a small wooden bridge, walk past a variety of trees and shrubs, and see a small pond, which 

serves as a frequent stopping place for migrating birds. Despite these construction delays, 

the park proceeded with its plans for a dedication ceremony for the visitor center and also 

considered tying this ceremony with a formal declaration establishing MIMA. With most of 

the land acquisition completed, the NPS could delineate final formal boundaries, making a 

declaration of establishment appropriate. The park advisory commission agreed that the two 

 

15 Memorandum, David Kimball to Superintendent, Boston Group, 11 December 1973, and attached 

Environmental Assessment, File D18 1972-1974 Environmental Assessment and Public Review, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. The Environmental Assessment of the Fiske Hill development had become tied to the 

North Bridge parking lot one due to similar timing. Memorandum, Jerry Wagers to Moffitt, 16 April 1974. 

16 See Ethan Carr, Mission 66: Modernism and the National Park Dilemma (Amherst: University of 

Massachusetts Press, in association with Library of American Landscape History, 2007). 17 Minutes, MIMA Advisory Commission Meeting, 10 March 1973, 9-10; Minutes, Minute Man National 

Historical Park Advisory Commission Meeting, 26 April 1974, 3, 7. NPS Press Release, Representative 

Paul Cronin to Speak at Minute Man Groundbreaking, 29 July 1974, File Development Minute Man, Series 

VII, Group 2, RG 18, NPS History Collection, HFC. 

18 Minutes, MIMA Advisory Commission Meeting, 31 October 1975, 4, File A18 CY 1975 Minute 

Advisory Board, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Touch the Past 

198 

should be linked and recommended holding the combined ceremony in warmer weather, in 

spring 1976. The ceremony took place on 8 May 1976 and was attended by local officials 

from each of the three towns and NPS regional staff.19

Soaring, angular ceilings, wood planking, and large expanses of glass greeted people 

as they entered the new visitor center. The lobby displayed an exhibition of colonial artifacts 

and replicas from the 1775 battles at both Lexington and Concord. Visitors could see a 

powder horn, a pewter box, and broadsides. One prized artifact was a porringer made in the 

shop of Paul Revere. A rotating exhibit also featured the experiences of women, Blacks, and 

other segments of colonial society. Two 100-seat auditoriums offered the same 24-minute 

film titled To Keep Our Liberty, documenting the rising tide of protest and revolt from the 

1763 Stamp Act controversy until the eve of the Lexington and Concord battles. In an alcove 

between the two theaters, the NPS used a colorful combination of photographs, graphics, 

and a fiber-optic light show to depict the movements and clashes of the Patriots and British 

soldiers. This fiber-optic and slide show, in particular, challenged the park’s patience, with 

frequent breakdowns and technical glitches. The film, which park interpretive ranger 

Kryston had had to rewrite after an outside firm had made a first try, won an award for 

“creative excellence in the field of history” from the Industrial Film Festival in Chicago.20 

Overall, Kryston commented later that the park strove to tell the stories of the beginning of 

the American Revolution from different perspectives. “There was a particular emphasis,” 

she said, “on trying to tell the story of the people involved from both sides. These were 

American colonists but they were also British soldiers.”21

One planned aspect of the visitor center did not materialize as hoped. As early as the 

1971 IP, the park had intended to establish a significant mass transit program within the park. 

This system would use as its base the visitor center and offer two routes, one going west to 

Concord and the North Bridge and the other heading east to Lexington and its Battle Green. 

Visitors would pay a modest fee and have the option of exiting and entering the transit 

system at their leisure. The park planners envisioned that stops would include many of the 

park’s historic structures and other significant areas. Visitors would have the option of either 

taking the shuttle or walking and bicycling through the Battle Road Unit.22 Park planners 

 

19 Minutes, MIMA Advisory Commission Meeting, 19 December 1974, 3, File A18 CY 1974 Advisory 

Board; Minutes, Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission Meeting, 31 October 1975, 4-

5; “MM Park Dedication,” Supplement to Concord Journal, 6 May 1976; Memorandum, Moffitt to 

Regional Director, NARO, 8 March 1976, File A8215 CY 1976 Battle Road Visitor Center Dedication; 

Minute Man National Historical Park, Federal Register, vol. 41, No. 87 (4 May 1976), 18447; Program, 

Establishment Ceremony, 8 May 1976, File Dedication of Battle Road Visitor Center, Unprocessed 

Materials, Museum Collection, MIMA. 

20 NPS Press Release, Rep. Paul Cronin to Speak, 29 July 1974, 2; “New Visitors Center Opens in MM 

Park, Minute Man Supplement, 19 May 1976; Memorandum, Kryston to Assistant Director, Interpretation, 

30 October 1975, 1, File A8215 Bicentennial #7 1/76, Box 5, Acc. 79-83-0001, Waltham FRC; 

Memorandum, James Corson to Manager, HFC, 26 October 1976, and attached Memorandum, Moffitt to 

Regional Director, NARO, 14 October 1976, File D6215 Fiber-Optics Program, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

Michele M. West, Exhibits: MIMA, 4, File: MIMA Curatorial, Northeast Museum Services Center. 21 Kryston, transcript of interview, 27 January 2005, 6. 

22 1971 Interpretive Prospectus, 6, 10-12. 
Touch the Past 

199 

justified the transit system by explaining that “The individual motorized vehicle . . . is 

incompatible with the historical and environmental character that the Service seeks to 

achieve here.” Instead of cars and trucks driving through the park by the thousands, park 

planners held forth a different idea: “the park will be an island of restored historic scene and 

rejuvenated natural setting providing in imperfect microcosm the environment so avidly 

sought by the American people today.”23 Tied with this vision, the NPS still hoped that the 

state would relocate Route 2A. 

Eager to test this mass transit idea for the Bicentennial year, the NPS initiated a pilot 

program in July and August 1975. Since the visitor center still had a year until completion, 

the park arranged for visitors to park their cars at the former Fairway Restaurant on Route 

2A in Concord and take a free shuttle bus to the bridge and back. The US Department of the 

Interior funded this project. However, results of the pilot program demonstrated that 

visitors preferred to stay with their cars and tour the park. The shuttle buses did not gain 

ridership and proved a financial disaster, as Moffitt reported to the MIMA Advisory 

Commission. The park also contracted with a private planning firm to conduct a 

transportation study for a mass transit system. This firm delivered its final report in October 

1976 recommending that the park run for two seasons a trial operation of chartered buses 

providing shuttle service between the Battle Road Visitor Center and the North Bridge. This 

trial operation would depend upon aggressively marketing the shuttle bus system to visitors, 

convincing them to leave their vehicles. Over the next years, the park did experiment with 

various shuttle bus ideas, but none proved successful. One effective way to reduce pressure 

on the limited parking facilities at the North Bridge involved moving the living-history 

presentations to the Battle Road Visitor Center. Musket firings and other special programs 

drew people to the new visitor center, encouraging visitors to shorten their stays at the bridge 

and free up limited parking spaces.24

MOVING ON

Before the Bicentennial celebration in April 1975 NPS Director Gary Everhardt had 

promised Moffitt that he could move to a new assignment after the big day. Moffitt had been 

at MIMA, in one capacity or another, for almost eight years. Everhardt recognized that 

Moffitt made positive contributions to the park, and he would do the same elsewhere. 

However, people in Concord, especially, continued to hold the park and its superintendent 

in disregard due to the decision to allow the PBC protest. As Moffitt recalled later, 

 

23 Ibid., 6. 

24 “New Bus Service for Nat’l Park; Tourists Increase,” Minute Man Supplement, 26 June 1975; Priscilla 

Korell, “Sen. Atkins: MM Park Revisited,” Concord Journal, 30 September 1976; Minutes, Minute Man 

Advisory Commission Meeting, 31 October 1975. Vollmer Associates, MIMA Transportation Study, 1976, 

cover letter and pp. 69-71, File Transportation Study, NPS Reports Files, Park Library, MIMA. Minutes, 

Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission Meeting, 18 June 1976, 2. 
Touch the Past 

200 

I was no longer as welcomed in the town as I had been . . . . April 

19 to those people in Concord is like Christmas Day; it was 

something sacred. So I was no longer comfortable there. 

He had people sneer at him in the grocery store, and one Concordian even publicly made his 

young daughter uncomfortable with a pointed slight against him. In this situation, Everhardt 

had no choice but ask Moffitt to stick it out a little longer. People called for Moffitt’s firing, 

and the Director would not bend to these threats, nor could he bring in a new person to 

address this explosive situation. Moffitt agreed to stay, enduring as best he could.25

He did not hold grudges and instead tried to work cooperatively with the Town of 

Concord in its quest to address the recommendations of the National Park Study 

Committee’s report on the Bicentennial celebration. In addition to the meeting with the park 

committee in late 1976, Moffitt also worked with the MIMA Advisory Commission to 

determine whether to have closing hours for the park. The commission members supported 

the idea, suggesting that the park close between 10 PM and 6 AM. These recommendations 

also helped to address a frightening surge in vandalism in the park. Vandals, mostly local 

young people, had taken or destroyed six Battle Road signs in a six-month period and had 

reduced 50 feet of split rail fencing to splinters. Police had also caught some young people 

breaking and entering into some of the historic structures. Further attention in this area had 

to wait until the change in park’s administration.26

In January 1977, Moffitt moved on to the superintendency of the Statue of Liberty. 

When he saw the position announcement for this opening, he jumped as quickly as he could, 

“not because I wanted out of Minute Man that bad, but I loved the Statue. They needed 

some important work done there, and I thought it was an honor to be called upon to do it.”27 

In looking back at the April 1975 Bicentennial event, Moffitt offered some words of advice 

for the Tricentennial. “It’s never too early to start planning,” he admitted. He had thought 

planning for the Bicentennial had started too early, but in retrospect he admitted that 

“planning is most important.” He also insisted that future superintendents “involved in any 

sort of controversy can [n]ever forget that the Freedom of Speech, the Constitution is the 

most important thing. The National Park Service is unimportant, the Town of Concord is 

unimportant; the Constitution is. As long as you are within that, then you probably have 

nothing to fear.”28

With Moffitt’s departure came another important change in the park and its 

relationships with the towns. As of 1 January 1977 the US Office of Management and Budget 

abolished the MIMA Advisory Commission. The Carter administration had ordered that all 

advisory commissions not created expressly by statute suffer this fate. Appeals by the NPS, 

 

25 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 16. 

26 Minutes, MIMA Advisory Commission Meeting, 18 June 1976, 5, 8. Parke Rhymer, “Suter Key Man in 

National Park Policy Talks,” Concord Patriot, 12 August 1976; Priscilla Korell, “MM Park ‘Should be 

Subject to By-Laws,” Study Group Indicates,” Concord Journal, 23 September 1976. Moffitt to Paul 

Flynn, 12 January 1976, 1, File A8215 CY 1976 April 19, 1976. 

27 Moffitt, transcript of interview, 16-17. 

28 Ibid., 17. 
Touch the Past 

201 

the Department of the Interior, local residents, and congressional representatives failed to 

overturn this decision.29 Moffitt had expressed to advisory commission member 

DeNormandie in one of his last communications before leaving the park that he was 

“completely at a loss to explain the action,” especially when considering how helpful the 

commission had been in previous relations with the park.30 Moffitt recognized the value of 

the commission in helping to restore “communications and mutual cooperation between the 

National Park Service and the town [of Concord]” following the Bicentennial. The 

Commission had also helped in public information efforts for the Fiske Hill Development 

Concept Plan as the park planned to build the new visitor center. Even in land acquisition 

issues, the advisory commission had worked hard in the early 1970s to ward off “expected 

adverse criticism” when the NPS threatened condemnation procedures against the few 

residents refusing to allow appraisals. These efforts and more had proved the value of the 

advisory commission.31

Without the assistance of the commission, Robert Nash, as MIMA’s new 

superintendent, had to quickly pick up where Moffitt had left in discussions with the park 

committee. Selectman Philip Suter, appointed to negotiate an agreement with the park, had a 

letter waiting for Nash when he arrived, asking for continuation of these talks. Suter 

pointedly informed Nash that “There is much work still to be done in Town-Park 

relationships.”32 Nash readily agreed to such a meeting, with the park and town coming to 

agreement on three issues. The park would restrict visiting hours to the time between 5 AM 

and 10 PM. Consumption of alcoholic beverages would be prohibited except in controlled 

use in designated picnic areas. The park would also prohibit from public areas washing, 

cleaning, lubricating, repairing, or doing any other mechanical work on vehicles. Nash had 

these new federal regulations readied for final review, but there is no evidence that the NPS 

ultimately adopted them.33 The Statements for Interpretation for 1981, 1983, and 1985 list 

hours of operation for the North Bridge as “open year round 24 hours.”34 Any discussion of 

these regulations stops in 1977. 

 

29 Jack Stark to Moffitt, 6 January 1977; William Bonsteel to Anna Manion, 4 March 1977; both in File 

A18 CY 1977 Advisory Boards, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Denis Galvin to Edward Brooke, 14 March 

1977, 1, File A18 Minute Man #2, Box 1, Acc. 79-83-0001, Waltham FRC. 

30 Moffitt to DeNormandie, 18 January 1977, File A18 CY 1977 Advisory Boards, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

31 Memorandum, Moffitt to Acting Regional Director, NARO, 3 September 1976, 1, File A18 CY 1976 

Advisory Boards, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

32 Suter to Nash, 7 February 1977, 1, File A8215 CY 1977 National Park Study Committee, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 

33 Memorandum, Nash to Associate Regional Director, Management and Operations, NARO, 9 May 1977, 

and attached draft NPS Press Release, New Regulations Developed for MIMA, File A8215 CY 1977 

National Park Study Committee, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

34 MIMA, Statement for Interpretation [combined], 1981 and 1983, 16, File Museum Collection, NPS 

Reports Files, MIMA Library; MIMA, Statement for Interpretation, 1985, I-5, File K18 FY 1985 Statement 

for Interpretation, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Touch the Past 

202 

A CONTINUUM OF HISTORY

With the Bicentennial done and the Battle Road Visitor Center in place, the park 

could turn its attention again to its historic buildings and archeological sites, to provide 

places for visitors to touch the past. But, the NPS approached this work with a slightly 

different mindset than planners had when first establishing the park. First, the park still had 

Route 2A carrying commuter traffic through the park at increasing rates. The vision of 

having an isolated park that could come close to representing the look and feel of the 1775 

landscape simply did not exist in any near-term scenarios. Yet, these spaces needed work, 

both to maintain their historic fabric, or building elements, and to meet the expectations of 

the one million people who now visited the park. Plus, the park finally had acquired a good 

number of historic houses and could develop interpretive programs for them. Funds 

continued to be tight, but Nash and his staff recognized that opportunities now existed to 

showcase some areas. 

Second, the NPS adopted a slightly changed management philosophy to guide work 

in preserving historic buildings. An emerging historical consciousness for the value of a 

continuum of history approach had taken root within professional circles. William Appleton 

Sumner directed his Society for the Preservation of New England Antiquities to adopt 

conservative restoration techniques with its houses. Appleton insisted that architects save 

and mark original fabric, or historic elements, in buildings. He wanted each house to tell its 

own successive story, and he opposed removal of historic fabric in the name of “beautifying” 

a building to fit expectations of visitors and needs of historical societies.35 In 1936 the 

Advisory Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments echoed 

Appleton’s ideas and noted that “It is ordinarily better to retain genuine old work of several 

periods, rather than arbitrarily to ‘restore’ the whole, by new work, to its aspect at a single 

period.”36 Interestingly, Edwin Small had expressed his concurrence with this continuum 

approach when he was still superintendent at Salem Maritime. He wrote a brief but 

thoughtful policy statement in November 1938 that argued against wholesale reconstruction 

of the wharf buildings to a specific time period. Such action, in his mind, would destroy the 

sense of continuity that distinguished Salem’s wharf from other maritime areas. He even 

favored retention of the Victorian cupola on the federal-styled Salem Custom House, again 

signaling the continuity among time periods.37 The 1966 passage of the National Historic 

Preservation Act further pushed this changed philosophy into mainstream historical circles. 

Then, the National Trust for Historic Preservation adopted in the late 1970s its influential 

Main Street program, making people aware of the value of city centers as a whole, as opposed 

to individual buildings. Local and national jurisdictions began establishing historic districts, 

 

35 Hosmer, Presence of the Past, 284-87. 36 Advisory Board, as quoted in NPS, Management Policies, 1978, V-15. Interestingly, the previous 

revision of the Management Policies, dating from 1968, do not include this reference or this continuum 

approach toward historic structures. 

37 Hosmer, Preservation Comes of Age, 656. Unfortunately, the author has not found any direct references 

to Small’s views about a possible continuum approach toward historic buildings in Minute Man. 
Touch the Past 

203 

again centering attention on extended spaces. The 1976 revision of the federal tax code, 

which encouraged developers to rehabilitate existing buildings as opposed to pursuing new 

construction, also contributed to the acceptance of this continuum of history idea. 

Developers could house modern shops or condominiums in historic buildings, expressing in 

real terms the stretch of history across generations.38 The NPS’s revised Management 

Policies for 1978 incorporated this increased awareness for a historical continuum. 

According to these policies, the agency would now accept architectural changes to historic 

structures. “Alterations to a structure are often of historical or architectural value in 

themselves and convey a desirable sense of evolution over time.”39

Specifically for MIMA, initial steps taken toward revising the General Management 

Plan incorporated this evolving perspective. One NPS planner noted in a draft management 

option paper for MIMA that “philosophical and practical considerations” had to guide park 

managers in their decisions of “how complete the recreation of the historic scene must be in 

order to give visitors the kind of understanding they should have of the Park.” This planner 

admitted that “there is indeed a limited opportunity for recreating an eighteenth-century 

environment.”40 Preservation meant maintaining a historic building in much the same 

appearance as when the park acquired it. Restoration meant returning the building to its 

size, shape, and appearance of the important historic period. This planner also noted that 

“the continuum of history can be as interesting to Park visitors as learning about the events of 

April 19, 1775.” Life in Concord-Lincoln-Lexington did not freeze after the British marched 

back to Boston and the “post-1775 structural elements can serve in a positive manner.”41 

The park had to consider for each of its buildings how many of the later additions 

should be retained and how much of the original building should come forth, if any at all. In 

some cases, the park adopted a program of selective restoration, trying to balance the old and 

the new. Current historic preservation practice does not support this approach, but in the 

1970s and 1980s at MIMA, Historical Architect Carroll did use selective restoration. The 

problem becomes, then, what time period does the building represent? 

MIMA had previously adopted a continuum approach in fits and starts. The 1966 

Master Plan had identified 1775 as the prime date for restoration. However, the plan did 

allow for buildings constructed after that date but still within 50 years of the Revolution (or 

1830). Individual buildings with significant changes over time required further 

consideration. When addressing the Elisha Jones House, for example, the NPS decided not 

to tear apart and reconfigure the house to approximate its Revolutionary War size and shape. 

Lack of adequate documentation and respect for its existing structure dictated that this 

house retain its revamped 1865 character, as done by Judge John Keyes. With The Wayside, 

the park also kept the many additions and changes introduced by Bronson Alcott, Nathaniel 

 

38 William J. Murtagh, Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in America (New York: 

John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1997), 112-15. 

39 NPS, Management Policies, 1978, V-15. 

40 P. Kenyon, Draft Management Option Paper for MIMA, no date [1980-1981], 5, File D18 Inactive, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. 

41 Ibid., 6. 
Touch the Past 

204 

Hawthorne, and Harriet Lothrop (Margaret Sidney). The third-story Tower Room, used by 

Hawthorne for writing his last manuscripts, and the comfortable screened porch, which 

housed parties and get-togethers when the Lothrops lived in the house, dramatically 

illustrate the value of a continuum approach to historic preservation. 

Changing historical interpretations may have encouraged some revisions in planning, 

but the NPS continued to maintain its overarching commitment to maintaining the integrity 

of these spaces. Using the historical studies and archeological surveys completed under his 

predecessor, Nash tasked his staff with doing much-needed maintenance and preservation 

work. By the end of 1979 the park had rehabilitated the John Nelson Barn’s lean-to, which 

had collapsed from heavy snow; re-roofed the Noah Brooks Tavern and Daniel Taylor 

House; conducted necessary landscaping work around the Elisha Jones House to improve 

drainage and remove dying shrubbery; and repainted the exterior of this house and the 

Taylor house. These steps certainly brought approving smiles from neighbors and helped 

ensure the longevity of the properties.42 

Archeological sites also received attention. In 1979 the park had a team of 

archeologists from the regional office survey and make recommendations for stabilizing five 

sites, including the David Brown House, Casey’s Quarters, and the Josiah Nelson House. 

These archeologists supervised repair of the brick and stone fireplace at the Nelson House 

and dug a test trench at the Casey site to determine the integrity of its fireplace and chimney 

area. They also eradicated vegetative growth and recommended periodic weed removal to 

preserve these remains. The threat of ongoing vandalism also prompted the archeologists to 

ask for close patrol and monitoring.43 Additionally, for several years beginning in 1985 the 

park hosted an archeological survey to identify the primary remains within the park and 

classify artifacts found in earlier excavations.44

Aware of the array of valuable artifacts, mainly from The Wayside, and the 

archeological pieces held at the park, Nash also took important steps toward safeguarding 

these collections. This work gained immediate positive notice from the NPS’s Chief of 

Museum Services, who welcomed “Nash’s informed interest in collection management.”45 

In 1978 he had staff convert the squash court near the caretaker’s cottage of the Stedman 

Buttrick House into a two-story artifact museum collection storage facility. Then in 1981 he 

hired the park’s first curator, Michelle West, to oversee the safekeeping, proper use, and 

 

42 Orville Carroll, Completion Report, Repairs to the John Nelson Barn, January 1979, File John Nelson 

Barn; Orville Carroll, Completion Report, Reroofing the Noah Brooks Tavern and the Daniel Taylor 

House, January 1979, File Noah Brooks Tavern; Orville Carroll, Completion Report, Landscaping at Elisha 

Jones (Bullet Hole) House, October 1979, File Elisha Jones Landscaping; and Orville Carroll, Completion 

Report, Painting Exterior of the Elisha Jones and Daniel Taylor Houses, November 1979, File E. Jones 

and D. Taylor Houses; Thomas Mahlstedt, Archeological Impact Assessment, Elisha Jones House, 

December 1979, 1, File Elisha Jones Archeology, all in Park Reports Files, MIMA Library. 43 Joan Bleacher, Stabilization Measures at Five Archeological Sites in MIMA, September 1979, 1, 47-48, 

File MIMA Correspondence 1981-1985, NPS History Collection, NRHE Files. 

44 MIMA, Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1985, 1, File A2621 CY 1986, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 45 Memorandum, Arthur Allen to Regional Curator, NARO, 1 August 1977, File D6215 MIMA 74-76, Box 

9, Acc. 79-83-0001, Waltham FRC. 
Touch the Past 

205 

display of these materials. West helped the park’s efforts in developing a Furnishings

Management Plan for The Wayside, completed by an outside contractor in 1983.46 West’s 

successor, Lynne Leopold-Sharp, conducted in 1983 a thorough review and assessment of 

the collection. She estimated the total size of the archeological collection as holding some 

250,000 items, taken from 20 different sites throughout the park from 1964 to the date of her 

study. About 5,000 items from The Wayside represented the bulk of the park’s decorative 

arts and historical collections. The park’s library also contained two important sets of 

papers, the Harriett Lothrop collection and local historian Allen French’s notes. Old 

photographs and postcards also resided in the park’s library.47

One more step toward conserving historic artifacts involved the Minute Man statue. 

Leopold-Sharpe oversaw the development of a preventive maintenance program to clean 

and protect the statue. Following accepted practices of metals conservators, trained 

sculpture conservators washed, lacquered, and waxed the statue. They also trained LeopoldSharpe and two other park staff members in the process. Twice each year, park staff 

expected to wax the statue. About every five years, staff planned to have trained 

conservators strip the wax and lacquer and reapply. In accordance with the 1963 

Cooperative Agreement, the park notified the Town of Concord of its preventative 

maintenance plans and received approval. This treatment strategy would help arrest the ill 

effects of acid rain and air pollution on the statue.48

Having taken these important first steps towards ensuring the longevity of the park’s 

artifact collection and buildings, Nash and his staff moved forward with the task of restoring 

two of its important historic houses, Samuel Hartwell Tavern and Captain William Smith 

House. (A description of the NPS’s acquisition of Smith House comes in the following 

chapter.) In addition, the park addressed how to preserve the ruins of the Samuel Hartwell 

House, which had burned once in 1968, just before park acquisition, and then twice more by 

arsonists. With each building, the park carefully weighed the extent of documentary 

evidence and the size and shape of the existing structures before proceeding with 

recommendations for action. Although the 1966 Master Plan and 1971 IP provided some 

overall guidance, the park planners in the late 1970s and early 1980s departed from these 

documents in key ways, keeping in mind their goal of preserving the historic fabric. 

With the Hartwell House ruins, for example, the Master Plan had envisioned 

restoration of this house, but the fires had left only the central chimney intact. NPS policy 

put strict limitations on reconstructing buildings, and what remained of the Hartwell House 

 

46 Doris Fanelli, Historic Furnishings Plan, The Wayside, 1983, File The Wayside—Historic Furnishings, 

NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 

47 MIMA Resources Management Plan, 1981, IV-B-8; Memorandum, Gilbert Calhoun to Regional 

Director, NARO, 22 January 1979, 1, File A5427 MIMA, Box 2, Acc. 79-88-0002, Waltham FRC; Lynne 

Leopold-Sharp, MIMA Status of the Collections, 1-2, 13, MIMA Research Library and Archives. 48 Memorandum, Leopold-Sharp to Ann Hitchcock, 16 October 1974, File D66 CY 1984 Minute Man 

Statue; and Nash to Steven Scheiffer, 22 November 1983, 1, File D66 CY 1983, Minute Man Statue, both 

in Park Admin Files, MIMA. Memorandum, Charles Clapper to Nash, 7 September 1983, File Minute Man 

Statue, Vertical Files—Landscape Features, Maintenance Records, MIMA. 
Touch the Past 

206 

was not a good candidate.49 Documentary evidence did not provide sufficient details to 

complete a full-scale reconstruction nor did the park have measured drawings of the existing 

structure before the fires. Historical Architect Carroll did salvage what pieces had remained 

after the first 1968 fire, measured them, and drawn up how he thought the building had 

looked in 1775. But, subsequent fires destroyed any other evidence. In addition, it had never 

been in the park’s overall planning or budget to complete such an extensive reconstruction as 

the Hartwell House ruins would require. 

Still committed to preserving what was left of the building, however, the park tried in 

1977 to stabilize the massive chimney. This work involved repointing the brick, filling the 

chimney flues (except the first-floor level smoke chamber) with reinforced Perlite concrete, 

and capping the chimney to reduce entry of moisture. In 1981 the chimney showed further 

signs of deterioration, and members of the Society for the Preservation of New England 

Antiquities (SPNEA, now known as Historic New England) attempted to consolidate the soft 

brickwork in the chimney. This effort proved unsuccessful as well. As a result, in 1985, the 

NPS erected a ghost structure approximating the size and shape of the original building, 

providing a protective shelter for the historic chimney. Carroll recalled later that the park 

used the same sized members and the same construction style as the original.50 However, the 

NPS did not attempt to imitate the hand-craft methods of the original, using instead steel 

angles for mortise and tenon joints and concrete sills for wooden ones. “I think people do 

like to look at a central chimney,” Carroll explained, “I think it is very interpretive of the 

colonial period, and they can walk around the house, and they can see how the house was 

built.” The roof varies slightly from the original lines, but the ghost structure essentially 

captures the structure’s footprint and the arrangement of the historic framing.51

With Hartwell Tavern, the NPS had a complete standing building that echoed 

changes wrought by its many past owners. Carroll and others had to determine where the 

family had kept their colonial-era tavern. They also had to see how subsequent architectural 

additions and subtractions might detract from or enhance the essential 1775 story. 

According to the 1971 IP, the NPS had initially planned to restore the eighteenth-century 

appearance of the Hartwell Tavern. This restoration work would have included establishing 

a living farm and reconstructing some outbuildings. Period costumed attendants would have 

given brief interpretive talks. Selected goods and beverages normally served to patrons of the 

period would have been offered for sale to visitors wishing “an authentic gastronomic 

 

49 NPS, Management Policies, 1978, V-15. 50 Specification of Intent, Chimney Stabilization, Samuel Hartwell House, no date [1977]; and 

Memorandum, Carroll to Chief, Historic Preservation, NARO, 22 August 1984, 1, both in File Samuel 

Hartwell Foundation Shelter, Vertical Files, Landscape Features, Maintenance Records, MIMA. Orville 

Carroll, Completion Report, Construct Shelter Over Chimney at Sgt. Samuel Hartwell House Site, 

September 1985, foreword, summary, Museum Collection, NPS Reports Files, Park Library, MIMA. See 

also Orville Carroll, Historic Structures Report, Part II, Architectural Data Section, Samuel Hartwell 

House, April 1973, Museum Collection, NPS Reports Files, Park Library, MIMA. 

51 Carroll, transcript of interview, 19. See also Orville Carroll, Weekly Field Reports, 30 April 1985, 1-2; 

30 August 1985, 1-2; and 30 September 1985, 1, all in No File Name, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. 
Touch the Past 

207 

experience.”52 As noted above, park interpreter Kryston and others had questioned this 

approach, knowing that historical documentation did not necessarily provide the needed 

details about how the Hartwells had run their tavern or kept their land. 

Architecturally, the 1733 house had undergone some significant changes since 1775, 

including the 1847 dismantling of the original central chimney and building of two chimneys 

on either end of the house with the salvaged bricks. Other changes included a circa 1783 

gambrel addition to the original gabled west end, a circa 1830 kitchen lean-to, and new 

porches placed in 1900. However, as Carroll explored the physical evidence contained in the 

building’s architecture, he generated more questions, especially about the tavern. Wanting 

confirmation of his findings, he requested that the NPS conduct additional research on the 

interior use of tavern rooms during the colonial period. Anna Coxe Toogood completed this 

research, ultimately uncovering some but not extensive documentation on colonial tavern 

interiors. What she did find assisted Carroll in his assessment of the building. For example, 

Carroll found evidence that the ceiling beams in the first-floor west room had been exposed 

to considerable amounts of smoke, unlike any other rooms in the house. Toogood’s research 

indicated that many other New England taverns of the period had exposed ceiling beams, 

confirming that this west room had served as the tavern during the Revolutionary War 

period. Carroll also found evidence of a narrow closet or cabinet in the northwest corner of 

the room, fitting the description of the typical enclosed bars of colonial taverns that Toogood 

researched. Carroll could not find evidence for the location of the Hartwell Tavern kitchen, 

probably due to the subsequent dismantling of the central chimney. However, Toogood’s 

work indicated that the kitchen probably stood on the north side of the house, convenient to 

the barroom and fitting the pattern of many other colonial tavern layouts. The room directly 

above the tavern contained markings on the ceiling and floor, probably dividing space for 

sleeping quarters as other colonial taverns had done. Carroll did not find such markings in 

east side rooms, suggesting that the west side served as public rooms and the east side for the 

Hartwell family only.53

With this information in hand, the NPS selectively restored Hartwell Tavern between 

1979 and 1981. Following Carroll’s guidance, the park decided to keep many of the 

structural additions that owners had added in the post-1775 period. The park did remove a 

1922 dormer, but it kept the circa 1783 gambrel addition and circa 1830 kitchen lean-to.54 

Carroll argued later that “Why would you tear down this continuation of this family story 

just to get back to 1775?” He admitted, too, “how complicated [it is] trying to make a 

particular story fit the growth of buildings and farmland.”55 But, with “Hartwell Tavern, 

 

52 1971 IP, 15. 

53 Christopher Mulhern and Orville Carroll, Historic Structure Report, Architectural Data Section on the 

Hartwell Tavern, January 1975, vii-ix; and Anna Coxe Toogood, Historic Structure Report: A 

Comparative Study, Ephraim Hartwell Tavern, 1974, iii, 18-19, both in File Hartwell Tavern, NPS Reports 

Files, MIMA Library. 

54 Orville Carroll, Completion Report, Restoration of the Hartwell Tavern, May 1983, Section I, Museum 

Collection, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 

55 Carroll, transcript of interview, 8. 
Touch the Past 

208 

you’d see an extension of the family as it added on to the house. That’s a story in itself, it has 

nothing to do with 1775,” but in his mind that story also deserved preservation and telling 

through the architecture.56

These additions might extend the story, but rebuilding the central chimney rooted 

the structure in its colonial past. Park laborers in 1979 removed two existing chimneys, 

salvaged the bricks, and cleaned them for reuse. In 1980 the park rebuilt the central chimney 

with these original bricks, plus ones saved from other historic homes from the area that had 

come down. Always careful to use historic fabric to maintain authenticity, Carroll also had 

saved and reused in Hartwell Tavern original kitchen floor boards, oak floor joists, and pine 

sub-flooring from an old house in Concord. To address the presence of rotting wood, the 

NPS conducted a two-week training seminar at MIMA for park employees in the use of 

epoxy repairs as developed by a Dutch company. Two Dutch representatives came to the 

park and led the seminar, providing hands-on practice with Hartwell Tavern’s deteriorated 

wooden members. NPS employees removed the rotted wood, built formwork, applied wax 

and clay, strengthened the wood with an immersion solution, installed fiberglass rods 

through drilled holes, and applied an epoxy resin to build up deteriorated wooden members 

to their original shape and size. Carroll carefully matched the replacement clapboarding to 

the style of the original. He also allowed for changing styles over time for different additions. 

For example, the NPS hand-rivened and hand-smoothed the clapboards for the 1733 house 

and circa 1783 gambrel addition while the supplier mill-sawed and planed the clapboards of 

the circa 1830 lean-to kitchen addition. Park laborers then hand-planed the clapboards and 

lapped the ends to match those used in circa 1830. The park installed new steel conduits 

underground to update utility conduits. To keep water from entering the cellar and stabilize 

the walls, the park pumped cement grout into wall cavities around the east and south 

foundation walls. Carroll also recommended that the park excavate around the west and 

north walls, waterproof them, and install a concrete apron with drainage to reduce seepage 

into the cellar from this area.57

By selectively restoring the central chimney while keeping the later additions intact, 

Carroll introduced an incongruity into the building. If one contemplated the expanded 

house itself with just the central chimney, meant for the original, smaller structure, then that 

central chimney probably could not provide the needed heat. Of course, modern heating 

and electrical additions took care of the job, but from an architectural perspective, the 

Hartwell Tavern becomes a bit lopsided, with a colonial-era fireplace in an essentially 

nineteenth-century building. 

Smith House, located with Hartwell Tavern and the Hartwell House ruins near the 

Bloody Angle along Virginia Road, regained its 1775 appearance with a NPS restoration 

effort between 1983 and 1984. The Smith House had suffered deterioration and neglect from 

 

56 Ibid., 19. 

57 Carroll, Completion Report, Hartwell Tavern, Sections A-C, E-G, I-J. Orville Carroll, Weekly Field 

Reports, 3 August 1979; 31 August 1979; 11 March 1981, all in No File Name, Orville Carroll Papers, 

MIMA. 
Touch the Past 

209 

its last owner before acquisition by the Park Service. Yet, underneath all of the surface 

changes and mounds of junk that had accumulated inside, Smith House had retained much 

of its basic shape and configuration over two centuries, making a full-scale restoration 

possible. The Park Service would have to replace some modern window frames and doors 

instead of grappling with additions of whole rooms. The park did have to reconstruct the 

kitchen lean-to. The park justified this reconstruction due to having good architectural and 

graphic evidence for the original lean-to. Plus, once the park had removed non-historic ells 

at the back of the house, the historic fabric would need protection. Reconstructing the leanto, as opposed to using modern plexi-glass for protection, offered a historically attractive 

alternative. In completing this reconstruction, park laborers used early eighteenth-century 

framing methods and mortise and tenon joints pegged together in the traditional manner.58 

In this special instance, though, Carroll admitted to “fudging” the architectural 

design in order to protect the overall structure. At the time of the Revolutionary War, Smith 

House had only half a lean-to across the back. Carroll decided the house should have the 

lean-to all the way across the back, “because I thought it was the best protection for the old 

house. . . . That’s just something I decided,” Carroll admitted, “and I think it works out pretty 

good that way.” He made this decision by drawing upon his extensive professional 

experience with historic buildings. “Nobody today I think knows that only half the lean-to 

should be there,” he later stated, although now they do.59

Carroll opted for protection of the historic fabric, but his decision introduced an 

important deviation from the full-scale restoration effort. This building did not look exactly 

as it did in 1775. Park interpreters and informational brochures would have to acknowledge 

this change and justify it. The fact that Carroll did not tell people about his decision, nor seek 

guidance and direction, has created over the years an uncomfortable situation. Should the 

park restore the half lean-to or should Carroll’s concern for protecting the building be 

accepted? The Smith House is a commanding building that sits on a hillside overlooking 

Route 2A. People generally do not see the lean-to, except when traveling along the Battle 

Road Trail, completed in 1998. Yet, action must be taken to resolve the tension that Carroll 

introduced in the building. 

The most visible undertaking at Smith House involved restoring the central chimney. 

Like Hartwell Tavern, previous owners in circa 1910 had dismantled the central chimney and 

installed two smaller chimneys with the reused bricks. Park laborers, in turn, dismantled 

these two chimneys, salvaged and cleaned the bricks, and rebuilt the central chimney. Late 

nineteenth- and early twentieth-century photographs gave graphic evidence as to the 

chimney’s original design of brick coursing and the distinctive pilaster, double-arched 

design. However, park researchers could not locate evidence as to what the chimney caps 

 

58 Orville Carroll, Completion Report, Restoration of the Captain William Smith House, January 1985, 6. 

Dwight Pitcaithley to Kate Perry, 14 January 1983, attached to Memorandum, Charles Clapper to Nash, 31 

March 1983, File Captain William Smith House, Vertical Files—Building Information, Maintenance 

Records, MIMA. 

59 Carroll, transcript of interview, 9. 
Touch the Past 

210 

and kitchen lean-to flue looked like. Following the recommendation of the NPS Chief of 

Historic Preservation, the park agreed to use concrete blocks as the foundation for 

rebuilding the central chimney. The park then reused the salvaged bricks above the roofline. 

Saugus Iron Works National Historic Site provided bricks for the East and West Parlors 

fireplaces. Carroll placed tiles from Salem Maritime NHS that former superintendent Edwin 

Small had collected to reconstruct the remaining Smith House hearths. This decision 

followed the standard practice of most seventeenth-century houses in Massachusetts to line 

hearths with tiles.60

Park employees completed other work to restore the interior and exterior of Smith 

House. Using their training with epoxy resins, park employees reinforced the original log 

joists, which had deteriorated, using fiberglass rods and an epoxy grout. They jacked up the 

southeast corner of the house to correct for some settling. Carroll kept the five window 

frames on the second-floor, dated to circa 1828, although he did replace one twentiethcentury sill with a new reproduction. On the main floor, he put in reproductions of mideighteenth-century window frames and sashes. He used hand-wrought nails to fasten these 

frames to the walls. Carroll based the sash design on a piece of stile found in the attic. He 

had to use the information gained from his architectural survey and some conjecture to 

restore the front door. He found a set of pintel holes in the studs on each side of the 

opening, leading him to believe that in 1775 the owners had installed double doors. 

Weathermarks on the wallboard suggested the width of the entranceway and the existence of 

a pediment. Carroll drew upon the Whittemore House, owned by the Park Service in the 

Lexington section of the park, to determine the design of the frontispiece and pediment. 

Inside the house, Carroll kept the circa 1828 window trim and repaired some dating from 

1775.61 He shifted the doorway in the north wall of the East Parlor about 12 inches to 

conform to alterations made in circa 1750 to make a wider and higher doorway. He also 

restored the remaining doorways in the chambers, parlors, and hallway rooms to their 

original size. Carroll added a meeting room with kitchenette and lavatory to the west end of 

the lean-to for the comfort and convenience of interpreters.62

Despite the continued presence of many modern homes nearby and roads carrying 

vehicles directly past these historic structures, Virginia Road had a new historic feel to it, 

thanks to the completion of these three important projects. Another important factor 

toward this restoration work involved the Battle Road itself. The Park Service had acquired 

and removed all of the modern houses along the two small legs of the Bloody Angle. In 

recognition of this action, the Town of Lincoln in 1980 deeded these unused sections of 

Virginia Road and Bedford Road to the park. The Park Service in 1981 removed the hardtop 

 

60 Carroll, Completion Report, Captain William Smith House, ii, 3-4. 61 Carroll does not provide a rationale for keeping the c. 1828 treatments. The park Master Plan had 

allowed for architectural diversity to go beyond 1775 to about 1830, and Carroll may have chosen to use 

this date as the outside limit for restoration purposes. Keeping these window and door treatments as is also 

saved significant amounts of time and money. 

62 Carroll, Completion Report, Captain William Smith House, 5-6, 8-9, 11-12, 16. Orville Carroll, Weekly 

Field Reports, 11 March 1981; and 2 April 1984, both in No File Name, Orville Carroll Papers, MIMA. 
Touch the Past 

211 

surface and restored the roadway along these two small areas to its historic 1775 

appearance.63 Archeological work along Nelson Road uncovered the original road surface of 

the Battle Road, allowing for its restoration, too. This work did not affect the main travel 

routes of Virginia Road or Bedford Road, which still carried cars between the contemporary 

residences and Route 2A.64

The park had some difficulty realizing its vision of re-creating the sense of history 

Hartwell Tavern, the Smith House, and Hartwell House evoked. Early on, to celebrate its 

accomplishment at Hartwell Tavern, the park invited the theater department at Emerson 

College to write and produce, with special funding from Eastern National Park and 

Monument Association, a play titled Scarlet Grain. Throughout July and August 1982 the 

park hosted weekend performances. This 50-minute production focused on the impact of 

the events of 18-19 April on the Hartwell family. The park repeated dramatic presentations 

in 1983, yet it still sought more interpretive opportunities.65 

Chief of Interpretation Fred Szarka wrote in the Fiscal Year 1985 Statement of 

Interpretation about the “peculiarities” of this historic district. “The structures are not 

particularly interesting,” he admitted, “because nothing significant happened in them. 

However, taken together, they give a pretty good approximation of typical colonial living.”66 

The park did not have furnishings for the buildings and did not have plans to place any inside 

the buildings. The surrounding wooded landscape also did not reflect the eighteenthcentury pastures. The NPS had taken a big step toward re-creation of the historic scene with 

the recently completed and extensive Historic Grounds Report. This report documented 

where fields, woods, buildings and roads had existed across the landscape.67 However, the 

park did not plan landscape restoration until after it had an approved General Management 

Plan. In the meantime, Szarka believed that these structures offered “a challenging 

interpretive problem” which required “the individual interpreters [to] go flat out to develop 

programs around concepts rather than things.” Living-history volunteers using dress, tools, 

and equipment of the period might work, Szarka admitted, but volunteers and staff had to 

stay alert to prevent confusion. Crafts may “become more important than the history they 

are trying to tell.”68 

 

63 MIMA, Superintendent’s Annual Report, 1980, File A2621 CY 1981; and MIMA, Superintendent’s 

Annual Report, 1981, File A2621 CY 1982, both in Park Admin Files, MIMA. 64 MIMA, Superintendent’s Annual Report, January-September 1985, File Reports Semiannual CY 1986, 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

65 Minute Man 1982 Programs; and Local Points of Interest, 1983, both in File Guides, Box MIMA, NPS 

History Collection, HFC. Invitation, Hartwell Tavern Public Opening Celebration, 3 July 1982, File 

Preview Showing Hartwell Tavern, Unprocessed Materials, Museum Collection, MIMA. Fred Szarka, 

Eastern National Park and Monument Association, Agent’s Annual Report 1982, File A42 Eastern National 

Annual Report, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

66 Frederick Szarka, MIMA Annual Statement for Interpretation, FY 1985, II-13, File K18 FY 1985 

Statement for Interpretation, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 67 Joyce Lee Malcolm, The Scene of the Battle, 1775: Historic Grounds Report, MIMA, Cultural 

Resources Management Study No. 15, NARO, 1985, Museum Collection, MIMA Library. 68 Szarka, MIMA Annual Statement for Interpretation, FY 1985, II-13. 
Touch the Past 

212 

Despite these reservations, Szarka did believe that the Virginia Road area “as a whole 

is one of the most evocative of the eighteenth century in the Park, as it is removed visually 

and aurally from most modern influences.”69 Of course, visitors would have to stretch their 

imaginations a bit because not far from any of these structures, modern roads and houses still 

stood. To help visitors step into the past and with programmed base increases from 

Congress to support operation of both Hartwell Tavern and Smith House, the park asked a 

group of volunteers known as Colonial Life, affiliated with the Concord Minute Men, to 

move their living-history portrayals from the North Bridge to Hartwell Tavern. The park 

also supported this effort because it might help to alleviate increased crowding and parking 

problems that had plagued the North Bridge area. However, the Colonial Life members 

grew discouraged from the lack of publicity and signage which resulted in dramatically 

reduced public participation at their North Bridge presentations. In response, Colonial Life 

volunteers moved their programs to the Old Manse (separately administered from the park) 

in 1986, and the NPS struggled with developing interpretation at Virginia Road.70

Szarka had a difficult time interpreting the Virginia Road Houses because he favored 

the military aspects of the park’s major theme. He introduced a program for having visitors 

practice the eighteenth- century musket drills of Baron Von Steuben. The park purchased a 

dozen reproduction muskets, and Historian Douglas Sabin trained employees in musket and 

marching drills. With these interpretive employees trained, they then led programs on the 

grounds of the Battle Road Visitor Center drilling visitors. Visitors largely enjoyed the 

musket drills as opposed to the marching drills. Musket firings with black powder remained 

the province of reenactors and living-history volunteers. The park under Nash’s tenure did 

not allow for employee-led musket firings with black powder. Once Nash left and Szarka 

served a short time as acting superintendent, he allowed for such demonstrations by trained 

park employees.71 Another factor influencing Szarka’s interpretive efforts was the issue of 

reduced staffing. As Sabin later wrote, “at times it was a struggle just to keep the information 

desks and The Wayside staffed and to keep the Ranger Talks at the North Bridge going.”72

With each interpretive effort and historic house rehabilitation, the NPS provided 

opportunities for visitors to reach out and touch pieces of a tangible past. Yet, these efforts 

slowed while the park struggled in defining its next set of goals through development of a 

General Management Plan. The GMP would dominate Nash’s superintendency. 

 

69 Ibid., I-7. 

70 Eugene Prowten to Robert Nash, 2 January 1986, and attached response from Nash, File K18 CY 1986 

VIP Program, Park Admin Files, MIMA. The park invited Colonial Life volunteers back to Hartwell 

Tavern in 1988, under a new method of addressing concerns. See Szarka to Prowten, 5 February 1988, File 

K18 CY 1988, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

71 Douglas Sabin, 1991 Administrative History for MIMA, 1, MIMA Library. 72 Ibid., 2. 
Touch the Past 

 213 

Figure 26. Battle Road Visitor Center, now known as the Minute Man Visitor Center. 

Courtesy NPS, MIMA. 

 Figure 27. Major John Buttrick House. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 
Touch the Past 

 214 

Figure 28. Ephraim Hartwell Tavern. Courtesy NPS, MIMA. 

Figure 29. Samuel Hartwell House ghost structure. Courtesy NPS, MIMA. 
Touch the Past 

 215 

Figure 30. Captain William Smith House. Courtesy NPS, MIMA. 

 217 

CHAPTER SEVEN

MANAGEMENT PLANNING

Robert Nash remembers two telling episodes about MIMA when he arrived in 1977. 

First, he and his family toured some of the local attractions, including Wright’s Tavern in 

Concord Center. Having just moved into the Bullet Hole House, he asked the gift shop clerk if 

he had any postcards of the house. The clerk “basically called it a load of crap,” as Nash recalled 

later, “didn’t carry things because it was part of that stinking park.”1

 Second, Nash quickly 

realized that, aside from the North Bridge area, the park was incomplete, it “was pretty much 

waiting to be done.” When Nash drove down Route 2A for the first time, he couldn’t distinguish 

the park from the towns, leaving him thinking that “it wasn’t really a park.” He could think of 

many ways to give the park its own identity, but he also recognized that these ideas had to wait 

until the NPS revised the 1966 Master Plan, creating what the agency now called a General 

Management Plan (GMP). As Nash said later, “a lot of the things that we could have done, a lot 

of the things that we should have done, we didn’t do because it was things that should wait until 

the plan.”2

 Nash wanted to move forward on developing the park, but he was stymied by the 

expectation for a yet-to-be-started GMP and hard feelings by some local residents in the 

aftermath of the Bicentennial. The NPS would end up waiting until 1985 to begin working on a 

GMP, with other parks taking priority.3

Nash came to MIMA with nine years experience with the NPS. A native of Long Island, 

NY, he had a bachelor’s degree in history and government from Adelphi College in New York. 

After a short period working as a technical writer for the Navy, he joined the NPS as a historian, 

developing a living-history farm program at George Washington’s Birthplace National 

Monument (Virginia). He moved on to Herbert C. Hoover National Historical Site (Iowa), 

Moores Creek National Military Park (now National Battlefield, North Carolina), and Shiloh 

National Military Park (Tennessee). By then, he had served as chief of interpretation resources 

management or chief ranger. His next assignment at Manhattan Sites (New York) evolved into a 

superintendency of Castle Clinton National Monument, Federal Hall National Memorial, 

Theodore Roosevelt Birthplace National Historic Site, Hamilton Grange National Memorial, 

 

1

 Robert Nash, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 17 May 2005, 6, MIMA Archives. 2

 Ibid., 5. 

3

 As early as 1972, park officials had recommended revision of the 1966 plan. With the Bicentennial 

approaching, though, any master planning took a secondary position. See Memorandum, Herbert Olson to 

Director, Northeast Region, 22 December 1972, File D18 Master Plan Revision 1972, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. As an example of the delays in starting the GMP process, see John Raferty, Operations Review 

Report, MIMA, 26-27 January 1978, 3, File A5427 MIMA, Box 2, Acc. 79-88-0002, Waltham FRC. 
Management Planning 

 218 

and Ulysses S. Grant National Memorial. He had the pleasure of meeting Queen Elizabeth and 

participating in the huge Bicentennial celebration in New York City on 4 July 1976.4

Nash ended up staying at MIMA until 1989. The first part of his NPS career had involved 

frequent moves, typical at the time for the agency, which followed the military model of moving 

people to a new park or office in order to get promoted. By the time Nash reached MIMA, 

though, the NPS had instituted changes that encouraged people to stay put longer than in the 

past. During the Reagan presidency, senior government jobs became scarce as agencies tried to 

absorb high-level people from the defunct Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service created 

under the Carter administration. Following the momentum of the women’s movement, more 

and more wives of park rangers sought outside jobs, complicating the family’s ability to move 

every couple of years. In addition, the NPS began reducing the amount of park housing, forcing 

families to buy locally. As housing prices and interest rates soared upwards, people had less 

incentive to move. In Nash’s case, he also had two school-aged children. Not wanting to disrupt 

their education and move to less than ideal schools, he chose instead to stay at MIMA. This 

combination of reasons led Nash to contribute his skills and energy to the park for close to 13 

years.5

The NPS had begun encapsulating its long-term planning and management goals into 

GMPs for individual parks, replacing the original master plans. GMPs, meant to define and 

direct park development for 10 or more years, differed from master plans in one important 

aspect, public participation. From the very first meetings and planning initiatives, the NPS 

invited and expected members of the local community, elected officials, residents, and other 

interested individuals and groups to share their thoughts and ideas in formulating the GMP. 

Master plans, on the other hand, had largely come into being insulated from any public scrutiny 

or participation. GMPs also relied upon the accumulation of specific studies and supporting 

planning documents to inform the overall management plan. These individual studies also 

reflected and benefited from public involvement. Open government in the post-Watergate years 

required such an approach, and the NPS largely tried to embrace this commitment. 

Since the Carter administration had abolished the park’s advisory commission, park 

officials would have to find alternative means of engaging the public. They had scattered success. 

One of the recurring themes in later oral history interviews and documentary sources about the 

1989 final GMP revolved around the sense of surprise and anger felt by many local community 

members about the entire GMP process. People felt that the NPS had not invited them into the 

process, that the 1988 draft GMP represented the ideas of NPS personnel, some from as far away 

as Denver, rather than the contributions of residents from Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington. In 

actuality, the park had consulted with a range of local organizations and governments, but, in 

some cases, specific neighborhoods had felt blindsided by the draft plan and its potential impact 

on them. These hard feelings made for a difficult transition as Nash left MIMA and Larry Gall 

took over as the next superintendent. 

 

4

 Ibid., 2; “Robert Nash, New MM Park Supt. Arrives,” Concord Journal, 17 March 1977; Mary Loraine 

Heaton, “Profile of Robert Nash,” Concord Patriot, 24 March 1977. 5

 Nash, transcript of interview, 3-4. 
Management Planning 

 219 

ROUTE 2

The continuing saga of what to do about Route 2A resolved in 1977. The state’s decision 

would have broad ramifications for management of MIMA, requiring the park to re-evaluate its 

expectation that the Battle Road could become a historic road again. However, the NPS took 

many missteps and roused considerable public ire before recommending a course of action 

palatable to the towns, neighborhoods, and other local interests. The park’s longtime 

management objective to have traffic removed was a hard one to let go. Yet, as subsequent 

chapters will make clear, the park could finally proceed with its work of creating a National 

Historical Park. This one decision by the state ultimately moved the park forward in exciting and 

remarkable ways. 

Relocation of Route 2 to a northerly position, brushing the park’s southern boundary, 

offered the NPS the most promising avenue in the early 1970s for directing non-park traffic from 

Route 2A. Having Route 2 pushed north meant that state authorities could direct Route 2A 

traffic south and merge the two roads into one outside the park’s boundaries. The park would 

have to ensure that interchanges did not intrude upon important historic and natural resources, 

but the positive benefit of removing heavy traffic far outweighed these concerns. As left in 

Chapter 4, the NPS and towns awaited the opportunity to review the state’s draft Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS), which the state released in August 1972. This draft EIS recommended a 

60-mph, grade separated, limited access expressway with six travel lanes. This design 

recommendation largely followed the proposed alignment from 1970 except for adjustments to 

side roads, service roads, and interchanges, reflecting comments from public hearings and the 

NPS. By December 1972, after two public meetings in Concord and the submission of more than 

500 pages of correspondence commenting upon the draft EIS, the Massachusetts Department of 

Public Works appointed a multi-disciplinary team to re-evaluate the entire Route 2 relocation 

project. This re-evaluation would take into account the many comments and concerns raised by 

citizens and organizations, plus respond to new federal mandates which had emerged after the 

release of the draft EIS.6

This re-evaluation took until January 1976 when the state released its detailed 

environmental analyses. During this time, following the new federal mandates, the state had to 

identify and develop a range of alternative highway improvements. Then, officials had to define 

each alternate precisely based on detailed air, noise, ecological, and open space data. To ensure 

careful understanding of the status quo and including predictions for the future, the state also 

had to conduct traffic surveys and forecasting along the actual Route 2 corridor. The state 

adopted the concept of full disclosure for this re-evaluation project, involving citizens in working 

committee meetings, holding public briefings for town officials, and scheduling public 

information meetings attended by more than 250 people. Informal public workshops also 

allowed individuals to raise specific concerns related to the design of the alternatives. The state 

 

6

 Massachusetts Department of Public Works, Route 2: Summary of Environmental Impact Analyses,

January 1976, 71-73, Massachusetts State Library. A copy is also available in the Parks Reports Files in the 

MIMA Library. 
Management Planning 

 220 

published a newsletter and kept local libraries stocked with related reports, correspondence, 

technical memoranda, and other printed materials. All of the data from this re-evaluation came 

together in late 1974-early 1975 with the state offering nine, fully studied, alternatives for Route 

2. In May 1975 Secretary Frederick Salvucci of the Governor’s Executive Office of 

Transportation and Construction and Commissioner John Carroll of the Massachusetts 

Department of Public Works issued a joint memorandum narrowing the number of alternatives 

from nine to five. They removed all alternatives having a roadway of greater than four lanes, 

removing from consideration the alternative recommended in the 1972 draft EIS. The 1976 EIS 

examined the remaining five alternatives.7

State authorities admitted in the 1976 summary EIS that the NPS’s desire to close Route 

2A with the relocation of Route 2 would prove a challenge. Looking at each of the five studied 

alternatives and considering known traffic levels along Route 2A, the state determined that about 

1,000 additional vehicles would use Route 2 during the peak morning rush hour period if the 

state closed Route 2A to non-park traffic. Recognizing that the state had limited construction of 

Route 2 alternatives to four lanes (two in each direction), the summary EIS admitted that Route 2 

would experience “poor levels of service” with low operating speeds and a “high degree of traffic 

congestion.” Without any alternative built for Route 2A, traffic would also increase on Route 

128/I-95 and pose access issues for Hanscom Field facilities.8

Following the detailed analyses in the January 1976 EIS, on 27 June 1977 Secretary 

Salvucci and Commissioner Carroll released their joint decision on the Route 2 relocation 

project. They decided to implement safety improvements to the existing Route 2 and removed 

from consideration any relocation or reconstruction of Route 2. As presented in their letter to 

the affected towns, which the Town of Lincoln fully reproduced in its 1977 Annual Report, 

Salvucci and Carroll argued that environmental laws, funding realities, and the transportation 

needs and priorities of the region dictated this decision. Traffic studies had made clear that 

Route 2 had adequate carrying capacity, with little difference projected for 1995, if state and local 

authorities aggressively promoted a mass transit program. In addition, Salvucci and Carroll 

referred to public responses in meetings, which had strongly discouraged authorities from any 

“big build” options, especially in light of scarce funds. Instead, the secretary and commissioner 

directed attention to the lack of median protection, uncontrolled grade crossings, lack of 

adequate sight distances at intersections, and excessive speeds as the major contributing 

problems for the existing Route 2. They offered for the state and Town of Lincoln, which the 

Route 2 decision most affected, to work together in developing suitable designs to solve these 

problems.9

Secretary Salvucci emphasized the negative environmental impact a relocated Route 2 

would cause in his remarks about the decision. “If you take at all seriously the state and national 

 

7

 Ibid., 73-76. 

8

 Ibid., 611-15. Quotes on p. 615. 

9

 Schedule A, Frederick Salvucci and John Carroll to Officials of Acton, Concord, Lincoln, Lexington, and 

Route 2 Working Committee, 27 June 1977, 5-6, 9, as reproduced in 1977 Annual Report, Town of Lincoln, 

Lincoln Public Library. 
Management Planning 

 221 

environmental policy acts,” he argued, “you can’t justify ripping through all those woods and 

wetlands and water supplies and everything else to build a road which is essentially the same 

thing as the road you’ve got.”10 He pointed to the Hobbs Brook Reservoir, owned by the City of 

Cambridge, saying that it would suffer damaging effects to this important water supply both 

during and after construction if the state chose a northern alignment. By keeping Route 2 in its 

existing location, Salvucci and Carroll wrote in their joint decision that the state would best 

preserve and minimize intrusions unto the historic and beautiful open spaces and conservation 

lands in the northern alignment area. Effective environmental improvements would further 

reduce intrusions on the existing roadway, bringing more positive benefits to the decision. 

Strong consideration also went to the overall transportation goals of the state and nation. 

Salvucci and Carroll noted that large commitments to public transportation meant that scarce 

highway resources went to those projects that directly served or complemented transit routes. 

Having a major relocation of Route 2 would act counter to this transit goal, while also fueling a 

rise in unnecessary energy usage in a time of heightened interest in conservation.11

Underlying this decision was the Big Dig. As early as 1972 the state had begun 

completing studies for this Central Artery/Tunnel project, in which parts of I-93 through the 

heart of Boston would be put underground. Secretary Salvucci worked closely with Governor 

Michael Dukakis and others to devise a proposal that would remove the rusting elevated central 

artery from Boston while also addressing businesses and their desire to have a third tunnel 

connection to Logan International Airport. By linking the airport tunnel idea to the I-93 tunnel 

proposal, they won the support they needed. But, any further large road projects, such as 

relocating Route 2 or Route 2A, necessarily would take a backseat.12

Salvucci and Carroll tried to assuage the NPS by officially leaving the door open on 

Route 2A. In their June 1977 decision they acknowledged that the NPS had long wanted this 

roadway closed to non-park traffic. However, they extracted this NPS goal from the Route 2 

decision, stating that “this is an issue which must be dealt with separately from the major Route 2 

options, since Route 2A serves different traffic functions than any of the Route 2 options 

studied.” Once park plans had reached completion in 10 to 15 years, the secretary and 

commissioner believed that “it would be possible to close Route 2A, if necessary, without 

overloading Route 2.” In the meantime, they offered the possibility of closing Route 2A for 

certain park peak-times, such as important weekend days. Such an arrangement would require 

closer cooperation between the NPS and the United States Air Force “than has so far appeared 

evident.” The state offered to work with these two federal agencies in developing possible 

scenarios for achieving this goal, but Salvucci and Carroll also made clear that the NPS and 

Hanscom had to take the lead in this objective.13

 

10 Salvucci, as quoted by Thomas Watterson, “Route 2 Realignment in Lincoln Rejected,” Christian Science 

Monitor, 29 June 1977. 11 Schedule A, 27 June 1977, 9-10. 

12 Thomas P. Hughes, Rescuing Prometheus (New York: Pantheon Books, 1998), chapter five. 13 Ibid., 7. 
Management Planning 

 222 

Lincoln town officials responded swiftly and vehemently against the Route 2 decision, 

which they called “terribly wrong and, indeed, disastrous.” Since 1954 town planning had 

centered on the eventual relocation of this roadway. A substantial amount of open space land sat 

on either side of the existing Route 2. Town planners had long believed that this open space 

land, and the town itself, would see reunification with the relocation of this intrusive road. Some 

open land to the north would fall to development for the northern alignment, but far more 

would gain access under the relocation proposal. On behalf of MIMA, Lincoln town officials 

also noted the beneficial aspects of moving Route 2. A sensitively designed northern alignment 

would significantly reduce noise levels both within the park and in the immediate surroundings, 

whereas present noise levels exceeded permissible limits for national parks. Lincoln officials 

flatly rejected the negative environmental impact Salvucci and Carroll pointed at with regard to 

the Hobbs Brook Reservoir. The Lincoln officials argued that the northern alignment would 

pose no threat to the storage capacity or water quality of the reservoir. Road salt was the true 

culprit in threatening water supplies, and the existing Route 2 posed as much as a threat to 

Hobbs Brook as a projected northern alignment, in their opinion, so long as the state continued 

to use road salt near watersheds and reservoirs.14

Lincoln officials expressed skepticism toward the state’s interest in using safety 

improvements as a way to improve the existing Route 2. By having a grade separation at Crosby’s 

Corner, where Route 2 takes a 45-degree turn, and by implementing other changes there, 

Lincoln officials stated that “one inevitably comes to the conclusion that you will have gone far in 

creating a limited access expressway in the present corridor.”15 Such steps, in their mind, would 

enable the existing road to “carry greater volumes of traffic at higher speeds and thereby result in 

additional safety problems.”16 Refusing to accept the state’s decision, Lincoln officials asked that 

the state not sell any of the land it had so far acquired for the northern alignment. They also 

requested that the state take no action with regard to Crosby’s Corner, reminding it that the 

present EIS did not study such changes and that another environmental study would be 

necessary. The Town of Lincoln then asked for the state and governor to review the Route 2 

decision.17

Two years later, the town’s annual report admitted that the Route 2 decision continued 

to weigh heavily. With sardonic humor, the Board of Selectmen opened its annual report by 

saying that “There is a chance that, before the year 2000, this report . . . will not have to mention 

our continuing saga with the State and Route 2. Such is not the case for 1979.” The selectmen 

reported that they were anxious to work with the state on safety improvements for the existing 

road, but “we were unwilling to agree with any plan which did not include a commitment to a 

northern relocation.”18 This stance continued until 1984, when the Town of Lincoln had the 

 

14 Exhibit B, Robert Gargill, Harold Levey, and Ann Sutherland to Hon. Frederick Salvucci, 29 July 1977, 

13, 17-19, as reproduced in Town of Lincoln, 1977 Annual Report, Lincoln Public Library. Quote on p. 13. 15 Ibid., 15. 

16 Ibid., 21. 

17 Ibid., 20-21. 

18 Town of Lincoln, 1979 Annual Report, 1, Lincoln Public Library. 
Management Planning 

 223 

opportunity to purchase the 100-acre Ricci Farm along the pathway of the northern alignment. 

A large religious institution also considered developing the farm, and the town planning board 

wanted to preserve the option of having the farmland saved as open space until some hopeful 

time in the future when the state would reverse its 1977 decision and relocate Route 2 to the 

north. 

The planning board recommended at the 1984 Town Meeting that the town purchase the 

farm as conservation land, with the understanding that it would be released at a future date for 

construction of the highway. However, the town’s residents acted in opposition to this proposal 

and adopted a “sense of the meeting” directive, informing the town’s boards to cease planning 

for Route 2 realignment. Instead, town residents voted that Lincoln should vigorously pursue 

safety improvements of the existing road. This decision effectively ended Lincoln’s quest for a 

relocation of Route 2. The Town of Lincoln acquired the Ricci Farm solely for conservation 

purposes.19 In 1988, after many years of careful study and design work, the town stated with 

relief that “we are pleased to see the start of ‘safety upgrades’ on Route 2.” These improvements 

included widening the eastern end of the road and placement of center dividers. The state also 

began reconstructing the Bedford Road intersection and designing improvements to Crosby’s 

Corner.20

In another effort to improve circulation without any major road relocations, the state in 

1983 also redirected Route 2A traffic. The state had Route 2A traffic travel south to Route 2 at 

the Brooks Houses, removing this traffic from Concord Center. Lexington Road, the former 

carrier of this Route 2A traffic, continued past Meriam House and into Concord, leaving this 

road available to travelers. However, many more travelers chose the convenience of bypassing 

the Town Center and taking advantage of the road improvements on Route 2.21

From the park’s standpoint, its main roadway continued to carry heavy traffic loads, 

requiring further evaluation and determination of a solution. However, as evidenced later in this 

chapter, the park and its management planning team stuck dogmatically to the idea of recovering 

the historic feel of the Battle Road. They did not face the reality of the state’s Route 2 decision. 

EMINENT DOMAIN

Public opinion and awareness continued to shape the park’s land acquisition program. 

As left in Chapter 4, the NPS under land acquisition officer Daniel Farrell had pushed forward 

with finishing the purchase of identified properties, allowed by the increased funding limitations 

authorized under the 1970 MIMA legislation. This push had included openly threatening to use 

condemnation procedures if owners refused to negotiate. The Minute Man National Historical 

Park Advisory Commission and Town of Lincoln officials had worked with the NPS to address 

resident concerns about this approach, resulting in the adoption of use and occupancy permits 

and life estates. Through this effort, the park acquired a little more than 42 acres by April 1972, 

 

19 Town of Lincoln, 1984 Annual Report, 87-88, Lincoln Public Library. 20 Town of Lincoln, 1988 Annual Report, 2, Lincoln Public Library. 21 NPS, Draft General Management Plan, 1988, 7, Museum Collection, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 
Management Planning 

 224 

raising the overall park acreage to 551 acres. Many people accepted the offer to remain in their 

homes either for a set number of years or life. In addition, the NPS removed a few properties 

from its acquisition list because the Town of Concord had revised its Historic District Zones Act, 

protecting land without the necessity of NPS ownership. Some other properties remained 

identified but still outside federal ownership. Of these, 11 residents in Lincoln and one in 

Concord refused the federal government’s attempts to have appraisals done of their land. These 

properties amounted to a relatively small amount, 13 acres, but included some important pieces 

of the MIMA historic experience, including the Meriam House and Captain William Smith 

House, with the latter’s restoration described in the previous chapter.22 In the case of the Smith 

House, its elderly owner had subdivided the historic house into four rental apartments but had 

not maintained the overall structure. The historic house showed signs of “rapid deterioration,”23

and Farrell commented that it “is in imminent danger of destruction” unless acquired quickly by 

the NPS.24 Meriam House owners had showed respect for the historic fabric and had allowed 

annual commemorative ceremonies to take place on their private property.25

Farrell continued to make contact with all of these recalcitrant owners, and by 1975 all 

but four of the 11 had submitted to agreements for federal acquisition. The Smith House came 

under federal ownership in May 1975, but the Meriam House remained elusive. Seven other 

tracts had owners in extended negotiations with the NPS.26 One notable tract, where Concord’s 

Willow Pond Kitchen stood, eventually came into the park in 1979 with a use and occupancy 

permit lasting until October 1985. This eatery had become a landmark to the local residents, and, 

as Nash remembers, thousands of people petitioned when the park threatened to vacate the 

premises at the end of the original use and occupancy permit.27 The NPS extended the use and 

occupancy agreement under the next two superintendents until the Willow Pond’s last owner, 

Peter Sowkow, finally decided to close the restaurant in 1998. When finally torn down, people 

would still remember the Willow Pond fondly.28 As late as 2000, reenactors paused respectfully 

for a moment of silence at its site, recalling how they had regularly gathered there and enjoyed 

this “old-style New England roadhouse.”29 

 

22 Minutes, 24th Meeting, MIMA Advisory Commission, 10 March 1973, 13, 20-21; Minutes, 32nd Meeting, 

Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 31 October 1975, 1-2. 23 Memorandum, Olsen to Director, Northeast Region, 16 February 1973, File Silva, Mary E., Tract No. 02-

108, Lands Files, MIMA. 

24 Memorandum, Farrell to Director, Northeast Region, 16 April 1973, 2, File Silva, Mary E., Tract No. 02-

108, Lands Files, MIMA. 

25 James Ingraham to President Carter, 27 September 1977, File Ingraham, James and Margaret, Tract No. 

04-106, Lands Files, MIMA. 

26 Minutes, 24th Meeting, MIMA Advisory Commission, 10 March 1973, 13, 20-21; Minutes, 32nd Meeting, 

Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission, 31 October 1975, 1-2. 27 Nash, transcript of interview, 21. See also File Sowkow, Peter, Tract No. 04-104, Lands Files, MIMA. 28 Written comment, NPS Review Comments, First Draft, 6 June 2006, 5, MIMA. The Willow Pond 

Kitchen was demolished after the finalizing of a Memorandum of Agreement between the State Historic 

Preservation Officer and the park on 18 October 1999. 29 Cathy Stanton, “Out of Step: Two Regimes of Fact at Lexington and Concord,” paper read at the New 

England American Studies Association Meeting, Boston, 26-28 April 2002, 8, copy provided with 

permission of the author, MIMA Archives. 
Management Planning 

 225 

This example emphasizes that although MIMA stood in an increasingly urbanized setting 

with many changes happening around it, people had long memories and loyalties. Most of the 

park’s neighbors supported the historic preservation efforts of the NPS, but these residents also 

had strong attachments to the places now included in the park. They continued to stop at the 

remaining farm stand, operated under a Special Use Permit, and they enjoyed the coverage of 

trees that blocked out glimpses of encroaching developments while giving the landscape a 

natural appearance. As MIMA’s superintendents and personnel began the long planning process 

for restoring historic landscape features, they had to keep the public informed and involved 

about what the park hoped to accomplish. GMP development would officially initiate this 

attempt, but it could not end with the approved GMP. Rebuilding stone walls and removal of 

trees to regain a sense of the 1775 open farmlands met with some concerns and required 

education and discussion. 

The agency closed MIMA’s Land Acquisition Office in late 1975 and transferred its final 

work to the North Atlantic Regional Office in Boston. Before taking a direct stand with the four 

owners refusing appraisals, the NPS discussed the issue with the not-yet abolished Minute Man 

National Historical Park Advisory Commission and leading local officials. Not surprisingly, 

residents and officials expressed hesitation in supporting the idea of condemnation proceedings. 

As Under-Secretary for the United Nations (and former US Congressman for Massachusetts) F. 

Bradford Morse stated in one meeting, we could “get our ears pinned back” by pursuing 

condemnation.30 But, Farrell pointed out that MIMA could lose its programmed land 

acquisition funds if the agency did not take action, leaving the prospect of long-term inholders in 

the park and the further escalation of land values. The NPS, therefore, continued to threaten 

condemnation. Once Farrell left, the regional office took over negotiations, and by June 1976 

two owners continued to refuse appraisals and discussions about sale to the federal government. 

In addition, some rights-of-way, easements, and municipally owned tracts (mainly roads) 

remained identified but outside federal ownership until such time as the NPS could exchange 

them with the Air Force and the various towns.31

In June 1976 the NPS announced its intention to resort to condemnation proceedings 

against the two owners who continued to refuse appraisal and sale of their property. The agency 

set the end of 1976 for negotiations, and then warned that it would file condemnation 

proceedings in federal court, in which case the US Attorney’s office would handle all matters 

relating to these acquisitions.32 NPS spokesperson Tom Mercer stated that “we’re letting 

everyone know our intentions are strong to conclude the acquisition process begun 15 years 

 

30 Memorandum, Farrell to Regional Director, NARO, 24 February 1975, 2, File A18 CY 1975 Advisory 

Boards, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

31 Ibid., 2-3; Minutes, 33rd Meeting, MIMA Advisory Commission, 18 June 1976, 6. Moffitt, Land 

Acquisition Program, no date [1975], 1-2, File L1425 CY 1975 Acquisition of Lands, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

32 NPS Press Release, “Land Acquisition to Conclude at MIMA,” 7 June 1976, File K3415 Press Releases—

MIMA, Park Admin Files, MIMA. “National Park Service Renews Threat of Eminent Domain Use,” 

Supplement to local papers, 10 June 1976, MIMA Scrapbook November 1975-1976, MIMA. 
Management Planning 

 226 

ago.”33 Owners of Meriam House responded to this intensified situation by directing a plea to 

President Jimmy Carter. They did not want to sell. They wanted to stay in their house through 

their lifetimes and then have the house pass to the federal government, as they had no heirs. “We 

cherish our right to own our home,” they wrote. “We do not wish to sell it and we do not want it 

seized by our Government by means of eminent domain.” Instead, they wished for “some kind 

of solution to the transfer of our property without blemish to its glorious past.” The owners also 

proudly referred to their careful upkeep of the historic house and surrounding land, saying “we 

maintain our grounds and house better than the Park does.” They urged the President to “help 

us to receive fair and equal treatment and just compensation,” possibly even initiating “a change 

in policy” to address the situation.34 The NPS responded by initiating in September 1977 an 

environmental assessment for the property, one of the first actions in filing for condemnation. 

This environmental review supported acquisition through condemnation. The NPS took final 

ownership of the Meriam House and property in April 1987 providing life estates to the 

owners.35

One more land issue demonstrated the park’s unwillingness to work with its neighbors in 

a collaborative way, suggesting how future encounters would be as the park started working on 

its GMP. The Minuteman Regional Vocational Technical School, a high school serving 12 area 

communities and providing after-school, weekend, and summer programming for students of all 

ages, began the process of constructing a second access road to its grounds. Once the state had 

announced its plans to complete safety enhancements of Route 2 instead of building the 

northern alternate, the regional Vocational Technical School realized that its single access road 

could not safely support the needs of its community. The school had planned to have a second 

access road built to feed into the proposed Route 2 relocation. Without that option available, the 

school sought another location for this second entryway. As detailed in a special report of the 

situation, the school argued that long traffic back-ups along Route 2A during morning and 

afternoon bus runs had created a “daily game of traffic roulette.”36 Severe traffic congestion 

made it nearly impossible for vehicles to enter and exit the school grounds without “literally 

forc[ing] their way into or across east-west traffic against the resentment of east-west drivers 

frustrated by the unreasonable congestion and delay” at Route 2A and Massachusetts Avenue, 

near the on and off ramps for Route 128.37 Near and real accidents, according to the report, 

occurred regularly. Fortunately, the intersection had not experienced any serious injuries or 

deaths, and the school wanted to take action before such a possibility. Due to the extreme traffic 

 

33 Tom Mercer, as quoted in “NPS Renews Threat,” 10 June 1976. 34 Ingraham to President Carter, 27 September 1977. 35 NARO, Environmental Assessment, Condemnation of Tract 04-106, and attached Memorandum, Cynthia 

Kryston to Regional Director, NARO, 29 December 1977; and Memorandum, Gerald Kirwan to Nash, 7 

May 1987, both in File Ingraham, James and Margaret, Tract No. 04-106, Lands Files, MIMA. 36 Minuteman Technical High School, Route 2-A Traffic and the Need for a Second Access Road to 

Minuteman Tech, November 1978, 1, File D30 MIMA, Box 14, Acc. 79-88-0002, Waltham FRC. The 

report puts these words in all caps. 

37 Ibid., 2. 
Management Planning 

 227 

congestion, school officials also worried that safety and fire rescues vehicles could not gain 

immediate entry to school grounds.38

To address these concerns, the school commissioned consultants to develop a feasibility 

study for access-road alternatives. This study resulted in five possible choices, with one clear 

first choice and a lesser but still possible second choice. The other three alternatives did not 

provide good sight distances, presenting potential safety problems. The first-choice, known as 

B-2, would require the NPS to exchange a road easement with the high school. The high school 

would then build the access road across park property, on the opposite side of Route 2A near the 

entryway to the Battle Road Visitor Center. The high school already had an easement at the 

Lexington-Lincoln town line, but this alignment went over bedrock, requiring extensive cutting 

to build a roadway, and crossed a former house site with potential archeological remains. The 

second, less-favored choice involved building a longer roadway directly across state land to Mill 

Street, where vehicles would then turn and join Route 2A further west of Route 128 than the 

first-choice alternative. This second-choice alternative would not require action by the NPS, but 

it would require significant improvements to Mill Street to improve its usability and safety. 

Lincoln selectmen, in reviewing the different access-road proposals, opposed the Mill Street 

alternative “under any circumstances.”39 They argued that the existing Mill Street would not 

stand up to heavy traffic, and it did not offer good sight distances in both directions for feeding 

onto Route 2A. In response, the high school went forward in pursuing its first choice, B-2, and 

requested NPS review and concurrence.40

The NPS did not initially support the high school’s request. Nash wrote to the chairman 

of the school committee that federal regulations required completion of an environmental 

assessment and a separate study of alternatives. Citing the second-choice access road as 

preferable since it did not cross NPS land, Nash admitted that “we are unable at this time to be 

optimistic about an early or even an eventual approval of your proposal,” leaving little room for 

negotiation or hope at this early stage in the process.41 The regional office echoed this stance in a 

separate letter to the high school, and the NPS reiterated its opposition to the exchange of 

easements for the access road in mid-December 1978. However, the NPS did recognize that the 

high school already had an easement for a road and that the school would build a road on that 

easement if it could not get its favored alternative. Nash admitted in late December that, given 

this circumstance, the NPS should review the alternatives and determine which one worked best 

for both the park and the school. As he stated in a memorandum to the files, it seemed that the 

road would be built no matter what and that “it is in the best interests of all parties to proceed as 

expeditiously as possible with the transfer of right of way.”42 In his assessment, B-2 had promise 

because fewer trees would be cut and the right-of-way would not cross any known cultural or 

 

38 Ibid., 1-2. 

39 Larry Paxton to Jack Stark, 14 November 1978, File D30 MIMA, Box 14, Acc. 79-88-0002, Waltham FRC. 40 Ibid. Minuteman Technical High School, Route 2-A Traffic Report, 10-13. 

41 Nash to Ruth Wales, 16 November 1978, 1, File D30 MIMA, Box 14, Acc. 79-88-0002, Waltham FRC. 42 Memorandum, Nash to Files, 22 December 1978, 3, File D30 MIMA, Box 14, Acc. 79-88-0002, Waltham 

FRC. 
Management Planning 

 228 

archeological resources, as an initial study indicated. The regional office agreed with Nash’s 

assessment of the situation and ordered its lands division to take action towards the exchange of 

easements.43 In January 1979, the State Historic Preservation Officer concurred that the road 

construction would have no known effect on historic, prehistoric, or archeological remains.44 

The park hinted at its continued reluctance to granting this easement, noting in its 1981 

Resources Management Plan that “the park recently was required to allow construction of an 

entrance road into Minuteman Regional Vocational High School.”45 This declaration does not 

suggest that the NPS entered negotiations in a positive, community-minded way. This situation 

had offered an opportunity to act in good faith with the larger area and to build some local 

support. Yet, the NPS chose instead to offer resistance until it had to act. Such an approach 

could not help its future GMP development. 

BATTLE ROAD

Before the NPS embarked on the multi-year process to produce MIMA’s GMP, the 

agency had to contend with a proposal to widen Route 2A in two places involving park land. 

This focus on the Battle Road and threats to its historical integrity produced two important 

results. First, the NPS had the opportunity to refine its arguments for defending the road from 

modern assaults, stating flatly that incremental changes to Route 2A in the park would produce 

cumulative deleterious effects on the park and its historic features. Second, the NPS began to 

conflate its own goals for the park, having them revolve almost completely around removal of all 

traffic from the Battle Road section of Route 2A. The agency would then go into the GMP 

process with this mindset, leaving itself open to later public criticism. One other aspect of the 

Route 2A widening deserves attention. According to Nash, some public officials and others 

viewed the NPS as dragging its feet, being unresponsive, and being impossible to deal with during 

negotiations over this proposal. Nash tried to correct this viewpoint, putting together a lengthy 

chronology detailing his involvement. Yet, this public perception persisted in some circles, again 

coloring reactions to the GMP efforts.46

Beginning in January 1981 the Town of Lexington, with concerned business community 

leaders, Vocational Technical high school administrators, and neighbors, began discussing 

possible improvements to various roads in northern Lexington, including along Marrett Road at 

New Massachusetts Avenue within MIMA. NPS officials did not know of the initial meeting on 

this topic but did attend a later presentation in September 1981 at the high school. Specific to 

MIMA, the town wanted to address the continuing issue of traffic backing up along Route 2A in 

 

43 Memorandum, Charles Clapper to Chief, Lands Division, NARO, 26 December 1978, File D30 MIMA, 

Box 14, Acc. 79-88-0002, Waltham FRC. 44 L. J. Hovig to Ruth Wales, 22 November 1978; Memorandum, Terry Savage to Nash, 17 January 1979, 

both in File D30 MIMA, Box 14, Acc. 79-88-0002, Waltham FRC. See also “Park Opposes Access Road,” 

Concord Journal, Lincoln edition, 14 December 1978. 45 MIMA, Resources Management Plan, May 1981, IV-B-17, File D18 CY 1981 Resources Management Plan, 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

46 Memorandum, Nash to Regional Director, NARO, 20 May 1980, File MIMA Correspondence 1981-

1985, NPS History Collection, NRHE Files. 
Management Planning 

 229 

the park as it tried to make its way to Route 128 and other points east. Another NPS concern 

resulted from a Hanscom Area Transportation Study (HATS) involving entry and exit from 

Hanscom Drive. The State of Massachusetts wanted to signalize the intersection and widen 

lanes, providing a left-turn lane on eastbound Route 2A. These separate projects forced the NPS 

to contend with the attempts to improve Route 2A instead of removing it from the park. 

Resulting from its initial discussions regarding Marrett Road, Lexington began the 

process of ordering surveys and contracting with Boston Survey Consultants (BSC) for 

engineering services. In December 1981 representatives from the town, BSC, and the 

Massachusetts Department of Public Works (DPW) met with Nash and other NPS officials to 

discuss the procedures needed for agreement on these widening proposals. Nash stated at the 

meeting and reiterated in a letter to the town that relinquishment of any park lands for road 

construction required review under three separate laws, the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (Section 102), the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Section 106), and the 

Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (Section 4(f)). This review required careful study of 

alternatives for the widening proposal and a no-action possibility. A year later, Nash repeated 

his request for such a study, stating that the NPS could not conduct any preliminary reviews or 

predict outcomes of those reviews until it had a satisfactory study in hand.47

By 1983 the situation became more heated. State transportation officials began applying 

pressure to the governor’s office, requesting approval of the proposed implementation of a signal 

light and turn lane on Route 2A at Hanscom Drive.48 This project did not directly involve any 

NPS lands, but it did fall within park boundaries. North Atlantic Regional Director Herb Cables 

reminded the state transportation office of the original understanding between the state and the 

NPS when the state first built Hanscom Drive in the 1960s. The NPS had agreed to this drive 

because the plan would have included construction of a tunnel underneath the Battle Road, 

directing traffic out of the airport facility onto a relocated Route 2A. With the present proposal, 

Cables argued that this improvement would “detract from the experience of those people, from 

near and far, who come to visit the places where the American nation began.”49 However, thanks 

to pressure from the state department of transportation, this project moved forward with 

construction beginning in July 1984. 

The NPS’s “considerable efforts” in this regard helped cement a relationship with 

Secretary of Transportation Salvucci, who admitted that he regretted having to continue with the 

Hanscom Road/Route 2A widening. As NPS regional planner Terry Savage characterized this 

situation, “we now have considerably more clout with the Executive Office of Transportation 

and Construction.” The state expected to take a tour of MIMA with Nash to see the concerned 

areas, and it also invited the park to join a working group and meet directly with Secretary 

 

47 Memorandum, Nash to Regional Director, NARO, 20 May 1980, and attached Chronology of 

Correspondence Regarding the Widening of Route 2A “Marrett Road” in the Town of Lexington, 1-3. 48 Record of Telephone Conversation, Terry Savage and Juan Evereteze, 28 October 1983, File D30 MIMA 

1981, Box 8, Acc. 79-87-0001, Waltham FRC. It is not clear if the signal light refers to a full-blown traffic 

light or a flashing yellow light. This intersection would eventually get a flashing yellow light. 

49 Herb Cables to Juan Evereteze, 20 September 1983, 1, File D30 MIMA 1981, Box 8, Acc. 79-87-0001, 

Waltham FRC. 
Management Planning 

 230 

Salvucci. This example points to the positive steps Nash and other NPS officials had taken to 

develop open communication among different representatives in the area, especially necessary 

for the Battle Road and as the GMP came into focus.50

In the meantime, BSC began its design work for the Marrett Road widening. 

Archeologists conducted a survey in test pits where the road improvements would go. Following 

this archeological work, the town asked the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to make a 

declaration regarding the impact of road widening on historic resources. The Deputy SHPO 

determined a “no effect” finding, clearing the town of this one hurdle.51

In response to these events, the North Atlantic Regional Office put together and 

distributed in fall 1983 a brochure titled “Battle Road: Memorial or Arterial?” Meant to inform 

the public about the situation and generate discussion, this pamphlet outlined the two proposals 

to widen Route 2A. Other threats included new office park sites proposed along the east and 

west ends of the park. The Vocational Technical high school also awaited approval to build a 

200-room hotel/conference center on its site. Massport considered expanding the Hanscom 

Field complex, adding more traffic to Route 2A.52 The brochure made plain that “the cumulative 

effect of all of these proposals on traffic and on the park may irrevocably destroy what remains of 

the Battle Road’s historic character.”53 It went on to say that “telling the story of the events of 

the Battle Road, however, is becoming increasingly difficult in the midst of a busy arterial 

highway. The substantial investment and effort that has gone into preserving the Battle Road 

and Minute Man is being progressively eroded as more and more traffic is funneled onto the 

road and through the park.”54 

The NPS recognized that it was one of many neighbors involved in the future of the 

Battle Road, and it sought to “support cooperative regional efforts.”55 In this vein, the agency 

produced the brochure to share its serious concern about the Battle Road with friends and 

neighbors and to begin collecting comments and opinions. “It is clear that the future of the 

Battle Road is not ours alone to shape,” the brochure concluded, and so the agency sought to 

educate people and hopefully gain some supporters.56 The public responded positively to the 

brochure. At its first appearance upon publication, Nash distributed 600 copies at a Lincoln 

Land-Use Conference.57

More studies came in 1984. Early in the year, the NPS received a copy of BSC’s 

Functional Design Report and Environmental Review Package for the Marrett Road widening. 

In its assessment, the NPS found that this study failed to take into account the possibility of 

 

50 Record of Telephone Conversation, Terry Savage and Juan Evereteze, 28 October 1983. 

51 Memorandum, Francis Fields to Walter Tonaszuck, 20 May 1985, Marrett Road/Route 2A Progress 

Dates Chronology, 1-2, File D30 CY 1985 Marrett Road, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 52 NARO, Battle Road: Memorial or Arterial? October 1983, Losing Ground on Battle Road section, File 

Battle Road, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 

53 Ibid. 

54 Ibid., What Is at Stake section. 

55 Ibid., Losing Ground on Battle Road section. 

56 Ibid., Where Do We Go From Here section. 

57 Memorandum, Rolf Diamant to Associate Regional Director, Planning and Resource Preservation, 

NARO, 2 November 1983, File D30 MIMA 1981, Box 8, Acc. 79-87-0001, Waltham FRC. 
Management Planning 

 231 

relocating roads. Nor did the study consider the larger context of the project’s relationship to 

other roads or the park. Nash wrote to BSC that the study needed more specific information 

about the potential effect of the project “upon the level of traffic using the road, the amount of 

development induced into the area and the impact of both upon the integrity of the park and 

upon the quality of our visitors’ experience.” Without this crucial information, he could not 

accept the study.58 

The Town of Lexington did not take lightly this rejection and asked Nash to describe 

possible ways in which changes to the proposed widening could gain NPS acceptance. Nash 

responded that the agency would like consideration of lane reductions, with one through lane 

and one left-turning lane west of the Marrett Road and New Massachusetts Avenue intersection 

and one through lane and one left-turning lane and one right-turning lane east of the 

intersection. In addition, Nash asked that the town consider such aesthetic aspects as placing 

utilities underground and eliminating street lighting. With the establishment of New 

Massachusetts Avenue as the main thoroughfare, the NPS also requested that the town vacate 

Old Massachusetts Avenue and transfer it to the park. Finally, Nash wrote that if the state 

ultimately relocated Route 2A, the park would like any transferred land from the Marrett Road 

widening to revert to the NPS. These considerations, Nash concluded, “are ideas only and 

should not be considered as absolute conditions.” The town still needed concurrence with the 

federal Departments of the Interior and Transportation.59

BSC and the town did not accept these suggested changes to the road widening project. 

BSC pointed out in a September 1984 letter to Nash that reducing their suggested number of 

lanes and removing Old Massachusetts Avenue as a thoroughfare would result in “excessive 

queues, increase[d] traffic congestion and lower overall levels-of-service along Marrett Road 

while still requiring land takings” at the park.60 The town reiterated the conclusions of the BSC 

analysis, leaving little room for further negotiation. Nash tried to delineate the deficiencies of 

BSC’s analysis, which the NPS considered overdesigned for the actual traffic conditions. He 

pointed out that the reduced lanes in his proposal would not significantly reduce the overall 

effectiveness of the road widening, but the Lexington selectmen continued to support the full 

project.61 Nash also tried to convey in a separate letter to the town’s selectmen that the agency 

worried about “the cumulative impact of road projects within the Battle Road corridor” having 

the “potential to adversely affect those qualities for which [the park] was created.” In particular, 

Nash wrote that “we are concerned that segments of the road are being upgraded one at a time 

without a clear view of their overall effect on the park’s resources and on the integrity of the 

historic road.” He invited the officials to meet at the park to discuss these concerns further.62

 

58 Nash to BSC Engineering, 10 February 1984, File D20 Park Admin Files, MIMA. 59 Nash to Walter Tonaszuck, 28 June 1984, File D20, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Quote on p. 2. 60 William Carlson to Nash, 14 September 1984, 3, File D20, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 61 Walter Tonaszuck to Nash, 13 November 1984; and Nash to Board of Selectmen, Town of Lexington, 9 

November 1984, both in File D20, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 62 Nash to Board of Selectmen, Town of Lexington, 16 November 1984, File D20, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 
Management Planning 

 232 

Separate to but in consonance with the NPS’s attempts to reduce or eliminate the road 

widening stepped Thomas Boylston Adams. A columnist for the Boston Globe and a direct 

descendant of Presidents John and John Quincy Adams, Adams publicly expressed in a series of 

articles for his regular column “History Looks Ahead” his frustration over the continuing 

modern incursions to the historic road. In July 1984 he called the state’s improvements to Route 

2A and Hanscom Drive a “desecration of Battle Road.” He opened dramatically by stating that 

“The Commonwealth of Massachusetts has chosen this 208th anniversary of the Declaration of 

Independence to destroy 10,000 more square feet of the battlefield where was created that 

independence.”63 He wrote in April 1984 that the Battle Road was “in danger of quicker and 

more complete oblivion” than the Parthenon. “That section of it which is of most interest to the 

people in the world who care about the meaning of the word freedom is threatened by the 

ultimate destroyer, the bulldozer.”64 To thwart such modern advances, Adams called for the 

closing of the park area from all traffic. “Rip up the blacktop,” he urged, “and restore [the] road 

and surrounding countryside to its appearance in 1775. The cost certainly would be less than a 

single MX missile and its value for education in the foundations of democracy worth 

considerably more.”65 Adams steadfastly supported the park throughout this period, although 

he favored his independence and refused direct participation in any friends’ organization that 

the park tried to establish.66

Within this climate of heightened public attention, Lexington took an aggressive stance. 

In response to Nash’s invitation for another meeting, the town’s selectmen threatened “to take 

this matter to higher authority” should delays persist in the road widening proposal.67 A January 

1985 meeting failed to resolve the issues, and the NPS went back to reviewing the data and 

waiting for some negotiation room. This came in February when town, NPS, and state and 

federal transportation authorities met to hear a downsized proposal by BSC. This changed 

proposal, which would not involve taking any park land, essentially encapsulated what the NPS 

had offered earlier. The park would have to agree to the building of a retaining wall on the north 

side of Marrett Road. The NPS gave its tentative approval, but the town’s selectmen voiced their 

continued opposition to any project less than a full widening of Marrett Road.68 

Even before the February meeting, town officials began contacting congressional 

representatives and federal agencies asking for support in their effort to achieve the maximum 

solution for the road widening. The town characterized its proposal as “modest” and 

emphasized that negotiations had already lasted four years. In addition, the town made a point 

 

63 Thomas Boylston Adams, “Desecration of Battle Road,” Boston Globe, 1 July 1984. 64 Thomas Boylston Adams, “The Bulldozer Threatens a Historic Road,” Boston Globe, 29 April 1984. 65 Thomas Boylston Adams, “The Battle Road of 1775 Must Win Its New Battle,” Boston Globe, 8 April 

1984. 

66 Memorandum, Herbert Cables to Director, 13 April 1987, File D30 MIMA 87-89, Box 6, Acc. 79-95-0013, 

Waltham FRC. 

67 Robert Hutchinson to Nash, 6 December 1984, File D20, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

68 Memorandum, Maurice Miller to Nash, 8 January 1985, 6-8; and Memorandum, Maurice Miller to 

Assistant Manager, Northeast Team, DSC, 27 February 1985, 2-3, both in File D20, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. Memorandum, Nash to Regional Director, NARO, 20 May 1985, File MIMA Correspondence 

1981-1985, NPS History Collection , NRHE Files. 
Management Planning 

 233 

in these letters of its willingness to exchange 56,000 square feet of town land for the needed 

16,000 square feet of NPS land to accommodate the widening. The town officials indicated that 

everyone involved faced a “serious credibility problem” due to the lack of any timely response on 

the part of the NPS and/or the federal highway authority.69 After a heated exchange of 

chronologies documenting the responsiveness and cooperation of the federal authorities and the 

frustration of the Lexington officials, the town called another meeting for September 1985. The 

NPS defended its past actions, noting that the agency had “set a clear course of action from 

inception of the project.” The agency also emphasized that the town and state had not formally 

followed the procedures for Section 4(f) process as required under the federal highways act. In 

addition, NPS officials renewed their argument that the original BSC proposal represented an 

overdesign of expected future traffic counts while the NPS proposal fell within acceptable 

transportation limits for urban areas. Further discussion led to no compromise action, and the 

Lexington Town Manager concluded that he would recommend to the board of selectmen the 

earlier solution from February 1985. This situation would wait at a virtual standstill until 1992.70

ALTERNATIVE FUTURES

This battle between the NPS and the Town of Lexington over the proposed Marrett 

Road widening shaped initial GMP efforts. Nash and his staff recognized that the park needed 

to analyze a range of development opportunities for the Battle Road from an interpretive 

standpoint and plan for the most promising ones. With this information in hand, the park could 

more strongly address outside development proposals. As a result, Nash asked the regional 

office to fund a Battle Road Development Concept Plan. This plan would gather public and 

political views about different development proposals for Battle Road within the park and chart 

their viability. The development plan would also propose an interim method for addressing park 

features within the existing situation.71 The NPS contracted with Harvard University’s 

Department of Landscape Architecture within the Graduate School of Design with this task. 

Professor Carl Steinitz and 13 graduate students worked with NPS staff and many local residents 

and officials to explore the purpose of the park and it’s potential.72

At the outset, the NPS and the Harvard group expected the background research and 

conclusions of this study to serve as key information resources for GMP planners. However, 

GMP planners largely ignored the Harvard study, focusing instead on the Battle Road and 

removing all traffic from it. The value of the Harvard study, though, is that it did offer innovative 

 

69 Margery Battin to Senator Edward Kennedy, 21 January 1985, File D30 MIMA 1984, Box 4, Acc. 79-93-

0003, Waltham FRC. Quotes follow in order on pp. 1 and 2. 70 The chronologies date from 20 May 1985 by Nash and 18 June 1985 by Paul Marshall. Memorandum, 

Maurice Miller to Assistant Manager, Northeast Team, DSC, 16 September 1985, File D30 MIMA 1984, 

Box 4, Acc. 79-93-0003, Waltham FRC. Quote on p. 2. Memorandum, Maurice Miller to Assistant 

Manager, Northeast Team, DSC, 27 February 1985, 2, File D30 MIMA 1984, Box 4, Acc. 79-93-0003, 

Waltham FRC. 

71 Memorandum, Nash to Associate Regional Director, Planning and Resource Preservation, NARO, 10 

May 1984, File D20, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 72 Carl Steinitz, et al., Alternative Futures for Minute Man National Historical Park, Spring 1985, 1, 34, File 

Alternative Futures for MIMA, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. 
Management Planning 

 234 

approaches to address the park’s entire interpretive story. Its findings deserve attention and 

reflection. 

Released in spring 1985 the Harvard Study “Alternative Futures for Minute Man 

National Historical Park” went to the heart of the conflicts facing the park in the mid-1980s. The 

researchers identified three aspects needing attention for full realization of the park. These 

included clarification and improvement of the visitor experience, resolution of existing conflicts 

between traffic and park attractions, and countering the effects of outside pressures. In the case 

of the visitor experience, the Harvard researchers found interpretation confusing because most 

visitors came off Route 128 and headed in a westerly direction into the park. However, park 

interpretation followed the historical route from the North Bridge east. Due to the proximity of 

modern buildings and presence of heavy traffic, the park also seemed fragmentary with indistinct 

boundaries. Lack of signage and the heavily wooded landscape prevented visitors from 

recognizing park areas and their importance to the story. The Harvard group admitted that most 

visitors stopped at the North Bridge and its monuments, but they failed to appreciate the other 

historic resources contained within the park.73

The Harvard study did not foresee a positive outcome for current traffic issues and 

outside pressures. Researchers noted that traffic problems along Route 2A involved two separate 

sources: commuters from the western suburbs traveling to Route 128 and commuters exiting 

Route 128 and heading to the new office parks. Both forms of traffic showed increases. Route 2 

did not offer an alternative to taking traffic off Route 2A, and state authorities increasingly used 

park land to build turn lanes at busy intersections. This provided more pressure to widen the 

road to four lanes. Visitors faced heavy traffic between historic sites. Exhaust fumes and traffic 

noise interrupted guided tours and detracted from the intended relaxing experience. Massport’s 

Hanscom Civilian Field and the United States Air Force Base posed the biggest outside 

development pressures within the park. An increasing number flights out of the base and Air 

Force research laboratories contributed to noise and traffic. Massport also sought more 

development of its lands around Hanscom. These potential developments would hinder the 

park’s wish to conduct landscape restoration in the area. People would clearly see modern 

buildings as they surveyed the historical grounds.74

The Harvard researchers warned that unless the park took timely action to counter this 

range of pressures, “there is a real danger that the park will lose all value as a historic site.” They 

called for “a new and innovative master-planning from park authorities,” in cooperation with 

state and local officials and the community “to avoid such a sorry and needless outcome.”75 

Guiding this action, the study group offered three key goals: interpretation of the significance of 

the events to the development of democracy in the United States, recognize subsequent historic 

events in park areas, and respond to the area’s contemporary needs. With these potential goals 

in mind, the Harvard group described its three alternative futures for MIMA. Each of these 

proposals, in the group’s estimation, offered to reduce visitor disorientation and confusion, 

 

73 Ibid., 6-7. 

74 Ibid., 8-9. 

75 Ibid., 9. 
Management Planning 

 235 

mainly because the proposals directed visitors from west to east. The group also believed that 

each design represented politically realistic proposals that had a feasible chance of 

implementation.76

The Selective Restoration Alternative identified four zones within the park representing 

crucial places for communication of the events of 1775. All restoration and interpretive efforts 

would focus in those zones, namely the North Bridge, Meriam’s Corner, the Bloody Angle, and 

the Virginia Road area. The design proposal would isolate these four sites from modern 

incursions, restoring landscape features and using some screening to mask modern buildings. 

The NPS would de-emphasize the land-areas between these four sites, leaving any modern 

influences hidden by existing trees. This design would involve short relocations of Old Bedford 

Road at Meriam’s Corner and Route 2A at the Bloody Angle. In addition, the researchers 

recommended realigning and upgrading Route 2A to a four-lane limited access highway at the 

park’s easternmost end, from Hanscom Drive to Massachusetts Avenue, along the park’s 

southern boundary. With this change, the park would remove the heaviest commuter traffic and 

thus keep visitor and commuter traffic separate. The eastern end of the park would receive less 

attention from a historic standpoint and instead serve as a recreational outlet with picnicking 

facilities, bike and walking paths, trails, and limited group camping shelters.77

The General Restoration Alternative sought to re-create as much as practical of the 1775 

landscape throughout the length of the park, using the Historic Grounds Report by Joyce 

Malcolm as a guide. The researchers proposed in this alternative to rebuild farms that had 

existed at the time of the Revolutionary War and to isolate them visually from modern influences 

with screening. To achieve this historic landscape restoration, the study group recommended 

relocation and parkway treatment of Route 2A between Meriam’s Corner and Fiske Hill. Route 

2A would go to the southern boundary of the park, and a tunnel would direct traffic from 

Hanscom Drive to the relocated Route 2A. To enhance the historic experience at Meriam’s 

Corner, the state would also have to relocate Old Bedford Road to the east. The researchers do 

not elaborate on the appearance of the Battle Road once freed of commuter traffic, whether it 

would still have pavement or have a dirt base. This alternative does mention that the restored 

Battle Road would have four miles free of intersections and interference from vehicles, but 

somehow people could still get to the various sites via vehicular traffic. Walking and biking trails 

would also take visitors to such stops as the top of Revolutionary Ridge, where Americans 

shocked British Regulars with their attacks. This alternative, the Harvard researchers admitted, 

created a fitting setting for the interpretation of the first battle of the American Revolution, but it 

relied heavily on the “closest cooperation” with the towns and their residents, the DPW, 

Massport, and the Federal Highways Administration.78

The Historic Continuum Alternative took an evolving historical approach to the 

landscape, recognizing that the events of 1775 led to other important developments that 

deserved attention. This design would educate the public about significant events from all 

 

76 Ibid., 12. 

77 Ibid., 13-15, 18-19. 

78 Ibid., 13, 20-21, 24-25. Quote on p. 25. 
Management Planning 

 236 

periods of history which occurred in the region. The NPS would develop MIMA as a 

progression of historic landscapes. With this alternative, the Harvard group recommended 

establishing a new visitor orientation center on the eastern fringe of Concord Center near the 

junction of Routes 2 and 2A. Run cooperatively by the NPS and Town of Concord, the visitor 

center would emphasize the interrelationship of the town and countryside over the course of 

time and introduce visitors to the range of historical and cultural features in the area. From this 

new center, visitors would choose from a number of different loops that would take them to 

various sites, such as the North Bridge, The Wayside, the Battle Road, or into Concord Center. 

Visitors could walk, bike, or drive these loops. Interpretive displays along each loop, plus audio 

programs and brochures, would explain the significance of the sites. Aside from a short 

relocation of a portion of Old Bedford Road and another short realignment of Route 2A at the 

Bluff near Fiske Hill, this alternative would not include any major road changes. Visitors would 

see the evolution of farming practices around historic buildings while some vistas would also 

include selected contemporary views, emphasizing the continuum in history along the landscape. 

The Battle Road Visitor Center’s emphasis would shift from historical interpretation to serving as 

a focus for active recreational use. The center would offer bicycle and cross country ski rentals 

and host group gatherings, even serve as a hostel. More trails would allow visitors opportunities 

for exploring the landscape. The Harvard group noted that this alternative relied upon a shared 

vision with the Town of Concord for the new visitor center. In comparison to the other two 

alternatives, this one would require the least disruption of the existing landscape and provided 

the least disruption to surrounding communities.79

These three alternatives did not depart radically from previous proposals for MIMA, 

although they did emphasize different approaches that could aid GMP planners. Certainly, the 

General Restoration alternative fit closest to what the Boston National Historic Sites 

Commission had ultimately adopted in its recommendation for establishing the park and what 

the park’s 1966 Master Plan had set forth. The Selective Restoration alternative compared with 

what Edwin Small and the BSC had initially considered for a park. As described in Chapter 2, 

Small had first thought the park would encompass discrete units of land along the Battle Road, 

acting as buffers from the commercial and residential developments. Not until the threat of the 

Hanscom housing proposal did Small and the commission push for preservation of a continuous 

strip of landscape along four miles of the Battle Road. The Historic Continuum alternative 

offered a sort of compromise with the other approaches, having selective restoration along with 

recognition of modern intrusions. This latter approach, in particular, allowed the park to 

maximize its historic resources while also accommodating the inevitable succession of historic 

and modern changes. However, the NPS paid only limited attention to the alternative futures 

ideas, losing what momentum the study provided. This lack of interest hints to what problems 

the agency would face as it developed a draft GMP. 

 

79 Ibid., 13, 26-27, 30-32. 
Management Planning 

 237 

GMP: FIRST STAGE

From its inception in February 1985 MIMA’s formal GMP effort focused on the Battle 

Road and its traffic woes. GMP team members, who largely came from the Denver Service 

Center, probably relied upon Nash, other park staff members, and some regional officials for 

obtaining background information. Given the attention on the Marrett Road widening proposal 

and Hanscom Drive improvements, Battle Road concerns certainly would have topped these 

discussions. When GMP team members made their first trip to MIMA, their meeting minutes 

indicate that the Battle Road and its traffic problems took the forefront in conversations. 

Professor Steinitz and other members of the Harvard study group presented their findings and 

shared data with the GMP planners. GMP team members attended a Hanscom Area Traffic 

Study monthly meeting to gain additional appreciation of the issues facing that transportation 

corridor. Another morning was dedicated to meeting with state transportation authorities, 

including Secretary Salvucci, who had made the final determination not to relocate Route 2. The 

initial GMP session also included separate meetings with the Lincoln and Lexington Board of 

Selectmen and the town manager and staff for Concord. Planners also had the opportunity to 

discuss timelines and issues with key regional and park officials. Nash gave the team a tour of the 

park. Original advisory board member James DeNormandie and Lincoln resident Thomas 

Boylston Adams joined the GMP planners in discussions, too.80

Following on the heels of this initial GMP session, the team sought public participation. 

Planners prepared for a series of public meetings to capture what people thought were the issues 

and management alternatives for the park. These four workshops in each of the three towns plus 

Cambridge would follow a large group-small group discussion format. In anticipation, park 

planners also joined public officials in three special sessions, one with elected representatives of 

Lincoln, Lexington, and Concord, one with staff from these three towns, and one with state 

transportation officials. The regional office produced and distributed the first in a series of 

newsletters, titled “The Correspondent,” to discuss the history of the park, raise issues, advertise 

the public meetings for late April and early May, and ask for public comments.81

About 100 people participated in the four workshops. Along with feedback received in 

the mail, the NPS compiled the responses and determined how most people viewed the various 

issues. With regard to the Battle Road, a large majority of respondents felt that the road was an 

obstacle to the use and enjoyment of the park. People did not have a clear consensus of what to 

do about the traffic on Battle Road, although more people favored complete relocation of Route 

2A or development of a northern alignment for Route 2. Interestingly, neither road widening 

nor keeping the status quo elicited much support.82 The Town of Lincoln Planning Board 

echoed these thoughts, urging for the study of an “alternative commuter access to allow the 

 

80 Memorandum, Dan Huff to Assistant Manager, Northeast Team, DSC, 15 February 1985, 1-2, File D20 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

81 Ibid,. 2-3; The Correspondent, April 1985, File D18 MIMA 1984, Box 4, Acc. 79-93-0003, Waltham FRC. 82 Summary of Public Response: Pre-Planning Phase, MIMA GMP, July 1985, 3, File D18, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 
Management Planning 

 238 

Battle Road to realize its historic intention as a symbol of freedom.”83 However, in its written 

response to the call for comments, Lexington officials wrote that the park “should accept the fact 

that 2A is there and make the best of it.”84 

In terms of park identity, people expressed support for the central story of the 1775 

patriot fight against the British regulars. The majority of respondents felt that the park should 

focus on the events of 19 April 1775. The theme of eighteenth-century life followed closely as a 

park theme people supported. A range of potential secondary themes recommended by 

participants included the nineteenth-century authors (most popular), nature study (second most 

popular), and studies of rural agriculture. Some other people believed that the park should stay 

focused on the events of 19 of April 1775 but leave other themes to interested-outside 

organizations. In terms of theme-related activities, most people favored living-history 

presentations, with a second most popular activity being lectures relating to the park. People 

wanted picnicking but not weddings. Opinion varied fairly evenly for and against public 

assembly. People liked the idea of hiking through the park, but they did not want races. They 

wanted bike paths and walking trails, but people did not express much support for shuttle 

buses.85

People also expressed their ideas of how the park should look. A common concern 

related to park identity. Most participants agreed that the park needed more identifiable signage, 

while some thought the park needed delineating landscape features, such as perimeter walls or 

fences. The majority of participants wanted a combination of landscape restoration and modern 

agricultural practices. Others liked the idea of landscape restoration and historic agriculture. 

People next favored maintaining contemporary landscapes while the fewest wanted modern 

agricultural use of park land. Respondents favored a case-by-case selective restoration program 

for the park’s 28 historic structures. Next, people preferred exterior restoration of the buildings. 

In terms of uses of historic buildings, participants most wanted the buildings used for 

interpretation, then for restaurants or bed and breakfasts. Only a few people supported historic 

leases or residences for park staff. With respect to land protection, the majority of respondents 

also favored preservation of open space.86 Lincoln had recently set into conservation the muster 

field where Lincoln residents had gathered before the Battle at Concord, expressing in deed 

what many respondents wanted done within the park.87

Based on these initial sessions with public officials, interested individuals, and park and 

regional staff, the GMP team adopted in June 1985 its Task Directive for completing MIMA’s 

GMP and Environmental Assessment. Team members admitted that “the park finds itself in a 

position of having done the basic work of acquiring the land and introducing visitor facilities, but 

at the same time having to reconsider some of its principal ideas that formed the basis for the 

park’s development.” Various factors influenced this stance, including the constant pressure to 

 

83 F. Douglas Adams to Nash, 14 June 1985, 2, File D18, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 84 John Eddison and John McLaughlin, 13 June 1985, 2, File D18 1985, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 85 Summary of Public Response, 1985, 2-3. 

86 Ibid., 3. 

87 Adams to Nash, 14 June 1985, 2. 
Management Planning 

 239 

widen Route 2A through the park and the transformation of open land into office and residential 

developments. Plus, the park slowed its own development possibilities with the granting of term 

reservations or life estates, allowing park residents to stay in their homes and keeping the park 

from removing modern houses or restoring some of the historic ones. The 1966 Master Plan idea 

of restoring the eighteenth-century landscape seemed far-off and naïve when considering the 

situation facing MIMA 20 years later.88

The task directive went straight to MIMA’s issues and bypassed any discussion of what 

might be the park’s revised goals and objectives or, even more importantly, how the GMP team 

expected to delineate them. The list of issues and accompanying discussion make clear that 

GMP planners accepted the goals of the 1966 Master Plan and sought ways to address them with 

the changed environment. The task directive named traffic as the number one issue for the team 

to consider. Historic homes and sites within the park suffered from isolation as traffic rushed 

past, visitors experienced hazardous situations as they tried to stop and go through the park, and 

interpreters fought for visitors to hear them as traffic noise often drowned out their voices. The 

Battle Road, a primary focus of the park, sat “submerged in a sea of traffic and cannot be used for 

park purposes.” Traffic patterns also left visitors unsure of where the park’s boundaries started 

and ended, contributing to concerns over park identity. Land protection was another issue. 

Commuter traffic and the rise of modern office developments visibly encroached on any 

attempts to restore eighteenth-century pastures.89 Other issues listed in the task directive related 

to interpretive focus, treatment strategy for structures, and treatment strategy for landscape. 

Landscape architect Deirdre Gibson argued strenuously about the need to establish goals 

for the MIMA GMP in a revealing memorandum to Associate Regional Director for Planning 

and Resource Preservation Charles Clapper. Gibson pointed out that this tiny park was “beset 

by disproportionately complicated circumstances—tricky environmental conditions, legal and 

jurisdictional crossties, and encroachment by 200 years of use and development.” Despite these 

disadvantages, she recognized its potential as a commemorative, educational, and recreational 

resource. To extract these resources, though, Gibson argued that the NPS had to approach the 

plan with an open mind and a “willingness to use innovative methods to protect and interpret.” 

She did not want the NPS to revert to its Mission 66-style, “that the NPS can exercise so much 

control and spend so much money that we can create an insular little world on this narrow strip 

of suburbia.” She asked, “is total control and restoration necessary or even desirable?”90

To answer this question, Gibson believed that the GMP team had to establish the goals 

for the park. Yet, she found active rejection91 of any attempts to do just that during a set of 

weeklong meetings following release of the task directive. “Goals for the park were not 

considered or discussed, and so there was no baseline against which proposals could be 

 

88 NPS, Task Directive for MIMA, 24 June 1985, 3, File D18 1985, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 89 Ibid., 4-5. Quote on p. 4. 

90 Memorandum, Deirdre Gibson to Charles Clapper, 30 July 1985, 1, File D18 1985, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

91 Gibson uses the term “actively rejected,” underlining hers, on p. 2 of her memorandum. 
Management Planning 

 240 

measured.”92 Instead, relocation of Route 2A became the single master plan component. GMP 

team leader Dan Huff indicated in his report of these meetings this same embracement of the 

relocation idea. The Denver Service Center (DSC) team had decided in July that “all Battle Road 

redevelopment options (except the “No Action” of status quo) must include removal of all nonpark traffic from the historic road alignment.” DSC members dissented when Clapper 

recommended that the team also pursue a fall-back alternative not requiring full relocation of 

traffic. Huff and others believed that the Battle Road itself was the “most significant cultural 

resource in the unit and that any development option that leaves commuter traffic on the historic 

trace would not meet the intent of the park’s enabling legislation.”93 Clapper, agreeing with 

Gibson, later required that the DSC team include a partial relocation alternative, saying in a 

memo that “we are putting all our eggs in one basket” by only recommending complete removal 

of Route 2A from the Battle Road unit and that the NPS “should explore all reasonable 

alternatives.”94

Gibson agreed that such relocation and restoration of the landscape may end up part of a 

preferred alternative, “but without goals and objectives, there is no way to support such a 

conclusion, and it will be indefensible when it comes time to seek public approval and 

funding.”95 At the same time, Gibson worried that the GMP team seemed to have stepped away 

from all of the research and analysis done by the Harvard study group. If the NPS did not plan to 

use the Harvard work, then Gibson wanted NPS to start over and establish its own method and 

approach for a new pre-planning study, adding to the schedule and timelines for the GMP.96

Gibson offered some tantalizing possibilities that planners might consider once they had 

clear goals for the park. Instead of treating the post-1775 resources and recreational 

opportunities as “skeletons in the closet,” she suggested consideration of a continuum approach. 

“Just as there were good reasons why the rebellion began in Concord, the fact of that rebellion 

colored much of what happened in the region in the next centuries. An understanding and 

presentation of this continuum can do a great deal to illuminate that one day.” Put bluntly, 

Gibson wrote that “people live in the present—they want to know how we got from then to 

now.” With such an approach, The Wayside would not be treated as “the anomaly that some 

would claim. It is currently treated as an orphan, but the opportunity exists to skillfully weave it 

and other local resources into a time line that starts long before the Revolution and extends to 

today.” Building cooperative relationships with local and regional organizations, as originally 

envisioned in the park’s 1959 legislation, could result in smoother visitor experiences than 

presently encountered and provide for unequaled benefits, such as connecting to the proposed 

Bay Circuit Greenbelt.97

 

92 Ibid. 

93 Memorandum, Dan Huff to Assistant Manager, Northeast Team, DSC, 23 August 1985, 2, File D18 1985, 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

94 Memorandum, Charles Clapper to Team Manager, Northeast Team, DSC, 14 August 1985, File D18 

MIMA 1984, Box 4, Acc. 79-93-0003, Waltham FRC. 95 Memorandum, Gibson to Clapper, 30 July 1985, 2. 96 Ibid. 

97 Ibid., 3. 
Management Planning 

 241 

Gibson closed with a warning. In her opinion, the NPS needed to use a “sincere 

cooperative spirit” in working with Massport and state transportation authorities. “The 

standard confrontational approach makes us losers.” Through skillful negotiation and 

accommodation, the NPS could demonstrate its integrity and commitment to achieving mutual 

aims. “Anyone who doesn’t believe that the park is not and does not have to be interconnected 

with its surroundings does not have a realistic grasp on politics and contemporary park 

administration.” Having clear goals and an innovative, flexible approach would take the 

planning team far in pulling the “park out of mediocrity and into excellence.”98

Another red flag in this initial effort by the GMP team involved expectations for public 

involvement. The GMP team did not anticipate any further formal meetings until after it had 

presented its concepts to the regional director and had compiled a draft GMP. Only after the 

draft GMP appeared would the NPS solicit responses from the communities. The GMP team 

expected to develop its plan with park and regional input, using the initial sets of public 

responses, but there would not be any further formal invitations to the towns.99 Daniel Dattilio, 

who first came to MIMA in 1986 as park supervisory ranger, immersed himself in the GMP 

process and stayed through its eventual passage and implementation. He saw the NPS work out 

its own ideas for confronting the issues without bringing in the public. Some of these ideas 

involved additional land takings, and as Dattilio later stated, there isn’t anything “people will rise 

up and object more against than plans that could impact their land, especially when they’re not 

notified about it.” In his estimation, there was not “enough pre-planning with community folks, 

or neighbors, or inholders to make them aware of what ideas were being considered, and to give 

them an idea of what different options were available to them.”100

This initial effort, and the concerns it raised, passed without further substantive action. 

Due to a reorganization of the DSC, several GMP team members, including the captain, received 

new assignments. Following a several-month delay, a newly constituted team in early 1986 began 

reviewing the work of their predecessors. Part of this re-evaluation involved amending the task 

directive. In its new guise, the directive again focused on issues, but it named visitor use and 

interpretation first. Traffic fell to number three in the list, but realignment remained a significant 

consideration.101 Nash expressed his concern with this rearrangement of the task directives, 

arguing that “we cannot agree to its being relegated to a sometime problem. Because of the 

central nature of the road to the Park, because of the Park Service’s inability to formulate a 

position with regard to the road and because of the sensitive political and public opinion issues 

involved, we continue to maintain that the traffic and road issues must be given complete 

analysis.”102 However, the regional office voiced caution over any proposals involving major 

 

98 Ibid. 

99 NPS, Task Directive, 1985, 7-8. 

100 Dan Dattilio, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 23 November 2005, 15, MIMA 

Archives. 

101 Memorandum, Kenneth Raithel to Regional Director, NARO, 7 February 1986, 1-2, File D18 1986, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. 

102 Memorandum, Nash to Regional Director, NARO, 19 February 1986, 2, File D18 MIMA 1984, Box 4, 

Acc. 79-93-0003, Waltham FRC. 
Management Planning 

 242 

road relocations. The Boston metropolitan area experienced in 1985 the fastest appreciating real 

estate market in the country, giving pause to any notion involving significant land acquisition. In 

addition, the new federal Gramm-Rudman Law to rein in spending put a damper on any 

thoughts that the federal government would fund such a proposed project. As a result, regional 

planning and design chief Terry Savage urged that “innovative approaches to solving the 

problems at Minute Man must be found.”103

Despite this call for moderation and innovation, GMP planners continued to focus on 

complete relocation of Route 2A. Team members did introduce a limited amount of public 

participation in its work, presenting three conceptual alternatives to unidentified “selected 

publics” in May 1986. A year later, after distributing another edition of “The Correspondent” 

newsletter, the NPS hosted more public meetings and collected written responses about its 

proposed alternative plans for the park. The NPS identified its favored alternative, 

Reconstructed Road, which involved restoration of the Battle Road to its approximate historic 

character, including removal of pavement, and the total relocation of traffic. A secondalternative, called the Tour Route, included relocation of Route 2A but kept the Battle Road as a 

modern touring road capable of handling visitors in their cars. The third alternative, String of 

Pearls, would not require relocation of traffic from the park and would instead establish selected 

areas for interpretation and development for visitor use. The NPS named the Reconstructed 

Road its preferred alternative. Most of the newsletter described how the agency expected to 

implement this preferred alternative in three phases, leaving little detail about the other two 

possibilities.104 The agency presented three possible alternatives for the North Bridge Unit and 

asked for feedback before choosing a preferred one. Alternative A would increase signage and 

enlarge the parking lot at the Stedman Buttrick House. Alternative B would relocate Liberty 

Street to accommodate visitor access to a new parking area. Alternative C would explore the 

possibility of closing Monument Street on either side of Flint Bridge. Local traffic in and out of 

Concord Center would travel via Liberty Street and Lowell Road.105

Many different groups provided written responses to the draft management alternatives 

as outlined in The Correspondent newsletter. Concordians favored little to no change of 

parking and traffic circulation conditions at the North Bridge Unit. The town’s Long Range 

Planning Committee, which favored Alternative A, wrote that it “does not view the circulation 

and parking problems to be severe enough to warrant the extensive disruption” of either the B or 

C Alternatives.106 The Concord Board of Selectmen echoed this response, saying that it did not 

believe that the parking and pedestrian problems were severe enough to warrant the disruption 

from relocating Liberty or Monument Streets.107 A large group of Concord residents living near 

the North Bridge indicated its unwillingness to support any of the proposed alternatives for that 

 

103 Memorandum, Terry Savage to Chief, Office of Park Planning, WASO, 24 February 1986, 2, File Minute 

Man, Mass., Planning Office Files, NPS Washington. 

104 NPS, The Correspondent, April 1987, Front Page and Section on North Bridge Unit, File Minute Man, 

Mass., Planning Office Files, NPS Washington. Quote on p. 2. 

105 Ibid., Section on North Bridge Unit. 106 Carol Dwyer to Nash, 7 May 1987, 2, File D18 1987, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 107 Richard Loughlin to Nash, 27 July 1987, 1, File D18 1987, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Management Planning 

 243 

unit. Instead of enlarging the parking lot under Alternative A, this group wanted the NPS to 

institute shuttle buses. These nearby residents also argued that Liberty Street had historic 

importance dating from 1793, and that the new proposed route would cross part of the historic 

muster field, potentially disrupting this site. In response to the idea of closing of Monument 

Street, the group pointed out that Lowell Road already supported heavy traffic and that some 

intersections offered serious problems without carrying more traffic.108 

For the Battle Road Unit, Nash wrote in a memorandum to the North Atlantic Regional 

Director about the “almost universal support we received for the idea of closing the road.”109 

However, written responses indicate a range of opinions. The Concord Long Range Planning 

Committee expressed unabashed support, stating it “applauds the National Park Service for 

adopting as its preferred alternative the restoration of the Battle Road” and relocating Route 

2A.110 The Lincoln Board of Selectmen, however, cautioned that its support for the 

Reconstructed Road alternative for the Battle Road required careful accommodation of access 

issues for residents, emergency vehicles, and users of its waste transfer site, located just outside 

park boundaries.111 The Concord Board of Selectmen admitted no consensus but stated the 

majority of board members did “not believe it is realistic with today’s traffic problems around 

Concord Center” to return the Battle Road to its historic unpaved surface. “The relocation of 

Route 2A,” the board chair wrote, “in the Town of Concord does not make good planning sense 

to this Board at this time.” Instead, the Concord selectmen considered the String of Pearls 

alternative as a viable option and encouraged the NPS to consider it in its future discussions.112

The NPS defined its position both with regard to its GMP recommendations and its 

approach toward the idea of a continuum in history in its notable exchange with the state’s 

history community. SHPO and Executive Director of the Massachusetts Historical Commission 

Valerie Talmage wrote to the regional office expressing disappointment that the “GMP is 

unfortunately sterile as it attempts to isolate the Park from its community context.”113 Talmage 

pointed out that the State of Massachusetts followed a continuum approach to history, 

emphasizing a “recognition and understanding of the dynamically changing aspects of history 

and prehistory in the cities, towns and regions.” The GMP, in Talmage’s opinion, did not 

address sufficiently the archeological record of several thousand years of human occupation 

before the Revolutionary War, nor the historical or architectural developments in the post-1775 

period. In addition, Talmage believed that the 1987 GMP alternatives failed to take into context 

 

108 Concord residents [petition] to NPS, 3 May 1987, File Minute Man, Mass., Planning Office Files, NPS 

Washington. See also Draft GMP, 1988, 155-57. 

109 Memorandum, Nash to Regional Director NARO, 10 September 1987, 1, File MIMA Draft GMP June 

1987, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

110 Dwyer to Nash, 7 May 1987, 1. 111 Susan Fargo to Nash, 2 July 1987, File D18 1987, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 112 Loughlin to Nash, 27 July 1987, 2. 113 Valerie Talmage to Herbert Cables, 10 October 1987, 2, File MIMA Correspondence 1986-, History 

Collection, NRHE Files. 
Management Planning 

 244 

the experiences of and contributions of residents in Concord and Lexington over the stretch of 

time.114

NPS representatives, recognizing the importance of the SHPO response, made contact to 

try to clarify positions and possibly negotiate some compromises. Regional Historian Dwight 

Pitcaithley called the Massachusetts Historical Commission and talked to commission member 

Brona Simon. Pitcaithley questioned Simon on the commission’s steadfastness in wanting 

interpretation and development of historic sites to witness the full stretch of time. Pitcaithley 

noted that such an approach would effectively subvert the importance of the American 

Revolutionary period in comparison to the long history of the towns. Simon made clear that she 

“disagree[d] with the idea that Congress sets aside areas (national historic sites, national 

historical parks, and the like) because one event in the past overshadows all others in that 

particular locale.” She believed that the “Service is following an antiquated preservation 

philosophy,” one that in the case of MIMA “is exceedingly narrow and only involves 1% of the 

archeological, architectural, and historical resource base which is incredibly rich.” Pitcaithley 

tried unsuccessfully to “convince her that different planning approaches might, and do, exist for 

cities and states and for specific historic sites.”115 

In response to this call, the regional director asked for clarification from the Washington 

Office regarding what had clearly become the NPS’s dual set of responsibilities for historic 

preservation. Those guidelines codified in the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines

prescribed a process for preserving the diverse cultural resources of an individual state, as 

expressed by the Massachusetts Historical Commission members. On the other hand, the NPS 

had its own Management Policies that directed development and administration of NPSmanaged historic parks and sites, placing emphasis upon identified time periods, events, and 

individuals. What approach should the NPS take and how could it resolve the issue at MIMA?116 

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation offered its own answer, advocating for a 

balanced approach. The council wrote that the 1987 draft GMP recognized the literary theme of 

the nineteenth-century authors, but it did “not dispel an impression of isolation of this and all 

other secondary themes from the central theme and goal” of the park.117 In addition, the council 

urged reconsideration of the “potential irreversible loss of post-1775 fabric” during proposed 

development of the Battle Road Unit, especially if the park implemented extensive landscape 

restoration before having definite approval and funding of the Route 2A relocation. The council 

suggested a “more comprehensive and flexible approach” than identified in the draft plan.118 

Nash, not mincing words, expressed his own opinion of the state’s and council’s approach 

toward a continuum of history. He wrote to the regional director that “To grant the daily 

 

114 Ibid., 1-2. 115 Memorandum, Dwight Pitcaithley to Files, 28 October 1987, 1, File MIMA Correspondence 1986-, 

History Collection, NRHE Files. 

116 Herbert Cables to Associate Regional Director, Cultural Resources, 29 October 1987, 1, File D18 1987, 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

117 Don Klima to Herbert Cables, 10 November 1987, 1, File MIMA Correspondence 1986-, History 

Collection, NRHE Files. 

118 Ibid., 2. 
Management Planning 

 245 

activities of aboriginal fishermen and suburban joggers the same significance as those of the 

embattled farmers on that glorious morning is to degenerate the acts of the latter and to trivialize 

our cultural heritage.” He went on to argue that “it is this kind of misguided egalitarianism that 

produces cultural illiterates who do not know their own history and for whom Revere means 

little more than a kind of cookware.”119

1988 DRAFT GMP 

In May 1988 the NPS released its Draft GMP, also containing an Environmental 

Assessment and Land Protection Plan, for MIMA and initiated a five-month period for giving 

presentations, hosting public meetings, and gathering comments.120 The draft Management Plan

embraced as its central proposal the Reconstructed Road alternative as presented the year prior 

in “The Correspondent.” Alternatives included minimal action, the Tour Road approach, and 

the String of Pearls concept. Citing “overwhelming support” from the public, the agency made 

clear its intentions in the draft plan to have a park that emphasized the area’s 1775 character.121 

Visitors would have the opportunity to step away from modern developments and enjoy the 

park’s historic resources. MIMA would offer the public a “holistic image” of a nationally 

significant resource with all motorized traffic taken off the Battle Road and its historic alignment 

restored to a dirt surface.122 The NPS clearly took into account the town's previous concerns 

about the North Bridge Unit and proposed instituting minimal changes, such as slightly 

extending the existing parking lot where the restrooms had once stood, while maintaining the 

site's commemorative character. Continued efforts would try to reduce the length of stay of 

visitors at the North Bridge and direct them to other park areas where parking and space could 

accommodate them. However, if traffic and visitor safety concerns required changes, the agency 

did recommend rerouting Monument Street and possibly Liberty Street.123 The NPS offered a 

limited action plan for The Wayside, meant to address some structural deterioration and to 

conduct substantial rehabilitation to preserve the historic fabric and ensure environmentally safe 

conditions.124 The draft management plan incorporated environmental assessments of its 

proposed actions. The Land Protection Plan (LPP) argued that the NPS should acquire through 

fee, donation, and transfer some land outside the park's existing boundaries in order to ensure 

protection of historic resources and view-sheds. The LPP also suggested that about 44 acres of 

excess land currently within the park be deleted. MIMA had about 749 acres currently under its 

 

119 Memorandum, Nash to Regional Director, NARO, 20 November 1987, 1-2, File D18 SHPO, Council 

Comments, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

120 The Park Service first recommended a three-month review period, but extended it to November 1988 in 

response to concerns raised by the towns. See Herbert Cables to Fan Cabot, 22 July 1988, 1, File Minute 

Man, Mass., Planning Office Files, NPS Washington. 

121 Draft GMP, 1988, iii. 122 Ibid., 31. 123 Ibid., 98-99. 124 Ibid., 118. 
Management Planning 

 246 

control, and the changes offered in the draft plan would necessitate congressional action to raise 

the 750-acre ceiling to about 960 acres.125

The draft management plan outlined a three-phase process for achieving its goal of 

restoring the 1775 environment within the Battle Road unit.126 In the first phase, the NPS would 

begin the process of “replicating the historical balance of open fields, orchards, and natural 

woodlands” by developing a landscape restoration plan.127 Ongoing archeological and 

documentary research would support eventual restoration work. The NPS also proposed to 

retain all pre-1920 structures, moving up the 1830 date that the 1966 Master Plan had originally 

set. Justifying this shift, the draft plan argued that because a number of eighteenth-century 

structures had been lost, the nineteenth-century buildings would “help restore a sense of balance 

between structures and open fields that was present at the time of the battle.”128 The park would 

also improve directional signing and implement a Wayside exhibit plan. The NPS in phase two 

would begin initiating its landscape replication plan in three areas, Fiske Hill/Nelson Road, 

Virginia Road, and Meriam’s Corner. The park would use vegetative cover to screen modern 

intrusions. The park would remove all traffic from those places where the historic Battle Road 

diverged from Route 2A and Lexington Road and restore the road to its 1775 appearance. The 

replicated road surface would overlie the original, protecting it. Where appropriate, the NPS 

would also establish hiking and biking trails parallel to the Battle Road and, as possible, feed 

them into regional trails.129 A notable aspect of this phase would involve establishment of a 

visitor contact station at the historic John Nelson House and Barn and removal of the Battle 

Road Visitor Center, its modern design seen as “inconsistent with the long-range goal of 

restoring the historic scene to the maximum extent feasible.”130 

Phase three for the Battle Road unit would involve full relocation of Route 2A, with this 

new road providing visitor access to key park sites. Unlike earlier proposals from the state 

highway department which would have upgraded the relocated Route 2A, the NPS suggested a 

“heritage highway” concept for this new road, keeping it as a two-lane limited access 

thoroughfare with “moderate” speeds while providing visitor access to various park sites. 

Another narrow, curvilinear park connector road, not meant for commuters, would travel north 

of Meriam's Corner as a link between Old Bedford Road and the relocated Route 2A. The draft 

plan offered several possible routes for the proposed heritage highway, with its favored 

alignment leading at the east end of the park from the intersection at New Massachusetts Avenue 

and Route 2A south around Folly Pond to an underpass at the historic Battle Road at Hanscom 

Drive. Joining Hanscom Drive, the new Route 2A would then cross Virginia Road via the new 

North Lincoln development road and cross part of the Bedford Levels. The new Route 2A 

would then underpass the Battle Road a second time at Hardy's Hill and join with Bypass Road 

 

125 Ibid., 127-29. 126 Ibid., iii. 127 Ibid., 34. 128 Ibid., 34, 37. 129 Ibid., 34, 37, 39, 42, 47. 130 Ibid., 47. 
Management Planning 

 247 

to head towards Route 2. The draft plan recommended redesigning Hanscom Drive to reduce its 

existing scale and maintain a uniform appearance with the relocated Route 2A.131

Some fine points of the draft GMP indicate the NPS's overall vision for MIMA. The 

draft GMP provides for the establishment of walking and bicycling trails, especially in the Battle 

Road Unit. Unlike the Harvard researchers in their Alternative Futures report, however, the NPS 

did not embrace any active recreational sports, such as cross country skiing, nor did it make 

accommodations for providing bike rentals or spaces for overnight camping or a hostel. Clearly, 

the restored 1775 environment took precedence with the planners for the Battle Road Unit. 

However, the draft GMP does attempt to consider the concerns raised by the SHPO and the 

Advisory Board for Historic Preservation. The NPS did incorporate some changes to address 

their desire for a continuum approach. The major change involved saving all pre-1920 

structures. In addition, interpretive efforts would include examining the nineteenth-century 

literary phenomenon in Concord. Yet, no one could look at this draft plan and miss the 

importance given to re-creating aspects of Revolutionary War Massachusetts.132

The public and their local officials reacted quickly and furiously to the proposals in this 

draft GMP, catching the NPS off guard. Nash remembered later that, in his mind, the draft GMP 

represented nothing new in the NPS’s thinking about MIMA. “We had a plan,” Nash stated, “the 

plan was well known, the park was founded on it, and it was just simply a matter of restating it, it 

was not a matter of developing a plan from the ground.” That original plan, as Nash emphasized, 

involved relocating Route 2A so that visitors could go from Meriam’s Corner to Fiske Hill 

without encountering non-park traffic.133 Yet, the draft GMP stepped away from earlier 

planning ideas, especially in its commitment to restore the 1775 landscape along the entire 

stretch of the Battle Road. Small and the Boston Historic Sites Commission had called for the 

relocation of Route 2A, joining it with Route 2, but the Commission did not offer any further 

details about park development, leaving that task to the NPS.134 The enabling legislation for 

MIMA, another source of planning information, orders that the federal government preserve 

“certain historic structures and properties of outstanding national significance associated with 

the opening of the War of the American Revolution.”135 This legislation did not delineate how 

the NPS should accomplish this charge. Thus, the 1966 Master Plan serves as the first formal 

explication of how the NPS wanted to develop MIMA. In this plan, developed without public 

input, the agency recommended relocating Route 2A to the park’s southern border, as might 

have happened with the Route 2 northern alignment, and maintaining the roadway through the 

park as a tour road. The park would restore selected areas of the Battle Road to its historical 

appearance, but the 1966 Master Plan had not anticipated removing all vehicle traffic from the 

Battle Road unit as proposed in the 1988 draft GMP. In addition, the extensive landscape 

 

131 Ibid., 48, 51. 132 Ibid., 165-66. See also Dwight Pitcaithley to Martha Catlin, 31 May 1988, 1, File MIMA Correspondence 

1986-, History Collection, NRHE Files. 133 Nash, transcript of interview, 14. 134 Interim Report, 20-21. 135 1959 legislation. 
Management Planning 

 248 

restoration outlined in the 1988 draft does not appear in the 1966 plan. Neither does the 

proposed increase to the land acquisition limit. To planners in the 1960s MIMA would have 

discrete areas where visitors could immerse themselves in the Revolutionary War landscape.136 

In these ways, the draft GMP set itself apart and surprised many local residents. 

Opposition to the draft GMP focused on two major areas of concern, road relocations in 

both the Battle Road and North Bridge Units and taking additional land without guaranteeing 

owner consent. As evidenced in meetings and public hearings, people living in Concord felt that 

the NPS presented “radical proposals” by recommending elimination of Route 2A without 

necessarily providing an equal substitute highway. Would the displaced traffic use Concord’s 

roads and side streets and leave the town with new traffic headaches? People living near the 

North Bridge continued to express opposition to any suggestion of relocating Monument or 

Liberty Streets, with one resident calling the notion “absurd” for it would destroy the “nice quiet 

country lane” atmosphere while not solving the larger problem of handling visitor traffic.137 

The Town of Concord also worried about the proposed land takings, saying that “no one 

is certain as to which properties will be taken, and how and when they might be taken.”138 Erich 

Veyhl, a Concord resident and member of the National Inholders Association, fed this 

uncertainty. Veyhl shared how people in other parts of the country had fared when the Park 

Service wanted their homes through editorials for the local paper, appearing at meetings, and 

talking to residents. Veyhl referred to actions that “literally wip[ed] out rural communities” in 

such areas as Cuyahoga Valley in Ohio and Buffalo River in Arkansas. He also pointed at the 

experience of Angelo Inferrera in Concord who suffered through a 10-year condemnation suit 

by the federal government, eventually seeing his siblings agree to sell the family farm.139 Veyhl 

promoted the actions of the Inholders Association, which sought to defend the civil rights of 

people threatened or abused by the NPS. He invited its national president, Charles Cushman, to 

Concord. Cushman raised the fear level by suggesting that “the Park Service is interested in 

gradual, constant expansion. Within 20 years,” Cushman predicted, “the Park Service would 

want to put a significant portion of Concord under its control.”140 Such a warning only added to 

the sense of foreboding and confusion residents felt. 

More people expressed further resistance to land acquisition plans. Residents of 

Hayward Pond Neighborhood Association, a reasonably priced housing area in Lexington, 

strongly opposed the draft plan’s intention of acquiring their homes. The NPS wanted to reduce 

the visible presence of modern intrusions in this location, plus the agency wanted to close off Old 

Massachusetts Avenue, a primary access road for the neighborhood, and restore it to its historic 

 

136 1966 Master Plan, 6, 10, 14. 137 Sally Seaver to Nash, 26 October 1988, 1, File D18, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 138 Fan Cabot to Herbert Cables, 27 June 1988, 1, File D18, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 139 Letter to the Editor, Erich Vehyl, Concord Journal, 19 May 1988. Angelo Inferrera refused to 

acknowledge the settlement by accepting his share of the payment or leaving the house. He has remained 

living at the house as a squatter. The United States Attorney’s Office refused to support his removal 

because of his advanced age. 

140 Katherine Croteau, “Political Action Is best Bet for Park Plan Opponents,” Concord Journal, 14 July 

1988. 
Management Planning 

 249 

appearance as part of the Battle Road. Yet, people in this affordable housing area knew they 

would not find similar alternative housing, and one person asked “Is this a policy to take from 

the small vulnerable people while not daring to touch bigger money and political locations,” such 

as the nearby Sheraton Hotel?141 Land acquisition also brought forth memories of the past, as 

people started recalling stories about neighbors being pressured to sell to the federal 

government. One letter of opposition noted that “the threat of Condemnation and the Use of 

Eminent Domain can pressure a resident to make a deal with the park and then be termed a 

‘willing seller.’” It went on to ask, “Is this another variation of the Spanish Inquisition, or the 

Salem Witch trials?”142 These declarations took a shrill note, but the underlying fact remained 

that people opposed the draft management plan. As Fan Cabot, Chairwoman of the Concord 

Board of Selectmen, said at one public meeting, “we don’t want to be swallowed up, but that is 

the feeling that we are getting – that we are being closed in and there is nothing we can do.”143

Town officials in Lincoln expressed guarded support for the draft GMP and, although 

linked to many conditions, for the NPS’s preferred alternative. They agreed with the idea of 

relocating Route 2A, but the park would have to address several access points first. For example, 

the town’s permanent waste transfer station needed a new service road, and the new Battle Road 

Farm Housing development, a mixed-income area off Route 2A, also required sufficient access 

along Bedford Road. The town wished that the NPS would carefully analyze options for the 

actual Route 2A corridor, and officials made specific suggestions on where the route might 

traverse and how it might connect with existing roads. In terms of land acquisitions, the town 

echoed Concord’s call for only willing sellers. Its letter to the NPS discussed each possible 

property for acquisition, listing the owners and indicating how these people viewed the proposal. 

If they did not want to sell to the park, the town asked for consideration of these wishes and no 

pressure to change their minds. The town continued to call for open communication with the 

NPS for the successful resolution of these issues.144

Other towns and organizations had mixed responses to the draft GMP. The Town of 

Lexington opposed any extension into the Hayward Pond neighborhood, but officials generally 

supported the plan’s concepts. Hanscom Air Force Base opposed any closing of Airport Road, 

but the base commander expressed support for occasional closures during peak park times that 

did not conflict with commutes to and from the base. Both the state’s Executive Office and 

Transportation and Construction and the Lexington Conservation Commission expressed 

worries about the possible environmental consequences, especially to wetlands, of the draft plan. 

The EOTC requested completion of a full Environmental Impact Statement. The regional 

vocational technical school opposed any relocation of Route 2A due to stacking of buses and cars 

 

141 Lalla Shaffer to Herbert Cables, 20 June 1988, File D18, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 142 Marjorie and Robert Bergwall to Nash, 26 September 1988, File D18, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 143 Fan Cabot, as quoted by David Saltonstall, “Concord Plan Draws Protest,” Middlesex News, 21 June 

1988. 

144 Susan Fargo to Nash, 9 November 1988, File D18 Lincoln, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Management Planning 

 250 

on site and environmental and safety issues for its students. All elected officials from the region 

expressed opposition to any unfriendly land takings.145

In terms of the overall goal to restore the 1775 landscape, the NPS received many 

fervently supportive and avidly opposed responses. A landscape architect called the plan “both 

realistic and visionary,” and urged the retention of hedgerows, fencerows, and stone walls to give 

a strong adherence to the eighteenth-century landscape.146 One Lincoln resident wrote that “the 

only scrap of land left in the whole United States where it is possible to preserve at least the 

setting of rural colonial New England is the land your Plan seeks for the Minuteman Park.” He 

went on to say that “the nation should not diminish this whole array of memorials [such as 

Yorktown and Saratoga] because it may require some small political courage to assure its proper 

foundation.”147 However, a Concordian wrote that “past and present can live happily together” 

without some “vain striving for historical reconstruction that is really unattainable.” This 

resident believed that “no matter what the Park Service attempts to do, it cannot recreate the 

past, nor should it. Concord, like every other town in the country, is a product of organic 

growth.”148 Another Concord resident pointed at the Lexington Road portion of the park, 

calling the park’s aims to remove the pavement and modern intrusions to reconstruct the past as 

“incredibly destructive to one of Concord’s more beautiful and genuinely special 

neighborhoods, and displays a very distorted sense of priorities and a callous disregard for what 

is already very unique, special and irreplaceable.”149 And, wondered one other Concordian, who 

would want to walk miles and miles of a dirt road “to capture the flavor of the revolutionary 

time”? This man certainly never had any guests at his house expressing such a desire.150 One 

local paper editorialized that the entire notion of spending $45 million to restore the Battle Road 

deserved a Golden Fleece Award for its apparent wastefulness of taxpayers’ dollars. In this 

editor’s estimation, “not only does the National Park Service want to rip up the highway, it wants 

to level about 30 homes, relocate those families to parts unknown, burn vegetation, grow weirdo 

Revolutionary War turnips as well as anemic Revolutionary cows and generally smoke you and I, 

the taxpayers, in the name of historic authenticity.”151 To emphasize this point, the same paper 

had one editorial cartoon graphically making fun of the NPS’s idea for a restored Battle Road, 

depicting tourists knee-deep in mud trying to navigate by foot the peculiarities of the restored 

landscape.152

Congressman Chester Atkins, who had initially expressed support for the NPS’s ideas 

about the park, came down hard in opposition as his constituents made clear their displeasure 

 

145 MIMA, Record of Public Involvement, 1989 General Management Plan, 5-7, 9, 11. 146 Leslie Sauer to Lauren McKean, 26 September 1988, 1, 5, File GMP, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Quote 

on p. 1. 

147 Paul Marsh to Nash, 31 October 1988, 1, File D18, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 148 WH Bond to Concord Journal, 8 August 1988, File D18, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 149 Gary Griffis to Nash, 5 August 1988, 1, File D18, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 150 Robert Holcomb to Nash, 3 August 1988, 1, File D18, Park admin Files, MIMA. 151 Editorial, Tom Moroney, “Battle Road’s Trip into Time Not Worth a Dime,” Middlesex News, 4 August 

1988. 

152 County Fare by Dave Granlund, Middlesex News, [no date], File D18, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Management Planning 

 251 

with the draft plan. A Concord resident who also represented Lincoln voters, Atkins made clear 

that Congress would not provide funding for relocating Route 2A and suggested that the NPS 

focus on land acquisition of nearby undeveloped land, as opposed to areas where people had 

houses.153 Once he gained appointment to the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing 

the NPS in early 1989, he also had the weight of this position to declare the draft GMP “is a 

ridiculous proposal which will never be funded.”154 Atkins would ultimately prove a key player 

in working towards concessions and ultimate success for MIMA’s management plan. 

During the five-month public response period, the NPS worked hard trying to hold 

meetings, gather responses, and address concerns raised by the draft GMP plan. It held open 

houses within the park that attended by more than 300 persons. Park officials also met on three 

separate occasions with Hayward Pond representatives and another three times with the 

Hanscom Area Traffic Study group. NPS personnel participated in a bus tour arranged by the 

Lincoln selectmen, met with congressional elected officials on two occasions, and also met with 

the state transportation office. Multiple meetings went on with various town officials, ranging 

from selectmen to planning board members. Sometimes, as with Lincoln, these communications 

proved successful and appreciated. Correspondence from Lincoln officials always reiterated the 

good communication pathways between the town and park.155 Thomas Boylston Adams helped 

foster more local support with the formal establishment of the Friends of the Battle Road 

group.156 But, many park meetings had outcries that outsiders had tried to decide the future of 

the park and the local communities. As Supervisory Park Ranger Dattilio remembered at several 

GMP meetings, “people would come out and be resentful and would say, ‘You’re from Denver, 

and you’re telling us how to run our community.’”157 With Concord, the NPS had a difficult 

time. Misunderstandings seemed to plague this relationship, with Concordians expecting 

invitations from the NPS to attend certain meetings and the NPS waiting for Concordians to 

invite the agency to committee meetings held by the town. In the end, Concord selectmen and 

their appointees for the National Park Committee viewed the park with some “hostility” and 

wariness.158

 

153 Jon Towne, “Atkins Blasts Battle Road Expansion Plan,” Accent, 15 September 1988. For information on 

Atkins’s initial views of the draft GMP, see Mark Conti, “Atkins Calls for Preservation Planning,” Concord 

Journal, 2 April 1987. See also Douglas Sabin, MIMA Administrative History for Calendar Year 1990, 2, No 

File Name, MIMA Library. 

154 Chester Atkins, as quoted by Mark Sullivan, “Atkins Reiterates Opposition To Park Expansion Plans,” 

Concord Journal, 2 March 1989. 155 MIMA, Record of Public Involvement, 1989 GMP, 1-3; Fargo to Nash, 9 November 1988, 2. 156 Letter to the Editor, Ted Kochanski, “Committee Assembled to Preserve Historic Park,” Lincoln Journal, 

8 December 1988. 

157 Dattilio, transcript of interview, 16. See also Katherine Croteau, “Park Service Expansion Includes Nine 

More Houses,” Concord Journal, 23 June 1988. 158 Fan Cabot to Herbert Cables, 21 February 1989, 1, No File Name, Park Admin Files, MIMA; Herbert 

Cables to Fan Cabot, 1 March 1989, File D18 Town of Concord, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Management Planning 

 252 

1989 GENERAL MANAGEMENT PLAN

Changes came as the NPS developed its response to this public review of the draft GMP. 

Most significantly for the park, Nash accepted a budget position in the North Atlantic Regional 

Office, leaving the park by February 1989.159 Fred Szarka, chief of interpretation at MIMA, 

stepped in as acting superintendent until late 1989 when the regional office appointed Lawrence 

Gall as the park’s new superintendent. Szarka had contributed to the GMP development and 

thus could address the situation with Nash’s departure. Nash left with a mixed record of 

success. He never had the opportunity to implement any big changes at the park due to the 

delays in developing the GMP. He did make positive contributions toward historic restorations, 

overseeing the work on Hartwell Tavern and Captain William Smith House. He also instituted 

important changes for safeguarding the park’s artifact and archeological collections with the 

design of storage areas and hiring of a curator. During his administration, park staff also restored 

a small section of Nelson Road to its historic appearance as part of the Battle Road. With respect 

to the larger Route 2A issue, Nash proved resilient in resisting nearly any attempt to upgrade or 

expand the road. This resistance to intrusions served the park well in maintaining its historic 

qualities. However, Nash’s approach failed to win overwhelming public support, which might 

have helped the park overall. Nor did his approach allow for deliberate and open discussions 

about a range of possible approaches to addressing Route 2A within the park. The Harvard 

alternative futures study offered one set of possibilities, but these never gained more than a 

passing glance. 

The way Nash handled his staff suggested some gaps. Dattilio noted that Nash 

supported the “old school” ways of his Chief of Maintenance, Maurice (Mo) Kowal. According 

to Dattilio, Kowal gave assignments each day to his staff, of which only a couple wore the NPS 

uniform. No one had advance notice of the work, and Kowal kept close control of his 

employees, leading to some tension. Nash considered Kowal one of his best staff members, 

dedicated to the park and getting things done, even though they weren’t always by the book. He 

retired before Gall became superintendent. Other hints about staff relations under Nash come 

from Gall. Gall remembered having to convince his staff to take a stake in the management of the 

park. Nash had held the park’s budget close, Gall had found, and often moved money among 

departments without prior notice, leaving his division heads without control. Gall took a 

different stance, encouraging his staff to work together on overall goals and for division chiefs to 

manage their own budgets.160

Before Gall’s assignment to MIMA but after Nash had left, the NPS released its Record of 

Decision (ROD) and, following a short public comment period, the final GMP. The ROD 

essentially scrapped the most controversial aspects of the draft GMP plan. While having Route 

2A relocated from the park would remain a long-range goal for the park, the ROD took out any 

 

159 Nash initially left on a temporary detail but never returned to Minute Man. See “Park Superintendent 

on Special Assignment,” Lexington Minute-Man, 9 February 1989. Sabin, 1990 MIMA Admin History, 3. 160 Nash, transcript of interview, 25; Dattilio, transcript of interview, 11; Lawrence Gall, transcription of 

oral history interview with the author, 21 January 2005, 8-9, MIMA Archives. 
Management Planning 

 253 

specific proposals for its removal. Instead, the park would restore those discrete sections of the 

old road as opportunities came available and focus on establishing a continuous trail system to 

link historic resources and aid interpretive efforts. The NPS decided against pursuing the Route 

2A relocation because this goal could not be achieved within the lifetime of the GMP. However, 

the agency made clear that it would oppose any attempts to widen Route 2A or Lexington Road 

beyond their existing rights-of-way. The NPS also expressed continued support for increasing 

its land acquisition allotment by 250 acres to protect historic resources and preserve open space. 

However, the agency dropped its proposal to acquire property in the Hayward Pond 

neighborhood, seeking instead to use screening and find an alternative access route for removing 

traffic from Old Massachusetts Avenue. The NPS stated explicitly that “properties would be 

acquired at fair market value on an opportunity purchase basis from willing sellers only.” The 

ROD emphasized managing visitation at the North Bridge to reduce overcrowding through 

careful scheduling of interpretive programs and making efficient use of available parking. Trails 

would link important resources, and the park would investigate installing an informal canoe 

landing point adjacent to the bridge. The park would also implement erosion control along the 

river banks and restore vegetation. Nothing in the ROD referred to road relocations for 

Monument or Liberty Streets. The Wayside Unit received the same recommendations for action 

as the draft plan had outlined.161

In July 1989 the NPS submitted copies of the ROD to the town selectmen and interested 

landowners, asking for responses within 45 days. The Town of Concord continued to resist the 

NPS’s planning proposals. In reviewing the ROD, the town’s National Park Committee 

expressed concern over the document’s “ambiguity—the lack of specificity” on such large issues 

as acquiring another 250 acres and proposed uses of the Lexington Road area. The committee 

also worried about potential environmental impacts from the NPS’s proposals and wanted 

detailed statements.162 Essentially, Concordians felt battered and skeptical of any proposals the 

NPS might present. As the new Concord Board of Selectmen Chairman, William Sullivan, wrote 

to the Secretary of the Interior, the town’s committee had a “growing suspicion of your 

intentions that superficial information has fostered. We will not support even the most desirable 

of statements in the Record of Decision without knowing what its real ramifications are, especially 

for the long term, and to what extent it represents a real commitment by the Park Service.”163 

Sullivan characterized the entire GMP process as a “convoluted and nebulous approach” which 

went from a “detailed overkill to vague generalities” resulting in the fact that the town and park 

never achieved a satisfactory partnership.164 In a second letter to the Interior Secretary, Sullivan 

emphasized that “we are deeply disappointed and discouraged by the entire process and 

 

161 Memorandum, Fred Szarka to Regional Director, NARO, 6 July 1989, 5-9, File D18 1989, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. Quote on p. 6. 

162 David Allen to William Sullivan, 20 July 1989, File D18 MIMA Transfer 6 Years, Box 4, Acc. 79-95-0001, 

Waltham FRC. Quote on p. 1. 

163 William Sullivan to Manuel Lujan, 21 July 1989, 1-2, File D18 MIMA Transfer 6 Years, Box 4, Acc. 79-

95-0001, Waltham FRC. 

164 Ibid., 2. 
Management Planning 

 254 

approach that the National Park Service has pursued relative to substantial changes proposed in 

Concord.”165 

More attempts at communication came. In one revealing letter, Eugene Prowten, a 

longtime resident of the area who led the Colonial Life volunteers, pointed at what he thought 

were the underlying reasons for the discord between the NPS and Concord. Prowten felt that 

changes in ownership within the town had led new residents to worry more about house 

appreciation and the local schools than having pride in the historical associations of the town. 

Prowten also believed that people worried about the possible eviction of elderly residents who 

had accepted from the NPS term leases on their properties and had now outlived those 

allowances. Prowten admitted that “the situation locally is rapidly approaching the point that 

there is almost no salvage.” The town’s selectmen wrote to the Secretary of the Interior because 

they “felt that they had encountered The Brick Wall” and were desperate. In Prowten’s mind, he 

suggested to the regional director to “find another Ben Zerb[e]y, give him the same support as 

Ben had and this will be resolved.”166 Regional Director Gerald Patten reassured Sullivan and 

Prowten in fall 1989 that he would find a new superintendent “who can catalyze positive, 

cooperative action towards the preservation and improvement of Minute Man.”167 Patten also 

offered to withhold final approval of the GMP until after the town and NPS could discuss 

concerns.168

The NPS printed the final GMP in September 1989, released it in January 1990, and 

approved the plan in July 1990. This GMP departs from the 1988 draft plan in several significant 

ways. First, the 1990 plan includes a clear and detailed statement of the management goals and 

objectives for the park. Such a statement never saw development or expression in the draft plan. 

Second, the 1990 plan steps away from a single-minded focus on restoration of the 1775 

landscape and the Battle Road and instead calls for the protection of all cultural resources 

associated with the park. Certainly, the park should pay special attention to the Revolutionary 

War period and its associated resources, but the 1990 plan does not limit all attention to this time 

period. Third, the 1990 plan suggests a cooperative spirit and openness to communication that 

the draft lacked. In working to reduce adverse impacts from increased traffic, the 1990 plan 

tasked the NPS to seek “coordinated planning efforts with the state, towns, and regional traffic 

management groups.” Instead of forcing traffic off the Battle Road, for example, the NPS would 

find ways for a separation of pedestrian and vehicular use through an extensive trail system 

running the length of the Battle Road unit. The NPS would make plain its objections to any 

 

165 William Sullivan to James Ridenour, 25 August 1989, 1, File D18 MIMA Transfer 6 Years, Box 4, Acc. 79-

95-0001, Waltham FRC. 

166 Eugene Prowten to Gerald Patten, 8 August 1989, 1-2, File D18 MIMA Transfer 6 Years, Box 4, Acc. 79-

95-0001, Waltham FRC. Quotes on p. 2. 167 Gerald Patten to Eugene Prowten, 12 October 1989, File D18 MIMA Transfer 6 Years, Box 4, Acc. 79-

95-0001, Waltham FRC. 

168 Gerald Patten to William Sullivan, 20 September 1989, File D18 MIMA Transfer 6 Year, Box 4, Acc. 79-

95-0001, Waltham FRC. 
Management Planning 

 255 

attempts to widen the rights-of-way for Route 2A and Lexington Road. However, the overall 

tone of the 1990 plan suggests less confrontation and more cooperation than the 1988 draft.169

For the Battle Road Unit, the NPS recommended selective restoration, improved 

interpretive development, and cooperative efforts to manage traffic. Route 2A would continue 

to flow through the park, and the NPS would work with state, regional, and local offices to 

implement improvements to other road corridors as a way to reduce traffic on Route 2A. If state 

officials in the future proposed road widening, the NPS would seek “alternatives that best meet 

the needs for resource protection and interpretive opportunities” while looking for ways to 

remove traffic from the Battle Road.170 Some key components of the plan for this unit included 

establishing hiking and biking trails parallel to the Battle Road. These might link with regional 

trails, and the NPS registered its interest in coordinating with other organizations to develop 

recreational or greenbelt systems across the larger region. Additional historic buildings would 

receive restoration treatment, including the Jacob Whittemore House, the Brooks Houses, the 

Farwell Jones House, the Olive Stowe House, the George Minot House, and the Meriam 

House.171 The park would develop additional interpretive opportunities at the approximate 

location of the Paul Revere Capture. 

In response to concerns raised by the SHPO, the 1990 GMP extended the dates for 

architectural significance of historic buildings. The 1966 Master Plan had emphasized a period 

between 1775 and 1830 for retaining buildings. The GMP instead stated that all pre-1920 

buildings would be saved. The NPS noted that since so many eighteenth-century buildings had 

been lost, the presence of the nineteenth-century buildings would help balance the landscape. 

However, the NPS continued to emphasize that those buildings dating within 50 years of the 

American Revolution would serve primarily to tell the Revolutionary story.172

Selective restoration would focus on recreating the eighteenth-century environment in 

discrete areas of the Battle Road Unit. The NPS would work to approximate the 1775 landscape 

where practicable, establishing open fields, orchards, and natural woodlands to create “the basic 

land use and cover conditions present at the time of the battle.”173 In addition, the agency would 

rebuild stone walls and ensure the study and protection of archeological sites. The NPS would 

restore select portions of the historic Battle Road, such as in front of the Meriam House. 

Vegetative screening would provide necessary visual barriers from modern intrusions, especially 

around the Hanscom airfield and residential developments. Unlike the draft plan, the 1990 GMP 

kept the Battle Road Visitor Center. Finally, the plan did not recommend extending the lease for 

the Willow Pond Kitchen.174

 

169 MIMA, GMP, September 1989, [hereafter 1990 GMP] 32-33, File GMP, NPS Report Files, MIMA 

Library. Quote on p. 32. 

170 Ibid., 42. 171 Ibid., 43-45. 172 Ibid., 16, 39. 173 Ibid., 34. 174 Ibid., 44-46. Local newspapers had chronicled the efforts of the Willow Pond’s proprietor Peter 

Sowkow in trying to get extensions on his leases with the Park Service. His most recent success had come 

in August 1985 when the Park Service, under pressure from US Rep. Chester Atkins, had agreed to a 3-to-5-
Management Planning 

 256 

Within the North Bridge unit, the NPS adopted a low-impact approach that tried to 

address the concerns raised by the residents and officials of Concord. To reduce overcrowding, 

the park would shorten the duration and intervals between interpretive programs to use available 

parking space as efficiently as possible. Trails would link the Muster Field and Buttrick House to 

the rest of the unit, allowing for safe pedestrian passage. The NPS would also cooperate with the 

town and historic groups to develop a trail linking the North Bridge to Town Center. Due to 

new load limits instituted by the state on Flint Bridge, the NPS would direct buses along Lowell 

Road if they wished to stop at the North Bridge Visitor Center. The park supported having a 

canoe landing 50 to 150 feet upriver of the North Bridge and restoring eroded river banks with 

vegetation. Through continued study of parking counts and vehicle speed monitoring, the NPS 

expected to develop, in cooperation with the town, minor reconfigurations of parking lots and 

hazard reduction steps.175

The 1990 GMP also laid out a LPP that recommended acquisition of 250 additional acres. 

All of this land would fall within the Battle Road Unit. Such action necessarily required 

congressional action to amend MIMA’s enabling legislation, which limited land acquisition to 

750 acres. The 1990 plan made clear that the NPS would not use eminent domain in its 

acquisition efforts. All sales would result “through an opportunity-purchase basis, subject to 

availability of funds; that is, when owners offer the property and funds are available.”176 The 

NPS explained its rationale for these additional acquisitions, stating that “just as the primary 

elements of the historic scene are integral to evocation of the colonial atmosphere, the historic 

setting is also important. It is visually important as a transition from the historic moment to the 

present day.” However, some of that crucial historic scene and much of the view shed are 

outside the park’s boundaries. Another consideration for land acquisition involved working 

with state and local authorities to find alternative access points for neighboring residential 

communities, such as Hayward Pond, and eventually acquiring the rights-of-way for the roads 

leading into Route 2A and Lexington Road. This effort would help to reduce traffic along this 

major corridor and provide additional places for possibly restoring sections of the historic trace 

of the Battle Road. Acquisition of these rights-of-way would also remove access to developable 

land and keep the roadways from becoming paved, heavily illuminated, and signed.177

 Gall’s job as he stepped into the MIMA superintendency involved more than 

implementing the GMP. He had the daunting task of reinvigorating fragile community relations 

that had suffered from the changing proposals and at times oblique process. He would approach 

this effort with openness, commitment, and a steady attitude.

 year extension on the lease. See Mark Browne, “New 3-Year Lease on Tap for Willow Pond Kitchen,” 

Concord Journal, 15 August 1985. 175 1990 GMP, 47-48. 176 Ibid., 56. 177 Ibid., 56, 58. 
257 

CHAPTER EIGHT

REACHING OUT, BRINGING TOGETHER

Larry Gall had potentially revolutionary ideas for MIMA as he began his work as 

superintendent in December 1989. He wanted to expand beyond 19 April 1775 and its 

associated military events to a “much broader understanding of the New Englander’s way of 

life over a broad space of time.” The essence of the park was more than “muskets and 

musters, although that’s part of it. It’s really about a clash between two civilizations, two 

theories of government, two ways of life.” Why would colonists “do something as illogical as 

standing up and fighting the most powerful army on earth? There had to be something 

there.” By putting April 19 into context, Gall believed, “we use April 19th not as the be-all, 

end-all, but just as the fulcra.” And, Gall breathed “we make our landscape come alive.”1

At the beginning of his term, Gall encountered negative energy from the park’s 

neighboring towns and residents. Robert Nash had left while the park swirled in controversy 

over the draft General Management Plan (GMP) and Record of Decision, leaving Frederick 

Szarka as acting superintendent until the regional office found the right person to take over. 

Gall brought with him extensive experience and a strong commitment to forge ties with the 

surrounding communities and achieve consensus. He had just completed 10 years at Lowell 

National Historical Park (Massachusetts), a park that relied upon building ties with a range 

of local and regional constituents for its existence. Gall worked at Lowell first as a planner 

for visitor services in developing that park’s GMP, then he became the chief of visitor 

services, having to implement what he had planned. He later moved successively into the 

assistant and then deputy superintendents’ positions. Lowell has served as a model for 

partnership parks within the NPS, especially in the Northeast, because it has worked as a 

catalyst among various partners, with a goal to bring economic revitalization to its depressed 

community.2

 Commenting later, Gall wanted the MIMA job because he thought “it was a 

good fit for my abilities.”3

Those abilities included a commitment to reaching out to the public to find common 

ground and bringing people together in relationships. Gall had originally trained to teach 

academic history. With a bachelor’s degree in history from Kenyon College in Ohio, he went 

on to a critical languages program at Princeton University, where he studied Russian and 

Eastern European language, history, and culture. With the Vietnam War going on, he joined 

 

1

 Lawrence Gall, transcription of oral history interview with Douglas Sabin, 26 February 1992, 9, 

MIMA Archives. 

2

 See Cathy Stanton, The Lowell Experiment: Public History in a Postindustrial City (Amherst: 

University of Massachusetts Press, 2006). 

3

 Lawrence Gall, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 21 January 2005, 1-2, MIMA 

Archives. Quote on p. 2. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

258 

Army Intelligence and studied Japanese before serving as an interpreter-translator with 

military intelligence. Once he completed this service, he went to Harvard University, earned 

his Master’s Degree, entered the Ph.D. program, and also worked as a teaching fellow. In the 

meantime, while researching a possible dissertation topic at the Adams National Historic 

Site, he started working seasonally as a historian at the park. When park officials asked him 

in 1975 to consider the Chief of Interpretation position, he accepted. By this time, the 

academic history route looked bleak with decreased job offerings. But, more importantly, 

Gall found that he preferred public history. He liked working with the public and felt that it 

fit his temperament and abilities. From Adams NHS, he went in 1979 to Lowell and finally 

MIMA.4

 When Representative Chester Atkins learned that Gall would take Nash’s place, he 

expressed support for the decision, stating “I know Larry from his work at Lowell National 

Park . . . . He has a strong commitment to working with the community.”5 Gall would find 

success in building relationships with the people of Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington, 

moving the park toward his larger vision of making the landscape come alive. 

FIRST ATTEMPTS

By the time Gall started in mid-December 1989 the NPS had printed but not publicly 

distributed MIMA’s finalized GMP. Gall asked for the regional office to wait a few weeks for 

its release until he had had a chance to review the plan and let people in the three towns meet 

him. In his first conversations with the press, he emphasized that he would have “an opendoor policy” to work closely with area officials and residents. He also referred to how the 

park and area communities shared a pride in history, linking themselves together. “We have 

a lot of common interests and, if we can begin on that common ground, I think we’ll be able 

to work well together.”6

 He then went out to meet with residents and officials, started 

joining organizations like the Rotary Club, and listened to concerns. As he stated later, “I 

spent a lot of personal time and effort in attempting to build relationships with the 

community.” He tried to “position the park so that we could become a part of various 

community activities,” such as the Chamber of Commerce and even the local garden club.7

 

When the NPS released the GMP on 22 January 1990 Gall stood ready to take comments and 

address them.8

Concord continued to pose the greatest challenge. In its March 1990 comments, the 

Concord Board of Selectmen expressed a lingering fear of a “hidden agenda” on the part of 

the NPS and listed three priority items for discussion and agreement. First, the town 

requested establishment of a commission to work with the park in planning and 

 

4

 Ibid., 1; Ann Toda, “Gall to Head Minute Man Park,” Lexington Minute-Man, 14 December 1989. 

This same article appeared in the Concord and Lincoln papers, too. 

5

 Atkins, as quoted in Toda, “Gall to Head Park.” 

6

 Gall, as quoted by Toda, in Ibid. 

7

 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 3. See also Gall to Mrs. John Alexanderson, 13 March 

1990, File D32 CY 1990, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

8

 NPS Press Release, “NPS Releases the New General Management Plan for MIMA,” 22 January 1990, 

File GMP, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

259 

implementing the GMP. Such a commission might serve as a replacement for the missed 

Minute Man National Historical Park Advisory Commission. Second, the town required 

“total elimination of any form of eminent domain procedure.” Finally, the selectmen wanted 

provision for a “submarket life tenancy” for people still living in park-owned housing 

through special-use permits.9

 This latter situation involved four families who had sold their 

properties to the NPS between 1966 and 1968. They had accepted special-use permits to stay 

in their former homes, believing that they could stay through their lifetimes. According to 

these families, they had not been offered the life tenancies that residents in the 1970s had 

taken. The park had renewed these special-use permits without any changes until a 

Solicitor’s opinion in 1979 granted the NPS the right to adjust the permit fees. In response to 

further legislative changes, in 1989 the park readjusted rates due to recent changes in NPS 

policies, which forced another more accurate market-rate adjustment. Such an adjustment 

would have raised rates considerably, forcing these now elderly residents on fixed incomes 

to face eviction. To provide time until a legislative solution could be found, the park raised 

the annual permit fees based on rates charged for employee housing, well below market 

rates. The issue remained of what the park would have to charge in the future if it followed 

NPS policies. The town wanted the park to assure the continued residence of these owners 

and their spouses through their lifetimes.10

Gall demonstrated his commitment to addressing all of these concerns and offered 

language for incorporation in the GMP. The Concord selectmen acknowledged Gall’s 

attempt, noting in a July 1990 letter, after the regional director had approved the plan, that 

“we also understand and appreciate your commitment to, and so far, your actions in greatly 

improving these critical relationships” between the town and park. However, the town 

demanded more stringent language than Gall proposed in removing the possibility of 

eminent domain in future land acquisition. In addition, the selectmen rallied behind the 

plight of the four tenants with expiring special-use permits. They stated clearly that “the 

level of trust between the Town and the Park can never be significantly improved if even a 

few of our residents are paying a heavy price for earlier errors or misunderstandings. A new 

level of trust must be created by the correction of these old faults.”11 The selectmen related 

the tenant issue directly to land acquisition, arguing that “this lack of trust leads directly to 

the Town’s absolute fright over the land taking issues.”12

In the meantime, Representative Atkins submitted to Congress in May 1990 HR 4912, 

a bill authorizing revision of MIMA’s boundaries from 750 to 1,000 acres.13 Reassured by 

 

9

 William Sullivan to Gall, 15 March 1990, 1, File GMP, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 10 Ibid., 3-4. Chester Atkins, Edward Kennedy, and John Kerry to James Ridenour, 27 April 1990, 1, 

File GMP, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Gall, Briefing, 17 September 1993, 1, File A38 CY 1993 Briefing 

Statements, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Deborah Stoloff, “Park Tenants Could Be Hit Hard by Rent 

Hikes,” Lincoln Journal, 13 September 1990. Peter Noll, “Permits Extended for Minute Man Park 

Tenants,” Lexington Minute-Man, 15 November 1990. 11 D. Elliott Wilbur to Gall, 13 July 1990, 1-2, File D18 MIMA, Box 4, Acc. 79-95-0001, Waltham FRC. 12 Ibid., 2. 

13 Revise the Boundary of MIMA, HR 4912, 101st Cong., 2d sess., 24 May 1990. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

260 

Gall’s commitment to working with the communities on issues of concern, Atkins had 

submitted this proposed legislation as a show of support for the park and its GMP. In 

particular, Atkins knew that without this legislation, the park could lose to developers two 

prime pieces of open-space property recently placed on the market. The existing legislation 

limited the park’s acreage to 750 acres, which the park nearly met already. These new 

properties, the Perry Farm and the Fletcher Farm in Concord, would add another 50 acres to 

the park, allowable only if the park could secure new legislation, as Atkins recognized in 

submitting HR 4912. The House Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands held its 

hearing on the bill in July 1990, just after approval of the GMP, and Atkins asked for 

consideration of five other additions to the bill, responding to the concerns of his 

constituents in Concord and the realities of funding the legislation. He asked that Congress 

allow for an additional $15 million for development of the park under the Management Plan

and for $9.5 million for land acquisition. He also asked that the bill allow for an exchange of 

a small amount of land between the NPS and Department of Defense for land at Hanscom 

Air Force Base. To assure landowners that the NPS would not force the sale of their 

properties, Atkins asked that the subcommittee insert appropriate language into the bill. 

Finally, he referred to the situation with the four tenants and asked for a legislative resolution 

to this situation.14 

Due to an acute case of appendicitis, Gall did not make it to the hearing, but others 

did testify.15 D. Elliott Wilbur, Chair of the Concord Board of Selectmen, submitted his 

“qualified support” for the proposed bill, so long as the final legislation adequately addressed 

the issues of eminent domain and the four tenants.16 Such confidence in Gall spoke volumes 

for the new superintendent’s efforts at building ties with the local communities. Warren 

Flint, Jr., representing the Town of Lincoln, echoed Concord’s concerns, testifying that a 

number of local residents “harbor a deep-seated mistrust of the Park Service and feel gravely 

threatened by the possibility of new adverse acquisitions.” People in Lincoln thus supported 

language restricting condemnation. But, Flint made clear that the Town of Lincoln 

supported the proposed legislation because it offered further protection of open space and 

historic resources.17 As Flint later said, “it was a tragedy that the Minute Man National Park . 

. . was just 750 acres with a busy road running through it. They [Lincoln residents] wanted to 

see it developed into a suitable symbol for the country.”18 Flint remembered later, though, 

that at least one person rallied against the proposed legislation. A Concordian, this person 

vehemently opposed any park expansion, on the grounds that the NPS had mistreated 

 

14 Chester Atkins, Testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, 17 July 

1990, File W3815, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

15 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 4. 16 D. Elliott Wilbur, Testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, 17 July 

1990, 1, File W3815, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 17 Warren Flint, Jr., Testimony before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands, 17 July 

1990, 1-2, File W3815, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. Quote on p. 2. See also Flint, transcript of 

interview, 4. 

18 Flint, transcript of interview, 4. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

261 

property owners during the initial land acquisition period. This person’s strongly held 

opposition would prove prescient of the bill’s outcome.19

Tasked with adding the requested language to the bill to address the issues raised by 

Atkins, the House Subcommittee’s staff debated and came to a resolution on each proposal. 

However, with regard to the eminent domain concern, the staff did not submit “the specific 

language that some would have liked to see,” according to Atkins. Due to time constraints 

and the commitment of Subcommittee Chairman Bruce Vento (D-MN) “to act expeditiously 

on this matter,” House subcommittee staff member Heather Huyck faxed a copy of the 

proposed bill to Gall, giving him only five minutes to review it and send back comments.20 

“That was rather breathtaking,” Gall remembered. He managed to get a sentence added, but 

he admitted that the bill as changed by the subcommittee did not have the language required 

by the local communities.21 It did pass the subcommittee in early August 1990, and Atkins 

wrote to Gall warning that the subcommittee would not accept further changes. Chairman 

Vento had done what he could, but he also had to make sure that the MIMA bill did not 

impair long-standing national precedents. Hot issues such as eminent domain and inholders’ 

rights could easily aggravate attempts by other national parks, especially in the western states, 

to acquire and consolidate land holdings. Atkins made clear to Gall that not accepting the 

legislation as-is would jeopardize funding initiatives Atkins had sought to acquire the two 

threatened properties and also lose protections for the four tenants.22

At a selectmen’s meeting in Concord in late August, Gall saw the undoing of his work. 

Dorothy Quinn, who lived on Shadyside Avenue in an area slated for park acquisition, 

presented the Board a petition with 1,200 signatures of Concord, Lincoln, and Lexington 

residents all opposed to the bill.23 Going into that meeting, Gall figured he had at least three 

of the five votes of the selectmen for passage of the bill. By the end, Quinn and her petition 

had run like a “buzz saw” through the meeting, leaving Gall with no votes.24 “We went down, 

absolutely down in flames,” Gall later recalled. He also remembered his regional director 

saying at the conclusion of the meeting, “it’s going to be years before you ever will come back 

again with another piece of legislation.” But, Gall refused to accept defeat. “Oh, I don’t think 

so, not if I have anything to say about it.” He would rather “just pack it in and leave. Look 

for another job,” than wait years for another opportunity to get this crucial legislation.25

 

19 Ibid. 

20 Chester Atkins to Gall, 8 August 1990, facsimile from Julia Blatt to Gall, 1, File GMP, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 

21 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 4. 22 Atkins to Gall, 8 August 1990, 1-2. 23 Sabin, 1990 Admin History, 28. 24 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 4. Kyle Nitzsche, “Concord Opposes Park Bill; 

Legislation Nixed,” Lincoln Journal, 6 September 1990. 25 Gall, transcript of interview, 21 January 2005, 4. See also Editorial, “Voters Well Represented,” 

Concord Journal, 13 September 1990. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

262 

AMENDING THE GMP 

Gall understood from that selectmen’s meeting that he would have to approach his 

goals for the park in a new, active way. He had to demonstrate his commitment to the 

residents’ concerns with visible action before moving ahead with legislation. He asked the 

regional director for permission to amend the GMP. Such an action on a Management Plan

so soon after its approval elicited surprise, but Gall knew he had no choice. Atkins had 

withdrawn HR 4912 in response to the Concord vote and would not submit new legislation 

until after he received assurances from his constituents that they would support it. Gall knew 

he did have some support, from the preservation and conservation community in Concord 

and Lincoln. In fact, these people did not expect defeat with the 1990 bill and rallied to 

Gall’s cause. He decided to build on this support.26

He took these conservation people and others out into the park. They walked 

through the areas slated for acquisition and talked about where trails might go and how 

housing or office developments would infringe on the historic views. “We slogged them here 

and there,” Gall recalled, “and we showed them the old stone walls that were hidden in the 

woods,” and people gained a new appreciation of the NPS’s vision for MIMA. “There’s 

nothing like getting people out there, getting their boots muddy,”27 Gall stated. In particular, 

Gall cultivated Judy Walpole, a newly elected Concord selectman who had strong 

conservation leanings. “I zeroed in on her. I cultivated her very carefully,” Gall noted. He 

thought she was a swing vote on the Board, and if he could earn her trust, he would succeed. 

He did succeed in getting Walpole and others thinking positively about the park. As Gall 

later characterized the change, they came to realize “how wonderful some of that land was 

back there, how much it represents classic New England farmscape, and what a loss it would 

be if that land were to be developed.”28

All of this good feeling toward the rural landscape would only take Gall so far. He 

still had to address the opposition voiced by Quinn and others, especially about land 

acquisition along Shadyside Avenue. He went out into the park and viewed each area 

proposed for acquisition and considered its true importance to the overall protection of the 

park’s historic resources and view sheds. In looking at two proposed properties (Tracts 03-

Area E1 and 03-Area E2, as delineated in the March 1991 Amendment to the GMP) on 

Shadyside Avenue, he decided that the land’s topography, which dropped off steeply to the 

north of Battle Road, allowed effective use of vegetative screening of possible developments. 

In addition, he imagined that proposed trails could cross on already park-owned land 

without necessitating further land acquisition here. He recommended removal of these 

tracts from the land protection recommendations of the GMP. In the case of the 

southernmost portion of Tract 04-Area A (Lot 2A, as delineated in the 1991 Amendment to 

the GMP) of Fletcher Farm, Gall believed that acquisition of the other portions of the farm 

 

26 Sabin, 1990 Admin History, 28-29; Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 4-5. Larry Gall, 

transcription of oral history interview with Douglas Sabin, 18 June 1992, 2, MIMA Archives. 27 Gall, transcript of interview, 21 January 2005, 5. 28 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 5. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

263 

would provide suitable visual protection from possible developments, allowing for this 

parcel’s release from the Land Protection Plan’s recommendations. 

Finally, Gall reviewed two parcels in Lincoln on Bedford Road that attracted 

additional unrest. Tract 02-Area A contained a private residence whose owner opposed 

selling, while the Commonwealth of Massachusetts owned the undeveloped Tract 02-Area B 

(both as delineated in the 1991 Amendment to the GMP). Using vegetative screening, Gall 

decided that the park could forego acquisition of this residence and associated property. 

Since the NPS would not pursue this tract, it did not have a rationale for the other 

undeveloped tract. The Town of Lincoln had expressed interest in acquiring this land for 

affordable housing, and Gall offered to sell park-owned modern residences slated for 

demolition or removal in support of this effort. These changes to the GMP Land Protection 

Plan would reduce total land acquisition additions to 200 acres.29

Despite these deletions, Gall held his own for a few other properties that people 

questioned. On the Perry Farm, the NPS insisted that a small subdivision of four houses 

should eventually be removed. These houses sat “right in the middle of a critical landscape.” 

To convince others, Gall took people out there and showed them, and “it couldn’t be denied 

really when you were able to present our perspective, our vision, that this was important.” 

Along Airport Road in Lexington, Gall also made clear that the NPS should eventually 

acquire the two houses there so that one day maybe that road could be closed, reducing 

modern traffic through this important area.30

In the case of the deletions from the park’s boundaries, Gall justified his decisions by 

remembering his overall mission for MIMA. As he argued soon afterwards, “I could either 

sit back and watch this ship go down with all flags flying, or I could make a decision that we 

could live without certain things.” He felt that “we didn’t give up that much, that we kept the 

essence of it, and we gained a great deal more in coming to terms with the town, coming to 

terms with the property owners, and positioning ourselves so we could have this legislation 

that would allow us to go forward and develop the park.”31 Gall’s plan for the park’s future 

included keeping developers off the Perry Farm and the other sections of the Fletcher Farm 

he still identified for acquisition. However, the park could not purchase these threatened 

lands without the new legislation. The conservation people and the Trust for Public Lands 

also got involved with this issue. The Trust offered to negotiate for the purchase of these 

tracts and hold them until the NPS could act. However, the Trust would not make its 

 

29 Memorandum, Gall to Regional Director, North Atlantic Region, 17 April 1991, and attached 

amendment to the GMP, 1-2, File GMP, NPS Reports Files, MIMA Library. Memorandum, Gall to 

Chief, Lands Resources Division, Mid-Atlantic Region, 25 January 1990 [really 1991], File GMP, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. Gall to Warren Flint, Jr., 5 June 1990, 1, File D18 Lincoln, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. In this letter, Gall notes the resistance of Vernon Welch, owner of the tract in Lincoln who 

opposed selling. In June 1990, Gall still supported acquisition of this land, but following the defeat of 

the legislation, he revised his thinking. This letter also refers to the town’s desire for placing affordable 

housing on the vacant parcel. 

30 Gall, transcript of interview, 21 January 2005, 6. 31 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 5-6. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

264 

commitment until Concord’s selectmen indicated that they could support the eventual 

passage of these lands into the national park. At the November 1990 Concord Board of 

Selectmen meeting, many people came out to speak positively about what the Trust, and 

ultimately the NPS, wanted to do with the acquisition of these two farms. Gall also made 

clear that he had asked for, and received, a positive response from the regional director for 

an amendment to delete the Shadyside and two Lincoln properties from the GMP.32 This 

announcement paved the way for the selectmen to endorse the Trust for Public Land’s 

purchase of the farms for eventual acquisition by the NPS. “That was the beginning,” said 

Gall, “of moving in a very positive direction,” a turning point in his relationship with 

Concord. And it hadn’t taken years, as the regional director had feared.33

In comparing drawings for proposed park boundaries from the time of the 1966 

Master Plan through the 1990 GMP, one can see the fluid nature of how park planners 

envisioned the shape of MIMA. A narrow line of park property had extended from the 

Brooks Houses to Meriam’s Corner. With the GMP, the park’s reach extended into historic 

farming fields behind the Olive Stowe House. This mass of land is then cut off at Shadyside 

Avenue with Gall’s deletions, around the area of the Brooks Houses. Here, the park narrows 

where chunks of land have remained private. Looking at a map, this narrowing seems 

disjointed. Yet, park interpretation over the years has found ways to work within these 

confines and still give visitors the historical and cultural information they need to understand 

the unit. Gall made the deals to ensure a larger future for the park. Within ten years of his 

work, the park would have much to celebrate with the opening of the Battle Road Trail.34

In another demonstration of its cooperation with the towns, the NPS released in 

February 1991 for public comment a copy of the draft amendment to the GMP. Gall 

received positive and constructive comments from Concord and Lincoln, plus one 

individual, Erich Veyhl. Taking these comments into account, the NPS further revised the 

GMP amendment and approved the final version in May 1991. In addition to deleting the 50 

acres of land from the GMP Land Protection Plan, the amendment responded to a request by 

the Town of Concord to allow for renewal in three-year increments of the Willow Pond 

Kitchen. Gall justified this step, stating that the NPS’s ability to make planned improvements 

to Meriam’s Corner, where the restaurant stood, would extend for four to five years at best. 

Gall also understood that the agency’s treatment of the Willow Pond’s former owner 

generated a lot of sensitive attention locally, and that “our capacity for flexibility will go a 

long way towards winning support needed for authorizing legislation and future park 

development.”35 Another paragraph in the amendment reassured residents of Concord, 

 

32 Gall to Peter Forbes, 21 November 1990, 1, and attached letters between Forbes, Gall, and Concord 

Board of Selectmen, File L1425 CY 1990 Perry and Fletcher Land, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Sabin, 

1990 Admin History, 29. Kyle Nitzsche, “Parkland Purchases Approved,” Concord Journal, 22 

November 1990. Kyle Nitzsche, “NPS Drops Interest in Six Residences,” Lincoln Journal, 29 

November 1990. 

33 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 5. 34 The author thanks Lou Sideris, Chris Davis, and Nancy Nelson for their thoughts about this subject. 

35 Memorandum, Gall to Regional Director, NARO, 29 March 1991, 1-2, File D18 Amendments—
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

265 

Lincoln, and Lexington that the NPS would cooperate in efforts to find solutions for the four 

tenants living on expired special-use permits without causing economic hardship. The last 

paragraph confirmed that the NPS would involve the towns in discussion of major park 

issues, including legislative initiatives and development planning.36

1992 LEGISLATION

This amendment to the GMP made a huge difference for the NPS’s larger goal of 

obtaining the necessary legislation to move forward with park development. As one 

indicator, the Concord Board of Selectmen, who in August 1990 had resoundingly defeated 

any legislative attempt, wrote to Representative Atkins in April 1991 that it looked “forward 

to a successful outcome [of appropriate legislation for the park] in this session.”37 As Gall 

wrote to the regional director, “You will note that the Selectmen are actually urging the 

Congressman to go forward with park legislation.”38 This demonstration of support 

indicates the sea change that Gall accomplished. 

More issues required attention before Representative Atkins could submit new 

legislation to Congress. This time, however, Gall worked closely with the House 

Subcommittee to hammer out what he thought the towns would accept. Plus, he gathered 

input from the Concord National Park Committee. As he told the selectmen, “I’ll work with 

anybody that you want me to work with. I’ll be very happy to,” and he spent a lot of time 

with these committee members, “cultivating those people and gaining their personal trust.” 

The Concord Selectmen also used Veyhl, the Inholders Association member, as a sounding 

board.39 This combination of communication channels kept Gall aware of the lingering 

issues and how his proposed ideas for the new legislation accommodated those concerns. 

He recognized that local residents still had “a lot of worry and insecurity about which lands 

the government might decide it needed to buy.” To address these concerns, Gall offered to 

follow the Acadia National Park model and use a fixed boundary on a map. He deleted all 

mention of acreage ceilings, as the enabling legislation had.40 He figured that the NPS had 

been at MIMA for 30 years, and “if we don’t know where the park boundaries ought to be, 

then shame on us.”41

The Acadia legislation also offered another solution for Gall, this time revolving 

around the condemnation issue. Initially, the Concord Board of Selectmen declared that it 

would not support the possibility of condemnation in any park expansion. Yet, in Gall’s 

 Draft, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

36 Memorandum, Gall to Regional Director, NARO, 17 April 1991, and attached GMP amendment. 37 D. Elliott Wilbur to Rep. Chester Atkins, 3 April 1991, File D18 Town of Concord, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

38 Memorandum, Gall to Regional Director, NARO, 29 March 1991, 2. 39 Gall, transcript of interview, 21 January 2005, 5. 40 Gall to Judy Anderson, 10 May 1991; and Memorandum, Gall to Assistant Director, Office of 

Legislative and Congressional Affairs, 30 May 1991, both in File W3815, Current Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

41 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 6. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

266 

mind, that position removed the possibility of the federal government responding to any true 

development threats. Instead, he offered for the Secretary of the Interior to establish a set of 

guidelines and publish them, naming what development actions could trigger condemnation. 

In particular, the NPS wanted the properties to stay either undeveloped or, if already singlefamily homes, to stay as such. Once he sat down and talked to people, Gall found that the 

towns accepted such a provision.42

Gall addressed other concerns with the crafting of the new legislation. He 

recommended similar language as had been in HR 4912 with regard to the four special-use 

permittees who faced eviction. These four families would have the option of having their 

permits extended until the death of the owner or the owner’s spouse, whichever was later. 

Payment through an annual fee would remain set to the amount required as of 1 July 1991. In 

addition, Gall addressed new concerns raised by the Trustees of Reservations, owners and 

caretakers of the Old Manse. This organization wanted legal assurances that the NPS would 

not force the taking of this private property, even though it lay within the park’s boundaries. 

Gall shared this concern with the legislators and staff members. When the House 

Subcommittee on National Parks and Public Lands reported on the bill, it specified that the 

NPS had no plans to acquire this property and expressed encouragement over the already 

existing mutually cooperative relationship between the park and private organization.43 

Other aspects of the bill reflected HR 4912, with authority given for the exchange of land 

between the Department of Defense (Hanscom) and the NPS. Also, the bill raised the 

development ceiling by $15 million and allowed an additional $7.3 million for land 

acquisition of the remaining identified properties on a willing seller basis. 

Despite his attempts at forging consensus, Gall ran into difficulty with the House 

Subcommittee staff concerning the language relating to the four permittee families and 

condemnation authority. The subcommittee staff director questioned these allowances, 

especially in relation to how they might apply in other national parks where people wanted to 

retain their property. At the time, inholders had generated public attention in their fight 

against the NPS at Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. Gall presented arguments in 

response to each concern, emphasizing that each piece of legislation dealt with individual 

cases, that each park had unique circumstances that Congress had to take into account.44 

However, the staffer refused to move the legislation beyond the staff review, and 

Representative Atkins “took the ball on this one,” as Gall recalled. Atkins recognized how 

crucial this legislation was to his and the park’s future, and he went directly to subcommittee 

 

42 Gall, transcript of interview, 18 June 1992, 3. MIMA Fiscal 1992 Budget Briefing Statement, 10 

December 1990, 1, File W3815, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 43 Gall to Jonathan Keyes, 12 July 1991; Frederic Winthrop to Gall, 15 July 1991, both in File W3815, 

Current Park Admin Files, MIMA; House Committee of Interior and Insular Affairs, MIMA Additions, 

102d Cong., 1st sess., 28 October 1991, 3, H. Rpt. 102-276. 44 Gall, Responses to Rick Healey’s Concerns about Draft Legislation, 10 June 1991, File W3815, 

Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. Gall, transcript of interview, 18 June 1992, 5. See also Douglas 

Sabin, MIMA Administrative History for Calendar Year 1991 [hereafter 1991 Admin History], 21, 

MIMA Archives. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

267 

chair Vento, a longtime friend of national parks and conservation issues. Atkins made clear 

the situation, and Vento cleared the bill for subcommittee review and vote. As Gall stated 

later, “that was unusual in that the chairman actually overruled his staff people, and I think 

that put their noses out of joint considerably.”45

HR 2896 made its way slowly and steadily through the House. The bill came before 

the subcommittee on 17 September 1991 where representatives from the local area registered 

their support.46 Subcommittee members voted favorably for the bill, as did the members of 

the committee on Interior Affairs. The House of Representatives debated the bill on 28 

October 1991. Representative Craig Thomas of Wyoming (R) noted that the MIMA bill 

“recognized the importance of taking private property rights into consideration in this park 

expansion bill,” and he hoped similar language would enter into future bills. Atkins 

presented a powerful defense of the bill, noting that he had recently taken Reverend Lazlo 

Tokes, who had sparked the Romanian revolution, to see the monuments at the North 

Bridge. He recalled for the House that “our visit together to Minute Man was poignant. I 

who had visited the park so many times before—saw for the first time how deeply affecting 

our experience with revolution could be to those whose memories are still so fresh and 

alive.” He went on to emphasize how the new legislation would give “peace of mind” to 

residents by fixing the boundaries and spelling out the rights of homeowners within those 

boundaries. Atkins also recognized the contributions of Gall, whom he called the “backbone 

of this enterprise,” and “an energetic and sensitive park superintendent.” Special mention, 

however, went to Representative Vento, whose “understanding and guidance and 

perseverance” made the bill possible. Vento crafted a bill, in Atkins’s estimation, “that 

responded to local concerns without tampering with precedents that affect our entire Park 

System.” Following this debate, the House passed HR 2896 and sent it the Senate for 

review.47

At this point, supporters of the MIMA bill wanted to avoid having a bill with different 

language introduced to the Senate. Changes in the bill, if passed by the Senate, would have to 

face reconciliation in a conference committee, using valuable time and providing the 

opportunity for additions or changes that could cause problems. Gall and Atkins had 

worked hard to get a bill that met the needs and expectations of local residents. Plus, the 

language regarding the four permittees and land acquisition from only willing sellers made 

the bill a target for amendments. To avoid this situation, supporters waited to file the bill and 

opted to work with the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests, 

led by Senator Dale Bumpers, to arrange acceptance of the House bill.48 This subcommittee 

 

45 Gall, transcript of interview, 18 June 1992, 5. 

46 See, for example, Statement of Paul Marsh, before the Subcommittee on National Parks and Public 

Lands, Concerning HR 2896, 17 September 1991, File W3815, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 47 MIMA Amendments of 1991, HR 2896, 102d Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record (28 October 1991): 

H 8552. 

48 Edward Kennedy and John Kerry to Dale Bumpers, 8 November 1991, File W3815, Current Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. Gall, transcription of oral history interview with Douglas Sabin, 17 September 

1993, 1, MIMA Archives. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

268 

ultimately accepted the House bill, holding a hearing in February 1992 and passing the 

legislation to its Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.49 

In committee mark-up, at least two senators expressed interest in offering 

amendments to the bill, addressing situations in their own states. Quiet negotiations and 

discussions kept these proposed amendments from being attached to the bill, and the Senate 

committee voted favorably on the bill on 24 June 1992, moving the bill to the full Senate.50 As 

Gall later said, “it was touch-and-go, and for many months, [during the committee review 

process], it wasn’t clear what was going to happen.”51 But, despite the horse trading going on 

behind the scenes, the bill made it through, with the Senate voting for passage on 7 October 

1992.52 Gall breathed a sigh of relief in remembering those harrowing days, remarking that 

“we just made it by a matter of hours” before the congressional session closed.53 President 

George Bush signed the bill into law on 24 October 1992 (see Appendix for a copy of the 

act).54

Gall’s accomplishment in getting this legislation passed so soon after his 1990 defeat 

cannot go without notice. One indicator of his success comes from his most vocal critics. 

When presenting the bill’s language to the Concord Board of Selectmen for formal approval 

before going to the Senate, Gall received some unexpected support from Veyhl, of the 

Inholders Association. A few Concord residents had worried about the bill’s “friendly 

taking” clause, but Veyhl stepped up, saying this was a standard clause and was in the 

property owners’ interest should they decide to sell. Gall knew that if he had said the same 

thing, people would not have necessarily believed him. Veyhl’s statement helped reassure 

the few still anxious property owners. At this same meeting, Fran Cabot, whom Gall 

characterized as being the most vociferous Selectman opposed to the park, stood up and 

declared that this was the first time she had voted for anything for the park. Gall knew he 

had done his work.55 In a letter to Senator Edward Kennedy, the town made clear that “this 

legislation is strongly supported by our Board on behalf of the citizens of Concord.”56

 

49 Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Subcommittee on Public Lands, National 

Parks and Forests, Miscellaneous National Park and National Trails Measures: Hearings on HR 2896, 

102d Cong., 1st sess., 19 February 1992, 133-34. Statement of John Kerry before the Senate 

Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and Forests, Concerning HR 2896, 19 February 1992; 

and Statement of Chester Atkins before the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands, National Parks and 

Forests, Concerning HR 2896, 19 February 1992, both in File W3815, Current Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

50 Status of Legislation, MIMA, with attached Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee MarkUp, 24 June 1992, File W3815, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. Senate Committee on Energy and 

Natural Resources, MIMA Amendments, 102d Cong., 1st sess., 23 July 1992, S. Rpt. 102-330. 51 Gall, transcript of interview, 17 September 1993, 1. 

52 MIMA Amendments, HR 2896, 102d Cong., 1st sess., Congressional Record (7 October 1992): S 17336. 53 Gall, transcript of interview, 17 September 1993, 2. 

54 MIMA Boundary Amendments, Public Law 488, 102d Cong., 1st sess. (24 October 1992). See also 

Douglas Sabin, MIMA Administrative History for Calendar Year 1992 [hereafter 1992 Admin History], 

23, MIMA Archives. 

55 Gall, transcript of interview, 21 January 2005, 7. 56 Judith Walpole to Edward Kennedy, 5 May 1992, File W3815, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

269 

Representative Atkins also deserves mention for his importance in achieving this 

legislation. He had listened to his constituents and adjusted his support for the GMP and 

legislation accordingly. His denunciations of the draft GMP and his attention to the 

property holders and their concerns reflected the political realities of his position. Yet, once 

the NPS, with Gall, started on the track of building consensus through improved 

communication and commitment, Atkins responded in turn.57 He spent the time on Capitol 

Hill getting the proposed legislation written and reviewed. When the House Subcommittee 

balked at some of the provisions in HR 2896, he went straight to his colleague Representative 

Vento to keep the legislation going. However, Atkins did not have long to relish success with 

the passage of the MIMA legislation. He lost to a fellow Democrat in the primary election for 

1992, ending his eight-year term of service in the US House of Representatives. As Gall 

stated soon afterwards, “we’ve lost a great deal in losing Chet Atkins, there’s no question 

about it.”58 Atkins had served on the House Interior Appropriations Subcommittee, and he 

had worked hard to bring funding to his district, including funding for its national parks at 

Lowell and MIMA. Gall had already established a productive relationship with Atkins while 

at Lowell, and this connection had clearly continued at MIMA. 

With this legislation, Gall also made a lasting contribution beyond moving the park 

forward with development. He gave that development an expanded focus by broadening the 

purposes of the park. According to the 1959 enabling legislation, MIMA should preserve 

certain historic structures associated with the opening of the American Revolution. Gall 

made sure that MIMA went beyond this initial charge. Certainly, the park’s mission had to 

encompass the addition of The Wayside, and the 1992 legislation includes provision for 

discussing the works of Alcott, Hawthorne, and Sidney as illustrations of the nineteenthcentury American literary renaissance. And, the 1992 legislation formally recognizes the 

importance of the Battle Road to the park’s mission. More importantly, though, Gall took 

the park beyond the opening of the American Revolution and specifically added that the park 

should preserve and interpret “sites associated with the causes and consequences of the 

American Revolution.”59 As he emphasized later, “you can see in the transformation of the 

landscape what the consequences of that war were.” Winning the American Revolution 

meant that the patriots could break away from the British mercantile system and engage in 

foreign trade. This situation then allowed, according to Gall, “all of that American energy 

and creativity to burst forth.” Subsistence farming gave way to commercial enterprises 

capable of supporting the explosive growth of cities like Boston. The landscape 

encompassed in MIMA tracks these changes. As Gall remarked, “there are a lot of 

touchstones for American history here, plus it’s a beautiful place.”60

 

57 Chester Atkins, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 28 June 2005, 2, MIMA 

Archives. 

58 Gall, transcript of interview, 17 September 1993, 3. 

59 PL 102-488, Section 2. Gall states in his oral history interview that he “personally slipped” in this 

clause. See Gall, transcript of interview, 21 January 2005, 15. 

60 Gall, transcript of interview, 21 January 2005, 15. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

270 

In many ways, Gall only formalized what the park had long been doing. Historical 

architect Carroll and others had adopted a continuum approach toward preserving historic 

structures. Former interpretation Chief Cynthia Kryston had explored many living-history 

activities that spoke about colonial and post-Revolutionary War times. North Bridge talks 

had always acknowledged how the events of 19 April 1775 had meaning to people worldwide 

seeking self-determination and liberty. By having this new wording in the legislation, though, 

the park could expand these approaches and make MIMA relevant and significant to twentyfirst- audiences. 

Many people accepted and celebrated this new wording. Paul Marsh, a Lincoln 

resident and president of the Friends of the Battle Road, welcomed this change in his 

testimony before the House Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. He referred to the 

fact that many people currently seeking freedom from oppressive governments see the North 

Bridge and Battle Road as “symbol[s] of liberty for all people for all time.”61 Marsh believed 

that MIMA should “evolve into the cultural park—not simply battlefield memorial—that the 

Congress had in mind.” MIMA goes beyond the military events of 19 April 1775, Marsh 

stated, and instead the park “is a turning point in world history, where two fundamentally 

different notions of government parted company for good.”62

Most people did not expect MIMA’s Revolutionary War roots to disappear under 

this expanded focus. As previous chapters make clear, the NPS showed sensitivity to a 

continuum approach in restoring historic buildings like Hartwell Tavern, keeping additions 

and changes that successive generations wrought. However, the NPS rejected the reduction 

and dissolution of the Revolutionary War story that the State Historic Preservation Office 

had demanded. Under the new legislation, that Revolutionary War story instead could 

become the focal point for discussing the American experience as a whole. What happened 

in Massachusetts, the United States, and the world as a result of the battle on 19 April 1775? 

Why did that battle make such a difference? How can people trace the consequences of that 

battle in the park’s landscape? Park interpreters, such as Kryston during the Bicentennial era, 

had begun exploring these questions and more. The new legislation made such explorations 

an integral part of the park’s mission. 

INTERNAL CHANGES

So far, this chapter has followed the long road of getting the park’s development 

proposals approved through passage of new legislation. This effort succeeded under Gall’s 

guidance. However, other issues, sometimes complicating Gall’s work on the GMP and 

legislation, also deserve attention. Just as Gall inherited a difficult community situation with 

the GMP, he also found challenges internally at the park, relating to staffing and funding. In 

1990, the park had a funding shortfall of $239,000 and a personnel shortage of 5 Full-Time 

Equivalents (FTE), leaving Gall with the difficult task of balancing his budget while asking his 

 

61 Marsh, Statement before House Committee on Interior Affairs, 17 September 1991, 2. 62 Ibid., 3. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

271 

already strapped employees to cover extra duties. The regional office supplied $28,000 in 

emergency funds, making all the difference for hiring seasonal employees to help with the 

summer interpretive program. Gall still had to make decisions about where to cut in each of 

his divisions.63 He chose to give as much money to maintenance as he could. In his 

justification to the regional office, Gall explained that the “potential for future surprises and 

disasters is greatest in this area” because the park had responsibility for so many historic 

structures, visitor facilities, and housing. More importantly, though, Gall had his eyes on 

public perception. At a time when he tried to assert his interest in and commitment to the 

local communities, Gall did not want people retorting that the park looked a shambles. 

“Nothing is worse for the Park Service’s public image,” wrote Gall to the regional director 

only a month into his job at MIMA, “than unkempt grounds and buildings.” He went on to 

write that “it is never possible to explain visibly bad maintenance, which the public 

automatically assumes is the result of poor management.”64

This budget shortfall required hard decisions. Gall put what money he could into 

maintenance to get overgrown areas cleared of brush and repairs made. He also made sure 

that the park replaced a non-functioning mower, responding to criticisms about the unkempt 

look of the grounds. Adverse comments from visitors regarding the gardens at the Stedman 

Buttrick House prompted Gall to organize seasonal “garden parties” where employees and 

volunteers pulled weeds. He could not afford to hire a gardener to work on rehabilitating 

these gardens. He also could not hire seasonal laborers for general maintenance tasks and 

painting. Interpretation absorbed more cuts. North Bridge talks went from every half hour 

to once per hour, and the North Bridge Visitor Center often remained unstaffed by 

interpretive personnel. Eastern National clerks filled in to give basic directions. Gall cut all 

guided tours along Virginia Road between Hartwell Tavern and the Smith House, although 

he did invite volunteers to demonstrate colonial crafts and skills outside Hartwell Tavern on 

Sunday afternoons during summer and early fall. The Wayside went to a five-day schedule 

for the summer only, having tours only once per hour. Permanent interpretive staff had to 

serve on the front-lines, thus abandoning volunteer recruitment and coordination, repair and 

production of temporary exhibits, and some supervisory duties.65 “We just got by on a wing 

and a prayer that first summer,” Gall recalled.66 He bristled at this situation, especially since 

the park had just released its GMP and “needs to create a sense of forward motion to win 

 

63 Sabin, 1990 Admin History, 29-30; and attached Memorandum, Gall to Regional Director, NARO, 18 

January 1990, 1, and attached MIMA, Fiscal 1991 Budget Briefing Statement, 24 January 1990. Gall, 

transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 2. 

64 Memorandum, Gall to Regional Director, NARO, 18 January 1990, 3. 65 Ibid., 2-4. Gall, transcript of interview, 21 January 2005, 12. Memorandum, Gall to All Employees, 7 

June 1990, File D3215 Buttrick Garden, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Sabin, 1990 Admin History, 28-29. 

MIMA, Annual Statement for Interpretation, FY 1991, I-7, File K18 FY 1991 Statement for 

Interpretation, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

66 Gall, transcript of interview, 18 June 1992, 8. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

272 

back the confidence of the communities in which it operates.” He warned that “expectations 

are rising, but it will be difficult to offer much more than promises in the near term.”67

Gall did not let the critical funding situation go unattended. He notified the 

congressional delegation. Senators Kennedy and John Kerry supported an increase and 

prepared appropriate legislation. Atkins’s place on the Interior Appropriations 

Subcommittee proved crucial, convincing the House to defer to the Senate version of the bill. 

Through this congressional action, MIMA’s funding increased by a $100,000 line item added 

by Congress, plus an additional $85,000 in the President’s budget, and another $30-$40,000 

from a large block of funds distributed proportionately to the national parks. This increase 

gave the park more than $200,000 in operating increases in the next fiscal year, making it 

possible to catch up further on maintenance backlogs and do more interpretive programs, 

especially along the Battle Road. The park also gained two more FTE slots, from 33 to 35, 

providing a little more room for covering the long stretch of parkland.68

Staffing proved another challenge in his first year at MIMA. Gall found staff 

members interminably stuck in low-grade positions with equally low morale. He also 

encountered unhealthy communication channels, in which personnel formed alliances to 

achieve their ends instead of following the normal chain of command. In Gall’s opinion, staff 

members used this approach because Nash had kept a close hand over the park budget and 

moved funds among the divisions without input from his division heads. Gall stopped this 

practice and brought his division chiefs together as a team. Gall made clear that he expected 

the team to make budget decisions collectively. Each chief would then have authority and 

responsibility for their individual allotments. Gall would not look over their shoulders, and if 

situations required budget adjustments, the entire team would provide input and make 

decisions. 

Gall also moved people out of the lowest ranks and gave them some supervisory 

duties. He tried to match people’s actual functions to their job descriptions. Supervisory 

Park Ranger Daniel Dattilio became Chief Ranger, in charge of visitor protection and 

resources management. In 1991 Gall reorganized some of the divisions to best fit the 

demands of the park and skills of his employees. In the Interpretation division, he instituted 

Districts, combining the North Bridge and The Wayside as one and the Battle Road as 

another, with each District Ranger reporting directly to the Chief of Interpretation. These 

new District Rangers, Bob Derry and Mark Nichipor, had previously languished in GS-5 

positions. Derry had long enjoyed his interpretive work at The Wayside, so Gall put him in 

charge of this unit plus the North Bridge. Nichipor’s interest in reenacting and military 

history fit for the Battle Road Unit, where Gall had more of these activities start taking place. 

Gall also assigned Park Ranger Janice Black to take over educational programming fulltime, 

allowing her to develop school programs that proved very popular. 

 

67 Memorandum, Gall to Regional Director, NARO, 18 January 1990, 5. 68 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 3; Gall, transcript of interview, 18 June 1992, 8; Sabin, 

1991 Admin History, 23. Alice Hinkle, “Higher Park Budget Boosts Jobs, Upkeep,” Lincoln Journal, 1 

November 1990. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

273 

To accommodate space requirements and better serve both the public and staff, Gall 

established the Division of Cultural Resources and moved it into the Caretaker’s Cottage 

near the Buttrick House. Park curator Teresa Wallace headed this new division, with 

assistance from museum technician Steve Neth. Park historian Doug Sabin joined this 

division, freeing his time from direct visitor contact so that he could focus on historical 

research in support of the park’s larger interpretive efforts. Gall also responded to the 

collections under Wallace’s care. He had staff members move the park’s library to the 

Caretaker’s Cottage, providing easy access for Sabin to continue his research efforts and 

freeing up space in the Buttrick House for much-needed offices. The library had previously 

sat in a third-floor room of the Buttrick House. To better accommodate the park’s 

archeological collections, and part of its architectural artifacts, Gall started the process of 

having the interior of the Job Brooks House modified for collections storage. Eventually, the 

park moved these from less than ideal conditions in the former squash court on the Buttrick 

Estate (see Appendix for organizational charts). 

Gall also paid attention to the relationship of the park to the communities. In 1992 

he assigned his acting chief of interpretation, Lou Sideris, to a new full-time position as 

Public Affairs Officer. Sideris also oversaw volunteer coordination and served as the park’s 

liaison to cooperating association Eastern National.69

COLONIAL WEEKEND

During the first year of changes and adjustments, Gall took the bold step of having 

the park host a Colonial Weekend in October 1990. He had several purposes for organizing 

this event. First, he wanted to serve notice to the local community that MIMA under his 

superintendency would play a major role in colonial activities. Despite budget and staffing 

shortfalls, the park would engage the community beyond the 19 April 1775 to a broadened 

cultural context. Visitors would learn about how people lived during this time period, what 

crafts they did, what music they listened to, and what distinguished colonial life. Second, 

Gall saw the need to emphasize the important resources along the Battle Road. In his 

estimation, this significant area of the park had received little attention in terms of 

interpretation and programming over the years. He wanted to bring the public into its spaces 

and convince them of its beauty and importance. Third, he needed to find a way to bring all 

members of his staff together to work on common goals. Colonial Weekend provided such a 

stage, requiring the careful coordination of all his divisions plus the volunteers. Finally, 

Colonial Weekend offered the possibility of reaching out and bringing people together, 

 

69 Sabin, 1991 Admin History, 3, 15, 24-30; Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 6; Gall, transcript of interview, 

18 June 1992, 8; Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 7. Memorandum, Gall to Manager, 

Cultural Resources Center, 12 May 1992, File Job Brooks Rehab, Vertical Files—Building Info, 

Maintenance Records, MIMA. The squash court collections storage worked well for items stored on 

the first floor, but the second story had proved difficult to control for humidity and temperature, 

necessitating the move to the Job Brooks House. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

274 

building ties with other organizations and promoting a sense of community, something that 

Gall needed in his work on the GMP and new legislation.70

Colonial Weekend grew over its four-year run. In 1990 a hurricane blew through the 

opening day, dampening attendance for the two-day event to about 5,000 people.71 

Undeterred, Gall sensed the “positive enthusiasm” of his staff. “They were just happy that 

something was going on,” he remarked soon afterwards. However, lack of experience meant 

that the event struck him as a “baling wire and string operation” that first year. Gall wanted 

to have food vendors to add to the festive nature of the weekend, but the park did not have 

the contacts to call upon. He used his Lowell connections and brought in a whole range of 

vendors offering food from different countries. “A lot of people were scratching their heads 

about the ethnic food at a colonial festival,” Gall laughed.72 In subsequent years, his staff 

invited vendors offering colonial food. Special performers sang, danced, and conducted 

such colonial arts as stone masonry and blacksmithing.73 People responded in turn, with as 

many as 18,000 attending in 1992 during a gorgeous fall weekend.74 

Despite these successful visitor numbers, some staff members questioned the value of 

the Colonial Weekend. This event proved expensive both in terms of outright expenditures, 

costing the park $26,000 in 1993, and personnel time. Both Chief Ranger Dattilio and Chief 

of Interpretation Lois Winter argued that planning for the event distracted them from their 

regular duties and taxed their divisions. Initial planning had begun for implementing a 

centerpiece of the GMP, a new trail through the Battle Road Unit. Dattilio knew that such a 

huge undertaking required as much of the staff’s attention as possible. Colonial Weekend 

seemed auxiliary to this larger project and thus expendable.75 Winter, who had joined the 

MIMA staff in October 1992, believed that she could have developed a diverse and expansive 

interpretive program for the entire summer instead of having the money and time gone to a 

“one-shot weekend.”76 

However, Historian Sabin, along with Public Affairs Officer Sideris, argued the value 

of the Colonial Weekend. Sabin pointed at the valuable connections made between the park 

and colonial-minded people who possessed skills that the park could use in its interpretive 

programs. From a financial standpoint, Sabin also saw the event as a real bargain for visitors 

and tax payers while building crucial local support that would translate into congressional 

 

70 Sabin, 1990 Admin History, 12; Sabin, 1991 Admin History, 7; Gall, transcript of interview, 21 

January 2005, 11; Gall, transcript of interview, 17 September 1993, 9-10; Gall, transcript of interview, 

26 February 1992, 8. 

71 Gall to Thomas Adams, 2 November 1990, File K18 CY 1990 Colonial Weekend, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

72 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 8. 73 Sabin, 1991 Admin History, 7. NPS Press Release, National Park Service Celebrates Colonial 

Weekend, 10 September 1992, File K18 CY 1992 Colonial Weekend, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 74 Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 15. On the 1993 Colonial Weekend, see Art Ballou, “Crowds Get a Taste 

of History at Colonial Weekend,” Concord Journal, 7 October 1993. 75 The author thanks Dattilio for sharing his thoughts on this project. See NPS Review Comments, 

First Draft, 1, Admin History Files, MIMA Archives. 76 Sabin, 1993 Admin History, 20. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

275 

interest. Lowell National Historic Park had done well with its annual Folk Festival (which 

Gall had helped organize before coming to MIMA) and outreach educational programs, 

making that park relevant to the voters in that congressional district. MIMA, also in that 

district, had not always fared so well, and Sabin believed that hosting Colonial Weekends and 

other such outreach programs could make a real difference in garnering congressional 

funding. Sabin wrote starkly in his 1993 administrative history that “if we are to receive 

maximum support in Washington we must be relevant to the voter in this Congressional 

District.”77 The point fell mute. Gall left MIMA in late 1993 to become Chief of Cultural 

Resources for the North Atlantic Region. Without his commitment to Colonial Weekend, it 

fell by The Wayside.78

LANDSCAPES

Gall embarked on several initiatives to enliven the park’s landscapes and create 

enriching experiences for visitors. He had limited funds to accomplish these goals, though. 

As a result, he often sought alternative methods, reaching out to the community in the 

process. In some cases, his decisions to pursue certain projects came under criticism because 

people questioned their compatibility with the park’s mission. With his time fairly brief at 

MIMA, Gall also left some projects for the next superintendent to complete or transform 

into new endeavors. 

Agricultural leasing attracted Gall’s attention from the start. He knew that the park 

had to open up the landscape along the Battle Road to approximate its colonial appearance 

and give visitors the sense that they were in a park. He also knew that agricultural fields and 

pastures had predominated during the key historic period. Farming provided a cost-effective 

tool to keep open these now wooded areas. The park had some longtime tenants who leased 

the land and farmed it, evoking the past. But, these individuals were getting on in years, and 

the park needed to attract new potential farmers. To create a sustainable agricultural 

program, the NPS needed to identify which lands offered the best opportunities in terms of 

arable land free of any specific historic or archeological remains. In 1991 MIMA entered into 

a cooperative agreement with the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Department of 

Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning (UMass). This team would assess the park’s 

cultural landscape and propose a land-leasing program. During the first phase of this 

agreement, completed in March 1992, the UMass team compiled a digital database and used 

a Geographic Information System (GIS) to generate and evaluate scenarios for historic 

leasing. Factors taken into account included soil productivity and economic feasibility, view 

sheds and historical landscape importance, wetlands protections and historic remains.79

 

77 Ibid. 

78 Douglas Sabin. MIMA Administrative History for Calendar Year 1993 [hereafter 1993 Admin 

History], MIMA Archives. Lou Sideris to Janet Taylor, 21 December 1993, File K18 CY 1993 Colonial 

Weekend, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

79 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Development of a Cultural Landscape Management Plan for 

MIMA, Phase I, March 1992, 1, 32, MIMA Archives. Sabin, 1991 Admin History, 15. Gall, transcript of 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

276 

The second phase, completed in 1993, provided treatment options for the Battle 

Road Unit. The UMass team categorized this landscape in terms of its primary significance 

for rehabilitation. About 170 acres of the park had a high degree of historic character. Its 

spatial organization, land use, structures, and small-scale features evoked an eighteenthcentury feeling. Another 500 acres of the park had a moderate level of historic character, 

with stone wall frameworks still existing but not historic spatial organization and land use. 

Some of this land would qualify for reintroduction of agriculture while limited agriculture 

seemed appropriate in the high-degree category. When looking specifically at potential 

agricultural resources, the UMass team assessed the land in terms of its soils, waterways, 

existing land use and land cover, and historic associations. From this assessment, the team 

identified no more than 180 acres suitable for agricultural practices. Finally, the team 

considered natural resources, such as wetlands, potentially endangered species, and 

ecosystem concerns. The team cautioned that the park should complete a comprehensive 

assessment to understand the values of the different ecosystems within park boundaries to 

the larger area.80

A public meeting held in Concord in February 1993 demonstrated that this cultural 

landscape assessment and its reliance upon agricultural leasing faced difficulties. Wet and 

stony soils would need attention. Draining the land required dredging drainage ditches, but 

such action would have an impact on wildlife habitat. Plus, drainage ditches in the park 

relied upon functioning ditches in the towns. NPS regulations regarding pest management 

restricted what commercial farmers could do. The existence of wetlands also required 

careful consideration of other federal regulations. Could farmers drain some wetlands? 

Could farmers even drain drainage ditches, or were they considered protected wetlands? 

Farmers more set in their ways would throw up their hands and not take the challenge, as 

longtime MIMA farmer Ed Nowalk declared. Young, “hi-tech” farmers might show an 

interest. Involving cooperative associations and organizations like Codman Community 

Farms might minimize the management headaches for individual farmers. Gall obtained 

funding to update the Burke House, hoping that the offer of housing would attract interest 

from farmers. Gall understood, though, that agricultural leasing would proceed slowly in 

phases, as the park addressed housing and landscape issues.81

Trails through the park offered another opportunity to enliven the landscape and 

allow visitors to connect with its many resources. The park’s new GMP also mandated 

development of trails, as an alternative for the failed attempt to relocate Route 2A. Gall 

embraced the development of trails early on. Directly following the Concord Board of 

Selectmen’s November 1990 approval of the Trust for Public Lands’ acquisition of the Perry 

 interview, 26 February 1992, 10. 

80 University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Cultural Landscape Report for MIMA, Treatment Options, 

1993, 6-8, 156-60, MIMA Archives. 81 Beth Gavrin, Meg Rasmussen, Julius Fabos, Jack Ahern, A Management Plan to Balance Cultural and 

Natural Resources: MIMA Case Study, Research Bulletin No. 744, Summer 1993, Appendix H. Sabin, 

1992 Admin History, 9, 27. Sabin, 1993 Admin History, 16-17, 24. Gall, transcript of interview, 18 June 

1992, 12. Gall, transcript of interview, 17 September 1993, 8-9. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

277 

and Fletcher Farms for eventual inclusion in MIMA, Gall hosted a charette. He invited 

conservation-minded individuals and representatives from relevant local organizations to 

don boots and warm clothes for a walk-through around Meriam’s Corner and discussion 

about trail placement. This gathering helped identify possible trail locations and develop 

guidelines for trail dimensions and surfacing.82

With funding tight, Gall developed a partnership with the Appalachian Mountain 

Club (AMC) for more trail work. This association proved beneficial in a couple of ways. 

First, the AMC offered the services of one of its trained trail developers to mark out a trail 

along the upland, southernmost portion between Hartwell Tavern and the Bloody Angle. 

Second, this trail blazer trained volunteers in necessary construction techniques. Third, the 

AMC advertised its involvement in the project and brought in volunteers to help in 

completing this trail. In 1992, with the park having some flexibility in its budget, Gall 

brought in a Grounds Foreman to oversee this work.83

The park continued to cultivate its ties to the AMC and other area organizations 

supportive of trail development. MIMA and the regional office cooperated with the State 

Department of Environmental Management to contribute to the Bay Circuit Plan, a 120-mile 

greenway corridor of trails and rivers. Gall invited participants of annual Bay Circuit Treks 

to travel through the park. The mountain club planned and coordinated these treks.84 In 

1993, the park won a $5,000 grant from the National Park Foundation to continue its overall 

trail work in the Bloody Angle area, beyond the work for the vernal pool trail. The AMC, 

with the Natural Heritage and Endangered Species Program of Massachusetts, worked with 

MIMA staff to complete the scenic foot trail and install seven wayside exhibits. More work 

fostered by the park and AMC resulted in construction of a trail spur that crossed a vernal 

pool between Old Bedford Road and Virginia Road near Hartwell Tavern. AMC members, 

with the NPS and volunteers constructed more sections of this boardwalk, providing foot 

access to this wetland area. The vernal pool trail also offered visitors a small observation 

platform to provide views of the pool’s interior.85

Another project nurtured by Gall and the North Atlantic Regional Office involved 

the proposed Battle Road Bike Trail, as originally named. This project would eventually be 

named under Gall’s successor, Nancy Nelson, the Battle Road Trail, a multi-use trail 

 

82 Gall to Friend, 2 December 1990, File D18 Landscape Management, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 83 Gall to Steve Blackmer, 24 January 1991, File Trails Info, Vertical Files—Grounds General Info, 

Maintenance Records, MIMA. Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 20. Gall, transcript of interview, 17 

September 1993, 5. 

84 MIMA, Briefing for Senator Kennedy, January 1990, File GMP, Park Admin Files, MIMA. NPS Press 

Release, NPS Provides Assistance to Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management’s Bay 

Circuit Greenway Program, 7 January 1990; and Alan French to Gall, 4 April 1991, both in File Bay 

Circuit Trail, Vertical Files—Grounds General Info, Maintenance Records, MIMA. 

85 See documents in File Vernal Pool Trail, Vertical Files—Grounds General Info, Maintenance 

Records, MIMA, including a map of the trail; Trail Construction Guidelines; NPS Press Release, 

Vernal Pool Boardwalk Workdays at MIMA, no date [1992]; and Notice of Intent for Construction of 

Walking Trail System, 14 January 1992. “5K Grant Earmarked for New MM Park Trail,” Lexington 

Minute-Man, 15 July 1993. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

278 

intended to provide visitors with access to and interpretive opportunities within the historic 

and natural landscapes of the park’s Battle Road Unit. The bike trail idea grew out of 

enthusiasm among many people in the greater Boston area to link bikeways across the region. 

In 1993 while Gall served in a temporary assignment in the regional office, Chief Ranger 

Dattilio represented the park in meetings with regional staff and other groups. Identification 

of a viable park trail route through MIMA resulted from these meetings, although Dattilio 

reported that the NPS would need at least three more years of planning time before its 

construction.86

The bike trail offered many positive opportunities for the park. Bike enthusiasts 

represented a large and visible special-interest group in the region. MIMA could tap this 

enthusiasm to gain support for its programs and spread the word about the significance of 

the park. Federal, state, and local governments all demonstrated their support for such clean 

recreation with funding initiatives. In 1992 MIMA won almost $350,000 for planning the 

bike trail through a congressional add-on Representative Atkins secured. Bikeways 

promoted a healthy lifestyle and offered a pollution-free alternative to cars. Excluding the 

park from bikeway initiatives would close the door on future similar partnerships, plus 

tarnish the park’s public image with this large sector of the population. Finally, bike paths 

would bring people into the MIMA landscape and give them the opportunity to experience 

its cultural and natural resources.87

However, some people both in the park and outside expressed serious concerns 

about the bike trail. Park Historian Sabin agreed in the park’s 1993 Administrative History

that the park needed “a system of well designed interpretive walking trails,” but a hardtop 

bike path did not fit this purpose, in his opinion. Sabin pointed out that “little can be gained 

in an interpretive sense” when bikers “zip through the park” on a bike trail. Such a multipurpose trail would also detract from the walking visitor’s desire to contemplate the 

landscape and learn about its history. “The land we protect and interpret,” Sabin argued, “is 

sacred land drenched by the blood of American patriots in their struggle for liberty.” This 

mission for MIMA must always take precedence, for “we cannot be all things to all people,” 

Sabin concluded, “without running the risk of endangering our uniqueness and diverting 

attention from the main purpose of our being here.”88 Daniel Monahan, the Town of 

Concord’s Natural Resources coordinator, echoed Sabin’s argument. Monahan predicted 

that such a bike trail through the park would attract not only bicyclists but roller bladers, 

runners, parents pushing baby carriages, and other recreational users. While a laudable goal, 

 

86 Sabin, 1993 Admin History, 17-18. To trace the development of this trail, see File Battle Road Trail, 

Vertical Files—Landscape Features, Maintenance Records, MIMA, especially Briefing Statement, 

Battle Road Bike Trail Development, 18 February 1992; Battle Road Bike Trail Project Outline, 29 April 

1993; Meeting Notes for Battle Road Bike Trail Work Group. 14 September 1993; and Battle Road Bike 

Trail Meeting Minutes, 23 November 1993. It should be noted that Gall led the first meetings for 

discussing and developing this trail, calling the assembled group the Bike Trail Work Group. 

87 Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 24. 88 Sabin, 1993 Admin History, 18. See also Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 24-25. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

279 

Monahan believed that the trail “could have serious negative impacts on [the park’s] 

commitment to interpretation of history and the environment.”89

Another proposed project supported by Gall but questioned by some park staff 

members involved a regional nursery. A group within the regional office and supported by 

the superintendent of Olmsted National Historic Site (Massachusetts) suggested converting a 

portion of the land associated with the Noah Brooks Tavern into a nursery. This 

development would have tall deer fencing to protect the plants, some of which would include 

exotic species. Dattilio expressed serious concerns over this idea, relating to MIMA’s 

mission. Sabin agreed with Dattilio’s viewpoint. He wrote in the 1993 Administrative History

that having foreign plant species and deer fencing detracted from the historical landscape 

vision as encompassed in the 1990 GMP. MIMA would also lose operational control of the 

lands encompassed by the nursery. This proposal did not go further during Gall’s 

superintendency.90

Gall did succeed in making some small but tangible landscape makeovers. Along 

Route 2A, he had his maintenance staff add split-rail fencing. This fencing had several 

important effects. First, it kept unauthorized vehicles from entering and adversely affecting 

the historical landscape. The park had a problem with illegal dumping, spending thousands 

of dollars each year hauling out this trash. Plus, the fencing kept cars on the road and away 

from the unpaved shoulder area. Second, the fencing helped people traveling on Route 2A to 

identify the park. The fencing announced the boundaries and the park presence. Third, the 

wood fencing contributed to the eighteenth-century agricultural feel of the park. Overall, 

this work on the right-of-ways along this busy road represented the first steps by the NPS to 

work with the state in adjusting the look and feel of Route 2A.91

One last landscape makeover involved the gardens on the Buttrick estate. Gall first 

sponsored weeding parties with volunteers and staff members to make the gardens 

presentable. Then in 1992 he brought in a Radcliffe landscape architecture student volunteer 

to update the 1920s drawings for the gardens and develop a rehabilitation plan. This 

volunteer, who lived locally, followed the annual succession of plantings and produced a 

useful base map. In 1993 Gall hired a grounds foreman and gained support from the 

Concord Garden Club to begin implementing the Rehabilitation Plan.

92 Keeping the Buttrick 

House and its gardens had been a point of controversy when first acquired by the NPS, with 

many people saying this 1911 building and formal gardens intruded on the eighteenthcentury landscape. Sabin elaborated on this argument, stating that the mansion’s 

 

89 Daniel Monahan to Gall, 21 September 1993, 1, File Battle Road Trail, Vertical Files—Landscape 

Features, Maintenance Records, MIMA. 

90 Sabin, 1993 Admin History, 18-19. 91 Sabin, 1993 Admin History, 25. Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 9. Gall, transcript of interview, 18 June 

1992, 12. Memorandum, Gall to Chief, Division of Planning and Design, NARO, 15 June 1992, 1, File 

D30 CY 1992 Route 2A, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

92 Gall, transcript of interview, 18 June 1992, 11. Assessment of Actions Having an Effect on Cultural 

Resources: Buttrick Estate Garden Renovation, 1993, File Buttrick Gardens Info, Vertical Files—

Landscape Features, Maintenance Records, MIMA. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

280 

architectural style reflected the 1760s homes of the Tory class of English country squires. 

These British nobles had supported the British government’s attempts to crush the American 

patriot cause.93 Sabin called the house “haughty” and its presence “ironic [given that] that 

this symbol of British Tory class rule should stand on higher ground than the monuments 

erected to Americans.” He went on to state that “to some the domineering presence of this 

lofty Georgian building mocks the ideals and spirit embodied in the Minute Men of 1775.”94 

Gall argued otherwise. Due to the horrid state of the gardens when he arrived, “we 

were taking such a black eye in the public’s estimation of our stewardship here.” Plus, with 

the new legislation, Gall believed that “since we’re taking a more evolutionary view of our 

landscapes, certainly this is an historic landscape by that standard.”95 And, improving the 

gardens made the park more friends, most notably with the Concord Garden Club, which 

“wouldn’t give us the time of day when we first came along.”96

PARK INTERPRETATION

Gall had a mixed record of success with regard to directing the park’s overall 

interpretation. He inherited a lackluster program from Nash, one that had dropped much of 

the special programming that Kryston had developed during her tenure. Nash’s chief of 

interpretation, Szarka, had focused interpretive programming on the military aspects of the 

park. He shied away from the social and economic aspects of colonial life nor did he have his 

staff conduct environmental programming at Fiske Hill, as Kryston had done. Part of this 

shift came from interest and temperament but also due to staffing realities that left Szarka’s 

division largely understaffed. Szarka left MIMA a year after Gall arrived, and the park went 

with an acting chief, Sideris, until Gall hired Winter in fall 1992.97 These changes in 

leadership left the division in limbo during much of Gall’s superintendency. The NPS had 

released a new Interpretive Prospectus (IP) for the park in 1990, but this plan could not take 

into account the enhanced and enlarged park mission mandated by the 1992 legislation. The 

1990 IP recommended changes in exhibits at the two visitor centers, plus installation of 

waysides throughout the park. But, this IP failed to have any innovative ideas or applicable 

plans for the park as it could be under the new legislation.98

Gall himself had a great interest in interpretation and educational programming. He 

said later that people in the NPS “are stewards of the American experience . . . to not just 

protect certain resources within a boundary on a map, but to help people understand the 

meaning of this country through its heritage.” Put simply, Gall stated that he “see[s] us [in 

the NPS] as really educators, primarily.”99 However, he also had to contend with a park that 

had many competing problems and a limited budget. In his mind, addressing the backlog in 

 

93 Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 29-30. 94 Ibid., 30. 

95 Gall, transcript of interview, 17 September 1993, 7. 

96 Ibid., 8. 

97 Sabin, 1991 Admin History, 1-2. 98 MIMA, Interpretive Prospectus, 1990, File Interpretive Prospectus, NPS Reports Files, MIMA. 99 Gall, transcript of interview, 21 January 2005, 16. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

281 

maintenance work took precedence over any other park activities. As noted previously, he 

“made a shift toward maintenance. I deliberately moved money to maintenance from 

interpretation in an effort to upgrade grounds and buildings, which were in deplorable shape 

and gave the Service a black mark.”100

In light of the serious budget issues and his emphasis on maintenance, Gall largely 

focused new interpretive programming on collaborative activities that used outside funding 

or relied on volunteer groups. As Gall stated in 1992, “I’m very committed to educational 

programs done in cooperation with other historical and cultural organizations and with the 

various schools.”101 This approach certainly built needed friendships around the community 

and expanded opportunities for trying new approaches. However, this tact could only 

sustain itself with continued outside support, limiting its long-term life. 

For the 1990 interpretive season, Gall made two important contacts that resulted in 

an enhanced program without additional cost to the park. First, he invited a host of minute 

and militia companies back to MIMA. Beginning in 1976, in an attempt to ensure 

authenticity in costume and appearance, Kryston had restricted and effectively removed 

from the park’s volunteer program the ceremonial or “dress-alike” companies of Concord, 

Lincoln, Lexington, Acton, and Bedford. Gall welcomed these companies back, shifting park 

policy to an inclusive one. To further the colonial military knowledge of these new groups at 

the park, Gall also instituted a School of the Soldier program. These companies readily 

accepted Gall’s invitation to perform in the park, enlivening the offerings in the area of the 

Battle Road Visitor Center. Another volunteer group, known as the Colonial Living Program 

under Eugene Prowten, staged craft demonstrations at Hartwell Tavern every other Sunday 

through the summer and fall. These two volunteer activities brought needed attention to the 

Battle Road Unit.102

More changes in the Battle Road area built on these initial steps. Park Curator 

Wallace researched what furnishings a typical rural tavern would have had during the time 

Hartwell Tavern operated. The park did not have documentation of how the Hartwells had 

outfitted their tavern, and when the park had restored the building, it had left the interior 

empty. Gall believed that visitors should have the opportunity to see furnished rooms. With 

Wallace’s research in hand, acting chief of interpretation Sideris arranged in 1991 for the 

students at the Minuteman Regional Vocational High School to construct reproduction 

furniture. Wallace also obtained 13 chairs built by a craftsman in Massachusetts. When 

giving tours, interpreters made clear the provenance of the furnishings, but visitors had an 

easier time imagining how the tavern probably operated during the Revolutionary War 

period.103

 

100 Gall, as quoted by Sabin, 1993 Admin History, 33. 101 Gall, transcript of interview, 26 February 1992, 10. 102 Sabin, 1990 Admin History, 10-11, and attached letter Szarka to Michael Rudd, 15 December 1989; 

MIMA, Annual Statement for Interpretation, 1991, I-7. 103 Sabin, 1991 Admin History, 8-9. Teresa Wallace, Furnishings for the Hartwell Tavern, 1990, MIMA 

Museum Collection. Wallace to Anne Ireland, 7 June 1990, File H22 CY 1990 Research, Park Admin 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

282 

Some collaborative programs with area institutions helped extend the reach of the 

park’s interpretive programming. With the Concord Museum, the park won in late 1992 a 

$15,000 National Park Foundation grant to hold a Colonial Family Camp. This program, as 

planned, offered for families to stay a weekend at the park or in local lodgings and immerse 

themselves in colonial life. Suggested activities included role-playing, preparing colonial 

foods, learning colonial crafts, and experiencing typical entertainment of the period, such as 

music and dancing. In 1993, the National Park Foundation awarded the park another 

significant grant, focusing on the idea of parks as classrooms. The park planned to publish 

and distribute a guide for teachers to help in coordinating curricula with park resources. Gall 

had placed an emphasis on connecting area schools with MIMA early in his tenure. His 

appointment of Ranger Black as the education coordinator had resulted in a popular school 

program, bringing as many as 8,000 students in 1991 alone. The grant would extend the 

park’s reach to the schools.104

These successes do not overcome some significant weaknesses within the 

interpretive division during Gall’s superintendency. As already mentioned, the division 

lacked a chief until late 1992 when Gall hired Winter. Winter’s tenure was a time of 

polarization within the interpretation division. She did not stay for longer than 18 months. 

Although she worked to develop the education program, she also hampered this effort by 

reassigning Black to the North Bridge Visitor Center. Longtime interpreter Derry fled the 

park to the regional office to avoid the continuing disagreements and unproductive work 

conditions. By the time his temporary work assignment had ended, Winter had left. Winter 

also paid little attention to issues relating to exhibits, even though Harpers Ferry Center had 

offered to make necessary changes at the Battle Road Visitor Center.105

Already spending most of his time out of the park in his temporary assignment in the 

regional office, Gall could not provide much aid for the difficulties in the interpretive 

division. When he formally left the park in fall 1993, he left this struggling division for his 

successor to handle. Whatever the problems with interpretation, Gall left MIMA in a strong 

position. He had reached out to people and forged relationships with the local communities, 

gaining their crucial support for the GMP and new legislation. When he first walked into 

MIMA in late 1989, no one would have expected such accomplishments so quickly. He also 

laid the groundwork for the Battle Road Trail. This walking and biking trail would become a 

 Files, MIMA. 

104 James Ridenour to Gall, 22 September 1992, File K1817 Colonial Family Camp Program. NPS Press 

Release, MIMA and Concord Museum Receive National Park Foundation Grant, 3 November 1992, 

File Press Releases, Lou Sideris Files, MIMA. Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 11-12, 14. 105 This characterization is based upon discussions with various park staff members, including Lou 

Sideris, Bob Derry, and Nancy Nelson. The author thanks these people for their candidness. See also 

Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 17-18; Sabin, 1993 Admin History, 11-13; Lois Winter, Greetings to 

Minute Man’s Volunteers in the Interpretive Program, 25 February 1993, File Interpretation, Division 

of, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Gall to James Young, 5 May 1992, and attached documents, File D6215 

Exhibit Plans, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Mary Foley to Manager, HFC, 5 November 1993, and 

attached documents, File D62 CY 1993 BRVC, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Reaching Out, Bringing Together 

283 

defining resource for MIMA. Nelson, who began her tenure as MIMA’s superintendent in 

November 1993, would oversee the trail’s development and foster additional outreach. 

285

CHAPTER NINE

ADVOCACY AND PARTNERSHIPS

Nancy Nelson’s attachment to MIMA started in the Bicentennial era. She and her 

husband passed through Concord on their way from Iowa’s cornfields to the history-laden 

landscape of Boston. “I can remember really loving the landscape,” she later recalled, “and 

admiring the Bullet Hole House long before I ever knew or thought that I’d be living there.”1

 

But, aside from the North Bridge area, she hadn’t recognized a national park, just the 

possibilities. Seeing possibilities and pursuing them vigorously defines Nelson’s contributions to 

MIMA. 

Nelson has a strong sense of place and a real attachment to the land. Born in Chicago but 

raised in southern California, she had watched “a lot of the things I really loved about southern 

California disappear in the face of freeways and shopping malls and endless subdivisions.”2 

Hungry for an alternative, she and her husband pursued graduate degrees in Iowa before moving 

to Boston, where her husband took a teaching position at Boston University. With an 

undergraduate degree in political science and a master’s in urban and regional planning, Nelson 

took one more step towards cementing her understanding of land issues by training in landscape 

architecture at Harvard University’s Graduate School of Design. She then took a series of 

positions within the Northeast regional office of the NPS, gaining insights into policy-making 

approaches and applying them in critical ways to a variety of national parks. In one key position, 

she worked as a liaison with the Statue of Liberty-Ellis Island Commission during the huge 

restoration effort there, gaining invaluable skills from this politically charged project. In 

addition, she authored a wilderness study at Fire Island National Seashore (NY) and the General 

Management Plan at Olmsted NHS.3

She also watched with interest the ups and downs at MIMA. For Regional Director Herb 

Cables, Nelson had drafted responses to residents during the early stages of GMP development, 

and “it was truly amazing to me,” she later stated, “how you could be a national park in Concord, 

Lincoln, and Lexington and have such a hard time.”4

 She had great respect for the people in 

those communities. In her mind, “any national park would be fortunate to be located within 

communities like these because they are inherently sympathetic to the values and goals of the 

Park Service.” She also recognized that “they’re smart. . . . They know how to do things and how 

to get things done. There’s a lot of talent and commitment” in the park’s neighbors, “there’s a lot 

of participation and involvement. There is no apathy. None.” Nelson considered these traits as 

 

1

 Nancy Nelson, transcription of oral history interview with the author, 26 January 2005, 2, MIMA 

Archives. 

2

 Ibid., 1. 

3

 Ibid., “Welcome to New Superintendent Nancy Nelson,” The Bridge, Spring 1994, 1, File K1815 “The 

Bridge” Newsletter, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

4

 Nelson, transcript of interview, 2. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 286 

an “incredible asset,” and she has worked since her arrival in January 1994 to foster 

communication and build partnerships for the benefit of the park and its surrounding 

communities.5

While Nelson continues as superintendent, complete assessments of her management of 

MIMA must necessarily wait. Her more than 12 years at the park, however, leave some definable 

impressions. First, Nelson has a sincere appreciation for the park’s landscapes and their 

possibilities. Her training in landscape architecture intensified this feeling, but she came by it 

naturally. When looking through the woods along Route 2A, Nelson “could see the stone walls 

running off into the distance and so you knew that those fields were there, and they were 

wanting to come back.”6

 Second, Nelson has had the commitment to advocate for the park. Her 

years in the regional office ensured that she understood the NPS’s mission. She also had the 

opportunities to test approaches to realize that mission. In reflecting on her actions as 

superintendent, she noted that “one thing I’ve really done is step out, in an advocacy position 

more boldly, aggressively, assertively than maybe others have done or were able to do.” Third, 

Nelson has not alienated people with this approach. In fact, she has turned them into partners, 

building a base from which the park has benefited. By looking at such issues as attempts to widen 

Route 2A and the development of the Battle Road Unit, Nelson’s success in achieving 

partnerships while fulfilling her “absolute obligation” to the park provides some key 

understanding to her leadership at MIMA. 7

This leadership has led to the transformation of the national historical park. The 

completed 5.5-mile Battle Road Trail takes visitors along the entire stretch of the Battle Road 

Unit, providing first-ever access to this largest unit of the park. Where once modern houses 

owned by private individuals intruded upon the landscape near Hartwell Tavern and the Capt. 

William Smith House, for example, now visitors can walk and enjoy the historical setting. Land 

long overgrown with brush and trees has been cleared to resemble the historically predominate 

farmland. Historic structures gleam after important restoration work. Visitors can stop at 

waysides and read about the important events that had occurred there in 1775. People can safely 

turn off busy Route 2A and park their cars in the many convenient and well-marked parking 

areas. By stepping onto the trail, visitors leave behind the noise and congestion of the commuter 

road and reconnect to the natural and historical environment. Nelson oversaw this intensive and 

important transformation, gathering partners from the surrounding communities and 

jurisdictions and relentlessly advocating for the park. MIMA presents a very different 

experience to visitors than had been possible even five years before Nelson became its 

superintendent. 

This chapter considers the centerpiece of Nelson’s efforts at the park, completion of the 

Battle Road Trail, looking separately at trail design and construction, historic structure 

restorations, landscape clearing, and interpretation. However, before Nelson could address the 

 

5

 Ibid., 15. Larry Gall left in November 1993, and the park had a series of acting superintendents until early 

January. See Sabin, 1993 Admin Report, 27-28. 6

 Ibid., 3. 

7

 Ibid., 6. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 287 

trail work, she had to work with the state and the Town of Lexington to address efforts to widen 

Route 2A. What Nelson accomplished with the road widening effort would help set the stage for 

her success with the Battle Road Trail. The next chapter considers other aspects of Nelson’s 

tenure at MIMA. 

LEXINGTON AND ROUTE 2A

One early issue for Nelson to apply her advocacy skills dealt with the Town of 

Lexington’s attempt to widen Route 2A near Route 128/Interstate-95. This project had begun 

more than a decade earlier during the Robert Nash years, when the town had presented its 

preferred alternative to widen Route 2A to as many as five lanes, swapping land with the NPS to 

allow for this action. Nash, with the regional office, had vigorously opposed such widening 

within the park’s boundaries and effectively convinced the planners to conduct an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and remove some above-ground power lines. The 

highway planners also agreed to relocate the expansion project outside park boundaries. In 

August 1992, the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD) released its Draft EIS. The 

preferred alternative in this draft report involved constructing two signalized intersections and 

widening Route 2A from two to five lanes next to the 128/95 intersection. In June 1993 the 

Massachusetts Secretary of Environmental Affairs certified this draft, making it the Final EIS.

8

Nelson understood the ramifications of this proposal, even if no construction would 

happen directly within the park’s boundaries. As she articulated her concerns, she laid a 

framework for how the NPS would address any attempts to widen or expand traffic capability of 

Route 2A. Even more importantly, Nelson used her advocacy to build alliances with potential 

partners and resolve the situation favorably for both the park and outside interests. What 

Nelson accomplished with respect to the road widening proposal in Lexington serves as a model 

for future managers. 

First, Nelson stated in her public presentations and letters to public officials that the road 

widening would threaten the safety of park visitors and others traveling within the park. As she 

made clear in a November 1994 briefing statement, the proposed project would drop a “‘big 

highway’ solution in an area that needs a ‘slow down/you’re in a park’ message.” She worried 

that commuters would take advantage of the road widening and take Route 2A through the park 

as a “quick and dirty” shortcut to and from 128/95. Traffic and speeds would increase, while 

park visitors would have a dangerous and difficult experience trying to pull off to visit park 

waysides or re-enter traffic. While the park proceeded with plans for the Battle Road Trail, 

promising to attract a range of hikers, bikers, and other recreational users, Nelson heightened 

her concern for the safety of all travelers within the park.9

Along with safety issues, Nelson raised a voice concerning the natural and historical 

landscape. She argued that the big-highway look of the proposed alternative would detract from 

 

8

 See Chapter 7; Bruce Campbell & Associates, Safety Improvements for Marrett Road (Route 2A), 

Lexington Massachusetts, April 1995, 1, Museum Collection, MIMA. Frank Fields to Nelson, 16 May 

[1994], File D30 CY 1994 Marrett Road, Lexington, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 9

 MIMA, Briefing/Route 2A Expansion Project, 14 November 1994, 2, File D30 CY 1994 Marrett Road, 

Lexington, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 288 

the historical context of the park and intrude upon the “traditional sense of quiet and seclusion 

which makes the park distinct.” This important park entrance, which most travelers take to 

enter MIMA, represented an opportunity to set a tone for visitors, prepare them for the journey 

into time and space that awaited them. Having large intersections and signal lights would jar 

people from this historic sense.10 Wetlands adjacent to the park would also suffer, thus 

potentially diminishing those at the park’s borders. The proposed project involved removing a 

rocky outcropping that acted as screen for the park. Without this natural screening, modern 

developments would further intrude upon the historical landscape.11

Nelson distinguished herself from Nash in how she addressed this issue. She approached 

the Lexington widening attempt with a desire to build collaborative relationships which worked 

toward mutual goals and benefited the park. She understood that the park did not have a role in 

providing or withholding any formal approvals since the widening would occur outside the park. 

“Rather, our role will be one of influence and persuasion,” she wrote. She hoped that the park 

would “contribute to the definition of the best possible solution which will protect critical safety 

needs AND the critical long term protection needs” of MIMA.12 She, or Chief Ranger Dan 

Dattilio, attended public meetings, scheduled more sessions with key planners, and wrote letters 

emphasizing the continued need for working together on solutions. She encouraged and 

reinforced this collaborative approach whenever she saw it, noting in one letter after a meeting 

with planners that “everyone involved displayed a great deal of directness, commitment, patience 

and cooperation.”13 Nelson understood that each participant represented important views, all of 

which should have a voice in determining the final plans. 

Nelson’s efforts slowly saw recognition. In July 1994 the Lexington Board of Selectmen 

voted in favor of the Highway Department’s preferred alternative and passed the proposal to the 

town’s conservation commission. However, this commission voted in August against the plan, 

citing wetlands and water quality concerns. The conservation commission also pointed out that 

the proposal went beyond the initial goals for the project to address safety concerns and instead 

expanded traffic capacity, too. The MHD appealed the denial, and in fall 1994 the 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection began reviewing the case.14 The “great 

Rte 2A debate” by late September looked intractable, with Nelson recognizing that “the prospect 

of a long and contentious legal battle looms large.” However, thanks to her continued 

expressions of cooperation and collaboration, the Lexington Selectmen made a startling offer. 

As she described the turn of events, the Lexington Board began to view the NPS as a “quasi 

neutral party which could develop a credible solution to this knotty problem.”15 

 

10 Position Statement/Marrett Road Expansion, June 1994, 2, File D30 CY 1994 Marrett Road, Lexington, 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

11 MIMA, Briefing, 14 November 1994, 3. 

12 Ibid. 

13 Nelson to Richard White, 25 October 1994, 2, File D30 CY 1994 Marrett Road, Lexington, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 

14 Matt Shaw, “Lexington Is Moving Forward with Plans for Route 2A.” [Concord?] Journal, 28 July 1994, 

File Press Releases, Lou Sideris Files, MIMA. Andy Dabillis, “Lexington Panel Fears State Won’t Listen to 

Its Vote on Route 2A,” Boston Globe, 7 August 1994. MIMA, Briefing, 14 November 1994, 3. 15 Quotes from Email, Nelson to Jim Straughton, Lou DeLorme, Terry Savage, Dan Dattilio, 28 September 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 289 

Nelson jumped at the opportunity, inviting NPS professionals from Denver, the region, 

and Washington to share their expertise. Recognizing the distance factor and wanting to ensure 

timely local participation, Nelson also established a collaborative relationship with non-profit 

consultants Heritage Partners to provide engineering and planning skills. In April 1995 Bruce 

Campbell & Associates, working through Heritage Partners, released an alternative plan for 

Route 2A at 128/95. This plan recommended a single intersection at Marrett Road and New 

Massachusetts Avenue. To accommodate traffic from office parks and the regional Vocational 

Technical high school, a connector road would consolidate access to Marrett Road at this 

intersection. This proposal, according to the consultants, had an acceptable load of service 

comparable to the MHD preferred alternative, reduced wetlands impact, and a lower cost than 

the highway department’s alternative. The consultants also believed that their proposal would 

infringe less on MIMA and the surrounding environment.16

This proposed alternative did not meet with acceptance. Representatives of the high 

school made clear their utter disbelief that the NPS plan would have the connector road, 

servicing the office parks, feed into the high school’s main entrance driveway, potentially 

creating a “safety and traffic disaster.” In addition, the school’s superintendent wondered why 

the NPS had not asked for the school’s participation in developing the plan.17 Nelson accepted 

this criticism but made clear that “our early attempts to discuss ideas and options with others met 

with almost complete failure.” Instead, she decided to see first if the Lexington Selectmen found 

the new plan useful, and if so, the NPS would invite others to share their thoughts.18 The high 

school registered its complete opposition to the NPS plan with the Lexington Selectmen, leaving 

the entire project at another standstill.19 As Nelson wrote in a Letter to the Editor in July 1995, 

this project “is now virtually deadlocked.” She reiterated her two continuing concerns for public 

safety and protection of park resources. She also asked that the few detractors who “paint the 

park’s concerns as trivial or as being concerned with environment at the expense of human 

safety” to stop and listen to her consistent message calling for safety.20

Into this deadlock stepped the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 

This agency offered to provide voluntary mediation services to help state, local, and federal 

authorities reach a satisfactory agreement. Nelson welcomed this turn of events, although she 

cautioned her fellow participants to “approach the process with a determination to meet the 

legitimate needs of others.” She understood that “no party will get everything they want from 

the process but the most central safety and environmental concerns could be well met.”21 

 1994. See also Richard White to Nelson, 7 October 1994, both in File D30 CY 1994 Marrett Road, 

Lexington, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

16 Email, Nelson to Straughton, et al., 28 September 1994; Nelson to White, 25 October 1994, 1; Bruce 

Campbell & Associates, Safety Improvements for Marrett Road, 1-4. 

17 Ron Fitzgerald to Nelson, 9 June 1995, File D30 CY 1995 Marrett Road, Lexington, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

18 Nelson to Ron Fitzgerald, 19 June 1995, 1, File D30 CY 1995 Marrett Road, Lexington, Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

19 Fitzgerald to Nelson, 9 June 1995. 

20 Letter to the Editor, “Park Chief Writes about Route 2A Expansion,” Lexington Minute-Man, 6 July 1995. 21 Ibid. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 290 

Following a series of mediation sessions, the Environmental Protection Agency announced in 

October 1995 that the parties had signed a memorandum of agreement, spelling out a set of 

principles to govern the highway work and allowing it to proceed.22 The agreement delineated a 

reduction in roadway width for the expansion, having four lanes (instead of five) and a shoulder 

for safety use funneling down to two as Route 2A approached the park. Water quality 

preservation would involve improved detention of storm water runoff. In recognition of MIMA, 

the park, the highway department, and the highway engineers agreed to develop and implement 

“sophisticated landscaping” to reflect the fact that the “entire project area is a special scenic and 

historic area as well as the gateway to the national park.23

Nelson achieved another crucial accomplishment with this critical agreement. She 

turned a potentially adversarial relationship between the park and highway department into an 

“ongoing partnership” that extended well beyond the confines of the park’s eastern entrance.24 

As an essential aspect for gaining the park’s concurrence on the road widening, Nelson 

negotiated for the highway department and park to develop and implement a plan “to address 

issues of safety, maintenance, landscaping, signage, and other issues” along the entire Route 2A 

corridor.25 Nelson had laid the groundwork for this idea in March 1995, writing to the 

Massachusetts Highway Department’s deputy commissioner. She wrote then that she was “very 

anxious to pursue a stronger, cooperative relationship with MHD for the maintenance of Route 

2A.” This desire for cooperative action along the Battle Road fit within the park’s efforts to 

“create the recognizable image of a national park along this historic roadway.”26

The MHD outlined its expected actions for the Route 2A corridor in a formal 

commitment letter to Nelson, paving the way for her to sign the Memorandum of Agreement. 

The MHD first asserted that it “does not have any plans to widen the Route 2A corridor beyond 

the limits” of the 128/95 and Route 2A project.27 In addition, the department agreed to develop 

and construct geometric improvements at Old Massachusetts Avenue and Route 2A, using plans 

developed by NPS consultant Carol R. Johnson Associates, to improve safety conditions. Nelson 

had argued that the MHD’s original preferred alternative failed to address this dangerous 

intersection, instead focusing on New Massachusetts Avenue. The highway department also 

would try to fund the consultation costs of Johnson Associates in completing the landscaping 

design work of the road widening project. In the commitment letter, the MHD stated, too, that it 

would initiate the surplus lands process for transfer of Marrett Street and adjacent lands to the 

NPS. This action depended upon the presentation of a letter of support from Hanscom AFB and 

 

22 Press Release, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, 23 October 1995, 1, File D30 CY 

1995 Marrett Road, Lexington, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 23 Memorandum of Agreement—The Mediation Alternative, 12 October 1995, 1-2, File D30 CY 1995 

Marrett Road, Lexington, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Quotes on p. 2. 24 Nelson to Laurinda Bedingfield, 17 October 1995, 1, File D30 CY 1995 Marrett Road, Lexington, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. 

25 Memorandum of Agreement, 12 October 1995, 3. 26 Nelson to Kevin Sullivan, 20 March 1995, 1-2, File D30 CY 1995 Marrett Road, Lexington, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 

27 Laurinda Bedingfield to Nelson, 5 October 1995, 1, File D30 CY 1995 Marrett Road, Lexington, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 291 

a commitment from the NPS that it would continue to allow access on Airport Road, if the park 

eventually came to own this road.28 Addressing other park concerns, the highway department 

agreed to use its regulatory authority to reduce speeds and review signing along the corridor. 

Improvements to signage would include reducing the number and scale of those signs and 

generally bettering their appearance.29

These commitments alone would have made this agreement a benefit to MIMA. 

However, Nelson achieved more. Still with an eye toward safety, Nelson asked for and received 

a commitment by the MHD to accept suggestions for future maintenance work of the roadway 

within the park. The NPS would make specific recommendations for areas of improvement. 

These might include cleaning and maintenance of overgrown vegetation, cleaning and removal 

of vegetation along historic stone walls, and removal of large concrete blocks left in the park. 

NPS personnel would train and work with the MHD contractors to do this work.30 

One significant result of this part of the agreement involved the park’s stone walls. Many 

of these historic walls had fallen into disrepair from neglect and age. The park had watched with 

alarm over the years as these walls also showed signs of vandalism, with people taking stones to 

fill their private gardens or line their lots. In 1994 the park stepped up its surveillance efforts and 

began an educational program. Through articles in local newspapers and special signage, the 

park made clear that taking of stones took away an important part of the country’s heritage, an 

archeological treasure. Conviction for stealing stones from these historic walls also involved 

steep federal penalties, including prison and fines.31 

To bring back these walls and provide for their upkeep, the MHD worked with the NPS 

to construct or rebuild them. This effort involved careful consultations with a range of trained 

professionals both within the NPS and within the state’s historical commission and highway 

department. The NPS also paid close attention to federal regulations regarding protection of 

wetlands and preservation of archeological resources and historic character. Previous studies, 

including mapping the historic walls using Geographic Information System (GIS) data, helped to 

ensure that the stone wall paths remained accurate. One problem resulted in the size and color 

of the replacement rocks. The NPS had approved one type that matched closely existing rocks. 

When work began, though, it was clear that someone had ordered different rocks, which had a 

lighter color. However, aging from the weather, plus reseeding around the re-established bases, 

helped blend the newer ones with the originals.32 In the end, Nelson believed that the highway 

 

28 As of mid-2007, the Massachusetts Highway Department transferred most of the land adjacent to Airport 

Road to the Massachusetts Department of Conservation and Recreation. There is agreement that Airport 

Road would be retained by MHD but would only be used for maintenance and for local, state, and federal 

emergencies (as well as residential access for the few remaining homes). 

29 Bedingfield to Nelson, 5 October 1995, 1-2. 

30 Ibid., 2. 

31 Sharon Britton, “Pilfering Our History,” Boston Globe, 15 May 1994. 32 Nelson to Norman and Sue Newlands, 14 October 1997, 1-2, File D30 Stone Wall Reconstruction, 

Massachusetts Highway Department, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. Nelson to Kevin Sullivan, 17 June 

1997, File L1425 Marrett and Airport Roads, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. Nelson to Kevin Sullivan, 

6 February 1998, 1, File D30 Marrett Road, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. The author also thanks 

Nelson, Chris Davis, and others in sharing information about the stone wall project. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 292 

department personnel working on the project gained an appreciation for the importance of their 

work, “that they were making a long term and highly significant contribution to the Nation’s 

heritage.”33

Why would rehabilitating stone walls become a component of the maintenance and 

safety improvements by the MHD? Nelson understood that until people who commuted 

through the park actually saw the park, they would not take the time to slow down and respect its 

resources. By having the state highway department clear away overgrown vegetation and rebuild 

the stone walls, the park emerged slowly and steadily. People could see the history in the 

tangible form of those old stone walls and find a connection to the park. With that connection, 

hopefully came commitment to its continued preservation. As Nelson wrote to two Lexington 

residents, “20,000 people travel along Route 2A every day with no understanding that they are 

within a national park or traveling along the historic Battle Road. Trucks and commuter traffic 

speed through the park with potentially disastrous consequences for motorists, bicyclists, 

pedestrians and the park’s one million annual visitors.” This combined effort between the park 

and the state highway department, Nelson predicted, will “make the Park a beautiful, 

recognizable and safe place for everyone who uses it.”34

Battle Road Unit: Safe visitor access trail 

Providing safe visitor access served as the focal point for addressing one of the key 

components of the 1990 GMP. The GMP had dropped consideration of relocating Route 2A out 

of the park and instead set the management goal of developing an “interconnected pedestrian 

trail system” for the entire length of the Battle Road Unit. Former Superintendent Larry Gall had 

sought ways to address this charge, with his initial ideas focused on funding and partnering 

opportunities. First, he had built relationships with organizations such as the Appalachian 

Mountain Club (AMC) to lay out trails, such as around the vernal pool near Hartwell Tavern. 

Second, he had fostered conversations with biking enthusiasts that resulted in extended 

discussions about a bikeway/walkway through the park. He pursued this approach as a way to 

gain funding. Third, Gall worked closely with Congressman Chester Atkins, just before losing 

his seat in the House, to obtain money for the park. One congressional add-on designated 

$347,000 for the planning, design, and development of the bikeway/walkway. The second one 

directed $287,000 for research, planning, and design funds for the Meriam’s Corner area. This 

combined money made it possible for the park to explore its options with regard to developing 

the entire Battle Road Unit. With Gall’s departure, the park continued intensive discussions with 

NPS representatives and outside organizations and individuals. These talks and walks through 

the unit led to agreement for an interpretive walking trail that could accommodate bicycle usage 

but not serve as a major thoroughfare linked to other regional bikeways. NPS staff and people 

who commented on ideas agreed that the trail running through the Battle Road Unit should 

engage visitors with the historical and natural stories associated with the landscape. The trail 

 

33 Nelson to Sullivan, 6 February 1998, 1. 

34 Nelson to Newlands, 14 October 1997, 2. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 293 

would provide safe access to the land and buildings that the NPS had spent the previous 30 years 

acquiring and caretaking.35

Two people bridged the development of the trail between the Gall and Nelson 

superintendencies, Chief Ranger and eventually Assistant Superintendent Dattilio and NPS 

Landscape Architect John Tauscher. Much of the success of the entire project can be attributed 

to Dattilio. He lent his attention to detail and strong communication skills toward meeting with 

residents, communities, and organizations to discuss ideas for the trail and build support. Over 

the course of the project, he kept all of the documentation, neatly organized for handy reference, 

and became a key contact person for the public in formal and informal discussions about specific 

aspects of the trail. In Nelson’s mind, Dattilio knew almost every square inch of the park’s 

landscape, and he applied this knowledge to the process of selecting the trail’s layout and design. 

In many ways, he was the design leader for the Battle Road Unit project. Tauscher joined the 

NPS Regional Office in late 1992 specifically to work on the design and implementation of the 

trail. As job captain, he worked with MIMA for close to a dozen years, overseeing the entire 

Battle Road Unit project, including historic structure and landscape rehabilitation, and also 

overseeing the effort for rehabilitating the North Bridge Unit, as discussed in the next chapter. A 

trained landscape architect, Tauscher had 15 years prior experience in the private sector, 

working on park development projects and site planning. He joined Dattilio in meeting with 

groups. He also gathered data about the lay of the land and any other background materials to 

help in determining the trail’s alignment.36

The park submitted in December 1993 its first development proposal for what it then 

called a Visitor Access Corridor. Several key components characterized this initial funding 

request and would be carried forward as the project progressed. The park emphasized that such 

a trail, in meeting the GMP objectives, would provide safe travel for visitors as they explored the 

length of the park. People would have access to historic sites and natural areas. They would gain 

an appreciation for the landscape as the colonists knew it, both as agricultural land and as cover 

during the hours of the battle on 19 April 1775. The development proposal also made clear that 

such a trail would remove visitors from the very real physical danger that Route 2A posed. Its 

fast-moving cars and trucks made it dangerous for people to take a leisurely ride through the 

park and pull off to see the sights. The trail would have waysides to convey important 

information about the historical and natural setting. Comfort facilities and designated parking 

areas would provide visitors with basic necessities.37

The 1993 proposal included historic structure and cultural landscape restoration and 

rehabilitation. This effort also fit within the GMP objectives, which called for the park’s 

management team to “protect, rehabilitate, and selectively preserve eighteenth- and nineteenth- 

 

35 Quote from 1990 GMP, 32. Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 24-25; Sabin, 1993 Admin History, 17, 28. 36 Sabin, 1993 Admin History, 17; Dattilio, transcript of interview, 19; John Tauscher, transcription of oral 

history interview with the author, 5 December 2006, 1-3, MIMA Archives. Dattilio’s files and binders for 

the Battle Road Trail remain at the park, still a handy resource. 37 Development/Study Package Proposal, 3 December 1993, unpaginated, File D20 CY 94 Visitor Access 

Corridor, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Acting superintendent Teresa Wallace signed this initial proposal; 

Nancy Nelson is listed inside as the park superintendent and contact. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 294 

century buildings” for interpretation, visitor uses, and adaptive uses. Plus, the 1990 GMP called 

for protection and restoration of the historic scene in selected areas, including use of agricultural 

special use permits. The park asked in its 1993 visitor access proposal for funding to remove 

scrub brush from fields, repair stone walls, remove two modern houses recently under NPS 

control, and preserve three historic structures, the Meriam House, the McHugh Barn, and the 

Jacob Whittemore House. As the trail project would proceed, the park would expand its vision 

for what it wanted to accomplish for the historic structures and cultural landscapes in the Battle 

Road Unit. In total, the 1993 proposal asked for a little more than $9 million, of which site 

development and trail construction would take almost $7 million.38

Once Nelson became superintendent in January 1994, she led the park in articulating the 

urgency for the trail and winning the necessary funding. She also garnered partnerships and 

collaborations that enhanced the trail and built support. Safety and access became the key 

identifying words for the project. Nelson and the rest of the park staff made clear to anyone who 

would listen that the NPS had spent many millions of dollars to acquire 800 acres of land that 

virtually remained invisible to visitors due to lack of access. That lack of access resulted in large 

part from the busy Route 2A. Nelson would often point to the park brochure, which warned 

visitors not to slow down for sightseeing as they drove along that highway. More than 20,000 

cars drove down state Route 2A each day and all 2A intersections within the park had the least 

safe rating for Level of Service. Frequent accidents resulting in injuries requiring ambulance or 

helicopter response plagued the area, as well as fatalities.39 In the few places visitors could safely 

turn off, people did not get out of their cars. Landscape Architect Tauscher remembered that 

park staff referred to the Paul Revere Capture Monument as the “drive-in monument.” Visitors 

could drive their car up to the monument in a parking lot, read the inscription from their car 

windows, and then drive on.40 In Nelson’s mind, the park was not meeting its mission or its 

obligations with such a situation. Instead, she argued that “this is a park that should be stellar.” 

Providing safe and informative access to the Battle Road’s many features with the trail would 

meet these expectations.41

Nelson understood that efforts to improve safety and access would in the long run 

“Create the Park,” as she argued in funding requests. “This was my mantra to the park,” Nelson 

later stated, “what we’re really doing here is creating the park . . . creating a new national park.”42 

As Nelson had argued with regard to the stone wall rehabilitation, by opening up vistas and 

leading people, even if only with their eyes, into the landscape, she hoped that people traveling 

on Route 2A would begin to see the park and its possibilities and treat it with increasing respect. 

Creating the park would ensure the survival of the park and the safety and enjoyment of its 

visitors. Through its commitment to this vision, the park had consolidated partnerships with the 

 

38 1990 GMP, 32; 1993 Development/Study Package Proposal, unpaginated. 

39 Sharon Britton, “Bringing History to Light,” Boston Globe, 20 November 1994. MIMA, Environmental 

Assessment for Safe Visitor Access Trail, May 1996, 2, 22, File Visitor Access Trail, NPS Reports Files, 

MIMA Library. 

40 Tauscher, transcript of interview, 4. 

41 Nelson, as quoted by Britton, “Bringing History to Light.” 

42 Nelson, transcript of interview, 6. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 295 

MHD, AMC, local town groups, and the Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation. The park 

had also encouraged in 1998 the re-establishment of a friends group, newly named the Minute 

Man National Park Association. These efforts then made possible new opportunities to “elevate 

the profile and identity of the Park through the rehabilitation of the Park’s diverse cultural 

resources.”43 

The Minute Man National Park Association expanded the mission of the original Battle 

Road friends group, which had sought attention to relocate Route 2A. The new friends group 

consisted of local leaders who provided crucial guidance and advice as the park began designing 

the Battle Road Trail. This work helped build support for the trail among the park’s neighbors 

while also respecting their sensibilities and taking into account their concerns. The park 

association also served as the repository of major donations from the Meriam Family, the Brooks 

Family, and other friends of the park. With these funds, the association sponsored landscape 

restoration through introduction of sheep, historic house rehabilitation (specifically the Meriam 

House and Joshua Brooks House), plus a host of concerts, lectures, public meetings, and multitown public events. Currently, the park association is undergoing another change, increasing its 

board and expanding its focus to fundraising. The group intends to meet the NPS’s 2016 

Centennial Challenge by raising funds for a patriot learning center, along with cultural landscape 

rehabilitation and sustainable agriculture initiatives.44

This vision for the park brought attention and the necessary funding, but not as a single 

package. By late 1994, the NPS had rated the Battle Road Trail project within the top 10 of 

hundreds of proposals nationwide for the Federal Lands Highway Program (FLHP) funds. 

Nelson, Datillio, and North Atlantic Regional Development Chief Bob Holzheimer went to 

Washington, DC, to make their case for MIMA. They succeeded, and the park had the 

beginnings of its funding in place. But, this $1.5 million of FLHP money came in two phases and 

addressed only specific aspects of the trail itself, such as staking the trail, clearing the trail area, 

and constructing boardwalks through wetlands. The majority of the rest of the money for the 

project came from Line Item Construction funding through the NPS.45 And, again, this money 

came in phases. Phases three and four, totaling $3.2 million, completed trail construction, added 

parking lots, demolished modern buildings, and placed waysides along its 5.5-mile length. But, 

the historic structures and landscape remained, so Phase five, funded at $1.6 million, addressed 

the structures and Phase six, at about $1 million, addressed the cultural landscape. Finally, 

 

43 MIMA, Development/Study Package Proposal, Save Historic Structures/Cultural Landscape, 13 May 

1996, Objective: Improve Efficiency of Park Operations, File D20 CY 1996 Save Historic 

Structures/Cultural Landscapes, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

44 Information about the Minute Man Park Association can be found by reviewing the organization’s 

newsletters and minutes of meetings, copies of which are found in File Minute Man Park Association, 

Superintendent’s Office, MIMA. See in particular The Rider 1 (Spring 1999), 1; Director’s Meeting 

Minutes, 10 June 1998, 1; Director’s Meeting Minutes, 2 February 2000, 1; Director’s Meeting Minutes, 13 

June 2000, 1; Director’s Meeting Minutes, 20 September 2000, 2. See also Schedule A to the Articles of 

Organization of the Minute Man National Park Association, Inc., no date, File Minute Man Park 

Association, Superintendent’s Files, MIMA. 

45 Other sources of funding included, for example, the MHD contribution to rebuild stone walls and clear 

vegetation and its role in building the pedestrian underpass. These other sources of funding are described 

further down. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 296 

Nelson advocated successfully for a pedestrian tunnel underneath Hanscom Drive to connect 

the eastern and western halves of the Battle Road Trail. Funding, amounting to about $500,000, 

came from the federal highway program to the state. The MHD managed the project, Phase 

seven for the Battle Road, with the NPS completing the design.46 

This phased approach to construction and rehabilitation had its challenges. Nelson and 

regional representatives from both Boston and Denver constantly had to keep an eye on the 

funding situation and ensure that the work remained foremost in the minds of decision makers. 

When regional staff learned that the agency wanted to split the historic structure and cultural 

landscape work into two different projects with different timelines, thus endangering one for the 

other, staffers wrote impassioned responses. Denver Project Manager Shelley Mettlach argued 

that health and safety reasons required completion of both phases. She pointed out that 

advanced growth of trees and shrubs in the Battle Road Unit had allowed for extensive problems 

with illegal marijuana growth, dumping of hazardous materials, illicit sexual activity, and even a 

recent homicide. As she reminded the Washington office, “we built the trail for visitors to enjoy” 

but critical health and safety issues must be addressed through the cultural landscape work.47 

Nelson has argued that the phased approach increased the cost of the overall project and 

required cuts to stay within budgets. Some important work elements were cut as a result. 

Tauscher agreed that some savings may have occurred through the sheer volume of the whole 

project, but “the reality of it was that there wasn’t the money there to do it all at once” and 

phasing became the only option.48 

As different phases went out for bid by contractors, more challenges appeared. 

Government estimates for specific work oftentimes were much lower than what contractors 

charged in their proposals. In these cases, the park had to sit down with the lowest bidders and 

negotiate the work, usually removing tasks or altering them to meet what funding the 

government had allocated for the work. Dattilio remembered that for the historic structures, the 

park initially expected to place fire suppression systems in each building from top to bottom. 

When those bids came in prohibitively high, the park opted instead to place fire suppression in 

each house in the most vulnerable places, such as the basement and attic. In another instance, 

Dattilio recalled that the park could only afford a portion of the stone wall rehabilitation that it 

had originally planned to have done.49 

The park also tried to find places to save money. To meet the requirements of the 

National Environmental Protection Act, the park had to complete an environmental assessment. 

Usually parks contracted out this work, paying six figures. Instead, MIMA used its own staff, 

along with support from the Boston Office, to write the report. Curator Teresa Wallace also 

 

46 Ibid. Tauscher, transcript of interview, 7-9. Funding history also provided in 1-page documents 

provided by Tauscher. See also Project Report, 29 September 1998, File MIMA 170A #1, RG 79, Denver 

FRC. 

47 Email, Shelley Mettlach to Roger [no last name] and copied to Nelson, 18 September 1998, File MIMA 

170A #1, RG 79, Denver FRC. 

48 Tauscher, transcript of interview, 7. Nelson expressed these thoughts in conversations with the author. 

49 Dan Dattilio, conversation with the author, 25 October 2007, notes in Admin History Files, MIMA 

Archives. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 297 

remembered how Dattilio put his diplomatic and research skills to good use by working closely 

with the NPS archeologist. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act requires that 

federal agencies take into account the effects of their actions on historic properties and lands. 

For the Battle Road Trail, one aspect of the Section 106 process involved working with the 

archeologist to ensure the integrity of any undisturbed archeological resources. Dattilio knew 

that much of the land where the proposed trail crossed had been previously disturbed for 

houses, gas stations, motels, farm stands, and other modern intrusions. Using the park’s land 

files, with its many photographs, he convinced the archeologist that fewer test pits would be 

needed since the trail crossed so much previously disturbed land. This work by Dattilio saved 

many thousands of dollars for actual trail construction.50

Important contributions sustained and moved the project forward through this phased 

approach. Nelson’s successful advocacy during the negotiations over the widening of Route 2A 

in Lexington resulted in the involvement of the MHD to the amount of $3.5 million. The MHD 

realigned the dangerous Route 2A intersection, agreed to sell 12 acres of land to the park, created 

a landscaped entry at the park’s eastern boundary, and restored some of the stone walls in the 

Battle Road Unit. Hanscom AFB also granted a land easement for the trail, and the Town of 

Lincoln voted at its 1996 Town Meeting to transfer sections of Old Bedford Road, Virginia Road, 

and Bedford Lane, all in the area of the Bloody Angle and Hartwell Tavern, to the park. By 

having Landscape Architect Tauscher onsite and active in the entire development project, the 

park also gained other important contributions. Tauscher developed relationships with the 

utility companies, for example, and convinced them to remove the poles along the Bloody Angle. 

Dattilio’s diplomatic skills ensured that the community remained informed and involved, 

ultimately ensuring that the project kept moving forward. He led the public meetings and met 

separately with people who had objections or concerns.51

Even before putting shovel to earth, Nelson and her staff built important partnerships 

that resulted in design improvements and valuable assistance. Plus, this initial work, lasting for 

three years, laid important foundations for ensuring success with the actual construction project. 

Nelson, with Dattilio’s important assistance, gained these valuable partnerships by inviting a 

broad constituency to take walks along sections of the alignment in anticipation of actual 

construction. Groups participating included local officials, state authorities, neighboring 

residents, and others. These gatherings helped garner attention for the trail while providing 

opportunities for hearing ideas and generating enthusiasm. The park also held monthly open 

forums to hear from people who expected to use the trail. The park communicated with abutters 

and those families living in the park on life estates or term leases. Park staff also reached out to 

 

50 Dattilio, conversation with the author, 25 October 2007. Terrie Wallace, conversation with the author, 

23 October 2007, Admin History Files, MIMA Archives. 51 Ibid. Memorandum, Chrysandra Walter to Associate Director, Professional Services, 16 July 1996, 2, File 

Battle Road Trail, Nancy Nelson’s Files, MIMA. Nelson to Timothy Higgins, 16 January 1996, 1, Binder 

Battle Road Trail Planning, MIMA. Tauscher, transcript of interview, 6. Email, Bob Holzheimer to Roger 

Brown, 9 February 1999, File MIMA 170A (1of 2), Denver FRC. Article 31, Town Meeting, Report of the 

Officers and Committees of the Town of Lincoln, 1996, Lincoln Public Library. The author thanks 

librarian Jeanne Bracken for obtaining this record. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 298 

area teachers, familiarizing them with the trail and providing them with ideas for developing 

programs to help students understand the events of 19 April 1775. Area historians met in a 

workshop to learn about the trail and find ways to assist park staff.52 Nelson also promoted the 

support of non-profit groups such as the AMC and The Trust for Public Lands. As one group 

member noted in a thank you to Nelson, “You are very nice to give such nice exposure to us.”53 

These meetings encouraged discussion of important issues and led to improvements to 

the trail design. AMC members, for example, asked that the NPS use a pervious material for the 

trail so that it blended with the historic and natural surroundings. Since the trail would cross so 

many wetlands areas, the AMC members also recommended using boardwalks as opposed to 

filling in walkways in those areas. Having a shuttle system might help encourage use of the linear 

trail. Other participants, worried about crowding on the trail, asked that the NPS consider 

carefully how much parking it would make available at the various wayside stops.54

These ideas and more helped shape the location and design. Park staff first considered 

many different alignments, such as following Route 2A on the side, using a southern alignment, 

or having the trail follow Route 2A on the north and south and cross Route 2A at different 

points. They opted for an alignment that stayed on the north side of Route 2A because most of 

the historic features sat there and it avoided having to cross busy Route 2A. This pathway would 

provide safe passage and also give visitors the perspective of the British and Patriots as they 

would have fanned out over the landscape during the battle. Once this decision was made, 

though, the park had to determine the actual path of the trail. Dattilio remembered this process 

as similar to “threading several hundred needles.”55 He understood the many possibilities and 

drawbacks for the trail’s possible alignment because he knew the park’s landscape so well, along 

with all of the competing interests that would ultimately shape it. Neighbors, town officials, 

professionals, almost everyone had concerns that they aired in the meetings and walks. The park 

ran into a lot of resistance to having the trail cross any wetlands, for instance. Dattilio, Tauscher, 

and others also had to take into account archeological resources and farmlands still actively used. 

The trail could not come too close to these varied resources to cause harm but the designers also 

wanted to allow visitors to have access for educational purposes. In addition, the Americans 

with Disabilities Act placed other requirements on the trail to ensure accessibility. All of these 

considerations meant that the final trail location was essentially absolute.56

With the location set, Dattilio and Tauscher worked with representatives from Johnson 

Associates, including a young landscape architect named Kyle Zick, and representatives from 

Bargemann, Hendrie, & Archetype to develop the work plans and landscape and engineering 

 

52 MIMA, Environmental Assessment for Safe Visitor Access Trail, 58, Appendix N. Andrew Falender to 

Nelson, 24 May 1994, File A8215 CY 1994 National Park Week, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Kevin 

Knobloch to Nelson, 31 May 1994; and Open Trail Meeting, 28 March 1995, both in File Battle Road Trail, 

Vertical Files—Landscape Features, Maintenance Records, MIMA. 

53 Broadside, Envisioning the Battle Road Trail, 23 May 1994, with handwritten note, File A8215 CY 1994 

National Park Week, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

54 Falender to Nelson, 24 May 1994; Knobloch to Nelson, 31 May 1994; Open Trail Meeting, 28 March 

1995, 1. 

55 Dattilio, conversation with the author, 25 October 2007. Tauscher, transcript of interview, 4-5, 8. 56 Ibid. Dattilio, email to the author, 23 October 2007, Admin History Files, MIMA Archives. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 299 

designs. Since about one-third of the 5.5-mile trail would follow the historic Battle Road, the 

NPS recognized an opportunity to make that historic connection tangible to users. The team 

decided to make the trail surface two different colors and textures. They used archeological 

findings to replicate the historic texture and look for the restored Battle Road, choosing a sand 

and clay mix bound with a natural plant material to withstand heavy usage from the park’s one 

million visitors each year. The historic segments of the trail vary in width from 11 to 14 feet, 

again mimicking the original roadway but sitting above the actual Battle Road to preserve this 

important archeological record. Granite markers and monuments with a chain also mark the 

sections following the original road.57

For the other two-thirds of the trail that did not follow the historic alignment, the team 

made subtle changes to clue visitors into the difference. The non-historic parts of the trail, or 

new trail, have a slightly different surfacing and are narrower, either seven-feet wide on the 

ground or five-feet wide on boardwalks crossing wetlands. This new trail also has a curvier 

geometry than the historic trail. These choices also met safety and preservation concerns. The 

narrower widths would reduce the trail’s disturbance of natural and cultural resources, plus 

reduce frequent usage by high-speed bicyclists. Early discussions during Gall’s superintendency 

had considered a 12-foot wide trail, linking with regional bicycle routes. The NPS abandoned 

such ideas with the final trail design, one that would fit well within the historic landscape and 

encourage interpretation and leisurely access. The meandering nature of the trail also 

discouraged fast travel. For the wetlands crossings, the team used boardwalks to intrude the 

least amount on these sensitive areas. Plus, boardwalk posts were constructed of plastic lumber, 

and pressure-treated lumber was kept away from the ground. Both of these actions would keep 

chemicals from leaching into the ground. Contractors constructed these boardwalks during the 

winter months of 1996-1997, providing the least amount of disturbance to these sensitive areas. 

Local conservation commissions and groups toured the wetland areas often during the planning 

stage, and the towns ultimately approved these crossings because they knew the park would have 

interpretive waysides to educate visitors.58

With the initial FLHP funding in place, plus the equivalent of $3.5 million contributed by 

the state in services and contributions to the park and trail, the NPS celebrated its official 

groundbreaking for the Battle Road Trail in late October 1996. (To follow the development 

course within MIMA 1997-2006 as represented in funded projects, see Appendix.) Public 

programming included a show-and-tell sharing findings of archeological surveys at Meriam’s 

Corner, a walk inspired by Henry David Thoreau’s writings, musical performances by fife and 

drum players, and living-history demonstrations. Construction proceeded for the next year, 

 

57 Tauscher, transcript of interview, 4-5, 8. Heather Hammatt, “Retreating through History,” Landscape 

Architecture 2 (2002): 68-70. Lou Sideris, Battle Road Trail Interpretation Brainstorm List, 15 August 1995, 

2, File MIMA Interpretation, John Tauscher Files, Boston. 

58 Nelson to Connie Crosby, 31 January 1996, and attached Proposed Action and Alternatives, Section 2.4, 

File D30 FY 1996 Battle Road Trail, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Email, Dan Dattilio to John Tauscher. 6 

October 1997, File Trails Info, Vertical Files—Grounds General Info, Maintenance Records, MIMA. 

MIMA, Development/Study Package Proposal, 8 May 1996, 3, File D30 CY 1996 Complete Battle Road 

Trail, Park Admin Files, MIMA. MIMA, Environmental Assessment, Safe Visitor Access Trail, 6, 59. 

Tauscher, transcript of interview, 8, 11. Hammatt, “Retreating through History,” 67, 69-70. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 300 

completing the physical trail but not any of the visitor facilities, such as restrooms, or interpretive 

areas, both of which relied upon continued phased congressional appropriations. 

Demonstrating their approval of the trail and the NPS’s work, the local towns and even 

Massachusetts state house elected officials appealed to the US Congress for these additional 

funds. Sen. Edward Kennedy succeeded in obtaining $1.2 million in construction funding to 

complete these trail improvements, plus a $250,000 operating increase for addressing responsible 

operation of the trail. Interpretive waysides, restroom facilities, parking lots, and other visitor 

services began appearing in 1998.59

Nelson’s careful attention to the many diverse groups of people who had a stake in the 

trail kept the project moving forward. When difficulties arose, she responded and sought 

solutions that addressed both the concerns of these people and the responsibilities of the NPS in 

completing the trail. For instance, the trail had to cross behind or through land still occupied by 

people living under term leases or life estates. If the trail crossed onto this occupied land, the 

NPS had to obtain a formal agreement with the resident. If the trail simply passed by but did not 

cross such land, the park still worked to ensure a positive outcome. When the trail crew 

accidentally damaged Walter Beatteay’s drainage structure while working behind his garden, 

Nelson wrote a formal apology and encouraged him to voice any other concerns. Dattilio also 

provided maps showing the trail’s path and worked with Beatteay to ensure adequate separation 

of the trail from his leased property. Further discussion led the park to narrow slightly the trail 

behind his garden and build fencing to keep people off the Beatteay land.60

In 1996, residents living along Hayward Avenue in the Haywood Pond neighborhood, 

which had successfully fought the draft 1988 GMP and its intent to acquire some of its property 

for inclusion in the park, stepped up against the Battle Road Trail as it passed through this area. 

They voiced safety concerns, stating that the proposed parking lot on Old Wood Street, an 

abandoned roadway that had served as an overflow lot, would attract more traffic and exasperate 

the already busy intersection at Old Massachusetts Avenue and Wood Street. They also pointed 

out that littering, vandalism, and illegal activities occurred with increasing frequency nearby in 

the Fiske Hill Area of the park. Hayward Avenue neighbors wanted to see engagement by the 

NPS in addressing these problems. Residents worried that these activities would spread to their 

neighborhood with the construction of the parking lot and addition of the trail. The neighbors 

wanted the trail moved as far as possible away from the Hayward Avenue homes, recommending 

that the trail either dip south of Old Massachusetts Avenue or follow this roadway. The NPS had 

 

59 Walter to Associate Director, Professional Services, 16 July 1996, 2. Debra Parkhurst to Rep. Sidney 

Yates, 10 July 1996; and Lucile Hicks to Rep. Peter Torkildsen, 13 June 1996, 1; and Timothy Higgins to 

Sen. Slade Gordon, 15 July 1996, all in File D20 FY 1996 Battle Road Trail, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

Gordon Bell to Sen. Edward Kennedy, 21 July 1998, 1, File A22 MIMA Association, Current Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. Eva Heney, “Work Progresses on Battle Road Trail,” Lexington Minute-Man, 6 November 

1997. Battle Road Fall Festival brochure, 26 October 1996, File A8215 CY 1996 Battle Road Fall Festival, 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

60 Memorandum of Understanding between National Park Service and Irene Hagenian, 9 October 1996, 

File A44 Hagenian, Irene, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Nelson to Walter Beatteay, 11 February 1997; Nelson 

to Walter Beatteay, 6 March 1997; Nelson to Walter Beatteay, 28 October 1997, all in D20 Battle Road Trail 

Neighbors, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 301 

requested the Town of Lexington to transfer the abandoned Old Wood Street roadway to the 

park, but the neighborhood association asked that such a decision wait until further study.61

Nelson had tried to open the channels of communication a year earlier, having the park 

host a special neighborhood meeting about the trail. Chief Ranger Dattilio had also been striving 

to address the illegal and nuisance behavior at Fiske Hill, having rangers make more frequent and 

visible appearances in the area and closing parking lots at night. The interpretive division 

developed trail maps for the area while maintenance kept areas mowed and installed picnic 

tables, all with the intent of encouraging usage by families, as opposed to potential criminals. 

Once the Hayward Avenue community made clear its opposition to the transfer of Old Wood 

Street, Nelson continued to talk with members and address concerns. These efforts led the 

neighborhood association to drop its opposition.62 Instead, the park agreed to work with the 

neighborhood to “address and resolve their safety concerns and littering and traffic issues” prior 

to the town’s transfer of the land.63 

Nelson immediately worked to meet these conditions. However, she also paid close 

attention to her responsibilities to the general public, refusing to accommodate those demands 

that conflicted with the park’s attention to the safety and enjoyment of its visitors. Park rangers 

met with the Lexington police department to discuss the park’s intent to further increase 

patrolling and enforcement in the area. The park also developed a Trail Security Plan and agreed 

to install safety signs at trail crossings. The park modified trail crosswalks to maximize visibility 

and safety. Park staff conducted litter pick-ups and closed informal pull-off areas that had 

attracted illegal dumping. Park brochures would not indicate the location of the Old Wood 

Street parking lot, but Nelson did refuse to remove this lot, as it had provided important public 

access without problems for many years. The park also worked with Johnson Associates, the 

landscape architectural firm designing the trail, to explore other alignments for the trail. 

However, the area’s hilly conditions largely prescribed the trail’s path to keep it universally 

accessible. Nelson offered to use vegetative screening or fencing as alternatives. She also 

pointed out that the preferred alignment traveled no closer than 54.5 feet to Hayward Avenue, 

exceeding a town standard, and that wooded land buffered the space between the trail edge and 

the Hayward Avenue homes.64

 

61 Members of the Hayward Pond Neighborhood Association to Board of Selectmen, 1 May 1996, File D20 

Battle Road Trail Hayward Pond Neighborhood Association [hereafter File D20 Hayward Pond], Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. Fiske Hill had experienced an increase in illicit sexual activity and vandalism during 

this time period. See Memorandum, Dattilio to Division Chiefs and Protection Employees, 3 May 1995, 

File D20 Hayward Pond, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

62 Nancy Engels and Nancy Nelson to Friends and Neighbors [of Hayward Pond], 30 March 1995; Plan to 

Controlling Problems at Fiske Hill, Summer 1995; Nelson to neighbors, 14 June 1995, 1; Members of the 

Hayward Pond Neighborhood Association to Town of Lexington Board of Selectmen, 14 June 1995, all in 

File D20 Hayward Pond, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

63 Nelson to Town of Lexington Board of Selectmen, 17 June 1996, File D20 Hayward Pond, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 

64 Ibid.; Nelson to Lexington Board of Selectmen, 1 July 1996; Nelson to Sen. Edward Kennedy, 17 July 

1996; Nelson to Hayward Neighborhood Association, 13 September 1996 and attached Summary Report, 

all in File D20 Hayward Pond, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 302 

In the end, the park addressed as many of the neighborhood’s concerns as possible while 

remaining faithful to its obligations to the general public. Even as the landscape architects staked 

out the actual alignment, Nelson asked them to check and double check their calculations to see 

if the trail could move further south from Hayward Avenue. Grading in that section of the trail 

proved a deterrent if the park wanted to keep at the 8% maximum grade allowable for universal 

accessibility. The trail stayed as planned. And, as Dattilio remarked later, people throughout the 

Hayward Pond neighborhood love it. “They’re happy; they just walk 20 feet and they have a trail 

that takes them, their kids can ride a bike into town without having to ride on the road” or when 

they have visitors and “they get cabin fever during Thanksgiving, they can put them on the trail, 

and they can walk to the visitor center.”65

Many other organizations and people have expressed appreciation for the trail. The park 

and its landscape architecture consultant, Johnson Associates, won the highly regarded Merit 

Award from the American Society of Landscape Architects. The Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts also awarded the trail its Honor Award for Accessible Design in Public 

Architecture. The Boston Society of Landscape Architecture similarly honored the trail. 

Individuals have walked the trail and marveled.66 Representative Atkins remarked that “it’s a 

beautiful walk through a variety of landscapes. And it’s in a fairly highly populated area and with 

a limited amount of open space that really gives you a sense of peace and quiet and of having a 

much bigger amount of land preserved than is.”67 Warren Flint, Jr., a Lincoln Selectmen during 

the 1990s legislative process, liked having sheep by the trail, so that “one can really walk back and 

begin to feel that you’re back 250 years ago.”68 And, one Lexington resident wrote to the park in 

1999 that “the path has a wonderful sense of peace combined with a sense of the past. I am 

enjoying it and everyone that I know who uses it, loves it, and cannot wait for the Hanscom 

crossing to be completed.”69

That crossing would address a major safety factor. Hanscom Drive, with its 50 miles per 

hour speed limit and four lanes posed a significant concern for visitors wanting to cross this 

roadway. The park had already witnessed several “potentially tragic accidents” that were 

“miraculously avoided.” To address this situation, the park worked with the MHD to build an 

underpass. The state’s Transportation Enhancement Program, a federal highway program 

administered through the states, funded the project. This underpass, delayed for several years 

due to changes required in design and construction, finally opened in 2005.70

 

65 Dattilio, transcript of interview, 20. 

66 Copies of awards in File D30 Battle Road Trail, Awards, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

67 Atkins, transcript of interview, 5. 

68 Flint, Jr., transcript of interview, 6. 69 Wendy Reasenberg to Nelson, 26 July 1999, File D20 Battle Road Trail, Current Park Admin Files, 

MIMA. 

70 Nelson to Luisa Paiewonsky, 18 May 2001, 1, File D20 Battle Road Trail, Hanscom Drive Underpass, 

Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 303 

BATTLE ROAD UNIT: INTERPRETATION

Interpretation served as one of the key components of the Battle Road Trail. Landscape 

Architect Tauscher, working with the park’s Interpretation Chief Lou Sideris and many others, 

kept interpretation in mind as he helped design the trail along both the original Battle Road 

alignment and off it into the fields. Visitors thus had the opportunity to experience the 

landscape from two perspectives, that of the British Regulars along the historic Battle Road and 

that of the Patriots as they crossed the agricultural fields and took cover behind huge boulders, 

buildings, and trees to shoot. One advantage of having Tauscher involved with the entire design 

and construction project was that he could follow-through on his ideas to aid interpretation. For 

instance, he placed a sitting area down from Bloody Angle and near the boardwalk that crossed 

Elm Brook. By angling the sitting rocks and platform in a certain way, he could provide 

interpretive rangers with an effectively placed area for telling the story of 19 April 1775. He knew 

what he wanted the visitors and rangers to see as they sat in that little area, and he could ensure 

that vision by being on hand at each stage of the project. In the same way, Tauscher and Sideris 

recognized that waysides should be placed strategically to encompass exactly the scene or view 

that might be mentioned in the text. This careful attention to the stories of the Battle Road Trail 

have enhanced the visitor experience and made the landscape a special place to explore.71

Team members also made a noticeable improvement to the visitor experience by 

removing some obtrusive parking lots and encouraging people to walk, not drive, to some key 

historic areas. When Tauscher first came to the park, visitors could drive up to the front of the 

Captain Smith House, and the long driveway became a parking area. As he stated, “it didn’t give 

you the sense of what the landscape might have been like at the time of the battle, because right 

here, right in front of the house, is a car.” And more people would pull up right behind you. The 

same situation existed at Hartwell Tavern and the Hartwell ghost structure. Modern houses only 

recently came under NPS control and could be removed. Tour buses, especially during fall 

foliage season, would drive up Virginia Road, slow down for the historic structures, then 

proceed down Old Bedford Road and head toward The Wayside and North Bridge. Or, people 

could take Bedford Lane directly to the tavern. With the Town of Lincoln transferring parts of 

these roads to the park in 1996, the team could remove the parking lot next to the tavern, align 

the Battle Road Trail along the historic roadway, and create an agricultural landscape that 

echoed that of two centuries ago. Team members placed parking lots close to Route 2A, 

reducing the overall number of lots but enlarging the ones they kept so that the park would have 

the same net number of parking spaces as beforehand. The entrance for the Battle Road Visitor 

Center (soon to be renamed the MIMA Visitor Center) was also changed, directing cars from 

Route 2A to the parking lot instead of having people drive along Airport Road and the historic 

trace of the Battle Road. With this design change, the park could remove the asphalt and return 

the roadway to its historic appearance, adding to the interpretive experience.72

 

71 Tauscher, transcript of interview, 12-13. Lou Sideris, Draft, Battle Road Interpretation, 8 March 1995, 3, 

File MIMA Interpretation, John Tauscher Files, Boston. 

72 Ibid., 3, 19. Quote on p. 3. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 304 

For the 25 waysides and other interpretive markers, Interpretation Chief Sideris worked 

with the design firm of Jon Roll Associates. They thought carefully about possible formats and 

content. In reading about approaches that other sites were trying, they realized that the trail’s 

interpretive markers could be creative and engaging in different ways. Jon Roll suggested that 

granite mile markers remind people that, say, Boston Harbor was 13 miles away. Such an 

unobtrusive marker would bring home how far the British had to go before gaining cover and 

protection from the endless firing of Patriots along the Battle Road. They also thought about 

placing sculptures along the trail, to engage children and international visitors who may not be 

able to read The Waysides. Audio tracks embedded in some waysides might capture the words 

that participants used to describe 19 April, conveying the emotion and drama. Quotes of 

opposing views at key sites such as Bloody Angle or Meriam’s Corner also would reveal the 

complexity of the situation.73 Although the park did not adopt all of these ideas, clearly Sideris 

and others recognized that the trail offered possibilities beyond what had traditionally been tried 

at the park. In recognition of the British situation, Sideris proposed six markers at the locations 

along the trail where soldiers are believed to have fallen and been buried. He commented later, 

saying “I always noticed how deeply people responded to the Grave of the British Soldiers next 

to the North Bridge, and [I] felt that that would be an important addition to the Battle Road 

Trail.”74

Sideris also wanted to acknowledge the changes to the landscape over time, recognizing 

that the park could never fully restore the eighteenth-century battle ground. Nor would it want 

to freeze that landscape to 1775. The story of how farmers had used the landscape over 300 years 

deserved attention. This approach fits within the expanded mission of the park mandated under 

the 1992 legislation while also addressing the concerns raised by the Massachusetts State 

Historic Preservation Office. The park would also develop revised guidelines in its 2002 

National Register for Historic Places nomination, delineating that the period of significance for 

agriculture extends to 1951. This topic is discussed further in the next chapter. 

With the trail meandering through agricultural fields and along marshes and past stone 

walls, Sideris knew that many opportunities existed for visitors to connect to that evolving past. 

At the Stowe and Jones Farmland near Meriam’s Corner, a wayside explains that this area had 

been farmed continuously since the seventeenth century. Evidence of the changes over time 

could be found in the remains of stone walls, hedgerows, and ditches. At the Job Brooks House 

and tannery, another wayside makes clear that farmers supplemented their farming ventures 

with other pursuits. Here, farm diversification included not just the tannery but also a brick kiln, 

a nineteenth-century slaughterhouse, a saw mill, and livestock farming.75

Another important contribution to developing the interpretive story for the Battle Road 

Unit and the entire national park came with the 1997 replacement of the exhibits and 

 

73 Sideris, Battle Road Interpretation, 8 March 1995, 1-3; Sideris, Battle Road Trail Interpretation 

Brainstorm List, 1-2. 

74 Lou Sideris, comments to first draft of manuscript, 6, MIMA Archives. 

75 Sideris, Battle Road Interpretation, 8 March 1995, 1, 3-4; Sideris, Battle Road Trail Interpretation 

Brainstorm List, 1-2; Interpretive Points of Interest, Wayside Locations, 4 October 1995, 1-2, File MIMA 

Interpretation, John Tauscher File’s Boston. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 305 

introduction of a new media presentation at the 1976 visitor center. In this space, the park made 

some dramatic improvements to capture and relate the 1775 story. As visitors enter the building, 

they see above them a 40 by 15-foot mural depicting militia members and British soldiers 

shooting at each other across a typical landscape with stone walls and cleared agricultural fields. 

Artist John Rush completed this mural with extensive historical input from Sideris, others at the 

park, and staff from Harpers Ferry Center. They wanted the mural to convey the grand scale of 

the depicted battle scene, inviting people to go out into the park and find areas where such action 

could have taken place. The view would also provide a way for visitors to imagine how the entire 

stretch of the Battle Road may have been in 1775, as opposed to how modern intrusions had 

introduced asphalt roads, utility poles, and extensive tree coverage. In the process, the mural 

would help break down popular views that inaccurately held that the Patriots hid behind trees to 

shoot at the British. Instead, the land had had few trees, and the Patriots had sniped behind 

houses, stone walls, and large rocks. Below the mural in the main entry room, new visitor center 

exhibits give an overview of the causes and events of the war and introduce some of the key 

people.76

In 1998, the park completed its renovation of the visitor center by presenting a new 

multimedia show titled “Road to Revolution.” Sideris served as the park liaison of this 

collaborative effort between the park staff, Harpers Ferry Center, designers Jeff Kennedy 

Associates, Northern Light Productions, and exhibit specialists Exhibitology. Using the 

historical figure of Amos Doolittle, a Connecticut militiaman and engraver, as the narrator and a 

life-size replica of Hartwell Tavern, as the primary setting, the multimedia show details the 

events of 18-19 April 1775. The theatre walls depict fields and woods typical of Lexington, 

Lincoln, and Concord on one side while church steeples and rooftops suggest colonial Boston on 

the other side. A grandfather clock face helps audience members keep track of time as the events 

unfold. A large map with colored lights shows troop movements between Boston and Concord. 

Crucial scenes at Meriam’s Corner and at the Lincoln-Lexington line where Captain Parker led 

his remaining Lexington militiamen in a retaliatory attack against the British following the deaths 

on Lexington Green are also depicted. Doolittle, who came to Concord a few days following the 

battle, interviewed witnesses and captured scenes in his drawings. Using this character as 

narrator provides an effective voice for the presentation. As Tim Lay, producer for Northern 

Lights Production of Boston, stated, “We were struggling to create living and breathing 

characters and action, not repeat a static series of events. . . .”77 Plus, the contributors to the 

presentation wanted to capture the “tremendous sense of uncertainty for the people then. . . . 

 

76 Memorandum, Sideris to Don Branch, Neil Mackay, and John Rush, 19 October 1993, 1; and 

Memorandum, Sideris to Manager HFC, 3 December 1993, 1, both in File D62 BRVC CY 1993, Park 

Admin Files, MIMA. MIMA, Long Range Interpretive Plan [LRIP], 1999, 15-16, File Interpretive 

Prospectus, NPS Reports Files, Research Library, MIMA. Eva Heney, “Work Progresses on Battle Road 

Trail,” Lexington Minute Man, 6 November 1997. 77 Tim Lay, as quoted by Alice Hinkle, “Minute Man Park Joins Multimedia Age, To Rave Reviews,” Boston 

Globe, 11 October 1998. Description of this multimedia show is based on the author’s viewing of the show 

on different occasions between 2004 and 2006. See also LRIP, 1999, 16. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 306 

Afraid, yet determined to stick together . . . knowing that nothing would ever be the same 

again.”78

According to audience reaction during its first few months of showings, the presentation 

succeeded in conveying these emotions. People have erupted in applause at the end. One 

woman from Los Angeles remarked that “You could see how terrifying it was. . . . The guys with 

the bayonets. . . . You could really understand what it means to see the whites of their eyes.”79 

Having many local people involved with its production and scenes shot within the park also aids 

identification with the story. Middlesex County Volunteers provide fife and drum music. 

Reenactor groups from His Majesty’s 5th and 10th Regiments of Foot, Prescott’s Battalion, and 

the Concord Minute Men are featured in battle scenes. John Butman of Concord, who had 

grown up hearing all of the stories, co-wrote the script. He wanted “a tone much different from 

the school book version, something to show how amazing it was for colonists to actually go into 

armed combat against England.”80 

To help ensure that visitors stop at the newly refurbished visitor center and benefit from 

these improvements, Sideris suggested a name change to MIMA Visitor Center. He believed that 

this building should be the primary visitor orientation facility for the park. So many people 

arrived via Route 128/I-95 and traveled Route 2A before passing The Wayside and going to the 

North Bridge. With completion of the Battle Road Trail in 1998, people would finally have a 

sense of a park being along this route and would want information to guide their understanding. 

With the name change, the visitor center would meet this need.81

Various living-history demonstrations and interpretive walks brought visitors to sections 

of the Battle Road Trail. Starting in 1995 Sideris instituted a three-times-daily program at 

Hartwell Tavern called “Who Were the Minute Men?” With a musket-firing demonstration, this 

program has proved successful over the years in drawing many visitors to Hartwell. The late 

Eugene Prowten’s Colonial Life organization also continued to appear regularly. These 

interpreters provided a wide variety of engaging, hands-on activities, including storytelling, 

market days, musical performances, and demonstrations of colonial life. Walks led by rangers or 

special guests explored the open fields associated with Henry David Thoreau or took visitors on 

the loop trail around the historic structures of Hartwell Tavern, Samuel Hartwell foundation, 

and the Captain Smith House. Reenactment groups presented programs on artillery or drilling 

and marching, camp life, or music.82 

In April 2000 the park hosted special battle commemorations for the 225th anniversary of 

battle. This effort fit within a larger NPS-wide commemoration that former superintendent Gall 

coordinated from the Boston support office and culminated with the 225th commemoration at 

Yorktown in 2006. To prepare for the big MIMA anniversary, reenactment groups and the NPS 

evaluated their efforts at Patriot’s Day ceremonies from 1997 through 1999, using this knowledge 

 

78 John Butman, as quoted by Hinkle, “Park Joins Multimedia Age.” 

79 Grace McMullen, as quoted in Ibid. 

80 Butman, as quoted in Ibid. 

81 Sideris, comments to first draft, 1. LRIP, 1999, 14-15. Discussions between the author and Sideris, 2006. 82 LRIP, 1999, 16-17. Review of the park’s Broadsides and Minute Man Messengers provides a descriptive 

listing of annual activities from 1993, when Sideris initiated this publication, to the present. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 307 

to shape their planning for the 2000 event. Having the Battle Road Trail and its associated areas 

developed for visitor use provided an expanded opportunity for remembering 1775 beyond the 

events at the North Bridge. Reenactment programs along the trail occurred at Meriam’s Corner, 

the Paul Revere Capture Site, and Hartwell Tavern.83 As one reenactor wrote to superintendent 

Nelson, the 2000 commemoration succeeded in being an “emotional event” as the participants 

“looked across the rail fence and the empty field to see the walking path and adjacent woods 

filled with spectators as far as the eye could see.”84 Although NPS policy forbids battle 

reenactments with opposed firing and simulated deaths on park land, the 225th anniversary event 

did capture emotions. At Hartwell Tavern, after the reenactors portraying the American Patriots 

had moved on, several hundred reenactors of British Regulars lined up along the Battle Road and 

fired in unison. For the crowd of visitors, the bright red uniforms amidst the smoke of musket 

fire and the emerging greenery of spring provoked a rich sensory experience that captured the 

excitement and enchantment of the event.85

With the Battle Road Unit made accessible and safe through the development of the trail, 

activities such as special commemorations, living history, and tactical weapons demonstrations 

could finally make it possible for people to engage in and explore this vast acreage. Aside from 

completing the pedestrian underpass at Hanscom Drive, one other important component of the 

Battle Road project needed attention, the historic structures and cultural landscapes. 

BATTLE ROAD UNIT: HISTORIC STRUCTURES AND CULTURAL LANDSCAPES

The Battle Road historic structures, except Hartwell Tavern with its living-history 

demonstrations, stood simply as silent witnesses to the events of 1775. They needed attention to 

preserve their historic fabric and make them serviceable for interpretive programming, mission 

compatible adaptive use, or income-generating uses. When the park first submitted in December 

1993 its proposal for the Visitor Access Corridor, it had relatively modest intentions for the 

historic buildings and landscapes. Only three structures, Whittemore House, McHugh Barn, and 

Meriam House, would have received attention. Landscape work would have focused on 

removing scrub brush on about 40 acres of land and would have repaired a limited number of 

stone walls. However, Nelson and her staff soon realized that the park needed to expand its 

vision for historic structures and landscapes to match management objectives and the 

possibilities of the Battle Road Trail. In its subsequent funding requests, the park identified 

 

83 Cathy Stanton, Reenactors in the Parks: A Study of External Revolutionary War Reenactment Activity at 

National Parks, 1 November 1999, 68-69, MIMA Library; Park brochure, Patriot’s Day 2000, File A8215 

April 19, 2000, Current Park Files, MIMA; 2000 Minute Man Messenger, File Broadsides Old, Lou Sideris 

Files. 

84 James Hogan to Nancy Nelson, 23 April 2000, File A8215 April 19, 2000, Current Park Files, MIMA. 85 Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 7. MIMA, 2002 Annual Report, 4, File A2621 Superintendent’s Annual 

Report, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. Brochure, Battle Road 2000, File A8215 April 19, 2000, Current 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. Cathy Stanton, “Out of Step: Two Regimes of Fact at Lexington and Concord,” 

paper presented at the New England American Studies Association Conference, 26-28 April 2002, 16. My 

thanks to Stanton for sharing this paper with me. See also Cathy Stanton, Reenactors in the Parks: A Study 

of External Revolutionary War Reenactment Activity at National Parks, November 1999, MIMA Museum 

Collection. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 308 

seven historic structures, the three already noted plus Noah Brooks Tavern, Sam Brooks House, 

Joshua Brooks House, and Captain Smith House. The park noted that structural threats ranged 

from structural decay to unsafe electrical wiring, inadequate mechanical systems to deteriorated 

roofs, pest infestation to lack of fire suppression systems. All of the buildings had experienced 

cumulative loss from lack of staffing and financial constraints, effectively resulting in the loss of 

historic fabric. If this situation continued, the park argued that rehabilitation would become 

unobtainable with the resulting total loss of the historic resource.86

A similar situation existed for the cultural landscapes. If the park did not take offensive 

action against invasive species, it would lose the ability to reclaim and rehabilitate the agricultural 

landscape. With each passing year, the park made clear, invasive species and non-indigenous 

plants would establish themselves, agricultural and landscape integrity would be degraded, and 

such historic features as stone walls would become further victims. Visitor safety and access 

would continue to be compromised by vegetative growth overcoming the landscape and 

screening illicit and illegal activities.87

By the time work began on these two phases of the entire Battle Road project, the NPS 

had begun shifting project management responsibilities from regional offices to Denver. 

Tauscher continued to serve as the job captain and provide an onsite presence, but the Denver 

Service Center also played an important role. The Denver office tracked the project and ensured 

that program requirements remained on time and within budget. If funding situations arose, the 

Denver office would work to address them.88 

Between 2000 and 2002, the park completed significant rehabilitation work of the seven 

historic structures. The Meriam House received careful attention, in part because it came into 

the park in such poor condition following termination of a life estate. Yet, many people 

considered this house one of the most historic buildings in the park due to its connection to the 

beginning of the fighting along the Battle Road. Work included rehabilitating the foundation, 

roof, and framing while addressing interior and exterior finishes. Park staff also removed 

inappropriate additions and installed new septic, heating, electrical, and fire 

protection/suppression systems. The park built public restrooms in the garage to accommodate 

Battle Road Trail users. The Meriam Family donated funds for important interior rehabilitation 

of the house.89

At the Samuel Brooks House, the NPS completed similar work for this building that 

suffered in poor condition. Noah Brooks Tavern and the Joshua Brooks House both required 

framing work, plus the Joshua Brooks House needed repair of interior and exterior finishes. The 

Brooks Family association has provided support and visibility for this group of houses. The 

McHugh Barn had foundation work, framing, interior and exterior finish work, mediation work, 

 

86 MIMA, Development/Study Package Proposal, December 1993; MIMA, Save Historic 

Structures/Cultural Landscapes, 8 May 1996, File MIMA 170A 2 of 2, RG 79, Denver FRC. 87 MIMA, Save Historic Structures/Cultural Landscapes, 8 May 1996. 88 Project agreement, MIMA and DSC, 27 March 1997, File LIC, Nancy Nelson’s Files, MIMA. Tauscher, 

transcript of interview, 12. 

89 Nelson to Merriam Family and Friends, 14 December 2001, Reading File December 2001, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 309 

upgrading of utility services, and installation of a fire detection/suppression system. The 

Whittemore House got a new roof while the Captain Smith House had mediation work and 

attention to its interior and exterior finishes. The NPS had already completed a significant 

rehabilitation of this last structure during the Nash superintendency.90 

Landscape clearing, rehabilitation, and development took many forms. The park 

removed five modern structures and four garages and replanted these areas with native grasses 

or hay for agricultural special use permits. Near the Smith House, the park removed solid waste 

from a former dump and planted trees to screen the house from Hanscom Drive. To aid in 

having agricultural grazing by farm animals, the park installed electric fencing at the Bloody 

Angle and near Hartwell Tavern. The apple orchard at Sam Brooks House received attention. 

The park benefited from an Eagle Scout project that had Concord Boy Scouts, led by Will Lamb, 

planting additional orchards at Hartwell Tavern and the Smith House. To replicate the 1775 

experience further, the park chose apple varieties that were popular during that period. 

Interpreters hoped that visitors would one day have the opportunity to watch cider making, 

cooking, and storage.91 Between 1999 and 2000, crews cleared historically inaccurate vegetation, 

much of it invasive, around the Samuel Brooks House and the Paul Revere Capture Site. While 

some people questioned this tree clearing, recognizing that the trees helped insulate private 

houses and trail users from the noises of Route 2A, there was strong support for the work. More 

tree clearing came in 2002-2003 around the Bloody Angle. 

Maintenance of these cleared areas continues to prove a challenge. Agricultural special 

use permits provide one possibility. Farming keeps fields open and free of invasive plants. 

Farming maintains land use patterns that have characterized the Concord-Lincoln-Lexington 

area since the first colonists arrived. Farming provides an environmental and scenic relief from 

the urban surroundings. And, farming maintains positive relationships with those few families in 

the area who continue to work the earth, even while surrounded by the growth of the 

metropolitan area. According to a 1993 report by the University of Massachusetts’ Agriculture 

Experiment Station, MIMA had 106 acres deemed most suitable for agriculture, 75 acres deemed 

suitable, and another 114 acres seen as not suitable for agriculture. These determinations largely 

took into account farmable acreage minus wetlands and 100-foot buffers around those wetlands. 

Over the years, MIMA has allowed haying and row crops, though the numbers have declined 

recently. In 1996 for example, virtually all most suitable land and some suitable land (for a total 

of 135 acres) were farmed under special use permits. In 2002 total acreage farmed under special 

use permits equaled 107 acres, and in 2006 only 91.2 acres were farmed. This steady decrease 

probably has many factors, including the demands of developing the Battle Road Unit and the 

accompanying increase in visitor use in this area.92

 

90 MIMA, Development/Study Package Proposal, Save Historic Structures, 5 June 1996, Attachment A. 

MIMA, FY 2000 Annual Performance Plan, 16 December 1999, 14, Bookshelf, Maintenance Records, 

MIMA. 

91 MIMA, Environmental Assessment for Save Historic Structures and Cultural Landscapes, April 1999, 23-

27, File BRT, Nancy Nelson’s Files, MIMA. 

92 Agricultural use data at the park provided by Chris Davis, former Resource Manager at Minute Man, and 

Terrie Wallace, park curator. See also Gavrin, A Management Plan to Balance Cultural and Natural 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 310 

 Aside from agricultural special use permits, the park also experimented with farm 

animals as natural mowers. Between 2001 and 2004 the towns of Concord and Carlisle joined 

with MIMA to have sheep graze areas that had been overrun with exotic species. Each 

jurisdiction shared time that they had the sheep. Funding for the park in the first year came from 

the MIMA Association, the park’s friends’ group, and Eastern National. In subsequent years, the 

park, the National Park Foundation, and Eastern National shared the cost. Visitors loved seeing 

these farm animals along the Battle Road Trail, and the park loved seeing areas cleared efficiently 

and naturally. But, this effort cost the park money in leasing the animals. The project ended 

when the sheep company went out of business. Tauscher remarked later that he could see 6-inch 

high trees cropping up around the Bloody Angle, a reminder of what the park will lose if it does 

not maintain the openness that the trail construction project had brought.93

BATTLE ROAD UNIT: TAKING A WALK

The best way to assess all of the changes to the Battle Road Unit is to walk along its trail. 

For the first time since the establishment of MIMA, visitors can get out of their vehicles and 

experience the historical and natural setting. This accomplishment is monumental. For 40 years, 

people could only view this 800-acre unit of the park from their car windshields. In limited areas, 

such as where the visitor center stands or by Hartwell Tavern, people could explore. Otherwise, 

private residences, overgrown vegetation, and lack of trails kept people out. People, like the 

Landscape Architect Arthur Shurcliff and early Superintendent Edwin Small, had recognized the 

historical value of this area and had worked to call attention to it in the name of preservation. In 

fact, MIMA as a national park came into existence precisely because people feared that an Air 

Force housing development proposed for this area would have irreparably infringed upon the 

historic scene. It was the threat to land along the Battle Road that had led to the establishment of 

the park. Yet, that very land continued to remain largely invisible until the completion of the 

Battle Road Trail and the accompanying historic structure and cultural landscape restorations. 

Walking along the Battle Road Trail offers many opportunities to bridge past and 

present. Historic farming fields just east of Meriam’s Corner, at the Olive Stowe and Farwell 

Jones Houses, envelope visitors with the sights, sounds, and smells of land that has been 

continuously farmed since the seventeenth century. Historic field patterns remain largely intact, 

including ditches and stone walls. Views across the landscape are extensive, although hedge 

rows between fields and some forest growth have diminished east-west views. Wetlands have 

also returned and are preserved. This landscape, however, does not completely capture time at 

1775. Waysides remind people that colonial militia and minute men exchanged fire with British 

 Resources: MIMA Case Study, 1993, 77. 93 Erica Noonan, “Into the Thicket of Time,” Boston Globe, 18 July 2002; Diana Brown, “Minute Man 

Crews Adding to Park’s Roadside Attractions,” Boston Globe, 13 February 2000; Nelson to Jenifer 

LoVetere, 12 March 1999, and attached LoVetere to Nelson, 15 February 1999, File D30 Battle Road Trail, 

Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. “Minute Man Tests Sheep Grazing,” National Parks

(November/December 2001): 14-15. Kerry Drohan, “Shepherds Face Hard Day’s Work,” Boston Globe, 9 

September 2001. Nelson to Gordon Bell, 29 April 2002, Reading File April 2002, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

Tauscher, transcript of interview, 14, and conversation with the author, same day. Environmental 

Assessment, Historic Structures/Cultural Landscapes, April 1999, 25. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 311 

soldiers at Meriam’s Corner, beginning the running battle back to Boston Harbor. Yet, in the 

open fields, visitors do not follow the historic Battle Road. Although visitors experience a 

similitude of 1775 by wandering around low hills and along stone walls, through woodland and 

an old orchard, the landscape has been shaped by succeeding generations.94

Continuing eastward, visitors rejoin briefly the historic Battle Road and enter the Brooks 

Farm area, with its collection of four distinctive historic homes and associated buildings 

straddling Route 2A. On the north side of the highway, the Samuel Brooks and Job Brooks 

Houses illustrate how people adapted to changing economic and social conditions. An apple 

orchard adjacent to Sam Brooks House refers to the colonial preference for cider, as opposed to 

beer, and its statement of identity in opposition to English custom. The Job Brooks site reveals 

evidence of a tannery, a slaughterhouse, a saw mill, and a kiln that may have supported brick 

making. In the nineteenth century, residents of this house also pursued raising specialized 

livestock, moving into beef and dairy production to meet new market conditions. On the south 

side of Route 2A, Noah Brooks Tavern and Joshua Brooks House also testify to life beyond 1775. 

The tavern served as a place to sell goods from the household orchard while providing a social 

outlet and place for discussion of the latest news. Clearing of woodlands in the Brooks Farm 

area has revealed historic field patterns and uncovered remnant orchards.95

In crossing Elm Brook to the east of the Brooks Farm area, visitors have a unique 

opportunity to view the results of an evolving landscape. They can sit in a small seating area and 

see a protected wetland that provides natural habitat for native species. Remains of drainage 

ditches, though, show how earlier residents distributed water from this naturally marshy area to 

create much-needed pasture and meadowlands for grazing, crops, and hay production. A stone 

wall runs behind the Job Brooks House, indicating how people historically divided up their fields 

for different uses and delineated their property. On 19 April 1775 colonial militia men scrambled 

over this wall and climbed up the hill on the far side. They hid behind trees in ambush of British 

soldiers passing in front of them at Bloody Angle. That day in that spot, in some of the fiercest 

fighting, eight British soldiers and three Patriots died. Many more were wounded. Bloody Angle 

remains a wooded area, allowing visitors to peak around trees and imagine the shots firing.96

Between Bloody Angle and Hartwell Tavern, visitors can venture on a side looped trail to 

a vernal pool. Here, nature takes a front-row seat. The elevated walkway brings people into a 

fragile ecosystem that supports such life as wood frogs, several species of salamanders, and fairy 

shrimp. These pools largely dry up by mid-summer but provide essential habitat for these 

animals to breed and for the resulting eggs to develop during the high water levels in the spring. 

 

94 The description in this section relies upon the author’s own travels along the Battle Road Trail and use of 

various sources, including CLR: Battle Road Unit, 137; Environmental Assessment, Historic 

Structures/Cultural Landscapes, April 1999, 6-7; Judith McDonough to Nancy Nelson, 4 March 1997, and 

attached Section 106 Case Report, Construction of a Pedestrian Access Trail, MIMA, Property Description 

Section (unpaginated), File H4217 #96-03 Battle Road Trail, Park Admin Files, MIMA. See also Trail 

Outline, no date, 1; Interpretive Points of Interest, Wayside Locations, 4 October 1994, 1; and The Battle 

Road Trail: 20 Suggested Waysides, no date [1995?], 1, all in File MIMA Interpretation, John Tauscher 

Files, Boston Support Office. 

95 Trail Outline, 1-2; Interpretive Points of Interest, 2; CLR: Battle Road Unit, 122, 141. 96 Trail Outline, 2; Interpretive Points of Interest, 2. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 312 

MIMA is one of only a few places in Massachusetts with a boardwalk to a vernal pool, providing 

unequaled access to study and appreciate this setting.97

Continuing back on the Battle Road Trail, visitors pass Hartwell Tavern, Samuel Hartwell 

House Site, and Smith House. People are now on the historic Battle Road, and they see where 

the NPS has done important landscape clearing and removal of modern houses. The 

rehabilitated setting around the tavern, with a remnant orchard augmented with new trees, is the 

best representation in the Battle Road Unit of how the landscape looked when Patriots and 

British fired against each other. The rehabilitated buildings and structures draw people into the 

scene. Nearly every weekend during the summer, plus many fall weekends, the park hosts 

reenactors at Hartwell Tavern. Visitors might watch a display of musket firing or see what 

surgical equipment colonial doctors used to save the injured. At Samuel Hartwell House Site, 

people can view the distinctive chimney and construction method of the framing members. 

Captain Smith House provides another architectural treasure for people to see as they make their 

way to the Paul Revere Capture Site.98

In getting to the capture site, visitors now can safely walk underneath Hanscom Drive, a 

heavily-traveled road with high speed limits that takes drivers into the military airbase and 

civilian airfield. This underpass, completed in 2005, represents an important accomplishment 

for the park because it allows unfettered safe access along the entire length of the Battle Road 

Trail. Further restoration work in this area involved removal of one modern house near 

Hanscom Drive. An Air Force housing development just north of the capture site is screened in 

part by forest growth along the upper edge of a hill. In 2000, the NPS made some significant 

improvements to the marker at the capture site, turning it away from Route 2A and towards the 

trail. The park also built a semi-circular stone wall, extending on either side of the marker, 

inviting people out of their cars and into the historic area. No longer would the capture site be 

considered simply a “drive-thru” stop.99

As visitors continue on the trail, they pass the Minute Man Boulder, or Thorning 

Boulder. Local tradition, as recounted in the opening of this book, has remembered this as the 

place where a Lincoln minute man hid and shot and killed two British soldiers. When the Air 

Force had declared its intention to build the housing development in this vicinity, the boulder 

served as a rallying point for preservationists, and this effort eventually led to the establishment 

of MIMA. Today, visitors can read about Thorning in a wayside marking the boulder. Walking 

further along the historic Battle Road, visitors enter the Nelson Farm area. More local tradition 

defines this area. Josiah Nelson rushed out of his house at 2 AM the morning of 19 April, as his 

family has remembered, to ask passing horsemen if they had seen British soldiers. These 

 

97 For information on vernal pools in Massachusetts, see S. Abruzzi, “Leave Only Footprints? How Many 

Footsteps Make a Path? How Many Paths Damage the Habitat? Achieving Educational Goals while 

Sustaining the Ecosystem of Vernal Pools,” Conservation Perspectives online journal of the New England 

Chapter of the Society of Conservation Biology (Fall 2001), 

http://www.nescb.org/epublications/fall2001/vernalpools.html, accessed 9 October 2007. 98 CLR: Battle Road Unit, 122-23; Trail Outline, 2; Interpretive Points of Interest, 3. 99 CLR; Battle Road Unit, 152; Trail Outline, 3; Interpretive Points of Interest, 4. Nancy Nelson to Connie 

Crosby, 12 July 1996, 1-2; and Section 106 Case Report, unpaginated [Paul Revere section], both attached 

to McDonough to Nelson, 4 March 1997. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 313 

horsemen were in fact an advance patrol for the British, and one of them hit Nelson in the head 

with his saber. After his wife bandaged his head, Nelson rode north to spread the alarm. Local 

tradition holds that this was the first bloodshed of the Revolutionary War.100

Visitors have the option of going to the MIMA Visitor Center or continuing behind this 

center on the trail. As previously described, new exhibits and a multimedia presentation provide 

an essential understanding of the events of 19 April 1775. Around the visitor center, people have 

the opportunity to pass through small woodlands and even cross a wetland area. The modern 

building with its wood siding and large glass openings seems to sit lightly within the natural and 

historic setting. 

In the far eastern section of the Battle Road Trail, visitors continue to follow large 

sections of the historic Battle Road. Modern roads with asphalt had once covered sections of the 

historic roadway, but as the NPS acquired homes and the need for these roads to access private 

property disappeared, the park removed vehicular traffic, took up the asphalt, and returned the 

roads to their historic appearance. People can walk along the compacted stone dust trail, with 

the historic sections distinctively colored, and see up close additional key sites. At Parker’s 

Revenge, Captain Parker led his Lexington militia to the Lincoln town line and waited in ambush 

for the returning British soldiers, exacting revenge for the losses incurred early that morning on 

Lexington Green. The colonial-style Whittemore House stands as another witness to the events 

of April 1775. Over time, its past inhabitants divided their land with stone walls for pastures, 

meadows, and orchards. The remains of a blacksmith shop represents one way former residents 

sought supplemental income. At the Bluff, visitors can see where British soldiers sent light 

infantry to hold off the colonists. Yet, not much farther, people come to the area where 

exhausted British troops, running low on ammunition, fell apart into a disorganized mass until 

reinforcements from Boston arrived. At Fiske Hill, more stone walls delineate where generations 

of the Fiske family farmed their land. A large rock pile stands as an enduring reminder of the 

huge task past farmers faced in clearing this rocky land for agriculture.101

A walk along the Battle Road Trail makes clear how this pathway allows visitors to enjoy 

the park and its diverse historic and natural offerings. Superintendent Nelson, in partnership 

with many different entities and individuals throughout the area, has overseen the 

transformation of the entire Battle Road Unit. Trail construction, rebuilding of stone walls, 

clearing of farm lands, rehabilitation of historic structures, and a myriad other steps have allowed 

access and enjoyment, preservation and caretaking of these unique resources. With the 

exception of the Brooks Farm area, though, all of this work has taken place north of Route 2A. 

As the next chapter will describe, the park is exploring ways to develop access points and trails in 

the section of the Battle Road Unit south of Route 2A. With time, visitors may have many 

choices to explore the entire unit and take away an expanded understanding of the park. 

 

100 Interpretive Points of Interest, 4. 101 CLR: Battle Road Unit, 123, 133. Interpretive Points of Interest, 5-6. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 314 

PARK INTERPRETATION

Even before changes to the MIMA Visitor Center, the park completed in 1996 work on 

The Wayside Barn, which provided orientation information for visitors before they entered the 

house. Important facility improvements included repairing the roof, installing a new heating and 

air conditioning system, and upgrading the electrical system.102 With this work came a complete 

redesign of the exhibits. Longtime park interpreter and Nathaniel Hawthorne scholar Bob Derry 

led this effort. Derry wanted to help visitors understand the interconnectedness of the lives of 

each of the authors associated with the house, plus tie their lives to the larger events in American 

history. As an opening panel declares, “Their lives and that of the house are intertwined with 

everyday occurrences and sweeping events in America’s history. . . .”103 Ultimately, Derry 

wanted visitors to walk away understanding the truly national importance of this historic house 

and its occupants.104

Text panels, illustrations, and illuminating quotes shared the interconnected details 

about the families who had lived at The Wayside. Ancestors of the Alcotts, Hawthornes, and 

Lothrops had played roles in or witnessed key events during the American Revolution. The 

house itself had housed muster master Samuel Whitney, who had participated in the events of 19 

April 1775. The beginnings of the American Industrial Revolution in the early nineteenth 

century allowed for the mass publication of books and magazines, a situation that would sustain 

each of The Wayside’s authors. In addition, the rise of factories and shift in population from 

country to city to fill these factories brought a new social order for writers and philosophers of 

Concord and elsewhere to contemplate. Slavery and abolitionism also touched the house, from 

Whitney’s ownership of two slaves to the Alcott’s sheltering of a fugitive slave in the house. 

Issues relating to children’s education and enjoyment also rang in the house over time. Bronson 

Alcott advocated for a child-centered approach to education that included field trips and 

physical education. Louisa May Alcott, Nathaniel Hawthorne, and Margaret Sidney each wrote 

moral tales for children and encouraged reading and acting out stories.105

These shared points of contact in the national story become alive and tangible with the 

four life-size cast figures of the principal inhabitants, Bronson and Louisa May Alcott, Nathaniel 

Hawthorne, and Margaret Sidney. Bronson Alcott sits facing the door as visitors enter, lost in 

thought as he holds a book. His warm compassionate face welcomes all ages as they come inside 

to explore. Louisa stands as a young teenager, dressed in a costume and ready to act out a play 

about pirates or villains. Hawthorne is across the room, his back to visitors, standing at his 

specially designed writing desk as if he is in his tower room, or what he called his sky parlor. 

Before leaving the exhibit area, visitors see Margaret Sidney, sitting in a wicker chair as if she is 

out on her veranda on a warm spring day. Her intricate lace shirt and veined hands speak of her 

longtime care and keeping of her beloved home. These figures capture the personalities and 

 

102 Email, Blaise Davi to Tom Nieves, 15 September 1995, File Wayside Barn, Vertical Files: Building Info, 

Maintenance Records, MIMA. 

103 MIMA, The Wayside Barn Final Exhibit Plan, May 1995, 1, Bob Derry’s Files, MIMA. 104 This description of The Wayside Barn exhibits results from documentation and a special tour in 

November 2006 by Bob Derry. The author thanks him for sharing his ideas in creating these exhibits. 105 Ibid., 4, 8, 11, 17, 24-25, 38-39. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 315 

accomplishments of each author/educator and build connections as people learn about their 

lives.106

Helping visitors safely and enjoyably traverse MIMA has prompted some innovative 

approaches by the park. Sideris designed the first park program and events newsletter, The 

Broadside, in 1993. In addition to listing programs and highlighting other historic sites of the 

area, this newsletter, now known as the Minute Man Messenger, has suggested how visitors might 

plan their time if they only had an hour, or a couple of hours, or a full day to explore the park. 

Working with Harpers Ferry Center, Sideris also redesigned the park brochure to help visitors 

access the park in a cohesive way. Visitors often found the park challenging due to its 

disconnected units and many different entrance roads. Through a combination of the park 

newsletter/program guide, Web site, and park brochure, Sideris endeavored to help visitors see 

the park holistically and follow a sequential park tour, beginning at the MIMA Visitor Center 

and continuing to Hartwell Tavern, following the Battle Road Trail. Once leaving the Battle 

Road Unit, people could stop at The Wayside and complete their exploration at the North 

Bridge. Here, the Ranger program links the eighteenth-century American Revolutionary War 

events at the site and its setting to the nineteenth- and twentieth-century commemorative 

landscape.107

Sideris worked with others to experiment with additional ways to help visitors navigate 

the park. He served on the Lexington Selectmen’s Tourism Committee, which oversaw the 

Liberty Ride, a guided bus tour launched in 2002. Originally meant to connect the historic 

attractions in Lexington, Sideris suggested that the tourism committee extend the route into the 

Lexington and Lincoln portions of MIMA. During its third year of operation, the ride built on 

its success and went as far as Concord. Another innovative idea Sideris and the park tried 

involved working with the private firm Spatial Adventures to develop three cell phone audio 

tours of the park. These cell phone tours were a first for the NPS. Each tour focused on a 

specific park theme. Although little used by visitors, the park had a lot of publicity, including a 

widely distributed Associated Press article and an article in Time magazine.108

Along with the development of the Battle Road Unit, the park realized that it needed to 

update its vision for park interpretation. Beginning in 1998, the park worked with an interpretive 

planner from Harpers Ferry Center to determine the scope of a new long range interpretive plan, 

select team members, and identify people from various backgrounds to provide guidance. Team 

members included park interpreters, representatives from Harpers Ferry Center, the Boston 

Support Office, and other NPS sites within the region, and a representative from Eastern 

National. Focus groups met in late 1998 and early 1999 to provide assistance with respect to 

living history, literary associations, and teaching. William Fowler, a historian who had long ago 

 

106 MIMA, Broadside, 1996 Edition, “New Exhibits Open at The Wayside,” File Old Broadsides, Lou Sideris 

Files, MIMA. Neil Mackay to James Jeffries, 7 March 1995, 1, File Wayside Barn, vertical Files: Building 

Info, Maintenance Records, MIMA. 

107 See examples of park newsletter and park brochure, Lou Sideris Files, MIMA. 108 Minute Man Messenger, 2004 edition, File Broadsides Old, Lou Sideris Files, MIMA. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 316 

worked at MIMA as a seasonal interpreter, reviewed the draft plan. The final report does not 

identify any other professional historians who actively engaged in the plan’s development.109

The planning process resulted in the identification of five themes for future 

programming. First, MIMA was the starting place of the American Revolution. Citizens gained 

the resolve here to stand up for and die for the ideals of liberty and self-determination. Second, 

the people of colonial New England developed political, social, and economic community 

structures separate from Britain and gave impetus for challenging British authority. Third, 

landscape elements from colonial times, including stone walls, roads, orchards, and homes, 

helped shape the events of April 1775. Many of these elements remain today for visitors to 

experience. Fourth, The Wayside authors kept alive the spirit of the American Revolution 

through creation of a unique literary identity. And, fifth, MIMA is one of more than 380 national 

park sites that help protect the nation’s cultural and natural heritage.110

Programming ideas in the Interpretive Plan built on these themes. A self-guiding tour 

along the Battle Road Trail would interpret how colonists shaped the landscape and explain how 

this land shaped events in 1775. Living-history demonstrations scattered along the trail during 

busy summer weekends would allow visitors to encounter different vignettes relating to the 

Patriots and British soldiers. At Hartwell Tavern, introduction of an herb garden or vegetable 

garden, along with using farm animals, would help enliven the landscape and engage visitors. 

Historic structures, such as Captain Smith House, offered the possibility of use for special events, 

special tours, or concerts of colonial music. Ideas about the North Bridge area included 

installing new waysides between the parking lot and the historic area. Planners could not reach 

consensus on the function of the Buttrick House. Ideas ranged from expanding its interpretive 

role to the entire building to removing all visitor services and convert the building solely to 

administrative use. The Wayside needed short video to accommodate people who could not 

tour the house.111

The Long-Range Interpretive Plan recommended that park staff continue to work with 

various outside groups to address the park’s interpretive needs. To enhance the link between the 

park and schools, the park was encouraged to work with local teachers and school districts to 

develop an educational plan that would tie into the park’s themes and the Massachusetts 

curriculum. Subject matter experts, including farmers, local historians, and others might give 

special tours along the Battle Road Trail. These talks could then be taped and transcribed as 

written guides. Partnerships with local reenactment groups could aid the park in expanding its 

knowledge of and skills in colonial life.112 

Beginning in 2000 the park raised awareness about the role of black Patriots in fighting in 

the American Revolutionary War. Bruce Harris, who had a theatre and music background which 

he supplemented with a strong interest in history, joined the park in portraying Peter Salem, a 

black minute man from Framingham who answered the call to arms on 19 April 1775. Records 

 

109 MIMA, Long-Range Interpretive Plan, 1999, 2, 42-44, File Interpretive Prospectus, NPS Report Files, 

MIMA Library. 

110 MIMA, LRIP, 1999, 6-7. 111 Ibid., 26-38. 112 Ibid., 26, 36-38. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 317 

show that Salem fought bravely with white militiamen at Bunker Hill and later at Saratoga in New 

York. Harris effectively used his performance arts background to produce a lively and 

informative presentation that helped expand people’s perceptions about who fought that fateful 

day.113

As another way to reach out to more people of different backgrounds and ages, the park 

expanded its commitment to local schools. Using a fee program to support these activities, the 

park had recently expanded its offerings and needed space to accommodate the resulting surge 

of student visitors with their teachers. The Whittemore House, which had stood on the day of 

the battle, looked promising. The 1990 GMP had stated that the house should be maintained 

and interpreted. Rehabilitation work, begun as part of the Battle Road Trail project, revealed 

dangerous structural failings which necessitated that Assistant Superintendent Datillio and his 

family vacate the building. Sideris saw it as a good candidate for the park’s education center, 

sitting on the Battle Road Trail and directly behind MIMA Visitor Center. School groups could 

view “The Road to Revolution” theater show and then proceed directly to the education center. 

The park worked with others to secure NPS project funding for the house’s rehabilitation, which 

is ongoing at this time.114 

These efforts belie an underlying challenge for the park’s interpretive division. Over the 

past 25 years, the division has seen an erosion of its staff, both permanent and seasonal. In the 

early 1980s, the park reported in its Statements for Interpretation that it had close to six 

permanent Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) and another almost five temporary FTE. By the early 

1990s, permanent FTE continued close to six FTE but temporary FTE had dropped to less than 

two. As described in chapter eight, in the early 1990s Gall had intentionally shifted money from 

interpretation to maintenance in an effort to address the park’s deteriorating resources and raise 

public opinion. During this period, the Interpretive Division also divided its staff 

organizationally so that one group focused on the North Bridge and The Wayside while the 

other concentrated its efforts on the Battle Road area, with Hartwell Tavern and the visitor 

center. Interpretation did not regain its 1980s staffing levels even as Nelson oversaw completion 

of the Battle Road Trail and other important work in the park. In 2001 there were about four 

permanent and four seasonal FTE in the Interpretive Division. The division’s organizational 

chart no longer delineated staff between the North Bridge and Battle Road Units, acknowledging 

that everyone had to contribute as needed to each park unit. In 2004 both permanent and 

temporary numbers dropped to three, and by 2006 the park could claim only one permanent 

FTE and four temporary FTE. This change over time represents more than a 50 percent drop in 

interpretive personnel, even as the demands have increased as a result of the opening of the 

entire Battle Road Unit with the trail, landscape restoration, and historic structure rehabilitation. 

In the next chapter, examination of Maintenance and Protection staffing will demonstrate that 

the Interpretive Division is not alone in its dwindling staffing numbers.115

 

113 Alice Hinkle, “Walking in Peter Salem’s Footsteps,” Boston Globe, 2 July 2000. See also Minute Man 

Messengers, 2001, 2002, 2003. 114 1990 GMP, 43. MIMA, Annual Report, FY 2002, Line Item Construction section. 115 1981 Statement for Interpretation, 28; 1982 Statement for Interpretation, 28; 1983 Statement for 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 318 

Volunteer contributions to the park have helped to augment the losses in the interpretive 

program. Gall had brought large numbers of reenactors back to the park, seeing volunteer hours 

jump from about 8,500 (1991) to more than 12,500 (1992). Those numbers rose another 3,000 

(2002) during Nelson’s superintendency. The park’s 1999 LRIP identified living-history 

reenactors as an important source for meeting the park’s interpretive goals. Weekend 

encampments and presentations at Hartwell Tavern and the MIMA Visitor Center have 

enlivened the park’s offerings during summer and fall.116

 Interpretation, I.6-1; 1991 Statement for Interpretation, III-2. Staffing numbers for Interpretation Division, 

2001-2007 provided by the park’s Budget Analyst through Terrie Wallace. A comparison of organizational 

charts for 1981, 1991, and 2002 makes clear the reduced staffing. 116 Sabin, 1992 Admin History, 7. MIMA, 2002 Annual Report, 4, File A2621 Superintendent’s Annual 

Report, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. LRIP, 1999, 37-38. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 319 

Figure 31. Battle Road Trail. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: Battle Road Unit, 

Figure 76. 

Figure 32. Battle Road Trail boardwalk. Reprinted from Deborah Dietrich-Smith, Cultural Landscape Report: 

Battle Road Unit, Figure 77. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 320 

Figure 33. Meriam House. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 

Figure 34. Noah Brooks Tavern. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 
Advocacy and Partnerships 

 321 

Figure 35. Samuel Brooks House. Courtesy NPS Historic Photograph Collection. 

323 

CHAPTER 10

FOR THE FUTURE

Nancy Nelson remains committed to the possibilities of MIMA while staunch in 

preserving its many resources. She is not afraid to use her position as Superintendent to 

advocate for the park. She recalled that during a mediation session among stakeholders 

regarding the Route 2A widening, several lawyers and the Chief Engineer had appeared to 

represent the Massachusetts Highway Department (MHD). Nelson and Dan Datillio came 

in uniform, to represent the park. Later, the mediator had revealed his frustration that the 

NPS had not been playing fair because its representatives had come in uniform. Two in 

uniform had cancelled out seven lawyers. This reaction surprised Nelson, but she also 

acknowledged the power of her agency. As Nelson later said, “I think sometimes you can 

underplay your position. You can go a lot further with it because you have the whole 

arrowhead behind you, and it’s everything that America loves about the NPS you can bring to 

it.”1

 She also knows that the future of the park depends upon being very strong and having a 

clear vision for the future while also being respectful of others.2

With each of the situations and opportunities Nelson has faced as Superintendent, 

she has kept an eye on what the outcome would mean to the future of the park and the 

accomplishment of its mission. She has also encouraged staff members to act in the best 

interests of the park, as opposed to what may be easiest or less controversial. In the case of 

airport expansion at Hanscom field, she has tirelessly built partnerships and asserted the 

park’s concerns to ensure the continued preservation of MIMA’s fragile resources especially 

within the Battle Road Unit. When park employees voted to have a labor union represent 

them, this action derailed the park for a period of time. Nelson and Dattilio put in the time 

and focus to make sure that the resulting contract fairly addressed issues on both sides, so 

that the park could proceed with its work. Nelson and Resource Manager Chris Davis 

researched the park’s legal requirements for a major rehabilitation project in the North 

Bridge Unit and asserted those rights when questioned by the conservation commission. 

This action ensured that the park could continue to manage, maintain, and interpret the 

cultural landscape. In the area of housing, Nelson argued against a cookie-cutter approach 

to fulfilling federal law, and the region accepted her argument. Her 13 years at the park have 

left an indelible mark, a promise for the future. 

 

1

 Nelson, transcript of interview, 18. 

2

 Ibid., 17. 
For the Future 

324 

HANSCOM FIELD

One of Nelson’s largest continuing challenges in securing the future of MIMA 

revolves around the degree of development at Massachusetts Port Authority’s (Massport) 

civilian airport at Hanscom Field. Changes in usage over the years have had an impact on the 

Battle Road and how Route 2A is used, managed, and treated. These changes have led to 

crucial differences in the mission and operation of the airfield from the 1959 founding of the 

park to the present. Looking at the history of Hanscom makes clear the issues today. The 

state originally established the air field in 1940. A year later, the Army Air Corps took over 

and named the site Laurence G. Hanscom Field, for the late commander and founding 

member of the Massachusetts Wing of the Civilian Air Reserve. Military operations 

dominated at Hanscom until the 1950s, when the military and state exercised joint control. 

In 1959 the state formed Massport, which took over the state’s responsibility at Hanscom. In 

1974 Massport assumed control of general operations and maintenance of the air field. 

Military usage declined to occasional use. Instead, the Air Force Base (AFB) has focused on 

research, being the headquarters of the US Air Force Electronic Systems Center. Other 

associated military units include the Sensors and Space Vehicles Directorates of the Air 

Force Research Laboratory. This Air Force research presence has spawned the 

accumulation of associated private research and development firms in the area. One example 

includes the Lincoln Laboratory, operated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 

which services the AFB’s Electronic Systems Center, along with a range of other Defense and 

other federal government customers. This federal government research presence at 

Hanscom has promoted jobs, generated economic growth, and brought continuing pressures 

to develop nearby land and accommodate commuters around the national historical park.3

 

In the meantime, Massport has responded to growing interest in its air field. This 

independent public authority has managed Hanscom Field as a regional aviation facility, 

serving a mix of civilian users, including commuter and commercial air services, corporate jet 

aviation, private pilots, flight schools, charter services, and light cargo. One guiding concern 

for Massport has involved finding ways to accommodate increasing demand at Logan 

International Airport in Boston, an already busy field with limited geographic space for 

additional growth. One answer has included distributing air services to other regional 

airports.4

 Hanscom has an enviable location, being only 20 miles from Boston and along the 

128/95 Technology Corridor, which is fed in part by the AFB’s research mission. As 

Massport proudly states on its website, “The reason Hanscom Field is New England’s 

premier full-service facility can be summed up in one word—location.”5

 

This close proximity to research and development agencies and transportation routes 

has made Hanscom Field open to possibilities. Massport also has the authority to pursue 

 

3

 Hanscom Overview, http://www.massport.com/hansc/overview.html (accessed 31 March 2006); 

Hanscom AFB Fact Sheet, http://www.hanscom.af.mil/ (accessed 31 March 2006). 4

 FAQ [Frequently Asked Questions], http://www.massport.com/airports/faq/html (accessed 31 March 

2006). 

5

 Hanscom Overview. 
For the Future 

325 

these opportunities in unique ways. As an independent public agency, Massport is exempt 

from local laws and has power of eminent domain. This agency does not receive state 

subsidies. To keep operating, Massport must support itself through the facilities it runs, plus 

the raising of bonds. At Hanscom, Massport faced a deficit situation in the early 1990s, 

leading the agency to consider such options as privatizing its management or developing the 

non-aviation parcels of land within the Hanscom boundaries. The privatization idea died, 

and Massport has slowly found other ways to increase the field’s economic potential. In 

1998 the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Affairs weakened regulations by 

eliminating the restriction of “increases in aviation” as a condition that would trigger an 

environmental review. This change allowed Massport to alter in spirit if not in fact its 1978 

Master Plan for Hanscom, which limited planes to fewer than 30 seats and 7,500 pounds 

payload, without incurring review. In addition, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 

granted Massport a higher level of certification than had been allowed previously at 

Hanscom. 

These two changes made it possible for Massport to diversify its offerings at this air 

field. In summer 1999 Massport granted a license to Shuttle America to fly 50-seat turbo 

prop planes between Hanscom and Buffalo, NY, and Trenton, NJ. A year later, Shuttle 

America served five cities with 20 flights per day. Hanscom’s operations (or number of takeoffs or landings) rose 7.5% in 1999 to 197,300, ranking it as the second busiest airport in New 

England, a rating that continues. Jet activity, including private jets, has seen the greatest 

increase at Hanscom, rising 280% between 1992 and 2002. With the jets has come more 

noise, with jets contributing 92% of the total noise at Hanscom. Further proposals for 

Hanscom have included accommodating Federal Express operations and, most recently, 

possibly adding a third Fixed Base Operator (FBO). This FBO, a hangar/passenger 

terminal/fuel depot/maintenance facility, would add 91,000 square feet (including a 13,000 

square-foot passenger area) and a 100-car parking lot, signaling further growth possibilities 

at Hanscom.6

These changes and proposed changes have generated loud responses from residents 

and their public officials in the four towns surrounding Hanscom: Lexington, Lincoln, 

Bedford, and Concord. Local groups, such as People Against Hanscom Expansion (PAHE), 

Safeguarding the Historic Hanscom Area’s Irreplaceable Resources (ShhAir), and Save Our 

Heritage, have organized resources, tracked activities at Hanscom, and registered their 

concerns in public meetings and letters. ShhAir produced a video in 2004 titled Raise the 

Alarm! in an ongoing effort to educate people about the situation and build support for its 

efforts. Save Our Heritage has assembled a nationally prominent advisory board and 

provided a politically active leadership role. The towns themselves appoint representatives 

 

6

 Larry Gall, Briefing, 14 September 1993, File A38 CY 1993 Briefing Statements; and Stephen Tocco to 

John Kerr, 29 February 1996, File L38 CY 1996 Hanscom RFP, both in Park Admin Files, MIMA. Fact 

Sheet #2, MIMA and Hanscom Field, 19 September 2000, 2, File A38 Briefings, Current Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. Hanscom Facts and Stats for 1999 and 2003, http://www.shhair.org/factsstats.asp and 

http://www.shhair.org/factsstats1999.asp. Letter to the Editor, Margareta Lidskog, “Action Needed 

against Crosspoint,” Concord Journal, 10 November 2005. 
For the Future 

326 

for two official vehicles for discussion and collaboration relating to the air field: HATS II 

(Hanscom Area Towns Committee), a 1988 successor to the original Hanscom Area Traffic 

Study Committee, and HFAC (Hanscom Field Advisory Commission), a representative 

group serving as an official communication channel between the towns and Massport.7

Nelson and the NPS have sought to have a strong voice in the planning for Hanscom 

Field. Just as she had done with the Route 2A widening proposal, Nelson has asserted her 

position with respect and a clear idea of her responsibilities as superintendent of MIMA. As 

she stated later, “I think you can be very strong as long as you proceed with respect and know 

what your goals and your outcomes need to look like and to know what your vision is.”8

 

When Massport announced that it would develop a Generic Environmental Impact Report 

(GEIR) for Hanscom, Nelson responded in 1995 with a request for the park to be included in 

this process. The GEIR would provide existing baseline environmental data and forecast 

potential aviation use and land development for the next 10 to 15 years. The four towns, 

through HATS II, had an established role in this evaluation. Nelson also sought a position 

with Hanscom, not just was an outsider, but as a key stakeholder with major national 

interests to represent.9

 Upon consideration of this proposal, however, Massport “felt this 

would ‘disturb’ the existing relationship with HATS.” The agency did meet separately with 

Nelson in May 1996, but she lamented afterwards that “an appropriate role for the Park has 

yet to be established.” Instead, the existing relationship, Nelson wrote, “puts the Park in an 

extremely undesirable position . . . and establishes a more adversarial and reactionary 

relationship than we desire.” She offered that “the Park does not view all changes at 

Hanscom Field as necessarily negative,” for Massport might consider heritage tourism as an 

appropriate economic consideration as opposed to airport expansion.10 However, Nelson 

reiterated her desire for Massport to include the park formally in negotiations and 

discussions regarding the GEIR.11

By early 1997 Nelson’s irritation clearly showed. Massport had conceded by this 

time that MIMA would receive separate copies of all correspondence going to HATS 

members, treating the park as the “honorary ‘5th HATS II Selectman.’” However, an 

oversight almost kept Nelson from attending one meeting because she had not received 

written notice. She did find out about the meeting by chance, and she displayed “my 

obvious, but inappropriate, impatience” for having been forgotten. She apologized but also 

made clear that “it is essential for the park to maintain a separate and independent standing 

from the HATS Committee and to pursue its own relationship with Massport.” She did not 

 

7

 “Residents To Protest Hanscom Plans,” [no newspaper name], 16 September 1993, File A38 CY 1993 

Briefing Statements, Park Admin Files, MIMA. Video, ShhAir, Raise the Alarm!, 2004, MIMA Public 

Affairs Office. 

8

 Nelson, transcript of interview, 17. 

9

 Nelson to Myleen Leary, 21 September 1995, File L38 CY 1995 GEIR, Park Admin Files, MIMA; 

Tocco to Kerr, 29 February 1996. 

10 Nelson to Trudy Coxe, 10 May 1996, 3, File L38 CY 1996 GEIR, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 11 Ibid., 4. 
For the Future 

327 

discount the HATS liaison, and in fact welcomed the relationship for providing an efficient 

communication tool, but she knew the park needed recognition of its own voice, too.12

That voice remained muted, in her opinion, in the draft GEIR. As she wrote in her 

comments, the document “has undermined the Park’s fragile confidence in this difficult 

process and in Massport’s often stated intent to do no harm to the National Park.”13 In her 

correspondence and meetings with Massport, Nelson had repeatedly stated the significance 

of the Battle Road and other historic features of the park and indicated their fragility in the 

face of increased traffic and noise from Route 2A and Hanscom. Despite these efforts, the 

draft GEIR failed to give a baseline description of park resources, failed to identify potential 

impacts of the various development and expansion scenarios, and therefore failed to provide 

mitigation measures relative to the park. Specifically, the draft GEIR proposed mechanized 

traffic lights, modern lighting, road widening, straightened road sections, and realigned 

intersections without acknowledging that such actions would have a negative impact on the 

park.14 “Virtually no mitigation is proposed for impacts to the Park,” wrote Nelson, “because 

virtually none have been recognized.”15 In its June 1997 certification of the GEIR, the 

Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (EAO) did recognize the need for further 

discussion between the park and Massport regarding “acceptable potential mitigation 

strategies,” but the EAO did not require these discussions for obtaining the current 

certification.16 

Nelson continued to take a respectful but strong position in support of MIMA. She 

shot back that “we must respectfully disagree with this decision” and that “we have no 

confidence” that such discussions would be any more successful. Nelson wanted correction 

to the public record, possibly in the form of an amendment.17 A required Section 61 Finding 

for the state’s GEIR failed to meet this objective. With hands in the air, Nelson flatly stated 

that “it must be reiterated that changes to Route 2A (aka the Battle Road) which degrade its 

historic character will be opposed by the Park. Some impacts, realistically speaking, cannot 

be mitigated but simply cannot be permitted to occur.”18

With the 1999 advent of Shuttle America service at Hanscom, Nelson and the NPS, in 

collaboration with the local communities and citizen organizations, expanded their advocacy 

campaign for MIMA, building relationships in the process. Nelson contacted the FAA, 

trying to educate this federal agency about the deleterious impact the new service would have 

upon noise and traffic through the park. She developed ideas for building partnerships with 

the affected towns in protecting the Battle Road and the park. Nelson also sought further 

partnerships and collaborative efforts with other federal agencies. Information to the 

 

12 Nelson to Peter Blute, 14 February 1997, 1, File L38 CY 1997 GEIR, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 13 Nelson to Trudy Coxe, 9 June 1997, 1, File L38 CY 1997 GEIR, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 14 Ibid., 3. 

15 Ibid., 4. 

16 Certificate of the Secretary of Environmental Affairs on the GEIR, 30 June 1997, 5, File L38 CY 1997 

GEIR, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

17 Nelson to Trudy Coxe, 10 July 1997, 1, L38 CY 1997 GEIR, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 18 Nelson to Trudy Coxe, 6 November 1997, 2, File L38 CY 1997 GEIR, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
For the Future 

328 

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation resulted in a delay of the FAA’s decision 

regarding Shuttle America service between Hanscom and New York’s LaGuardia Airport. 

With the Advisory Council, the US Department of the Interior and the NPS joined hands in 

early 2001 with the US Department of Transportation’s FAA and Federal Highway 

Administration to protect MIMA and other significant historic sites in the vicinity of 

Hanscom. This collaborative relationship resulted in the formation of a federal interagency 

Working Group acting on behalf of the national historical park.19

More proactive steps gave voice to the park’s plight. In 2001 the park produced with 

the MIMA Park Association a video aimed at motivating decision makers “to become a part 

of a vision that protects MIMA for future generations.” Defending the Road to Liberty

captured the reality of visiting the park as airplanes roared overhead and traffic barreled 

down the Battle Road. Children and adults simply could not hear reenactors and park 

interpreters describe the historic events of 1775 with these constant interruptions. Plus, the 

video graphically showed the lines of cars and trucks trying to turn into or out of Hanscom. 

However, the park’s video also acknowledged positive development approaches. Local land 

developer and Concord native Larry Smith built in the late 1980s and early 1990s an office 

park and housing development directly north of the park’s Hartwell Tavern and Bloody 

Angle area. However, even in the dead of winter when the trees had lost their leaves, this 

commercial development is invisible to the park. Smith worked with his architects to ensure 

this outcome. He put a 200-foot vegetative buffer zone between the building and park, 

planted it densely with evergreens, and agreed to have a conservation easement placed on it. 

Smith also rerouted a road and helped with the restoration of the Battle Road at Virginia 

Road and Old Bedford Road.20 Nelson included Smith’s story to keep open the lines of 

communication between the NPS and developers, “recognizing the need to balance the 

complex demands of economic development and historic preservation.” She did not want to 

isolate the park and thus lose those communication channels.21

Other groups joined MIMA in voicing its plight. When Massport considered 

welcoming FedEx as a new tenant at Hanscom, this threat prompted ShhAir to produce its 

own video. ShhAir sought to raise the alarm, not just to save MIMA, but also Walden Pond, 

the Alcott’s Orchard House, the Old Manse, and the many other historic and natural 

treasures in the region. Save Our Heritage worked to bring national attention to the threat of 

airport expansion. The National Trust for Historic Preservation responded and listed 

MIMA as one of its 11 Most Endangered for 2003, citing noise and expansion from Hanscom 

 

19 Nelson and Kathi Anderson to Jane Garvey, 29 October 1999, 1; and Marie Rust to Carolyn Tiffany, 

16 December 1999, both in File L38 Expanded Aviation Services, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

Briefing Statement MIMA and Hanscom Field Airport, 19 June 2000, 2; File A38 Briefings, Current 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. Fact Sheet #2, MIMA and Hanscom Field, 19 June 2000, 3. NPS Press 

Release, NPS Announces Partnership to Protect and Preserve MIMA, 22 February 2001, 1, File Press 

Releases, Box MIMA, NPS History Collection, HFC. Denis Galvin to Jane Garvey, 3 July 2001, 3, File 

L38 Expanded Aviation Services, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 20 Video, Minute Man National Park Association, Defending the Road to Liberty, 2001, MIMA Public 

Affairs Files. Smith, transcript of interview, 5. 

21 Nelson to Richard Moe, 25 April 2001, 1, Reading Files April 2001, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 
For the Future 

329 

as detracting from the historic sites and landscapes.22 However, this national exposure to the 

park worked in some ways to divide people. Craig Coy, Massport’s Chief Executive Officer 

at the time, wrote in the Bedford Minuteman that “This is about clever and well-connected 

activists of an already-developed and wealthy community who want others to the pay the 

price of that prosperity.”23 Even a former adviser of the National Trust, Boston Mayor 

Menino, argued that such a designation worked only to divide by elevating one national park, 

MIMA, over Boston’s many historic sites. Such action would raise the likelihood that Logan 

Airport would build a new controversial runway to address air traffic, Menino believed. 

Concord’s preservation gain would be Boston’s loss. As he saw the situation, “I’ve heard it 

said that Boston is already noisy, so it can assume airport expansion. Why should it be at our 

loss?”24 Massport celebrated the opening of that long-fought sixth runway at Logan in 

November 2006. 

In the meantime, Nelson continued her efforts to advocate for MIMA. In late 2001 

Massport began the process of developing an Environmental Status and Planning Report

(ESPR) for Hanscom. “We remain committed,” she wrote, “to developing a relationship and 

an ongoing process with Massport and the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs which 

will provide for the protection of Minute Man.”25 She reminded the state agency of the need 

to take into account the national park in assessing impacts from traffic, noise, and other 

factors resulting from possible airport expansion scenarios. But, with the publication of the 

draft ESPR, as with the draft GEIR, Nelson found any references to the park and its 

significance “downplayed.” Traffic mitigation steps, such as construction of roundabouts at 

Meriam’s Corner and Hardy’s Hill failed to acknowledge that these steps required the taking 

of national park land, an infeasible consideration that Nelson requested the state eliminate.26 

As Nelson admitted, “we are disappointed, but not surprised” that the draft ESPR failed to 

recognize the park’s significant resources.27

What truly did Nelson fear? This succession of Massport documents examined 

Hanscom’s expansion potential. They built an argument for developing the non-aviation 

land within the air field and accommodating increased use of the runways. The 2003 

proposal for FedEx to begin cargo service out of Hanscom represented just another step. 

Nelson knew that she had to continue to keep the park’s voice heard and work toward 

relationships with Massport and other state agencies. Nelson has recently seen some 

 

22 Video, ShhAir, Raise the Alarm! Nelson to Moe, 25 April 2001, 1. “America’s 11 Most Endangered 

Historic Places 2003, Preservation 55 (July/August 2003): 10. 23 Craig Coy, as quoted by Richard Higgins, “The Running Battle at Minute Man Park,” Preservation

(March/April 2004), 38. 

24 Thomas Menino, as quoted in Ibid., 38-39. 

25 Nelson to Robert Durand, 27 November 2001, 1, File L7621 Hanscom Field 2000 ESPR, Current 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

26 Nelson to Robert Durand, 24 November 2002, 2, File Reading File November 2002, Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 

27 Ibid., 1. 
For the Future 

330 

promise toward this goal.28 She knows the consequences if she and the NPS did not remain 

vigilant. As she wrote in 2003, 

The National Park will succumb, not to a clear cut, major threat 

which can be thoroughly vetted...via a legitimate public process. 

Rather, it will succumb to the incremental and individually less 

significant impacts over time created by many separate decisions 

and additions—death by a thousand cuts.29

NORTH BRIDGE REHABILITATION

While the park completed construction of the Battle Road Trail and began clearing 

landscapes and rehabilitating historic structures in that unit, attention shifted to address the 

North Bridge Unit. In 1996 a federal highway department inspection of the North Bridge 

had determined that its decking, railings, stringers, several bracing members, and piles were 

“severely deteriorated” and in “poor” condition. The department estimated that the bridge 

had a remaining life of three years. The state highway department had built this version of 

the North Bridge in 1956. The Town of Concord owned the bridge, and through the 1963 

cooperative agreement with the NPS, allowed the service to maintain and interpret the 

bridge. Town officials had begun to take note of the worsening condition of the bridge and 

shared the park’s concerns. Nelson and others understood that the North Bridge would only 

attract more visitors following the opening of the Battle Road Trail, and safe access to this 

singular resource had to be ensured. Other features within the North Bridge Unit also 

required attention, resulting in the submittal of a rehabilitation proposal for the area.30

John Tauscher led the effort as project manager. Carol R. Johnson Associates, Inc. 

served as the designers and provided design drawings that Childs Engineering Corporation 

used to make construction drawings. By the time the park began work on the bridge in 2004, 

Tauscher had returned to the Boston Support Office for other duties, and the Denver Service 

Center managed the entire project. The park’s Resources Management specialist Davis 

served as the park’s liaison for the project. Input came from the region, Boston, Olmsted 

Center for Landscape Preservation, and Harpers Ferry Center. As required by the 

cooperative agreement, the NPS and the Town of Concord had planning meetings and 

discussions. The park then provided the town with documentation, including an 

Environmental Assessment, describing the entire rehabilitation project. The agency did not 

implement the plan until after approval from the town.31

To assist cultural landscape work, Historical Landscape Architect Deborah DietrichSmith from the NPS Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, worked on exhaustive 

 

28 Nelson., transcript of interview, 11. 

29 Nelson to Christine Sullivan, 16 July 2003, 2, Reading File July 2003, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 30 MIMA, Development Package Proposal, April 1997, 1-2, File LIC, Nancy Nelson Files, MIMA. 31 NPS, Cultural Landscapes Inventory 2006, North Bridge Unit, 62, Terrie Wallace’s Files, MIMA. 

Tauscher, transcript of interview, 15. Project Agreement, Save Historic Resources and Provide Safe 

Access to the North Bridge, 13 February 2002, File MIMA Package 100, PMIS 29906, Vol. 2 North 

Bridge, Technical Information Center [TIC], NPS-Denver. 
For the Future 

331 

cultural landscape reports for each park unit. Dietrich-Smith completed the North Bridge 

report in January 2004 and the Battle Road report in September 2005. The Wayside report 

remains in draft as of 2007. Each of these reports, whether in final or draft form, have helped 

the park in understanding the lay of the park’s landscapes as they have changed from colonial 

times to the present. The reports also make recommendations about restoration efforts, 

guiding work at the North Bridge. Some work has also been completed at The Wayside 

following this draft report.32

For the North Bridge itself, discussion revolved around the extent of deterioration 

and whether repair efforts should in fact result in a different design for the bridge. Childs 

Engineering conducted a visual and underwater inspection of the bridge in August 2002. Its 

report echoed what the federal highway department had described. Dry rot, heavy 

weathering, and impact from debris and ice damage had taken their toll on all but the most 

interior, and thus protected wood pieces. The park would need to replace most if not all of 

the wood, except the piles, which remained solid. Should that replacement look like the 

1956 version? According to Amos Doolittle’s drawings of the scene soon after the 1775 

battle, the North Bridge appeared like a simple flat bridge over the Concord River. The 1956 

version, however, had a pronounced arch that helped protect the passageway from annual 

spring flooding. To consider its options and include all interested parties in the discussion, 

the NPS hosted first a design charette and then a mini-value analysis session in September 

2002. Through these two venues, consensus resulted to support replacement in kind of the 

1956 version. Specifically, contractors replaced all decking, posts, rails, cross-bracing and 

stringers with Southern pine. Workers hand-hewed rails and posts and beveled inside edges 

of rails. Workers also replaced existing footings located behind stone-wall abutments at both 

ends of the bridge. New anchor bolts secured the bridge. Wood facings and steel frames 

added extra protection and longevity to the upstream faces of the piles.33

The areas directly linking the North Bridge also required attention. The MIMA 

statue and 1836 Monument both experienced erosion around their bases, causing pavers to 

come away from the ground and soil-holding vegetation to disappear. Workers added soil to 

the bases and sodded the bare soil with grasses. They also reset the pavers and curbs flush 

with the ground. To direct run-offs in swales, workers contoured the ground. The park 

adopted moveable stanchions and ropes, used as needed, as an unobtrusive way to protect 

the bases from visitors. The pathway leading from the North Bridge Visitor Center to the 

bridge had its surfacing restored and stabilized with a mix similar to what the park had used 

along the Battle Road Trail. The NPS stabilized the outdoor amphitheatre area, replaced the 

benches, and created a wheel-chair accessible path from the main walkway to the sitting area. 

 

32 Dietrich-Smith, CLR: Battle Road Unit; Dietrich-Smith, CLR: North Bridge Unit; Dietrich-Smith, 

CLR: The Wayside. 33 Childs Engineering Corporation to Derek Watson, 30 August 2002, File MIMA Pkg 100, PMIS 

29906, vol. 3 North Bridge, TIC, NPS-Denver. NPS, Mini-Value Analysis, PowerPoint presentation, 30 

September 2002, screens 14-17, Chris Davis Files, MIMA. MIMA, Environmental Assessment, North 

Bridge Unit Rehabilitation, February 2004, 13, File MIMA Pkg 100, PMIS 29906, vol. 4 North Bridge, 

TIC, NPS-Denver. 
For the Future 

332 

Along the commemorative avenue leading from Monument Street to the 1836 Monument 

and North Bridge, the NPS added native trees in select locations. These plantings would 

redefine and preserve that historically tree-lined walkway, while use of stabilized stone dust 

along the walkway and near the monument and statue would help prevent erosion. Plantings 

of shrubs along the river bank near the Minute Man statue helped prevent erosion and 

discourage pedestrian traffic. To increase safety and mark the entry to the North Bridge 

area, the park worked with the town to stripe the crosswalk and place a granite panel flush 

with the ground. The panel had a quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson etched into its surface, 

a way to mark the significance of the location and prepare people mentally for entering the 

cherished area. Other waysides dotted the entire area and provided context for explaining 

the events of 1775 and identified foundations of former historic house sites.34

Beyond the immediate North Bridge area, the park reclaimed historic views primarily 

through removal of invasive plants and selective clearing. This action demanded that the 

park thoughtfully but forcefully stand by its management goals and historical understanding 

of the area because much of the clearing took place in wetlands. Historically, Patriots had 

watched from the muster field while the British crossed and guarded the North Bridge on 19 

April 1775. This view had helped the Patriots determine their actions on that fateful day. 

Visitors looking down from the muster field or from the overlook at the North Bridge Visitor 

Center, however, only had obscured views of the river due to trees, shrubs, and invasive 

species that had sprouted up over the past 30 or more years. Increasingly strapped for 

money to meet its expanding maintenance demands, plus reluctant to conduct landscape 

clearing in wetlands following protections granted by national and state environmental laws 

in the mid-to-late 1970s, park management over time had found itself watching as invasive 

species claimed the area. This situation impaired interpretive efforts, leaving visitors 

questioning how the historic events unfolded as they did. In the September 2002 mini-value 

analysis session, the park discussed options with the other participants, gaining some 

measure of agreement. Views from the visitor center overlook and muster field would be 

restored through selective clearing of overgrown vegetation, vegetation would be cleared 

away from stone walls, and hayfield productivity would be increased through clearing and 

replanting of hay.35 

Yet, action waited as the park reviewed its legal responsibilities and continued to 

communicate with the Town of Concord. Did the park, a federal agency, need to obtain state 

and local approval to clear vegetation from wetlands? Resources Management Specialist 

Davis began corresponding with the Interior Department’s regional solicitor in December 

2001 to determine how the laws applied in this specific case. He consistently received legal 

assurances that the park, as a federal agency, did not need local permits to build or alter 

 

34 MIMA, Environmental Assessment, North Bridge, 12-13, 15. MIMA, Mini-Value Analysis, North 

Bridge, screens 18-21, 30-41. 

35 MIMA, Min-Value Analysis, North Bridge, screens 22-25; MIMA, Environmental Assessment, North

Bridge, 11-12. This discussion about landscape clearing in the North Bridge Unit is also based on a 

conversation with Resources Manager Chris Davis. The author thanks Davis for his assistance. 
For the Future 

333 

federal government property. However, federal laws, such as the Clean Water Act, did 

obligate the NPS and other federal agencies to follow federal and state permitting laws if 

actions would result in discharge or run-off of pollutants. If, for instance, the park planned 

to replace the underwater piles of the North Bridge, then it would need to go through 

permitting procedures. In addition, the regional solicitor stated that if the park planned to 

dredge the river with bulldozers or reconfigure the river banks, again permitting would be 

required. In the case of landscape clearing in wetlands, though, the regional solicitor made 

clear that the park could conduct this activity without permits from the state or local 

jurisdictions.36 The solicitor did encourage the park to keep the town and its conservation 

commission, as the state’s local regulator, informed of the work. The commission might have 

useful advice regarding effective management techniques. Plus, keeping communication 

open would “obviate confusion or misunderstanding. . . .”37

Concord’s Conservation Commission raised many objections and concerns upon 

review of the North Bridge Environmental Assessment. The commission argued that the 

assessment did not provide sufficient detail for knowing which trees might be cleared and 

whether such trees were invasive species of a relatively recent vintage. By clearing such 

vegetation, the commission also wanted scientific reassurances that impacts to water quality, 

wetlands, wildlife habitats, and floodplains would have no significance. Commission 

members worried that removal of so many trees would harm sensitive environmental areas, 

and they wondered if the park truly had to restore the historic view sheds. They argued that 

landscapes are “living, dynamic complexes” and that there are many ways to teach the 

“hallowed history of the North Bridge . . . that would call for something less than the scale of 

environmental change proposed.” In recognition of these concerns, the commission asked 

that the NPS generate a full Environmental Impact Statement.38

In reviewing this response, and that of others, the NPS determined that its selected 

alternative for North Bridge rehabilitation would have no significant effect on the human 

environment and proceeded with its $1.2 million project.39 In maintaining the park’s 

commitment to communication with the town and its representatives, Nelson described for 

commission members under what conditions the park would legally need to follow the state 

and local regulatory guidelines. She also reminded commission members that “we are 

committed to values which support the diversity and vibrancy of the ecosystems within the 

 

36 Memorandum, Chris Davis to Regional Solicitor, Northeast Region, 14 December 2001; 

Memorandum, Davis to Anthony Conte, Chief solicitor, 10 December 2003; Memorandum, Anthony 

Conte to Nancy Nelson, 18 February 2004; Nelson to Chris Ryan and Paul Feshback-Merineym 4 

February 2005, all in File Legal Memos, Chris Davis Files, MIMA. 37 Memorandum, Conte to Nelson, 18 February 2004, 3. 

38 Markus Pinney to Nancy Nelson, 26 March 2004, with comments added by Chris Davis and Dave 

Clark, attached to email from Davis to Clark, 31 March 2004, File L7617 MIMA North Bridge Rehab, 

Dave Clark’s Files, NPS-Boston. Quote on p. 7. 39 Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Project to Rehabilitate Historic Sites and Landscapes 

in the North Bridge Unit, 2 June 2004, File MIMA Pkg 100, PMIS 29906, vol. 4 North Bridge, TIC, 

NPS-Denver. It should be noted that the Park Service considered removal of sandbar sediments, but 

the park deleted this action in response to numerous comments concerned about canoe-landing space. 

See Chris Davis’s comments to Markus Pinkey letter, 26 March 2004, 6. 
For the Future 

334 

park and beyond.” And, she emphasized that “we are looking forward to collaborating on a 

full range of issues which transcend our boundaries.”40 By opening up the views from the 

muster field and visitor center overlook to the bridge, the park reasserted its stewardship and 

interpretive responsibilities and enhanced the visitor experience. This action was longneeded, according to Stedman Buttrick, whose grandfather had built the house now used as 

park headquarters and visitor center. Back in his “grandfather’s days, you could look down 

the river and just see open land,” and Buttrick wanted that sense of expansiveness back.41 By 

having special use permits for agricultural work, largely haying operations, the NPS could 

return that land to its longtime uses and maintain those historic views.42

NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES

With passage of the National Historic Preservation Act in 1966, MIMA was 

administratively added to the National Register of Historic Places by virtue of its previous 

designation as a national historical park. For more than 30 years, the only documentation for 

the park as a historic area was that for The Wayside, for which National Historic Landmark 

(NHL) documentation was accepted on 11 July 1980 (The Wayside was originally designated 

an NHL on 29 December 1962). During the process of developing the GMP in the mid1980s (recounted in chapter seven), it became clear to the NPS that it had to address the 

significance of park resources not directly associated with the events of 1775, an issue raised 

by the Massachusetts Historical Commission, which served as the SHPO. From the time of 

park establishment, superintendents and their staff had used 1830, or roughly 50 years 

following the American Revolution, as a cut-off date for preserving buildings. The date of 

1830 was extended to 1920 to include resources that the Massachusetts Historical 

Commission and others deemed significant, including the Stedman Buttrick House that postdated 1830. The distinctions between local and national significance were de-emphasized in 

the 1990 GMP, for as the 1990 plan states, all pre-1920 buildings would now be saved, to help 

restore a sense of balance between structures and open fields that had been present during 

the time of the battle. Many of these buildings still fell within the 50-year post-Revolutionary 

War period, and the GMP noted that they could supplement the park’s colonial character. 

Another step was taken in the 1992 legislation, with the park’s mission expanded to include 

the causes and consequences of the American Revolution.43

Using 1920 as an end date for significance came under further review beginning in 

the mid-1990s. As part of its Section 110 responsibilities and the national initiative to update 

the NPS List of Classified Structures, the regional office, in November 1996 spearheaded 

consultation with the state historical commission to obtain SHPO concurrence on its List of 

Classified Structures for the park. In its 8 January 1997 response, the SHPO disagreed with 

 

40 Nelson to Ryan and Feshback-Meriney, 4 February 2005, 2. 41 Buttrick, transcript of interview, 6. 

42 MIMA, Environmental Assessment, North Bridge, 12. 43 1990 GMP, 16, 39. The author thanks Paul Weinbaum for his help in capturing the history of how 

the National Register documentation for Minute Man was developed. 
For the Future 

335 

the NPS’s findings on agriculturally related resources, stating that associations with the area’s 

architectural traditions should be recognized and an agricultural context should be 

developed. The state historical commission argued that the period of significance should 

extend well into the twentieth century to reflect how people have commemorated, 

venerated, and interpreted the site. These continued conversations between the park and 

the SHPO made clear the need for the park to document fully the park’s resources and to 

have that documentation accepted by the Keeper of the National Register.44

This combination of factors resulted in development and submission of National 

Register documentation for the entire park. The Keeper accepted MIMA’s documentation 

on 29 November 2002 with a Supplementary Listing Record (SLR) accepted on 2 December 

2002. The SLR corrected technical errors in the 29 November 2002 documentation. This 

documentation identifies the park as nationally significant in the areas of military, 

commemoration, and literature and locally significant in the areas of agriculture, archeology, 

and architecture. Overall, the park has 133 total resources, of which 105 are contributing and 

28 are non-contributing, within its boundaries. Of the 105 contributing resources, 43 are 

buildings, 41 ware sites, 11 are objects, and 10 are structures.45 

For each area of significance, the park provides a description of why it meets 

National Register criteria and what the dates of significance are. This latter determination, 

the dates of significance, is particularly important for shaping future preservation and 

management decisions. And, it is here that the park addressed the long-expressed concerns 

of the SHPO. For example, the National Register documentation for MIMA identifies the 

period of significance for architecture from circa 1705 when the Meriam House was 

constructed to 1946 when the Beatteay House was completed. This date range allows the 

park to capture the collection of 13 Colonial period dwellings that have long been associated 

with the events of 1775 and its immediate aftermath. But, the extension into the midtwentieth-century acknowledges the importance of local building styles, often reflecting 

national trends in domestic architecture, in shaping the landscape. In the nineteenth 

century, the Federal style is represented by the John Nelson and Gowing-Clark houses. In 

 

44 Judith McDonough to Nancy Nelson, 27 June 1996, 1; Terry Savage to Judith McDonough, 25 

November 1996, 1; McDonough to Savage, 8 January 1997, 1; Memorandum, Terry Savage to Nancy 

Nelson, 4 March 1997, 1, all in MIMA Admin History Files, MIMA. Originals located at the Northeast 

Region History Program National Register Files, 15 State Street, Boston, MA. 

45 National Register of Historic Places Continuation Sheet, Minute Man National Historical Park, 

NRIS Reference Number 02001445, 2 December 2002, [no page numbering for the front section, page 

numbering added by the author. Page numbering in subsequent sections identified by section number 

and page number], 1, 4, 5, section 7- page 1. As of November 2007, the park had demolished five noncontributing buildings. In addition, the Battle Road Trail, which had been identified in 2002 as a noncontributing structure but by mistake not counted as such, has been added to the number of noncontributing resources. These two changes have made the total number of non-contributing structures 

at Minute Man as 24. In addition, as of November 2007, the numbers of contributing resources has 

changed slightly, with 44 buildings, 41 sites, 9 structures, and 11 objects. The number of buildings 

increased because two buildings, which in 2002 had been counted as one building, were counted 

separately. The number of structures decreased because one shed had collapsed. The author thanks 

Terrie Wallace for this updated information. 
For the Future 

336 

the twentieth century, the park has such examples as the Dutch Colonial Revival-style Burke 

House and the Craftsman-style Albano House. The Beatteay House represents a unique 

example of vernacular architecture. Non-contributing structures within this date range have 

either suffered radical alterations so that they no longer convey their original architectural 

appearance or they do not relate to the architectural significance of the district as it has been 

documented.46

National Register documentation extends the period of significance for 

commemoration to 1959 to include construction of the existing North Bridge (1956) and the 

establishment of the national historical park (1959), which has been the culmination of the 

preservation efforts of many individuals and entities at the local, state, and national levels.47

The park’s National Register documentation for archeology identifies the time 

period of circa 1663 when the Meriam House was constructed (Joseph Meriam, John’s son, 

built in 1705 the house that stands today) to 1951. This end date was chosen due to the 50-

year rule, requiring exceptional significance for resources less than 50 years old from the 

present. 

The National Register documentation extends the period of significance for 

agriculture to 1951. This date encompasses farm properties in Concord that partook in 

market gardening and dairying during the first half of the twentieth century. With the 

growth of metropolitan Boston in the twentieth century, land use in the towns shifted from 

primarily agricultural to a range of uses, including some farming, housing, and expansion of 

businesses and retail beyond the city’s limits. Some families, such as the Palumbos, 

continued to play a major role in agricultural pursuits in and around MIMA. Where farming 

departed, those once open lands saw enclosure by trees and invasion by exotic species. In 

response to the increased traffic along major roads and highways and the proximity of people 

in new housing subdivisions, the few remaining farmers opened seasonal farm stands.48

 It is perhaps too early to assess what impact the National Register documentation 

will have on park management. However, the expanded responsibilities of the NPS under 

the National Historic Preservation Act, encompassing resources not directly related to the 

park’s enabling legislation, have effectively added budgetary and interpretive challenges to a 

park that has lost ground in both areas over the past years. As described in chapter nine, the 

park’s interpretive staff has decreased so dramatically that it claimed in 2006 only one 

permanent FTE. Overall, the park has seen a steady decrease in full time equivalents, going 

from 35 FTE in 1991 to 31 in 2002 and only 29 in 2006. This decrease has come even as the 

park has effectively increased by an order of magnitude its management and interpretive 

responsibilities with the opening of the Battle Road Unit with the trail, landscapes, and 

structures. With the expanded National Register dates of significance, the situation becomes 

even more pronounced. Buildings, such as the Beatteay House, that the park had once 

 

46 Ibid., section 8-page 23. 

47 Ibid., section 8-pages 17, 22-23; Memorandum. Savage to Nelson, 26 March 1997, 3; McDonough to 

Savage, 8 January 1997, 1. 

48 MIMA National Register documentation, 2002, section 8-page 37. 
For the Future 

337 

thought would be removed after life estates had been fulfilled, now must receive care and 

attention as the park determines how best to meet its mandates. Agricultural features and 

structures that date from the twentieth century also require the park’s intervention, 

challenging the park’s one grounds maintenance worker and his almost 1,000 acres to 

maintain.49

From a budgetary standpoint, beginning in 2005 the park did obtain a permanent 

add-on of $138,000 to maintain and operate new facilities in the Battle Road Unit, thus 

acknowledging to a certain degree the added work associated with caring for this improved 

unit. However, the park’s operating budget remained essentially flat as it underwent major 

development in the Battle Road Unit and expanded its dates of significance under the 

National Register documentation. This situation is especially apparent when understanding 

that the Northeast Region put its regional archeology program money, of about $473,000, 

into MIMA’s budget from 2000 until 2004, when the region transferred that money to Valley 

Forge. If one takes out this archeology money (which MIMA never touched), the park’s 

budget remained at just over $2 million between 2000 and 2004 even as its fixed operating 

costs skyrocketed to care for the development changes in the Battle Road Unit. Certainly, 

many other parks within the National Park System have seen steady decreases in the past 

years as budgets have tightened overall within the federal government. But, when 

considering the level of visitation, acreage, and development work at MIMA, the lack of 

growth in its budget is startling (see Appendix for organizational charts).50

HOUSING

Every national park site gains its existence, general mission and purpose, and 

management direction from the people of the United States, as expressed by the United 

States Congress. The laws passed in Congress and signed by the President determine the 

direction and scope of activities taken by the NPS and Department of the Interior. With 

these laws in hand, the NPS acts under authority of the Secretary of the Interior. Through 

NPS headquarters and regional offices, the NPS Director develops priorities and policies to 

guide the management of the National Park System. What works well for one set of parks, 

though, may not be the case for another set. As of November 2007 there are 391 units within 

the system, with these sites ranging in size and complexity from a single historic house to 

millions of acres filled with natural and cultural resources. Plus, a wide range of parks dot 

the landscape, from national recreation areas to historic battlefields, and from parks filled 

with wildlife and natural habitats to those noted for their archeological treasures. 

Implementation of the intent of Congress and the American people requires dexterity and 

deep appreciation of the many jewels in the nation’s crown. In the area of housing, Nelson 

 

49 Sabin, 1991 Admin History, 36. Recent FTE and budgetary numbers provided by the park budget 

analyst. 

50 Information about the regional archeology program provided by Paul Weinbaum. He consulted 

with Northeast Region Comptroller Alexa Molnar. See NPS Review Comments, 11 May 2007, 7, 

MIMA Admin History Files, MIMA Archives. 
For the Future 

338 

has argued for flexibility and attention to individual circumstances while addressing new 

laws. 

In response to Public Law 104-33, the Omnibus Parks and Public Lands Management 

Act of 1996, NPS Director Roger Kennedy began developing a revised approach to 

government housing in national parks.51 The law’s intent has been to ensure an adequate 

amount of employee housing, encouraging partnerships with the private sector and thus 

reducing federal expenditures. The law also seeks to eliminate unnecessary government 

housing and to locate such housing so as not to impair a park’s primary resource values. The 

Director made clear first in a Director’s Memorandum of 24 November 1997 and 

subsequently in the still draft form of Director’s Order No. 36 (2002), that use of government 

housing must be essential to the accomplishment of the NPS mission. There must be a clear 

need, because an adequate supply of alternative housing is not within commuting distance or 

that government housing is needed to supply necessary services or protection.52

How does such a law and NPS policy direction affect MIMA? The NPS and MIMA 

over the years have provided limited government housing in both the park’s historic 

structures and in some of the acquired modern houses. The Elisha Jones House, for 

instance, has been the park superintendent’s residence since the days of Benjamin Zerbey. 

Park protection rangers, maintenance workers, interpretive rangers, and others, including 

people from the regional office and other park superintendents, have lived with their families 

in other buildings. Seasonal rangers have also been granted housing within the park. With 

this new policy, the park, working with the region, had to identify and justify how many 

members of the staff had to live in government housing to fulfill the park’s mission. In 

addition, the region had to identify the total number of housing units approved for the park. 

Not all housing units would necessarily be used by park personnel. Excess units could be 

available for historic leasing or other opportunities. A first attempt at making these 

identifications, done by contractors in 1998, resulted in an explosion of protest from Nelson. 

The 1998 study recommended that the park had no justification for any park personnel to 

live in housing units within the park except to accommodate seven seasonal rangers. To 

meet security, safety, and preservation needs, the contractors recommended use of pagers, 

sharing law enforcement with local jurisdictions, and partnering with local agencies to 

procure low-cost housing for NPS employees.53

Nelson argued that to meet the preservation mandates of the park, specific personnel 

had to live within the boundaries. Protection and maintenance representatives in structures 

deterred vandalism of historic and archeological resources. They also had the intimate 

knowledge of the park’s landscape, structures, and roadways to address quickly and 

effectively any random and immediate circumstance. As an example, in 1998 Dattilio and 

 

51 See section 814 of PL 104-33. 

52 http://www.nps.gov/policy/DOrders/DOrder36.htm. See also Memorandum, Nelson to Director, 18 

March 2003, 1, Ed Rizotta Files, NPS-Boston. 53 Housing Needs Assessment and Local Market Analyses, September 1998, iv-vi, Ed Rizzotto Files, NPSBoston. 
For the Future 

339 

protection rangers, while off-duty, provided essential direction and protection services in the 

aftermath of a fatal airplane crash in the park. Local emergency personnel needed guidance 

in terms of access into the accident site and how best to preserve resources while addressing 

the situation.54 Nelson did not dispute the need to determine objectively what MIMA and 

other park units required in terms of housing, but she did believe that the very short time the 

contractors spent at her park had not allowed for fair attention to the complex situation 

under which the park’s personnel worked. The fact that the park’s Battle Road Trail neared 

completion at the time of the contractor’s visit suggested to Nelson that making any hard and 

fast decisions regarding housing requirements would be premature. Resource requirements 

and handling of increased visitation along this newly opened area would probably increase 

demands for an all day/everyday NPS presence. She also argued strenuously that successful 

management of the park required that the superintendent live within the community. Local 

politics would view the NPS as an outsider if park leadership did not have a 24-hour 

presence. If she did move, she reasoned, she could not attend nearly the number of evening 

meetings she regularly did, reducing her overall effectiveness in building ties with local 

residents. Ultimately, Nelson moved from park housing and purchased a home in Concord. 

By purchasing a house in Concord, she maintained the presence of the superintendent in the 

community.55

Ultimately, Nelson believed that extreme care needed to be taken in addressing the 

housing issue. As she wrote to the Washington office, “We also believe that the need for 

service wide ‘consistency’ has been overemphasized. Much more important is accountability 

and the application of intelligence and judgment in structuring park housing programs so 

that laws are respected and individual park mission needs are met.”56 The agency needed to 

consider carefully each individual park. No simple formulas or analyses would adequately 

address the demands and constraints each park faced. After consideration of the results of 

the contractor assessment study for MIMA and other parks, the region and Washington 

office agreed with Nelson that flaws existed in the report’s findings and conclusions. The 

final report carried in its first page a cautionary notice explaining its shortcomings and notice 

that the Washington office had embarked on an effort to retool its housing policy. This 

revision came out in 2002 as NPS Director’s Order No. 36, which continues to exist in draft 

form.57

A larger issue revolved around the intent of the 1996 Omnibus Parks Management Act

to consider a full range of alternative uses for park housing. Did partnership alternatives 

exist that could help reduce federal expenditures for upkeep of park structures? Did each 

 

54 Memorandum, Nelson to Housing management Specialist, WASO Housing Office, 2 November 

1998, 1, attached to Housing Needs Assessment. Email, Nelson to Ed Rizzotto, 28 May 1998, Ed Rizzotto 

Files, NPS-Boston. 

55 Housing Needs Assessment, v; and attached memorandum, Nelson to Housing Management 

Specialist, WASO Housing Office, 2 November 1998. 56 Memorandum, Nelson to Housing Management Specialist, 2 November 1998, as attached to Housing 

Needs Assessment, 1. 57 Housing Needs Assessment, inside page. 
For the Future 

340 

park truly need all of the housing it may have or were there other opportunities to use these 

buildings? When considering these ideas, MIMA had many possibilities. Larry Gall had 

tried to encourage agricultural special use permits within the park by renovating up to two 

houses and making them available to farmers. This effort did not succeed in encouraging 

farmers, but beginning in December 2003 one, the Burke House, did become home to the 

non-profit Thoreau Society. Other ideas involved the historic Brooks houses. Could one 

become a bed and breakfast, another a tavern or tea room? A 1998 market analysis offered 

some promise. Noah Brooks Tavern had the space and guest access ease that made it a good 

candidate for lodging. Joshua Brooks and Samuel Brooks Houses, with smaller rooms and 

access issues, could serve supplementary roles to Brooks Tavern. The park still had to 

complete its historic structure rehabilitation of these buildings, under the Battle Road 

project, before it could pursue any special use arrangement. Once the park completed this 

work on Noah Brooks, one short-term opportunity presented itself. In 2003 the Junior 

League of Boston staged its Annual Show House at the tavern. The park benefited from 

having a whole new audience inside the park. Plus, the Show House effort resulted in 

valuable in-kind donations, totaling about $70,000, including new wallpaper, interior paint, 

electrical wiring, light fixtures, carpets, cabinetry, appliances, and a large gravel parking area 

in the back. The Show House people even completed historically appropriate hand-painted 

murals and hand-stenciled walls.58

Special use permits and development possibilities continue to have some success at 

MIMA. With Nelson’s move out of the Elisha Jones House, this historic house has since 

benefited from renters living in it. The Samuel Brooks House hosted a Mother’s Day Tea and 

Father’s Day Brunch in 2005 giving approximately 150 people access to a building usually 

closed to the public. Respondents to a short questionnaire at this event expressed their 

overwhelming enthusiasm for having a food service operation in the park. The park has met 

with real estate and food service professionals to consider other partnership possibilities. In 

the meantime, some of the park’s historic and modern structures continue to provide 

seasonal employees and full-time employees with a place to live. In the eyes of regional 

housing specialist Ed Rizzotto, historic structures in particular benefit from having people 

live in these buildings. Air temperatures are moderated, water flows regularly through the 

pipes, and people can make daily assessments about any problems that may appear.59

GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 has provided a new 

opportunity for MIMA and parks in general to report their successes and challenges each 

 

58 Gall, transcript of interview, 12. Junior League of Boston, Show House 2003 Booklet, 26, File H30 

2003 Decorator’s Show House; Nelson to Bob Nolan, 20 March 2000, 1, File H30 Historic Leasing; and 

Bargmann, Hendrie, & Archetype, Feasibility Study of Brooks’ Houses, September 1998, File H30 

Feasibility Study, all in Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

59 Email, Diana Shiba to the author, 11 July 2006, MIMA Admin History Collection, MIMA Archives. 

The author thanks Ed Rizzotto for his candid remarks and access to his files during a December 2006 

visit to the Boston Support Office. 
For the Future 

341 

year. To increase confidence in the American public in the federal government, this act 

sought to shift the focus of government decision making and accountability. Instead of 

focusing on activities, GPRA puts attention on the results of those activities, such as real gains 

in safety, responsiveness, or program quality. Beginning in 1997 agencies have been required 

to develop multiyear strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance 

reports to help them in developing and assessing their goals. GPRA has not changed the 

work of agencies, but it has mandated how that work would be assessed against the agency’s 

overall goals. By placing emphasis upon reportable outcomes that largely have a numeric 

value, GPRA did prove an initial challenge for some agencies whose work is not so easily 

summarized and tallied. The NPS’s managers, for instance, had to find a way to delineate 

tangible results from activities that generally do not have a hard product. How could the 

agency quantify the health of an ecosystem or measure visitor satisfaction? The agency 

appointed a task force to develop a system-wide strategic plan that integrated GPRA 

requirements into the existing NPS management system and planning process. This 

strategic plan identified certain key mission goals, such as protecting and restoring natural 

and cultural resources. Long-term goals for achievement within five years would provide a 

way to measure success at accomplishing the mission goals.60

For managers and their staff at MIMA, it took some time to address the requirements 

of GPRA. People needed to report the achievements for each goal, a burdensome endeavor 

when they had so many other tasks that seemed central to their mission to complete. The 

benefits of the GPRA approach were not immediately evident for many. However, once park 

managers became more accustomed to the reporting requirements, the effort became more 

routine and less time-consuming than previously.61

COMPUTERS, FACILITIES, AND COLLECTIONS

Advancements in technology and communication systems have helped MIMA 

address its mission and meet its goals. Yet, keeping track of all the technological possibilities 

and implementing them successfully for each staff member can itself be a challenge. Nelson 

recognized that computer management was becoming more than an ancillary duty for thenChief Ranger Datillio, and so she brought David St. Louis to the park as a computer, later 

information technology specialist. St. Louis has installed computers for the past 10 years so 

every staff member has access. He has linked the park headquarters, the Cultural Resources 

Center, and maintenance computers through fiber-optic cabling. Another system links 

together the five computers for protection rangers in Lincoln. All have access to color 

printers and copiers. Demands for security, brought about first by a lawsuit by the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs against the Interior Department, and later in reaction to Homeland Security 

 

60 NPS, Strategic Plan, 1997, 1-2, 9, Terrie Wallace’s Files, MIMA. 61 NPS Review Comments, MIMA Administrative History, Second Draft, 11 May 2007, 10, MIMA 

Admin History Files, MIMA Archives. 
For the Future 

342 

after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, have helped to build efficiency into the overall 

reporting process.62

Computer systems have become increasingly integrated into the work of some of the 

park’s divisions. One of the best ways to coordinate, collect, and keep track of park activities 

is through computer database systems. To aid budget analysis, paycheck disbursement, and 

other financial reporting, the NPS early on had a system-wide accounting operation in place. 

More recently, the agency has addressed its enormous maintenance responsibilities by 

implementing a specific computer system, Facility Management Software System, for this 

area of activity. According to Facility Manager Bruce Firth, this system will allow him to plan 

ahead for preventive maintenance tasks. Plus, he will have the ability to see where his work 

needs are and plan for employees to do that work in an efficient manner. What frustrates 

him about the system, though, is the need to sit at a computer and enter the information. 

Each day, workers must enter how much paint they used on a structure or how many hours it 

took to clear a stone wall. That computer time takes away from the necessary outdoor time, 

doing the actual work. Plus, Firth knows that his maintenance people do that outdoor work 

in part because they don’t want a desk job and are not trained for that work. He needs to be 

out with the workers, too, not tied to his desk all day. He wants more training and more staff 

to fulfill the promise in this computer system.63

For the park’s historical and archeological collections, Curator Teresa Wallace has 

overseen many improvements. Wallace oversaw the removal of the archeological collection 

from the Squash Court and its installation in the Job Brooks House, following external and 

internal changes. The house interior was adapted for use as a collection storage facility while 

the exterior was rehabilitated to its eighteenth-century appearance. The maintenance 

division then transferred old shelving units from the squash court to the Brooks House and 

completed the move of about 500 boxes of archeological materials to their new home. This 

action for the Brooks House provided an adaptive reuse of a historic structure and ensured 

the continued preservation of this collection. With the squash court emptied of the 

archeology collection, Wallace put in new shelving and museum cabinets, readying them to 

take furniture and other items stored at the Noah Brooks Tavern. This action opened the 

tavern for reuse possibilities. To meet changing environmental standards, Wallace also had 

fire suppression systems, first a Halon system and then a water sprinkler system, placed in the 

squash court. A new heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system was also installed to 

improve the environmental conditions for the stored artifacts. Wallace systematically 

addressed the archeological collection’s backlog cataloging of the items uncovered before 

1987, completing that work in fiscal year 2003.64

 

62 St. Louis, transcript of interview, 9-11. 

63 The author thanks Bruce Firth for sharing in November 2006 his knowledge about the computer 

system and its demands on his division. 

64 The author thanks Terrie Wallace for sharing in November 2006 her accomplishments over the past 

dozen years. See also Memorandum, Nelson to Acting Director, Northeast Museum Services Center, 8 

May 2001; PMIS Project Detail, Catalog Archeology Backlog in FY 2002, PMIS 74463; and PMIS 

Project Detail Sheet, Catalog Archeology Collection Excavated Since 1987, PMIS 84026, all in File 
For the Future 

343 

The archeological collection continues to grow in response to archeological 

investigations completed as part of Section 106 compliance reviews of the National Historic 

Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106 requires all federal agencies to review any project that 

affects a historic building, cultural landscape, archeological resources, or ethnographic 

resources. If projects will disturb previously undisturbed ground, then an archeological 

investigation is necessary. Any resulting artifacts uncovered during these investigations are 

stored in the park. As described in chapter nine, during the entire development project in the 

Battle Road Unit, archeological surveys and reports formed an essential part of the planning. 

Interestingly, when MIMA was first established, the park employed archeologists to research 

locations of house foundations and aid in the effort to interpret the park’s resources. 

Currently, archeological work is considered more preventive, to make sure that development 

or maintenance projects do not affect any archeological sites. MIMA has many important 

sites. Any planning must provide funds for this requisite archeological survey work, adding 

time and money to projects. The park has become an active player in the entire Section 106 

process following the 1995 NPS decision to delegate this work to the individual parks. 

Regional offices had previously overseen Section 106 compliance.65

UNION

In January 2000 park employees voted successfully for a union, beginning the process 

of negotiating a contract with management representatives at the park. This effort sought to 

address issues that had been festering in the park for the past several years. Beginning with 

the maintenance division but reaching into all areas of park staffing, employees had 

expressed concern about their jobs. Although the park had experienced huge funding 

increases to support the Battle Road Trail project, this money did not supplement the annual 

operating budget. In fact, the park steadily lost money for its annual operations, and staffing 

positions often remained open due to retirements or reassignments. Nelson wrote in her 

2002 annual report that the park had experienced a 30% reduction in staff, at the same time 

that the park itself had grown in terms of access and interpretive possibilities with the trail.66 

Assistant superintendent Dattilio remarked later that the trail project had a “major effect on 

the staff morale, in terms of fatigue, and emotional input. . . .” With that project finishing up 

and the North Bridge rehabilitation project beginning, Dattilio believed that “it’s somewhat 

 Comprehensive Call FY 2002 and FY 2003, Terrie Wallace’s Files, MIMA. For an example of the goals 

Wallace has set under GPRA, see MIMA, Annual Performance Plan, FY 2000, 14, 17, File D18 Annual 

Performance Plan FY 2000, Current Park Admin Files, MIMA. 65 Author’s discussion with Wallace, November 2006. The park has files for each of the Section 106 

projects completed since 1995. 

66 Park employees had voted unsuccessfully for the union the prior year. David St. Louis, transcription 

of oral history interview with the author, 5 December 2006, 3, MIMA Archives. MIMA, 

Superintendent’s Annual Report, FY 2001, 1, File A2621 State of the Park; and MIMA, Superintendent’s 

Annual Report, FY 2002, 1, File A2621 Superintendent’s Annual Report, both in Current Park Admin 

Files, MIMA. 
For the Future 

344 

related to the extra strain that was put on the staff because of all that . . . development work.” 

This strain, in his mind, had contributed to calls for formation of the union.67

Beyond the stresses of a complex park with fewer people and resources to run it, 

some employees voted for the union because of concerns over park management. From the 

perspective of one employee, the union offered the opportunity to stand up for the rights of 

employees. As this informant said, “we wanted a Big Brother—that’s all we were looking 

for.”68

With the positive vote for the union, negotiations began. Employees asked St. Louis, 

the park’s IT specialist, to serve as president and lead negotiator. St. Louis had started 

working at MIMA in 1996 handling the computers and other technology systems to ensure 

the park had the correct capabilities to meet its obligations. He had good qualities for serving 

as union president. A naturally easy-going and friendly personality, St. Louis had experience 

in dealing on a daily basis with both managers and staff members. As he stated later, as the 

only IT person at the park, “you can’t be unapproachable or you’re not going to do a good 

job, and that’s how it is. . . .”69 His background also gave him an understanding of the issues 

facing the maintenance division, in particular. His first position with the NPS had been at 

Women’s Rights NHP in Seneca Falls, NY, where he had worked as a carpenter helper.70

How St. Louis moved from a carpenter helper to IT specialist reveals his commitment 

to the issues raised by the union and his contribution to the negotiating process. While at 

Women’s Rights, he had cut his thumb on a table saw and had to take worker’s 

compensation. On light desk duty at the Cultural Resources Center at Lowell NHP, he 

learned that the NPS wanted to lay him off but couldn’t because he was on worker’s 

compensation. Wanting to know his rights, he made some phone calls, with the result being 

that he kept his job. Still in the office, he also kept asking for work to do, and people 

appreciated his abilities and ambition. He eventually worked on the budget for about five 

years and became permanent doing a wide range of catch-all jobs, including shipping, 

receiving, and computers. Faced with a downsizing situation, St. Louis accepted an offer 

from Nelson to oversee MIMA’s computer and technology needs. When the labor union 

situation arose, he accepted the presidency and took his commitment for fairness to the 

negotiating table.71

For St. Louis, having the union and contract at MIMA helped to institutionalize 

federal regulations and make clear the rights and responsibilities of everyone. He wanted the 

union to “protect the little guy, that’s what it’s for.” But he did not support people using it to 

“get a leg up or a free ride. . . .” This attitude was shared by at least one other employee who 

 

67 Dattilio, transcript of interview, 12-13. 

68 The author interviewed other park employees who wished to remain anonymous about the union. 

69 St. Louis, transcript of interview, 3. 

70 Ibid., 1. 

71 Ibid., 1, 4. 
For the Future 

345 

spoke anonymously about the union, emphasizing the need for a union to stand up for 

employee rights.72 

Negotiations lasted for more than a year, and they wore down everyone. St. Louis 

recalled “that was the longest, most excruciating event in my life, let me tell you.”73 Nelson 

reported in her annual report for 2001 that union related activities and issues had taken up 

about 40% of her and Dattilio’s time. She wrote that, along with contract negotiation, she 

faced “difficult and time consuming personnel problems” and several “unfair labor practice” 

charges, all ultimately withdrawn. It cannot be documented how time spent on the union 

directly took away time from other park issues, such as completing development projects in 

the Battle Road Unit and starting work at the North Bridge. However, whenever the union 

has been discussed informally by Nelson, it is clear that negotiations took a lot of time, effort, 

and energy.74 

Signed on 6 September 2002, the contract addressed everything related to job 

performance and expectations. As St. Louis stated, “now there are rules that everybody has 

to follow . . . [and] everybody’s kept honest.”75 The contract defines work schedules, for 

example, and provides opportunities twice a year for employees to request changes in those 

schedules. The contract makes clear that employees must be present during core park hours 

of 9 AM and 3 PM and employees must take lunch between 11 AM and 1 PM. There is a 

provision for the designated amount of time for workers, who might need to pick up tools or 

wash up from dirty work, before taking lunch or ending their day. Employee development 

and training will be fostered, with the park ensuring that employees have training to meet 

mandatory requirements, critical park needs, and enhance their professional development. 

More sections address overtime, travel, leave, disciplinary action, safety and health working 

condition, promotions, and telecommuting, among many other issues. 

From the point of view of Nelson, though, there were some losses. She characterized 

contract negotiation as a “sadly adversarial process.” Management, in her opinion, retained 

and even gained some ground, but employees lost some flexibility and a direct line of 

communication with management.76

Soon after adoption of the union contract, one park employee petitioned to seek an 

election to determine if employees no longer wished to be represented by the union. As 

another park employee later recalled, the petitioner worked in the protection division and 

believed that the union was not necessary. In mid-November 2002 park employees voted on 

the petition. By a one-vote majority (13 to 12), the union contract was certified. Such a slim 

margin of support for the union may reflect changes in management that employees saw as 

already positive and promising. The slim vote may also speak to uncertainty among 

employees about showing their support. With the vote to keep the union, its activities have 

 

72 Ibid., 4. Also based upon conversation with another park employee. 

73 St. Louis, transcript of interview, 5. 

74 MIMA, 2001 Annual Report, 2. 75 St. Louis, transcript of interview, 7. 

76 Nelson, Comments, 20 March 2007, 5-6, MIMA Admin History Files, MIMA Archives. 
For the Future 

346 

been relatively quiet in subsequent years. The contract had an initial life of four years, with 

opportunities to open discussions, and then the agreement would be renewed each year until 

one party signaled its desire to re-negotiate. Since its adoption, there have been no attempts 

to open negotiations.77

MORE OPPORTUNITIES

A historic opportunity presented itself to the Town of Concord and the NPS in 

summer 2002. Confidential meetings disclosed that Michael and Patrick McGrath wished to 

arrange for the sale of two pieces of property, including the historic Barrett’s Farm and 

house. The brothers wanted to ensure public ownership and preservation of this land and 

building. British Regulars had Barrett’s Farm as their planned destination point when they 

left Boston and headed to Concord in April 1775. In 1959 the NPS had considered but not 

included the farm site in the proposed MIMA park boundaries because it appeared to be in 

capable and historically minded hands. By 2002 however, the McGraths’ circumstances led 

to their interest in sale of these properties. They wished to avoid a private sale that would 

lead to development of the property contrary to the historic significance of the land.78

Unfortunately, neither the town nor the NPS had the resources or legislative ability 

to act with the speed needed to secure these properties. Nelson made clear the park’s 

interest in seeing the farm and house preserved, but she could not make any commitments. 

Barrett’s Farm stood well outside MIMA’s boundaries, and the park did not have 

authorization or money for such a purchase. Instead, both the park and town sought a 

private partner as an interim purchaser and holder of the properties until the NPS or another 

preservation organization could obtain the necessary authorizations. That private partner 

appeared as the nonprofit organization Save Our Heritage, led by Anna Winter Rasmussen. 

In a successful campaign, Save Our Heritage raised $2 million to purchase these lands and 

building. In a revision of the original proposal, Michael McGrath agreed to move out of the 

historic farmhouse and into a new residence constructed for him by Save Our Heritage on a 

portion of his brother’s land.79

Congressman Martin Meehan (D-MA) sought to secure a boundary study for 

possible inclusion of the farm in MIMA. Meehan introduced HR 394 in January 2005. The 

House passed this legislation in September 2005. Senators Edward Kennedy (D) and John 

Kerry introduced the companion S. 2034 to the Senate, where it passed in August 2006. The 

following month, the park held a public scoping meeting and open house to discuss the 

 

77 Collective Bargaining Agreement between National Association of Government Employees Local 

R1-99 and Minute Man NHP National Park Service, 2002, David St. Louis Files, MIMA. See also St. 

Louis, transcript of interview, 7-8. Case No. BN-RP-02-0059, Certification of Representation, MIMSA 

and National Association of Government Employees, 22 November 2002, and accompanying 

documentation, MIMA Admin History Files, MIMA Archives. 

78 Michael McGrath and Patrick McGrath to Christopher Whelan, 8 July 2002, File Barrett’s Farm, 

Nancy Nelson’s Files, MIMA. BNHSC, Interim Report, 129-31. 79 Email, Nelson to Whelan, 3 December 2002; Meeting Notes, 14 December 2002; Memorandum of 

Understanding Regarding the Barrett/McGrath Farm, November 2003, all in File Barrett’s Farm, 

Nancy Nelson’s Files, MIMA. 
For the Future 

347 

proposed boundary changes. After the study is complete, Congress may opt to expand the 

park’s boundary and, ultimately, purchase the farm for incorporation into the park.80

In 2002 Nelson and her staff also began considering what possibilities existed for 

managing the revitalized Battle Road Unit. In response to adjacent airport expansion at 

Hanscom Field and continued development pressures and increased traffic along Route 2A, 

Nelson pursued funding for a GMP Amendment, specific to this section of the park. Nelson 

did not pursue a full GMP effort at this time. She and her staff had accomplished many of the 

goals of the 1990 GMP, especially with respect to the Battle Road Unit. They had created the 

park, with its new resources and properties, and they needed a new plan and guidance to 

move forward. However, some have questioned whether the park should also conduct 

management planning on the North Bridge Unit, which may expand to include Barrett’s 

Farm. For now, the amendment remains focused on the Battle Road Unit. Nelson could 

point to her successes in this unit with completion of the trail and new visitor facilities, 

rehabilitation of historic structures, and restoration of select areas of the cultural landscape. 

She needed management guidance and new goals to strive for. Revised housing 

requirements, for instance, did not support use of the park’s many houses for quarters. 

These newly rehabilitated structures and landscapes also required increased attention, 

draining the park’s operational base and reducing staffing as a result. Agricultural special use 

permits, considered an important option in the original GMP, have decreased in recent years. 

Yet, agricultural work on parklands offered to maintain the historic look and feel of the land 

while also keeping invasive species out. Perhaps the GMP Amendment could find ways to 

address this decline.81

In developing the GMP Amendment, the park could explore fresh approaches to 

protecting and using park lands and structures. A great public interest existed to make the 

park’s historic structures available for public use and enjoyment while also being 

operationally sustainable. Private partners had expressed interest in developing reuse ideas, 

such as a colonial tavern, bed and breakfast, youth hostel, or private agricultural ventures. 

The GMP Amendment would allow the park to consider all of these ideas and more, making 

decisions following a holistic, criteria-driven approach for reuse as opposed to a piecemeal, 

structure-by-structure one. Nelson also pointed to the fact that the park’s relationship with 

the three towns had improved tremendously since adoption of the 1990 GMP, providing 

opportunities for comprehensive and cooperative ventures. Existing buildings housing 

maintenance functions and collections storage, for instance, were proving inadequate. The 

 

80 HR 394, Colonel James Barrett Farm, 109th Cong., 1st sess., (26 January 2005); US Congress, 

Congressional Record, 109th Cong., 1st sess., 20 September 2005. Marty Meehan to Nancy Nelson, 6 

October 2005; Statement of Sue Masica, 6 April 2006; Email, Marty Pepper Aisenberg to Friends of 

Save Our Heritage, 8 August 2006; Meeting Notice, 21 September 2006, all in File Barrett’s Farm, 

Nancy Nelson’s Files, MIMA. 

81 Project Detail Sheet, PMIS 84024, GMP-Amendment, 26 February 2002, 5-6, File GMPA, Nancy 

Nelson’s Files, MIMA. 
For the Future 

348 

GMP Amendment allowed for a park-wide facility requirements evaluation and 

recommendations.82

Nelson moved Lou Sideris from his interpretive duties to a new position as chief of 

planning. This allowed Sideris to support the amendment process. Bob Derry became the 

acting chief of interpretation. What were the possibilities under the Amendment? Already, 

the state had designated Route 2A as a Scenic Byway, helping to build on the park’s own 

work to make this stretch of road historically captivating with safe access. To continue the 

park’s work, more ideas have been considered. How can historic structures provide further 

visitor use and enjoyment? What can be done to make both sides of the cultural landscape 

along Route 2A to have public use and benefit? How can sustainable agricultural uses, 

including use of farm animals, be a prominent part of the visitor experience? Maybe the 

Minute Man Visitor Center can be enlarged to support varied activities and have improved 

parking and access. Next door, the Whittemore House might become an Education Center 

and serve diverse visitors. The park might expand its Volunteer-in-Parks program and have 

the National Center for Colonial Life to aid interpretation. Finally, the park wants to 

continue to work with neighboring towns to encourage compatible development along park 

borders. These ideas and others are helping Nelson and others imagine MIMA for the next 

twenty years.83

EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL: THE FUTURE

During her more than dozen years at MIMA, Nelson has focused her attention on 

developing largely successful and productive relationships with outside organizations and 

agencies, with park neighbors and the towns. What about the internal health of the park? 

How has the park fared under Nelson’s management? This assessment cannot rely upon the 

informative and revealing annual administrative histories Historian Doug Sabin completed 

during Gall’s superintendency. Instead, some oral history interviews, a review of 

correspondence, and an assessment of accomplishments provides clues. Simply in terms of 

breadth of achievements, the park’s staff has made enormous strides. These staff members, 

along with contractors and partners from state and local organizations, have completed the 

Battle Road Trail, upgraded the Minute Man Visitor Center, rehabilitated several historic 

structures so that they could be shown to the public, and opened the landscape with 

vegetative clearing and rebuilding of stone walls. 

While Nelson has made important changes to the park’s management, her 

commitment to the park’s relationship with the outside community remains her greatest 

contribution. She has worked to communicate the park’s requirements while also building 

partnerships across a wide spectrum of potential partners. She has been faced with many 

supporters but also some detractors. Some people, like Walter Beatteay and Angelo 

Inferrera, who remained in their houses after the NPS acquired them, continued to express 

their discontent over the process of land acquisition. This frustration led to two lawsuits, 

 

82 Ibid., 6-7. 

83 MIMA, GMPA Vision Points, 3 November 2006, Lou Sideris Files, MIMA. 
For the Future 

349 

both dismissed for lack of evidence. But, Nelson and her staff have continued to respect the 

place these people have in the life of the park, while also asserting the larger mission of the 

park. Those relationships make a difference.84 Her advocacy has helped advertise the park’s 

predicament well beyond its boundaries. In considering the Hanscom Area Town 

Selectmen’s meetings, for example, Nelson believes that “we’ve worked really hard to 

increase our profile with them, and now I think they see us as a major stakeholder and a 

player.”85 

Maintaining those carefully developed relationships remains a primary concern for 

Nelson. But, she also recognizes the need for advocating for the park within its own agency. 

MIMA is “viewed as a little park. It’s not viewed as a complex park.” It has more than a 

million visitors each year, ranking with 12 other parks in the NPS Northeast Region, but even 

with about 1,000 acres of land, it has less acreage than some of these other well-visited parks, 

like Acadia National Park in Maine. When a former regional director told Nelson once that 

the region viewed MIMA and Valley Forge (nearly three times larger in acreage) as 

comparable, Nelson agreed and wished that her park could get a proportionately similar 

amount of the almost 100 FTEs and $6 million budget that its sister park had. Instead, 

MIMA has steadily lost full-time personnel slots over the course of Nelson’s tenure because 

limited operating increases have not staved off inflation and rising operations and 

maintenance costs resulting from a decade of development. The park offered teachers only a 

fraction of the educational programming that it had during the Bicentennial years, nor does 

the park have its visitor centers or historic buildings open for as many hours as in the past. In 

2006, the park had only one fulltime grounds maintenance employee and one full-time 

interpreter.86

 Nelson looks at this situation, and she worries. The federal government has invested 

almost $12 million in historic landscape and structure rehabilitation, and construction of the 

Battle Road Trail and visitor amenities. If the park continues to lose funding, though, all of 

the gains in the last 10 years might be lost, and “that’s my worst nightmare,” Nelson admitted. 

Thanks to Nelson’s public outreach, people are noticing and registering their concern. “Our 

reenactor community is very, very upset about what’s happening here. The towns are very 

upset,” she stated recently. “So that’s my job now, trying to raise awareness of what the park 

is becoming and how we can keep it from . . . sliding back.” The trees will grow back and 

obscure the 1775 vistas, and the historic houses will sag and rot as victims of maintenance 

backlogs. Nelson’s focus for the future involves communicating this potential scenario to the 

NPS hierarchy while keeping an eye on maintaining external relations.87

 

84 For a review of these lawsuits, see File W32 Civil Litigation Sowkow, Inferrera, Beatteay, Current 

Park Admin Files, MIMA. 

85 Nelson, transcript of interview, 11. 

86 Ibid., 9. See also Memorandum, Interpretive Specialist, NARO, to Nelson and Chief of 

Interpretation, MIMA, 17 February 1994, No File Name, Park Admin Files, MIMA. 87 Nelson, transcript of interview, 10. 

Epilogue 

351 

EPILOGUE

IN MEMORY: NORTH BRIDGE

In late October 2005 John Finigan took his daughter Susan to the North Bridge. 

Finigan had served as the Town of Concord’s chief representative for the 1963 Cooperative 

Agreement and the planning for the Bicentennial. He had shared his memories of these 

events in an oral history interview with the author. With the trees still hanging onto a few 

golden leaves and the air crisp around Finigan and his daughter, they walked along the path 

past the 1836 Battle Monument and over the bridge to see the Minute Man statue. Finigan 

easily slipped into his storyteller’s mode, telling his daughter stories that she knew well but 

enjoyed hearing again. Wanting a photograph to hold onto the day, Susan went back to their 

car for the camera. When she came back, she found her dad on the North Bridge talking to a 

young man whom she learned had recently returned from Iraq. Her dad shared the “not-sobrief” history of the Concord Fight to a willing ear. His retelling echoed the story as told by 

interpreters since park establishment. Perhaps having just returned from a place where 

Americans and coalition forces tried hard to establish democracy made the young man 

especially receptive to Finigan’s history lesson. Certainly the story of the American Patriots 

declaring their desire for liberty in the face of British musket fire resonated for the young 

man after his experiences abroad.1

Each day at the North Bridge and along the Battle Road Trail, individuals touch this 

connection to the past and feel its power for today. Remembering the story, as told by the 

park, of the American Patriots and their declaration for liberty speaks not just to Americans 

of generations past, present, and future. This story speaks to the world, to any people 

seeking the same principles of democratic self-government, liberty, and ultimately freedom. 

People respond to this story and want to touch the places where it happened. By setting 

aside the land in MIMA, the people of the United States have declared their allegiance to the 

principles for which the park stands. They have also declared their commitment to the 

continued preservation and interpretation of the North Bridge, of the Wayside, and of the 

length and breadth of the Battle Road within the national park. Finigan passed away in 

January 2006 but his love for the story at the North Bridge and its meaning for generations to 

come continues. 

 

1

 Email, Susan Finigan Coons to the author, 3 March 2006, MIMA Archives. 

353

APPENDIX A 

MASSACHUSETTS RESOLVE, 1924 

RESOLVE RELATIVE TO A PROPER OBSERVANCE ON THE PART OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF THE 

APPROACHING SESQUICENTENNIAL OF THE WAR OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION. 

Resolved, That an unpaid commission of nine persons, to be appointed by the 

governor, be established for the purpose of considering and recommending an appropriate 

programme for the patriotic observance by the commonwealth of the approaching one 

hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the war of the American revolution and making an 

estimate of the cost of the same. The commission may expend from such amount, not 

exceeding two thousand dollars, as may be appropriated by the general court such sums as 

may be approved by the governor and council, and shall file a report of its recommendations 

and estimate with the clerk of the house of representatives, and a copy thereof with the 

governor and the budget commissioner, on or before October fifteenth of the current year. 

Approved May 16, 1924. 

355

APPENDIX B 

ARTHUR SHURCLIFF 1925 REPORT

REPORT OF 

ARTHUR A. SHURTLEFF, 

LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 

 January 5, 1925. 

Charles B. Barnes, Esq., Chairman, 

Commission On The One Hundred Fiftieth 

 Anniversary of the American Revolution. 

Dear Sir: 

At the request of your Commission I took up the subject matter of the following 

report. It is based on the memorials and the decorative schemes which were presented to me 

for consideration by your Board, in connection with the proposed plans for highway layout 

and for the preservation of historic ground which were evolved during conferences. The 

accompanying plan indicates present conditions along the highway, the sites proposed for 

memorials, and the ground which should be preserved. The report outlines facts and 

considerations which your Board brought to my attention and those which developed during 

the course of study in the field. 

Until recently this historic road retained much of its ancient appearance although 

nearly a century and a half of time had elapsed since the events of 1776. A decade or two ago, 

no effort of the imagination was needed to picture the setting of the events of the day when 

the troops of the King marched along this highway. Many of the dwellings of the Revolution 

still remained, and the roadside walls, trees, open fields, and woodlands were also essentially 

unchanged. The narrow winding gravel road bed retained its original character. The valley 

through which Prescott made his detour from the main road when he and Paul Revere were 

accosted by British officers, the ground from which the Americans opened fire near the site 

of Viles Tavern, the bend of road known as the “Bloody Angle” on the westerly side of the 

Virginia triangle where the invading forces were heavily attacked and nearly routed by the 

“rebels”, and a great number of other important topographical features which marked the 

memorable events of the march could be seen in approximately their original state. 

During the past decade changes have taken place which have transformed a large part 

of the roadside and many of its nearby landscapes to such an extent that visitors cannot 
356

review the ancient line of march and the sites of the local conflicts with a clear picture of the 

conditions which surrounded those events. Evidently many of these changes, regrettable 

though they may be from the point of view of the antiquarian, are both necessary and 

desirable for the development of the towns themselves. For example in the less thickly 

settled portions of Lexington, Lincoln and Concord, modern dwellings are increasing in 

number, and naturally enough these structures distract attention from historic houses and at 

the same time interfere to a certain degree with a view of the fields, pastures and woods of 

the skirmish lines. Roadside shrubbery, trees and stone walls have been removed in places. 

By far the most marked change has taken place in the modernizing of the roadbed. A large 

mileage of the narrow winding and rather abruptly undulating roadway of gravel has been 

widened radically, straightened, evened, and surfaced with bituminous macadam to meet the 

necessary requirements of safety and convenience in the operation of motor vehicles. 

While these changes have been taking place the number of visitors to the road and 

the battle fields has enormously increased. In fact the widening and straightening of the road 

was made necessary in large part to accommodate the motors of sightseers and the fleets of 

sightseeing busses which now make regular trips in mild weather. There is little wonder that 

vending stands, booths, small roadside restaurants, resting rooms and oiling stations which 

usually spring up along sightseeing motor routes have made inroads upon the scenic 

attractiveness of this historic highway. The more important the landmark or the monument 

the more thickly these vending stands have come in along the road of march, as shown on the 

accompanying plan page. The visitor is confronted with appeals to make purchases, to 

employ guides, or to notice gaily painted signs and vending devices which beside obscuring 

views of historic ground, detract from the significance of monuments and inscriptions of the 

most vital interest and of national importance. These undesirable conditions can be 

remedied by means of zoning regulations of the kind which many cities and towns about 

Boston have adopted to prevent similar disfigurement in residence districts and to prevent 

the general depression of the property values. To impose protective zoning regulations of 

this kind along this highway would require no special legislation and would work no unusual 

hardship. The processes are familiar and they can be made effective over the whole route 

when the three towns are ready to act. 

The changes which have taken place and the great increase in the number of visitors 

clearly shows the need of permanent markers of appropriate design like that proposed by 

your Commission to indicate the line of march, as visitors are frequently misled at cross 

street intersections. The presence of special tablets and monuments to mark points of 

unusual historic interest also becomes more important as the local topography is 

transformed, but steps should be taken to prevent the erection of lesser memorials in such 

number that the importance and interest of the chief monuments may not become lost or 

injured. In case, as is to be hoped, the road forming the line of march may be dedicated to 

form a memorial in itself, adequate markers like the pylons suggested by your Board will be 

needed where the highway enters the closely- built-up sections of Concord and Lexington, 

preferably near Meriam's Corner and Hastings Park, (see A and D on the plan). An effort 
357

should be made to include within the limits established by land takings for the margins of 

such a memorial highway, a strip of land on each side sufficiently wide to include remaining 

ancient stone walls, fine roadside trees, the site of existing and proposed memorials, pylons 

and markers, and to form with additional setback lines a permanent limit for the 

construction of future buildings which might otherwise cramp this highway to a width out of 

keeping with its historic importance and its increasing use. Setback restrictions of this kind 

have been established already over a large mileage of the highways about Boston to permit 

future street widenings and can be applied here without unusual procedure. Such 

restrictions would undoubtedly enhance the value of the abutting property. If widening of 

the traveled way should be needed subsequently along the line of march the present stone 

walls might be moved back to preserve them. As indicated by your Board the significance of 

these walls at special points, as for example at the roadside well of the Benjamin Fiske place 

and at Battle Road, where walls were used for breastworks, indicates the desirability of 

including these features in public control, otherwise they may be removed by private owners. 

The above description of the changes which are taking place in the highway may give 

an impression that the time has passed for preserving the ancient line of march as a historic 

monument, and that today little more can be done than to save strips of roadside and to erect 

markers and memorials. Fortunately, however, the opportunity to preserve nearly two miles 

of the original line of march essentially in its original condition still remains. Reference to 

the plan (see page ) indicates three important bends in the original highway. These bends 

have been completely detoured in the construction of the modern straight road, and as a 

consequence they have escaped the modernizing influences which have transformed so large 

a part of the line of march. 

The first of these detoured bends, known as Hastings Road, (see D on the plan) is 

small, embracing a few hundred yards length and has been acquired already as a portion of 

Hastings Park. This piece of road is preserved at its ancient width, crooked line, and with old 

walls and trees. The second bend (see C on the plan) occurs between the point where Paul 

Revere was captured and the point where the British subsequently made the historic rally 

when hotly attacked by the Patriots in the vicinity of Viles Tavern. This bend embraces over 

a half mile of ancient road in little changed condition. The third bend (see B on the plan) 

occurs at Virginia Road and embraces the scene of the charge made near the Lincoln line by 

the Patriots who took advantage of the level ground west of the road to make a flank attack 

upon the retreating British forces at the so-called “Bloody Angle”. 

It is an extraordinary piece of good fortune that these two comparatively long 

sections of the original line of march should have been preserved nearly in their original state 

until our day. Both sections of road and the ground adjacent to them are especially rich in 

historical associations. The fact that the invading troops were forced by these bends to 

encounter the flanking operations of the Patriots explains the military activities of these 

triangles and adds vastly to their interest as historic records. 

Acquisition of these stretches of road and the adjacent ground which is so rich in 

historic association ought to be made promptly if the State or the National Government 
358

wishes to preserve them before the territory has been transformed by the progress of the 

changes which are taking place rapidly about it. As shown on the plan the suggested taking of 

land for both triangles shown on the plan is confined wholly to farm property, little 

developed, and containing scarcely over a half dozen dwellings of which at least four existing 

structures or sites are recorded in history of the march. The roads are little used, and the 

land behind them is undeveloped. The suggested taking lines include a depth of about four 

hundred feet on each side of the ancient highway. This should be regarded as a minimum 

space for the preservation of the roadsides and the landmarks of the nearest fields and 

stretches of woodland. Within these limits it would be possible to safeguard the roadway in 

its present site and with a sufficient depth of background to protect it from the future 

development which may take place in the surrounding property. Greater space to maintain 

protective backgrounds and to embrace larger areas of the ground over which the Patriots 

advanced during the flanking operations would be desirable. With greater space, sightseers 

could be accommodated more comfortably, more ample parking spaces could be provided, 

and roads could be installed which would preclude for all time the transformation by 

widening or by modern paving of the ancient line of march. An extension of the takings to 

unite both triangles, thus including the historic ground traversed by Prescott who escaped to 

alarm the town of Concord when he and Paul Revere were confronted by British officers, 

would also be desirable. This would simplify the administration of the parcels of ground and 

would permit visitors to view the historic ground without mingling with the through traffic of 

the short link of about a quarter of a mile of connecting State Road. 

 Respectfully submitted, 
359

APPENDIX C 

ORDER DESIGNATING MINUTE MAN

NATIONAL HISTORIC SITE

UNITED STATES 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY 

WASHINGTON 25, D. C. 

ORDER DESIGNATING 

THE MINUTE MAN NATIONAL 

HISTORIC SITE, MASSACHUSETTS 

------------------------------------------------ 

WHEREAS, the Congress of the United States has declared it to be a national policy 

to preserve for public use historic sites, buildings, and objects of national significance for the 

inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States; and 

WHEREAS, the outbreak of the War of the Revolution was essential and prerequisite 

to the achievement of American independence and the creation of a Federal Government; 

and 

WHEREAS, the events which relate to the beginning of Revolutionary hostilities on 

April 19, 1775, along the road and roadsides between Lexington and Concord, 

Massachusetts, associated with Paul Revere, the Minute Men and the British, are of great 

importance in American history; and 

WHEREAS, the two parcels of land, described below, along the Lexington-Concord 

Road contain the original stone walls, boulders, and other features of the natural setting 

where, on April 19, 1775, the opening day of the American Revolution, Colonial Minute Men 

fired on the British troops retreating along this historic route; and 

WHEREAS, the said Lexington-Concord Road has been declared by the Advisory 

Board on National Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings, and Monuments to be of national 

historical significance; and 

WHEREAS, the properties described below have been recommended for immediate 

preservation by the Boston National Historic Sites Commission, which was created by the 

Congress by Joint Resolution of June 16, 1955 (69 Stat. 136), to investigate the feasibility of 

establishing a coordinated local, State and Federal program in the city of Boston, 
360

Massachusetts, and general vicinity thereof, for the purpose of preserving the historic 

properties, objects, and buildings in that area: 

NOW, THEREFORE, under and by virtue of the authority conferred by section 2 of 

the Act of Congress approved August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; 16 U.S.C., secs. 461-467), I do 

hereby designate the following described lands to be a national historic site, having the name 

“Minute Man National Historic Site”: 

A tract of land along the Lexington-Concord Road in Massachusetts, more 

particularly described as follows: 

PARCEL A

A certain parcel of land situated in the Town of Lincoln, County of Middlesex, 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, being a portion of Tract No. A-137 of Hanscom Air Force 

Base and more particularly bounded and described as follows: 

Beginning at the corner of a stone wall on the north side of State Highway Route 2A 

which marks the boundary line between land now or formerly Charles Carruth and land now 

or formerly J. C. and I. R. Haganian and is located south 11° 39’ 20” east 203.65 feet from a 

point from a Land Court Disc at the northeasterly corner of land of said Charles Carruth; 

Thence running north 80° 51’ 50” east by the stone wall and the northerly side of said 

State Highway Route No. 2A and Nelson Road 83.63 feet, and north 83° 08’ 10” east 76.73 

feet to the true point of beginning; 

Thence running north 11° 39’ 20” west by land of said Haganian 201 feet, more or 

less, to a point; 

Thence turning and running north 63° 35’ 40” east through land of the owner 190 

feet, more or less, to a point on a curve; 

Thence turning and running southeasterly by a curve to the left and whose radius is 

1,500 feet, a distance of 153 feet, more or less, to a point of tangency; 

Thence continuing south 29° 19” east 122 feet to the stone wall and northerly side of 

said Nelson Road; 

Thence turning and running by the northerly side of said Nelson Road south 76° 16’ 

20” west and 100 feet, more or less, and south 83° 08’ 10” west 165.64 feet to the point of 

beginning, 

Containing 1.19 acres more or less. 

PARCEL B

A certain parcel of land situated in the Town of Lincoln, County of Middlesex, 

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, being a portion of Tract No. A-137 of Hanscom Air Force 

Base and more particularly bounded and described as follows: 

Beginning at a drill hole in the corner of a stone wall on the northerly side of Nelson 

Road at land now or formerly James P. & Henry Neville; 

Thence running by a stone wall on the north side of Nelson Road south 74° 18’ 50” 

west 203.23 feet to a drill hole, south 85° 39’ 30” west 54.00 feet, south 80° 36’ 50” west 100.75 

feet, south 74° 54’ 30” west 142.76 feet, south 51° 30’ 08” west 45.59 feet, south 60° 30’ 50” 
361

west 123.54 feet, south 56° 55’ 20” west 197.52 feet, south 55° 57’ 30” west 205.13 feet, south 

58° 33’ 00” west 55.77 feet, more or less, to a point; 

Thence turning and running north 29° 19’ west thru land of the owner 141.43 feet to 

a point of curve; 

Thence continuing to run northwesterly by a curve to the right whose radius is 1,400 

feet, a distance of 143 feet, more or less, to a point on the southeasterly boundary line of 

Hanscom Field, Family Housing Project, Parcel No. C-2; 

Thence turning and running by the southeasterly boundary of the said Family 

Housing Project, north 64° 41’ 37.5” east 150 feet, north 55° 55’ 45” east 400 feet, more or 

less, to a point; 

Thence turning and running north 78° 56’ east 86.00 feet, north 42° 22’ east 36.0 feet, 

north 57° 38’ east 36.0 feet, north 74° 35’ 30” east 131.0 feet, north 70° 35’ 30” east 138 feet, 

north 50° 35’ 30” east 127 feet, more or less, to a point on stone wall at land now or formerly 

James P. and Henry Neville; 

Thence turning and running by the stone wall of certain level south 30° 33’ 30” east 

120 feet, more or less, to a point and south 29° 49’ 20” east 236.72 feet to the drill hole and the 

point of beginning, 

Containing 6.89 acres more or less. 

Subject, however, to existing easements for public highways, roads, railroads, 

pipelines, and public utilities. 

The administration, protection, and development of this national historic site shall be 

exercised in accordance with the Act of August 21, 1935, supra. 

Warning is expressly given to all unauthorized persons not to appropriate, injure, 

destroy, deface, or remove any feature of this historic site. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal 

of the Department of the Interior to be affixed, in the City of Washington, this 14 day of 

April, 1959. 

 (Sgd) Fred A. Seaton 

 Secretary of the Interior

363

APPENDIX D

MINUTE MAN ENABLING LEGISLATION, PUBLIC LAW 86-321 

Public Law 86-321, Approved 21 September 1959 

H. R. 5892 

Eighty-sixth Congress of the United States of America 

At the first session 

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday, the seventh day of January, 

one thousand nine hundred and fifty-nine 

An Act 

To provide for the establishment of Minute Man National Historical Park in 

Massachusetts, and for other purposes. 

Whereas the outbreak of the War of the American Revolution was essential and 

prerequisite to the achievement of American independence and the creation of a Federal 

Government; and 

Whereas the events relating to the beginning of Revolutionary hostilities on the 18th

and 19th of April 1775, and associated with Paul Revere, the Minute Men, and the British are 

of great importance in American history; and 

Whereas a number of historic properties, buildings, sites, and objects in Boston, 

Massachusetts, and the vicinity, thereof, including the road and roadsites between Lexington 

and Concord, are intimately connected with the events that opened the war, and 

consequently, merit preservation and interpretation in the public interest as prime examples 

of the Nation's historical heritage: Therefore 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

America in Congress assembled, That in order to preserve for the benefit of the American 

people certain historic structures and properties of outstanding national significance 

associated with the opening of the War of the American Revolution, Minute Man National 

Historical Park is hereby authorized to be established in the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts. 

The park shall comprise not more than seven hundred and fifty acres as may be 

designated by the Secretary of the Interior from within the area beginning at Fiske Hill and 

thence lying along Massachusetts Avenue, Marrett Road and Marrett Street in the town of 

Lexington, along Nelson Road, Virginia Road, Old Bedford Road, and North Great Road or 

State Route 2-A in the town of Lincoln, and along Lexington Road, Monument Street, 
364

Liberty Street and Lowell Road in the town of Concord to and including the North Bridge 

and properties on both sides of the Concord River in the vicinity of the North Bridge. 

Sec. 2. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire by donation or with 

donated funds, or with funds hereby authorized to be appropriated, lands and interests in 

lands within the area designated for the park. Administrative jurisdiction of Federal lands 

lying within the area designated for the park shall, with the concurrence of the Federal 

agency involved, be transferred to the Secretary of the Interior for administration as a part of 

the park. 

The park shall be established as Minute Man National Historical Park by notice in 

the Federal Register when the Secretary of the Interior finds that sufficient lands within the 

designated area have been acquired to warrant such establishment. 

Sec. 3. To provide further for the preservation and interpretation of historic sites, 

structures, and properties lying along the entire route or routes where significant events 

occurred on the 18th and 19th of April 1775, in the cities of Boston, Cambridge, Medford, and 

Somerville, and the towns of Arlington, Brookline, Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln, 

including the area generally described in section 1 as lying between Fiske Hill and the North 

Bridge, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized, in accordance with the purposes of this 

Act, to enter into cooperative agreements with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 

political subdivisions thereof, corporations, associations, or individuals, and to erect and 

maintain tablets or markers, in accordance with provisions contained in the Act approved 

August 21, 1935, entitled “An Act to provide for the preservation of historic American sites, 

buildings, objects, and antiquities of national significance, and for other purposes” (49 Stat. 

666). 

Sec. 4. The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to appoint an advisory commission 

of five members to advise him on the development of Minute Man National Historical Park, 

to consist of one member to be recommended by the selectmen of each of the towns of 

Concord, Lexington, and Lincoln, Massachusetts; one member to be recommended by the 

Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; and one member to be designated by the 

Secretary. 

Sec. 5. When established pursuant to this Act, the park shall be administered, 

protected, and developed by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the provisions 

of the Act of August 25, 1916 (39 Stat. 535; 16 U.S.C. 1-4), as amended and supplemented, 

and the Historic Sites Act of August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666; U.S.C. 461-467). 

Sec. 6. There are hereby authorized to be appropriated such sums, but not more than 

$8,000,000, as may be needed for the acquisition of lands and interests in lands and for 

development of the Minute Man National Historical Park, of which not more than 

$5,000,000 shall be used for acquisition purposes, and in addition thereto, such sums as may 

be needed for its administration and maintenance. 
365

APPENDIX E 

MINUTE MAN 1970 AMENDMENT, PUBLIC LAW 91-548 

Public Law 91-548 

91st Congress, H. R. 13934 

December 14, 1970 

An Act 

To amend the Act of September 21, 1959 (73 Stat. 590) , to authorize the Secretary of 

the Interior to revise the boundaries of Minute Man National Historical Park, and for other 

purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of the Act of September 21, 1959 (73 Stat. 

590) is amended by inserting “(a)” after the word “that” in the first sentence and adding two 

subsections, as follows: 

“(b) Notwithstanding the description set forth in subsection (a) of this section, if the 

Secretary should determine that the relocation of Highway 2 by the Commonwealth of 

Massachusetts makes it desirable to establish new boundaries in common with, contiguous 

or adjacent to the proposed right-of-way for that highway, he is authorized to relocate such 

boundaries accordingly, and shall give notice thereof by publication of a map or other 

suitable description in the Federal Register: Provided, That any net acreage increase by 

reason of the boundary revision and land exchanges with the Commonwealth shall not be 

included in calculations of acreage in regard to the limitation set forth in subsection (a) of 

this section, but shall be in addition thereto. 

“(c) Any lands added to the Minute Man National Historical Park, pursuant to 

subsection (b) may be acquired only if such acquisition can be accomplished without cost for 

land acquisition and, when so acquired, shall be subject to all laws, rules, and regulations 

applicable thereto.” 

Sec. 2. Section 6 of the Act of September 21, 1951 (73 Stat. 590), is amended by (1) 

deleting “$8,000,000” and inserting “$13,900,000” and (2) deleting “$5,000,000” and inserting 

“$10,900,000”. 

Approved December 14, 1970. 

367

APPENDIX F 

MINUTE MAN 1992 AMENDMENT, PUBLIC LAW 102-488 

PUBLIC LAW 102-488 – OCT. 24, 1992 

An Act 

To authorize the Secretary of the Interior to revise the boundaries of the Minute Man 

National Historical Park in the State of Massachusetts, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of 

America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ''Minute Man National Historical Park Amendments of 

1991". 

SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO MINUTE MAN PARK ACT. 

The Act of September 21, 1959, entitled "An Act to provide for the establishment of 

the Minute Man National Historical Park in Massachusetts, and for other purposes" (Public 

Law 86-321; 73 Stat. 590; 16 U.S.C. 410s and following) is amended by striking so much of 

the first section as follows the first sentence thereof (including all of subsections (b) and (c)) 

and inserting the following: "The purposes of the park shall include the preservation and 

interpretation of (1) the historic landscape along the road between Lexington and Concord, 

(2) sites associated with the causes and consequences of the American Revolution, and (3) 

the Wayside on Lexington Road in Concord, the home of Nathaniel Hawthorne, Bronson 

Alcott, Louisa May Alcott, and Margaret Sidney, whose works illustrate the nineteenth 

century American literary renaissance. 

"(b) The park shall be comprised of the lands depicted on the map entitled 'Boundary 

Map NARO-406-20015C' dated June 1991". 

(3) Section 2 is amended by inserting "(a)" after "Sec. 

2." and by adding the following at the end thereof: 

"(b) The Secretary of the Interior shall transfer, without reimbursement, to the 

administrative jurisdiction of the Secretary of Defense the two parcels currently 

administered by the Secretary of the Interior, as depicted on the map dated April 1990 and 

numbered NARO-406/80805. The Secretary of Defense shall transfer to the administrative 

jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior, without reimbursement, for inclusion in the 

Minute Man National Historical Park the 4 parcels now administered by the Secretary of 

Defense, as depicted on the maps dated April 1990 and numbered NARO-406/80804 and 

NARO-406/80805. 
368

"(c) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire by donation, purchase with 

donated or appropriated funds, or exchange, lands or interests in lands within the areas 

included within the boundaries of the park pursuant to amendments made by the Minute 

Man National Historical Park Amendments of 1991 (hereinafter referred to as '1991 

additions'), except that— 

"(1) lands, and interests in lands, within the 1991 additions which are owned by the 

State of Massachusetts or any political subdivision thereof, may be acquired only by 

donation, and 

"(2) lands, and interests in lands, within the 1991 additions which are used for 

noncommercial residential purposes as of July 1, 1991, may be acquired only with the 

consent of the owner thereof unless the property is being developed, or is proposed to be 

developed, in a manner which the Secretary determines to be detrimental to the scenic, 

historical, cultural, and other values of the park. 

Nothing in paragraph (2) shall be construed to prohibit the use of condemnation as a 

means of admiring a clear and marketable title, free of any and all encumbrances for any 

lands within the 1991 additions. Not later than 6 months after the enactment of the Minute 

Man National Historical Park Amendments of 1991, and after notice and opportunity for 

public comment, the Secretary of the Interior shall publish specific guidelines for making 

determinations under paragraph (2). Such guidelines shall provide for (A) written notice to 

the Secretary prior to commencement of any proposed development on the lands referred to 

in paragraph (2), (B) written notice by the Secretary to the owner of such lands of any 

determination proposed to be made under paragraph (2), and (C) a reasonable opportunity 

for the owner to comment on such proposed determination. 

"(d)(1) Any individual who owns private property acquired by the Secretary under 

subsection (c) may, on the date of such acquisition and as a condition of such acquisition, 

retain for himself and his successors or assigns, a right of use and occupancy of the property 

for a deflate term of not more than 25 years the date of acquisition by the Secretary or a term 

ending at the death of the owner or the owner's spouse, whichever is later. The owner shall 

elect the term to be reserved. 

"(2) Unless the property is wholly or partially donated, the Secretary shall pay to the 

owner reserving a right of use and occupancy under this subsection the fair market value of 

the property on the date of its acquisition, less the fair market value on that date of the right 

retained by the owner. 

"(3) For purposes of applying this subsection, ownership shall be determined as of 

July 1, 1991". 

(4) At the end of section 6 insert "For fiscal years after fiscal year 1991, there is 

authorized to be appropriated an additional $15,000,000 for development and an additional 

$7,300,000 for acquisition of lands and interests in lands." 

(5) Add the following new section at the end of such Act: 

“SEC. 7. RESIDENTIAL OCCUPANCY. 

"(a) Offer – In the case of each individual who – 
369

"(1) sold residential property between 1966 and 1968 to the United States for 

purposes of the park, and 

"(2) continues to occupy such residential property pursuant to a residential special 

use permit as of the enactment of this section, 

the Secretary of the Interior shall offer to extend such residential special use permit 

for a term ending on the death of such individual or such individual's spouse, whichever is 

later. 

"(b) Terms and Conditions. – Any residential special use permit extended pursuant 

to subjection (a) shall— 

"(1) permit the reasonable residential use and occupancy of the property by the 

individual to whom such permit is granted and such individual's spouse; and 

"(2) be subject to such terms and conditions as the Secretary may prescribe 

(including termination) to ensure that the permit does not unreasonably diminish the values 

of the the park. 

The extension of any such residential special use permit shall be conditional upon 

the parent by the individual holding such permit of an annual fee in the same amount as 

required as of July 1, 1991. 

"SEC. 8. Definition. 

"As used in this Act, the term 'residential property' means a single-family dwelling, 

the construction of which began before July 1, 1991, together with such land on which 

the dwelling and appurtenant buildings are located as is in the same ownership as such 

dwelling and as the Secretary designates as reasonably necessary for the owner's continued 

use and occupancy of the dwellings." 

 Approved October 24, 1992. 

371

APPENDIX G 

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH TOWN OF CONCORD

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF CONCORD 

MASSACHUSETTS, AND THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE RELATING TO THE 

TOWN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE BATTLE GROUND AREA 

THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 6th day of June 1963, by and 

between the United States of America, acting in this behalf by Conrad L. Worth, Director of 

the National Park Service, party of the first part, and the Town of Concord, Commonwealth 

of Massachusetts, hereinafter referred to as the ''Town,'' party of the second part, 

WITNESSETH: 

WHEREAS, the Minute Man Statue, Old North Bridge, and associated historic 

structures and objects, located in the Town on land bounded northerly by land now or 

formerly of Tanner, easterly by Monument Street, southerly by land of the Trustees of 

Reservations, and westerly by land now or formerly of Buttrick, hereinafter referred to as the 

"Battle Ground area," which reference shall include the parking lot adjacent thereto 

bounded northerly by Simmons Landing Lane and easterly by Great Meadows Road, are 

recognized as possessing national significance as associated with the American Revolution; 

and 

WHEREAS, the Act of Congress approved September 21, 1959, (73 Stat. 590-591) has 

provided for the establishment of the Minute Man National Historical Park for the purpose 

of preserving for the benefit of the American people the above-named and other nationally 

important historic lands and structures in the Town associated with the American 

Revolution and the founding and growth of the United States; and 

WHEREAS, the Town by vote of its Annual Town Meeting held March 11, 1963, has 

authorized the Selectmen and Town Manager to execute and deliver this agreement on 

behalf of the Town; and 

WHEREAS, the United States in all matters hereinafter referred to will act through 

the National Park Service or such other body as may be legally substituted therefore; and 

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Town to bring about the preservation of the said 

historic structures, objects, and grounds in the Battle Ground area as a national historical 

park that they may be devoted to public use and to the perpetuation of the greatest traditions 

of the United States of America; and 

WHEREAS, it is the desire of the United States to cooperate with the Town in 

preserving the integrity of the above-mentioned historic structures, objects, and area, and to 

interpret them to the American people as a great national heritage. 
372

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing and pursuant to the authority 

contained in the act of Congress approved August 21, 1935 (49 Stat. 666). entitled "An Act to 

Provide for the Preservation of 

Historic American Buildings, Objects, and Antiquities of National 

Significance, and for Other Purposes," and the act of Congress approved September 

21, 1959 (73 Stat. 590-591), entitled "An Act to Provide for 

the Establishment of the Minute Man National Park, and for Other Purposes," the 

said partied have covenanted and agreed, and by these presents do covenant and agree to and 

with each other and in consideration of the mutual promises herein expressed, as follows: 

ARTICLE 1. The Town will retain ownership of the said historic structures, objects, 

and grounds in the Battle Ground area but hereby agrees: (a) To permit the United States 

to occupy them exclusively, except as otherwise provided herein, during the term of this 

agreement for the purpose of preserving, exhibiting, and interpreting them to the American 

people and otherwise utilizing them for national historical park purposes. 

(b) To permit the United States to have curatorial responsibility for the care and 

display of such exhibits of historical interest as may be available in the Battle Ground area for 

exhibit and interpretive purposes. 

(c) To supply customary municipal services, including police and fire protection and 

water facilities without charge therefore. 

ARTICLE II. The Director hereby agrees, on behalf of the United States: 

(a) That he will occupy the grounds and associated structures for the purposes set 

forth in Article I of this agreement, and for no other purposes. and that he will not sublet or 

assign to another person or organization any part of the structures, objects, or grounds 

without prior approval in writing by the Town; that he will (as funds become available 

through appropriations by Congress) operate and maintain the structures, objects, and 

grounds and make all repairs thereto; remedy all defects in the structures and objects which 

may arise from any cause whatsoever, including ordinary wear and tear; and undertake such 

work of restoration or major alteration as may be mutually agreed upon under the provisions 

of Article III (b). 

The director may apply such reasonable rules and regulations therein as may be 

necessary properly to perform his functions. 

(b) That he will exercise reasonable care to prevent damage to, or destruction of, any 

part of the structures, objects, or grounds. 

(c) That he will provide public access to the area at all reasonable times, and will 

provide the services of a competent person, or persons, to furnish information to the visiting 

public. 

(d) That he will encourage and cooperate with the Town, Civic groups, and patriotic 

societies in the annual observance of Patriots' Day and other celebrations in which the area 

and its facilities may be appropriately used which have the approval of the Selectmen. 

ARTICLE III. It is mutually understood and agreed: 
373

(a) That nothing herein contained shall be construed as binding the United States to 

expend in any one fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations made by Congress for that 

fiscal year, or to involve the United States in any contract or other obligation for the future 

expenditure of money in excess of such appropriations. 

(b) That any work of restoration or any alterations or major repairs in the area shall 

not be undertaken until the plans for such work shall have been mutually agreed upon with 

the Selectmen. 

(c) That neither of the parties to this agreement will erect or place, or permit the 

erection or emplacement of any monument, marker, tablet, or other memorial in the area 

without the written consent of the other. This section shall not be construed as prohibiting 

the placing of signs within the area for the information and direction of the public. The 

design and location of any signs within the area to indicate that it is occupied and operated 

by the National Park Service acting in cooperation with the Town, shall be subject to the 

approval of the Selectmen. 

(d) That it is the purpose of both parties to this agreement to develop a unified, longrange program of preservation, development, protection, and interpretation for the area for 

the inspiration and benefit of the people of the United States, and, to secure this result, a high 

degree of cooperation is necessary with each other, and the parties hereto pledge themselves 

to consult on all matters of importance to the program. 

(e) That nothing herein contained shall be held to deprive the Commonwea1th of 

Massachusetts or the Town of their civil and criminal jurisdiction in and over the said 

structures, objects, and grounds. 

(f) That wherever in this agreement the Director is referred to, the term shall include 

his duly authorized representative or representatives. 

(g) No member of or delegate to Congress or resident commissioner shall be 

admitted to any share or part of this agreement or to any benefit that may arise there from, 

but this restriction shall not be construed to extend to this agreement if made with a 

corporation or company for its general benefit. 

(h) This agreement shall become effective upon its execution, but occupation, 

operation, and maintenance by the United States in accordance with Article II shall begin on 

July 1, 1963, or as soon thereafter as practicable. It shall continue in effect until such time as 

Congress enacts legislation inconsistent with its continuance or expressly providing for its 

termination, or until terminated by the Director, National Park Service, who shall give six 

months' notice to the Town of such intention, or if the Town at an annual or special town 

meeting, held after January 1, 1968, shall vote to terminate this agreement, it shall terminate 

not less than six months from the date on which such vote is taken by the town meeting. 
374

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have subscribed their names and 

affixed their seals (in quintuple) the day, month, and year aforesaid. 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA TOWN OF CONCORD 

By /s/ Conrad L. Worth By /s/ John B. Finigan, Chairman 

 Robert E. Sheehan 

 Herbert P. Wilkins 

 Frederick J. Robbins 

 Robert J. Rodday 

 Board of Selectmen 

 Theodore M. Nelson 

 Town Manager 
375

APPENDIX H 

PARK MAP

COURTESY OF NPS.

377

APPENDIX I 

MIMA SUPERINTENDENTS AND DATES OF SERVICE

Edwin Small 1960-1965 

Benjamin Zerbey March 1965-1969 

Robert Perkins (Unit Manager) 1969-1972 

David Moffitt 1972-1976 

Robert Nash May 1977-1989 

Larry Gall December 1989-October 1993 

Nancy Nelson January 1994-present 

379

APPENDIX J 

ANNUAL VISITATION NUMBERS

Recreation Visitors Only 

1964 380,400 1985 895,775 

1965 412,300 1986 1,208,554 

1966 407,300 1987 945,530 

 1967 426,300 1988 1,001,990 

1968 470,300 1989 916,595 

1969 529,300 1990 857,156 

1970 546,700 1991 769,746 

1971 575,800 1992 1,091,964 

1972 586,655 1993 953,630 

1973 635,700 1994 1,062,161 

1974 812,800 1995 1,078,632 

1975 1,243,600 1996 955,938 

1976 1,165,200 1997 828,902 

1977 989,100 1998 965,253 

1978 724,850 1999 869,884 

1979 956,954 2000 1,004,195 

1980 1,005,047 2001 1,072,979 

1981 1,047,239 2002 1,179,317 

1982 1,037,897 2003 1,176,283 

1983 1,015,027 2004 1,072,149 

1984 960,840 2005 1,027,033 

http:/www2.nature.nps.gov/stats 
380
381

APPENDIX K 

ANNUAL BUDGET

Base Funding ($000) 

1980 642 1994 1,439 

1981 653 1995 1,527 

1982 690 1996 1,529 

1983 759 1997 1,573 

1984 828 1998 1,632 

1985 861 1999 1,934 

1986 832 20001 2,324 

1987 878 2001* 2,368 

1988 904 2002* 2,548 

1989 914 2003* 2,547 

1990 948 2004 2,057 

1991 1,190 2005 2,246 

1992 1,253 2006 2,291 

1993 1,364 

WASO Budget Formulation 

 

1

 FY2000 through FY2003 budgets include $473,000 for Northeast Region archeology program, transferred 

out in FY2004. 
382
383

APPENDIX L 

MIMA ORGANIZATIONAL CHARTS

1974, 1976, 1981, 1987, 1991, 1998, 2002 
384

Superintendent

GS-12

#1820-01

Administration Interpretation

... Protection TechnicalSpecialists

Administrative Officer

GS-11

#1820 (Vacant)

Administrative Assistant

GS-7

#1820-19

Personnel Assistant

GS-7

#1820-18

Administrative Clerk

(Typ.)

GS-4

#1820-20

Park Technician 

(Law Enforcement)

GS-3

#1820-05 (VRA-Apt.)

Park Technician

(Seasonals)

GS-4-5

2 positions (0.9MY)

Secretary (Steno.)

GS-5

#1820-04

Maintenance Specialist

GS-12

#1820-21

Museum Curator

GS-11

#1820-17

Maintenance

...

March 21, 1974

...

Interpretation Maintenance

Park Ranger (Historian)

GS-9

#1820-02

Park Ranger (Historian)

GS-7

#1820-03

Park Technician

GS-4

#1820-14

Park Technician

GS-4

#1820-15

Clerk-Typist

GS-4

#1820-13

Park Technicians

(Seasonals)

GS-3-6

10 positions (4.8MY)

Maintenance Foreman

WS-9

#1820-07

Roads & Grounds Leader

WL-6

#1820-08

Maintenanceman

WG-10

#1820-06

Maintenanceman

WG-10

#1820-11

Gardener

WG-7

#1820-09

Maintenance Worker

WG-3

#1820-16

Laborer

WG-3

#1820-10

Laborer

WG-3

#1820-801 (Part-Time)

Laborers (Seasonals)

WG-3

9 positions (5.6MY)

March 21, 1974 – Interpretation and Maintenance
385

Superintendent

GS-025-12

#1820-01

**Administration Interpretation

... Resource Management Maintenance...

Administrative Officer

GS-341-11

#1820-05

Procurement Assistant

GS-1106-7

#1820-19

Personnel Assistant

GS-203-5

#1820-18

Administrative Clerk

GS-301-5

#1820-20

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-9

#1820-12

Secretary

GS-318-5

#1820-04

*Exhibit Specialist

GS-1010-9

#1820-22

* Serves as Exhibit Specialist for the entire region

** Serves as Administrative Service Center for part of region

September 23, 1976

...

Interpretation Maintenance

Park Ranger (Historian)

GS-025-11

#1820-02

Park Ranger (Historian)

GS-025-9

#1820-03

Park Ranger (Intake)

GS-025-7

#1820-300

Park Technician

GS-026-6

#1820-14

Park Technician

GS-026-5

#1820-15

Clerk-Typist

GS-301-3

#1820-13

***Facility Manager

GS-1640-12

#1820-21

Maintenance Foreman

WS-4742-9

#1820-07

Roads & Grounds Leader

WL-4756-6

#1820-08

Maintenanceman

WG-4742-10

#1820-11

Gardener

WG-5003-7

#1820-09

Motor Vehicle

Operator

WG-5703-3

#1820-16

Laborer

WG-3502-3

#1820-10

***Responsible for giving technical assistance to part of region

September 23, 1976 – Interpretation and Maintenance
386

Park Manager

GS-025-12

#1820-01

Administration Interpretation

...

Maintenance

...

Clerk/Steno

GS-312-4

#1820-04

Area Services

Facility Management

GS-1601-9

1820-21

Museum Services Visitor Protection &

Resource Management

Curator

GS-1015-9

#1820-500

Administrative Officer

GS-341-9

#1820-05

Administrative Clerk

GS-303-5

#1820-20

Clerk/Typist (0.5 wy)

GS-322-4

#1820-803

Supv. Park Technician

GS-026-7

#1820-12

Park Ranger

GS-025-5

#1820-13

Park Technician (0.8 wy)

GS-026-4

#1820-804

Park Technician (2.0 wy)

GS-026-4

#1820-

July 1, 1981

July 1, 1981 – Interpretation and Maintenance

...

Interpretation Maintenance

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-11

#1820-02

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-9

#1820-03

Park Technician

GS-026-6

#1820-14

Park Technician

GS-026-5

#1820-15

Park Technician (0.6 wy)

GS-026-4

#1820-800

Park Technician (0.6 wy)

GS-026-4

#1820-802

Maintenance Mechanic Forman

WS-4749-9

#1820-07

Carpenter

WG-4607-9

#1820-09

Roads & Grounds Leader

WL-4756-6

#1820-08

Laborer

WG-3502-3

#1820-10

Carpenter

WG-4607-9

#1820-11

Maintenance Worker

WG-4749-5

#1820-16

Laborer (0.8 wy)

WG-3502-2

#1820-801

Park Technician (2.5 wy)

GS-026-4

#1820-

Park Technician (1.6 wy)

GS-026-3

#1826-

Custodial Worker (1.8 wy)

WG-3506-2

#1820-

Laborer (5.2 wy)

WG-3502-2

#1820-
387

Park Manager

GS-025-12

#1820-01

Administration Interpretation

...

Maintenance

...

Secretary

GS-318-5

#1820-48

Area Services

Facility Management

GS-1601-9

1820-21

Museum Services Visitor Protection &

Resource Management

Curator (0.6 wy)

GS-1015-9

#1820-801

Administrative Officer

GS-341-9

#1820-05

Administrative Clerk

GS-303-6

#1820-20

Procurement Clerk

GS-1106-5

#1820-23

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-7

#1820-12

Park Ranger

GS-025-5

#1820-13A

Park Ranger

GS-025-5

#1820-13B

Park Ranger (0.5 wy)

GS-025-5

#1820-T38

Exhibit Specialist

GS-1010-7

#1820-P49

Museum Tech (0.9 wy)

GS-1016-5

#1820-T50A

July 8, 1987

July 8, 1987 – Interpretation and Maintenance

...

Interpretation Maintenance

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-11

#1820-02

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-9

#1820-03

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-7

#1820-46

Park Ranger

GS-025-5

#1820-52C

Park Ranger

GS-025-5

#1820-52B

Park Ranger

GS-025-5

#1820-52A

Maintenance Mechanic Forman

WS-4749-9

#1820-51

Carpenter

WG-4607-9

#1820-09

Roads & Grounds Leader

WL-4756-6

#1820-08

Laborer

WG-3502-3

#1820-10

Carpenter

WG-4607-9

#1820-11

Maintenance Worker

WG-4749-5

#1820-16

Painting Worker (0.8 wy)

WG-4102-7

#1820-S36

Park Ranger (4.9 wy)

GS-025-4

#1820-T36

Gardener (0.5 wy)

WG-5003-4

#1820-S50

Laborer (5.2 wy)

WG-3502-2

#1820-T37
388

Superintendent

GS-025-13

1820-1

Deputy Superintendent

GS-025-12

Secretary

GS-318-6

1820-48

Administration

...

Interpretation

...

Maintenance

...

Visitor Protection

and Resource

Management

...

Park Ranger

(Public Affairs Asst)

GS-25-5/7

Cultural Resources

...

June 28, 1991

Administrative

Officer

GS-341-11

1820-5

Clerk/Typist (0.5 FTE)

GS-322-4

ADP Specialist

GS-333-5

1820-

Personnel Assistant

GS-0202-7

1820-

Purchasing Agent

GS-1105-6

1820-

Budget Assistant

GS-561-5

1820-

June 28, 1991 - Administration
389

Chief of Interpretation

GS-025-11

1820-2

Clerk/Typist (0.5 FTE)

GS-322-4

School Programs

Coordinator

GS-025-7

1820-

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-9

1820-46

Exhibit Specialist

GS-1010-7

1820-49

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-7

1820-

North Bridge Visitor Center

The Wayside

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-7

1820-

Battle Road Visitor Center

Battle Road Sites

Park Ranger 

(Seasonal 0.5 FTE)

GS-025-5

Park Ranger 

(Seasonal 4.5 FTE)

GS-025-4

Park Ranger 

(Seasonal 0.5 FTE)

GS-025-5

Park Ranger 

(Seasonal 5.5 FTE)

GS-025-4

June 28, 1991 – Interpretation and Visitor Services

Maintenance Mechanic

Foreman

WS-4749-12

1820-51

Clerk/Typist (0.5 FTE)

GS-322-4

Buildings and Utilities

...

Roads, Trails, and Grounds

...

Maintenance Management

Technician

GS-303-5

1820-410

June 28, 1991 - Maintenance
390

Maintenance Mechanic

Foreman

WS-4749-9

1820-

Buildings Utilities

Motor Vehicle Operator

WG-5703-5

1820-417

Wood Crafter

WG-4605-10

1820-9 & 1820-64

Laborer

WG-3502-3

1820-10 & 1820-57

Carpenter Worker

(Seasonal 0.09 FTE)

WG-4102-7

1820-

Painter

WG-4102-9

1820-17

Painter Worker

(Seasonal 0.58 FTE)

WG-4102-7

1820-409

Maintenance Mechanic

WS-4749-9

1820-56

Maintenance Worker

WS-4749-5

1820-17

June 28, 1991 – Maintenance – Buildings and Utilities

Maintenance Mechanic Foreman

WS-4749-9

1820-

Roads and Trails Grounds

Auto Mechanic

WG-823-8

1820-68

Motor Vehicle Operator

(Seasonal 1.0 FTE)

WG-5703-5

Laborer

(Seasonal 0.3 FTE)

WG-3502-3

Laborer

(Seasonal 1.2 FTE)

WG-3502-3

Mason

WG-3603-8

1820-64

Gardener

WG-5003-6

1820-62

Motor Vehicle

Operator (0.75 FTE)

WG-5703-5

1820-402

Gardener Worker

(Seasonal 1.7 FTE)

WG-5003-4

Laborer

(Seasonal 0.5 FTE)

WG-3502-3

Tractor Operator

(Seasonal)

WG-5706-6

Work Leader

WL-4756-7

1820-

Motor Vehicle Operator

WG-5703-5

1820-416

Laborer

WG-3502-3

1820-58 & 1820-59 & 1820-

June 28, 1991 – Maintenance – Roads, Trails, and Grounds
391

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-11

1820-12

Clerk/Typist (0.5 FTE)

GS-322-4

Lead Park Ranger

GS-025-7

1820-13A

Lead Park Ranger

GS-025-7

1820-13B

Resource Management

Specialist

GS-401-7/9

Park Ranger

GS-025-5

1820-

Park Ranger (0.8 FTE)

GS-025-4

T1820-

June 28, 1991 – Visitor Protection and Resource Management

Museum Curator

GS-1015-11

1820-801

Clerk/Typist (0.5 FTE)

GS-322-4

1820-T45

Historian

GS-170-9/11

1820-3

Museum Technician

GS-1016-5/7

1820-54

Resource Management

Specialist

GS-401-7/9

June 28, 1991 – Cultural Resources
392

Superintendent

GS-025-14

1.0 FTE

Admin Officer

GS-341-12

1.0 FTE

Community Planner

GS-020-11/12

1.0 FTE

Secretary

GS-318-6

1.0 FTE

Asst. Superintendent

Supv. Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-13

1.0 FTE

Budget Analyst

GS-560-9

1.0 FTE

Purchasing Agent /

Contract Specialist

GS-7 or 7/9

Admin. Tech

GS-303-7

1.0 FTE

Clerk Typist

GS-303-4

0.5 FTE

Computer Specialist

GS-334-9/11

1.0 FTE

Chief of Interpretation

GS-025-12

1.0 FTE

Chief of Maintenance

GS-1640-12

1.0 FTE

Res. Mgmt & Visitor Prot

Supv. Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-12

1.0 FTE

April 8, 1998

Chief of Interpretation

GS-025-11/12

1.0 FTE

Supv. Park Ranger

GS-025-11

1.0 FTE

Museum Curator

GS-1015-11

1.0 FTE

Museum Tech

GS-1016-5

1.0 FTE

Park Ranger

(Education Coord)

GS-025-9

1.0 FTE

Park Ranger

GS-025-9

1.0 FTE

Park Ranger

GS-025-9

1.0 FTE

Park Ranger GS-025-4/5 (Seasonal)

Info Receptionist GS-303-3 (Seasonal)

Park Guide GS-090-5

5.19 FTE

April 8, 1998 – Interpretation
393

Chief of Maintenance

GS-1640-12

1.0 FTE

Maint Mech Supervisor

WS-4749-9

1.0 FTE

Maintenance Mech Tech

GS-303-6

1.0 FTE

Maint Mech Supervisor

WS-4749-9

1.0 FTE

Woodcrafter

WG-4605-10

1.0 FTE

Woodcrafter

WG-4605-10

1.0 FTE (Term)

Painter

WG-4102-9

1.0 FTE

Maintenance Wrkr

WG-4749-7

1.0 FTE

Automotive Worker

WG-5823-8

1.0 FTE

Gardener

WG-5003-8

1.0 FTE

Laborer

WG-3502-3

Seasonal 0.72 FTE

Motor Vehicle Oper

WG-5703-5

Seasonal 0.72 FTE

Maintenance Wrkr

WG-4749-5

Seasonal

Laborer

WG-3502-3

Seasonal

Buildings & 

Utilities

Roads, Trails, and Grounds

Laborer

WG-3502-3

Seasonal

Laborer

WG-3502-3

Seasonal 0.72 FTE

Maintenance Wrkr

WG-4749-5

Seasonal

Maintenance Wrkr

WG-5703-5

Seasonal

Laborer

WG-3502-3

Seasonal

April 8, 1998 – Maintenance

Supr. Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-12

1.0 FTE

Biologist

GS-401-11

1.0 FTE

Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-9

1.0 FTE

Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-9

1.0 FTE

Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-5

Seasonal

Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-5

Seasonal

Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-5

Seasonal

April 8, 1998 – Resource Management and Visitor Protection
394

Superintendent

GS-025-13

P0780

Admin Officer

GS-341-12

P0301

Management Analyst

GS-343-11

P3400

Public Affairs Spec

GS-1035011

P0105 Term

Secretary

GS-318-6

P1040

Asst. Superintendent

GS-025-12

P1040

Budget Analyst

GS-560-9

P3550

HR Specialist

GS-201 7/9

P3500

Purchasing Agent

GS-1105-8

P3300

Info Tech Specialist

GS-2210-11

P0143

Chief of Interp

GS-025-11/12

P0131A

Facility Manager

GS-1640-12

P0501

Supr Park Ranger (L.E.)

GS-025-11

P0127A

Biologist

GS-401-11

P0254

June 1, 2002

Chief of Interpretation

GS-025-11/12

Park Ranger

GS-025-9

P0126A

Park Ranger

GS-025-9

P0126B

Park Ranger

GS-025-9

P0126C

Museum Curator

GS-1015-11

P0206

Museum Tech

GS-1016-5

P0207

Seasonal Park Rangers

GS-025-4’s and 5’s

# of positions based on funding

June 1, 2002 – Interpretation
395

Facility Manager

GS-025-12

Maint Mech Supervisor

WS-4749-9

P0038

Admin Tech

GS-303-6

P3600

Woodcrafter

WG-4605-10

P0065A

Carpenter

WG-4607-9

P0910 (Term)

Painter

WG-4102-9

P0067

Maintenance Wrkr

WG-4749-7

P1400

Tree Worker

WG-5042-8

P0810

Auto Worker

WG-5823-8

P0139

Motor Vehicle Oper

WG-5703-5

P0511 Term STF

Seasonal Motor Vehicle Opers

WG-5703-5’s

# of positions based

on funding

Seasonal Carp Wrks WG-7

Laborers WG-3, MVO’s

WG-5,

# of positions based

on funding

Seasonal Maintenance Wrkrs

WG-4749-5

# of positions based

on funding

Buildings/Utilities Grounds

June 1, 2002 – Maintenance

Supr. Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-11

P0127

Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-9

P0125A

Park Ranger (LE)

GS-025-9

P0125

Seasonal Park Rangers (LE)

GS-025-5

T0400s

# of positions based on funding

Seasonal Park Rangers (LE)

GS-025-7

# of positions based on funding

June 1, 2002 – Resource Management

397

APPENDIX M 

FUNDED PROJECTS FY1997 TO FY2006 

Date: 08/08/2006

Park Unit: MIMA

Region: NE

Funded Year: 1997 - 2006

Total Funding Request Amount Returned By Your Search: $6,923,499.01

Total Number of Funded Components Returned By Your Search: 107

Component ID Component Title Funded FY Account Numbers Funding Request Funded Amount

103076A Conduct SAIP Archeological Overview and 

Assessment

2004 1820-0444-UCA $50,000.00 $50,000.00 

$50,000.00 

35823A Catalog Archeology 2001 1820-2114-UOC $43,000.00 $43,000.00 

74463A Catalog Archeology Backlog, Phase 1 2002 1820-0213-UOC $46,000.00 $39,600.00 

74463B Catalog Archeology Backlog, Phase 2 2003 1820-0304-UOC $53,000.00 $23,500.00 

$106,100.00 

12627A 002.0 STABILIZE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES 

ON INTERPRETIVE TRAIL

1999 4525-0199-uca $30,000.00 $30,000.00 

12628A Prepare Cultural Landscape Report for the 

Battle Road

2001 1820-2121-UCL $40,000.00 $40,000.00 

64158A Prepare Cultural Landscape Report for the 

Battle Road, Phase 2

2002 1820-0215-UCL $35,000.00 $35,000.00 

70663A Research and Write Park Administrative 

History

2004 1820-0411-UCH $60,000.00 $65,300.00 

72878A Historic Structure Report for the Elisha 

Jones House and Shed (Update)

2006 1820-0607-UCH $38,115.00 $35,000.00 

91906A Cultural Landscape Report, Volume 3 2003 1820-0315-UCL $35,000.00 $34,000.00 

100248A MIMA Historic Structure Survey for Future 

Treatment & Use (Phase I)

2004 1820-0412-UCS $25,000.00 $24,500.00 

100248B MIMA Historic Structure Survey for Future 

Treatment & Use (Phase II)

2005 1820-0505-UCS $20,000.00 $12,600.00 

$276,400.00 

90146A Delineate Wetlands, Evaluate Alternatives 

and Develop Restoration Plan

2004 1820-0420-SCH $43,050.00 $43,050.00 

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT $43,050.00 

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: CRPP - Cultural Resources Preservation Program Base

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Cooperative Conservation Initiative - Natural Resource Projects

FUNDING COMPONENTS FY 1997 - 2006

FUNDING SOURCE: CRPP - Archeological Resources Inventory (SAIP)

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Museum Collections Backlog Cataloging

Date: 08/08/2006

Park Unit: MIMA

Region: NE

Funded Year: 1997 - 2006

Total Funding Request Amount Returned By Your Search: $6,923,499.01

Total Number of Funded Components Returned By Your Search: 107

Component ID Component Title Funded FY Account Numbers Funding Request Funded Amount

11791A Rehabilitate Stone Walls : South of Route 2A 2003 1820-2231-CMZ FY 02 $120,432.73; fy 03 

$14280.00

$150,000.00 $284,712.73 

14663A PROVIDE CONSERVATION TREATMENT 

FOR MONUMENTS

1999 $12,070.00 $0.00 

14669A Preserve Historic Stone Walls: North of 

Route 2A

2005 1820-2527-CMS $305,000.00 $100,000.00 

63660A Replace Fire Boxes with Required Radio 

Controlled System

2004 1820-2431-CMY $30,000.00 $27,500.00 

106087A Repaint Job Brooks House 2006 1820-2625-CMC $30,000.00 $30,000.00 

$442,212.73 

40863A Close Out two Hazardous/Solid Waste 

Dump Site

1999 1820-1009-MHM $30,000.00 $35,000.00 

44556A Complete Closeout of Folly Pond 1999 $5,000.00 $10,000.00 

100615A Removal And Disposal Of Asbestos Transite 

Panels

2004 1820-1004-MHM $1,500.00 $1,500.00 

$46,500.00 

89216A Replace 1997 Ford Crown Victoria Patrol 

Vehicle

2004 4501-417 $22,000.00 $25,000.00 

94077A Replace 1996 LE 4X4 Jeep Cherokee (I169293)2006 1820-MIM1-417 $35,000.00 $35,000.00 

$60,000.00 

73664A Upgrade Phone System To Accomodate All 

Park Buildings And Staff

2003 4501-417 $65,000.00 $56,000.00 

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT $56,000.00 

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Equipment Replacement - Construction Equipment /Vehicles/Other Equipment

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Equipment Replacement - Telephones

FUNDING SOURCE: Cultural Cyclic Maintenance

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Environmental Management Program - Clean up of Contaminated Sites

FUNDING COMPONENTS FY 1997 - 2006
398

Date: 08/08/2006

Park Unit: MIMA

Region: NE

Funded Year: 1997 - 2006

Total Funding Request Amount Returned By Your Search: $6,923,499.01

Total Number of Funded Components Returned By Your Search: 107

Component ID Component Title Funded FY Account Numbers Funding Request Funded Amount

49958C Rehab and Upgrade Radio System to 

Narrowband Digital - WASO Share

2004 1820-NBRA-413 $89,562.00 $89,562.00 

$89,562.00 

99895A Emergency Storm Damage Repair 2003 1820-FY03-405 $19,500.00 $19,500.00 

114767B Remove falling trees 2005 1820-2004-515 $4,000.00 $4,051.00 

$23,551.00 

29548A Upgrade/Expand North Bridge Comfort 

Station, Connect to Town Sewer

1998 1820-2000-M2B $51,687.00 $166,000.00 

29548B Rehabilitation of the North Bridge Comfort 

Station

2004 $114,313.00 $114,313.00 

48007A Rehabilitate Critical Landscape 2001 1820-2000-M2G $10,075.00 $10,075.00 

49958A Rehabilitate and Upgrade Radio System to 

Narrowband Digit-Non WASO Share

2004 1820-NBRA-M2U $128,883.00 $128,883.00 

54680A Inventory Threatened Revolutionary War 

Sites in the Northeast Region

1999 1820-2001-C2H $20,000.00 $20,000.00 

81526A Restore Cultural Landscape Through Sheep 

Grazing

2006 1820-MIMAC2L $40,400.00 $40,400.00 

81526B Study to Manage Invasive Plants through 

Sheep Grazing

2006 1820-MIMA-N2P $41,100.00 $41,100.00 

89066A Historic Structure Report (HSR) for Jacob 

Whittemore House

2004 $33,000.00 $33,000.00 

89066B Rehabilitate Whittemore House 2004 $239,000.00 $239,000.00 

89066C Develop Interpretive Plan to utilize 

Whittemore House as Educational Center

2004 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 

89551A Preserve 18th century stone walls; 

Rehabilitate 18th century fields

2002 1820-2002-M2L $18,000.00 $18,000.00 

105884A Repair Minute Man Visitor Center HVAC 

System

1998 1820-9801-M2B $80,156.00 $80,156.00 

105884B Repair deficiences in HVAC system 2005 1820-9801-M2B $14,844.00 $14,844.00 

$910,771.00 

FUNDING COMPONENTS FY 1997 - 2006

FUNDING SOURCE: Equipment Replacement - Radios - Narrowband

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Emergency Storm and Flood Damage

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Recreational Fee Demonstration, 20%

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

Date: 08/08/2006

Park Unit: MIMA

Region: NE

Funded Year: 1997 - 2006

Total Funding Request Amount Returned By Your Search: $6,923,499.01

Total Number of Funded Components Returned By Your Search: 107

Component ID Component Title Funded FY Account Numbers Funding Request Funded Amount

29860A Fee Interpretation 1998 1820-0303-V8Z $68,000.00 $68,000.00 

53849A FY 2000 - Cost of Collection 2000 1820-2000-V8F $15,980.52 $15,980.00 

53869A FY 2001 Cost of Collection - Operations 2001 1820-2001-V8F $8,370.00 $8,370.00 

66420A Fee Interpretation 2001 1820-0202-V8Z $13,290.00 $13,290.00 

77787A FY2002 Cost of Collection - Operations 2002 1820-0202-V8F $8,370.00 $8,370.00 

88137A FY2003 Cost of Collection - Operations 2003 1820-0301-V8F $8,370.00 $8,370.00 

96455A FY2004 Cost of Collection - Operations 2004 1820-0401-V8F $9,570.00 $9,570.00 

96456A FY2005 Cost Recovery - Expand Interpretive 

Programs at The Wayside

2005 1820-0303-I8F $9,360.00 $9,360.00 

96456B FY2006 Cost Recovery - Expand Interpretive 

Programs at the Wayside

2006 1820-0303-I8F $9,612.00 $9,612.00 

$150,922.00 

87345A Conduct GMP Alternative Transportation 

Study at Minute Man NHP

2004 1820-P002-579 $173,353.13 $125,000.00 

89883A Corridor Management Plan 2004 1820-P003-579 $210,600.00 $175,000.00 

$300,000.00 

44551A SPCC Plan - Minute Man 1999 1820-4009-mhm $15,000.00 $5,000.00 

90733A Provide adequate secondary containment for 

fuel storage tanks in 3 park buildings

2003 1820-4003-MHM $4,472.50 $4,472.00 

$9,472.00 

29906A Save Historic Resources And Provide Safe 

Access To The North Bridge

2004 1820-7100-473,1820-7100-477 $1,037,411.16 $1,348,000.00 

37023A Rehabilitate Unsafe Historic ResidencesLandscape Phase2001 $803,001.70 $1,619,000.00 

$2,967,000.00 

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Line Item Construction

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: FLHP Category III - Alternative Transportation Program

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Environmental Management Program - Fuel Storage Management

FUNDING SOURCE: Recreational Fee Demonstration, 80%

FUNDING COMPONENTS FY 1997 - 2006
399

Date: 08/08/2006

Park Unit: MIMA

Region: NE

Funded Year: 1997 - 2006

Total Funding Request Amount Returned By Your Search: $6,923,499.01

Total Number of Funded Components Returned By Your Search: 107

Component ID Component Title Funded FY Account Numbers Funding Request Funded Amount

20907A Design/Install Fire Suppression at Job 

Brooks

1999 4525-0099-coc $35,000.00 $35,000.00 

38254A Purchase Museum Collection Storage 

Equipment

1998 4525-0118-COC $20,000.00 $27,000.00 

38256A 001.0 INSTALL FIRE 

SUPPRESSION/DETECTION SYSTEMS IN 

WAYSIDE

2000 4525-0178-COC $50,000.00 $86,000.00 

64137A Design Fire Suppression System for Squash 

Court

2002 1820-0219-COC $9,000.00 $9,000.00 

64137B Install Fire Suppression System in Squash 

Court Museum Collection Storage Facility

2003 1820-0301-COC $70,000.00 $81,000.00 

64784A Purchase Dataloggers to Monitor the 

Collection

2001 1820-2122-COC $10,000.00 $10,000.00 

90920A Update Collection Managment Plan 2003 1820-0330-COC $25,000.00 $9,600.00 

93854A Purchase Cabinets and Shelving Units for 

Museum Collection

2004 1820-0426-COC $15,053.00 $13,600.00 

101221A Upgrade Wayside Electrical System to 

Support Air Conditioning/Dehumidifying 

Equipment

2004 1820-0408-COC $8,000.00 $14,500.00 

110671A Purchase Data Loggers to Monitor 

Conditions in Museum Collection Storage 

Facilities

2005 1820-0529-COC $1,800.00 $1,800.00 

110837A Purchase Additional Museum Collection 

Storage Cabinets and Shelving Units

2005 1820-0526-COC $7,300.00 $7,300.00 

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT $294,800.00 

FUNDING SOURCE: Museum Collections Preservation and Protection

FUNDING COMPONENTS FY 1997 - 2006

Date: 08/08/2006

Park Unit: MIMA

Region: NE

Funded Year: 1997 - 2006

Total Funding Request Amount Returned By Your Search: $6,923,499.01

Total Number of Funded Components Returned By Your Search: 107

Component ID Component Title Funded FY Account Numbers Funding Request Funded Amount

66434A Reupholster Theater Chairs & Replace 

Theatre Carpet at Minute Man Visitor Center

2001 1820-CXZ $18,425.00 $18,425.00 

94131A Replace 1993 LE 4X4 Jeep Cherokee (I162093)

2003 $35,000.00 $30,000.00 

$48,425.00 

89170A Purchase Folding Chairs for Public Special 

Events

2003 1820-2003-I7Z $2,400.00 $2,400.00 

89180A National Park Pass 70% FY03 - Repair 

Auditorium Sound for Public Programs

2003 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 

105548A Support Living History Public Programs -- 

Clothing and Equipment

2005 1820-2005-I7F $4,000.00 $4,000.00 

$9,400.00 

20695A Park Wide Core/Key/Lock Replacement 2004 1820-2423-MCB $15,000.00 $15,000.00 

109247A Emergency Hazard Tree Removal 2004 1820-2456-MAG $3,700.00 $3,700.00 

109542C Contract to inspect and correct groundwater 

drainage problems.

2004 1820-2459-MCB $6,000.00 $6,000.00 

109726A Emergency Boiler Replacement at Hartwell 

Tavern

2005 1820-2468-MCU $10,000.00 $10,000.00 

$34,700.00 

FUNDING COMPONENTS FY 1997 - 2006

FUNDING SOURCE: ONPS - Operations of the National Park System

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: National Parks Pass, 70%

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Regular Cyclic Maintenance

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT
400

Date: 08/08/2006

Park Unit: MIMA

Region: NE

Funded Year: 1997 - 2006

Total Funding Request Amount Returned By Your Search: $6,923,499.01

Total Number of Funded Components Returned By Your Search: 107

Component ID Component Title Funded FY Account Numbers Funding Request Funded Amount

11789A Rehabilitate the Wayside House Cultural 

Landscape

2003 1820-2317-MAL $37,000.00 $37,000.00 

11789B Component Created by Splitting component 

11789A: Rehabilitate the Wayside House 

Cultural Landscape

2005 1820-2512-MRL $30,000.00 $30,000.00 

11789C Component Created by Splitting component 

11789B: Component Created by Splitting 

component 11789A: Re

2006 1820-2520-MAL $88,000.00 $88,000.00 

11790A Replace Failed Cesspool At CRC And 

Maintenance Barn

2000 1820-2030-MRS $64,064.00 $0.00 

13633A Replace North Bridge Visitor Center Septic 

System

2000 1820-0469-MRS $147,840.00 $0.00 

13634A Rehabilitate John Buttrick House 2005 1820-2544-MRB $191,300.00 $191,300.00 

13634B planning & design 2004 1820-2438-MAB $30,400.00 $12,400.00 

13634D Rehabilitate John Buttrick House 2006 1820-2544-MAB $10,000.00 $19,000.00 

13641A Repair & Rehabilitate the Olive Stow House 2002 1820-2254-MAB $94,716.00 $92,100.00 

13641B Emergent Repairs 2004 1820-A254-MAB $294,594.00 $231,000.00 

13641C Restore Olive Stowe House exterior 2006 1820-2254-MAB $45,000.00 $45,000.00 

46339A Replace Northbridge Visitor Center Septic 

System

2000 $70,000.00 $0.00 

46372A Rehab The Daniel Taylor House 2002 1820-2237-MAB $225,000.00 $280,000.00 

46372B Additional structural repairs 2004 1820-2237-MAB $40,000.00 $36,281.00 

62021A Rehabilitate the Farwell Jones Barn 2005 1820-2518-MRB $175,000.00 $194,000.00 

62021B Rehabilitate Farwell Jones Barn - Historic 

Structure Report for House and Barn

2004 1820-2323-MAB $43,000.00 $84,016.00 

62021C Rehabilitate Farwell Jones (Carty) Barn 2006 1820-2518-MAB $10,000.00 $15,000.00 

62021D Additional Structural Repairs 2006 1820-2646-MAB $52,024.00 $52,021.00 

77903A Replace Failing Sewer System - John 

Nelson House

2002 1820-2261-mau $56,000.00 $56,000.00 

FUNDING SOURCE: Repair / Rehabilitation

FUNDING COMPONENTS FY 1997 - 2006

Date: 08/08/2006

Park Unit: MIMA

Region: NE

Funded Year: 1997 - 2006

Total Funding Request Amount Returned By Your Search: $6,923,499.01

Total Number of Funded Components Returned By Your Search: 107

Component ID Component Title Funded FY Account Numbers Funding Request Funded Amount

89941A Treat and stabilize large oak tree in high 

visitor use area

2002 1820-2269-MAG $4,400.00 $5,000.00 

99779A Emergency Ceiling Repair 2003 1820-2261-mau $12,607.00 $10,000.00 

117765A Whittemore House: Rehabilitate Lean-to, 

Design

2005 1820-2584-MRB $12,000.00 $12,000.00 

117765B Construction 2005 1820-2584-MRB $137,000.00 $161,000.00 

117765D Complete Archeological Investigations 2006 1820-2634-MAG $60,000.00 $60,000.00 

$1,711,118.00 

13635A STABILIZE ELISHA JONES HOMESTEAD 2001 1820-2152-UCS 1820-2061-UCS $21,000.00 $67,000.00 

$67,000.00 

72423A Volunteer In Parks - VIP - 2002 2002 1820-4600-SVC $6,000.00 $5,000.00 

84155A Support Volunteer In Parks Program 2003 1820-4600-SVC $6,500.00 $4,775.00 

84155B Support Volunteer In Parks Program 2004 1820-4600-SVC $6,900.00 $5,518.00 

110042A Volunteer In Parks - VIP - 2005 2005 1820-5600-SVC $7,250.00 $5,040.00 

114153A Volunteer In Parks - VIP - 2006 2006 1820-6600-SVC $7,350.00 $4,230.00 

$24,563.00 

89740A YCC 2002 1820-0206-MTN $24,060.00 $24,060.00 

98234A YCC 03 Project Ground Force invasive plant 

survey and identification & stone wall 

restoration

2003 1820-0306-MTN $57,800.00 $50,000.00 

$74,060.00 

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Youth Conservation Corps

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: CRPP - Historic Structures Stabilization

SUB TOTAL FUNDED AMOUNT

FUNDING SOURCE: Volunteers in Parks

FUNDING COMPONENTS FY 1997 - 2006
401

BIBLIOGRAPHY

PRIMARY SOURCES

National Park Service (NPS) Repositories 

Minute Man National Historical Park (MIMA) 

MIMA Current Park Administrative Records are working files centrally located in a 

filing room. These records contain memoranda, correspondence, reports, planning 

documents, and news clippings. 

MIMA Lands Files, kept locked near the Resource Management Offices, contain 

individual files for each property acquired. Files are arranged alphabetically and include 

correspondence, records of land transfer. 

MIMA Lou Sideris Files contain news clippings, press releases, and materials relating 

to interpretation dating from the 1990s-2000s. 

MIMA Maintenance Records contain planning reports, studies, and memoranda 

related to the activities of this division. 

MIMA Park Administrative Files are a vast collection of inactive records, kept in 

boxes, which detail the history of the park. These files include reports, planning documents, 

correspondence, memoranda, and news clippings. These files are currently being organized 

and readied for transfer to the Federal Records Center in Waltham, MA. 

MIMA Reports Files, in the Park Library, contain the most comprehensive collection 

of historical, architectural, and archeological reports relating to the park. Reports are 

arranged alphabetically by subject matter. 

NPS Offices, National Register, History and Education, Washington, DC 

Advisory Board Files include the minutes of meetings of the Advisory Board on National 

Parks, Historic Sites, Buildings and Monuments. 

Planning Office Files contain correspondence and reports related to management 

planning. 

History Division Collection includes park-specific memoranda and reports relating 

to the operation of the site. 
402

NPS History Collection, Harpers Ferry Center, Harpers Ferry, West Virginia (HFC) 

MIMA File contains memoranda and planning documents. 

Record Group (RG) 18, Bicentennial Celebration, is organized by park and contains 

planning documents, memoranda, reports, minutes of meetings, and examples of 

promotional materials related to the NPS Bicentennial celebration. The collection also 

includes the manuscript and published versions of Merrill Mattes’s summary report of the 

project. 

NPS Historic Photograph Collection, Charles Town, West Virginia 

This extensive collection of photographs provides some images of the historic structures in 

the park. There are also park-specific files with memoranda and reports related to exhibits 

and interpretation. 

NPS Technical Information Center, Denver 

Reports, memoranda, and planning files are found both in hard copy and on microfiche 

relating to construction projects, such as the Battle Road Trail’s Historic Structures and 

Cultural Landscape work. 

Non-National Park Service Repositories 

Federal Records Center (FRC), Waltham, Massachusetts 

RG 79, NPS, includes trip reports, memoranda, and planning documents related to the early 

operation of the park. This repository also has the full-sized 1966 Master Plan and maps. 

National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), Waltham, MA 

RG 79, Boston National Historic Sites Commission Files contain minutes from each meeting 

of the commission, plus memoranda, correspondence, and its official reports. 

RG 79, MIMA Subject Files contain the early records of the park, including 

memoranda, correspondence, and planning documents. 

Cary Memorial Library, Lexington, MA 

Reference Collection contains town annual reports and a few MIMA reports. 

Concord Free Public Library, Concord, MA 

Special Collections contains minutes of meetings of the Board of Selectmen, Town Annual 

Reports, official town reports on the anniversary celebrations, memoranda and 

correspondence about anniversary celebrations, and a few MIMA reports. 

Lincoln Public Library, Lincoln, MA 

Lincoln Room contains the town annual reports. 
403

SECONDARY SOURCES

Birnbaum, Charles and Robin Karson. Pioneers of American Landscape Design. New 

York: McGraw-Hill, 2000. 

Bodnar, John. Remaking America: Public Memory, Commemoration, and Patriotism 

in the Twentieth Century. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1992. 

Chase-Harrell, Pauline, Carol Ely, and Stanley Moss. Administrative History of the 

Salem Maritime National Historic Site. Boston: NPS North Atlantic Regional Office, 1993. 

Dietrich-Smith, Deborah. Cultural Landscape Report: Battle Road Unit, Minute Man 

National Historical Park. Waltham, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 2006. 

 -----. Cultural Landscape Report: North Bridge Unit, Minute Man National Historical 

Park. Waltham, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 2006. 

-----. Cultural Landscape Report: The Wayside Unit, Minute Man National Historical 

Park. Waltham, MA: Olmsted Center for Landscape Preservation, 2004. Draft. 

Ferling, John. A Leap in the Dark: The Struggle to Create the American Republic. New 

York: Oxford University Press, 2003. 

Fischer, David Hackett. Liberty and Freedom. New York: Oxford University Press, 

2005. 

-----. Paul Revere’s Ride. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. 

French, Allen. The Day of Concord and Lexington: The Nineteenth of April, 1775. Rpt. 

Eastern National Park and Monument Association, 1984. 

Garrelick, Renee. Concord in the Days of Strawberries and Streetcars. Concord, MA: 

The Town of Concord, 1985. 

Hosmer, Charles B., Jr. Preservation Comes of Age: From Williamsburg to the National 

Trust, 1926-1949. 2 vols. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1981. 

Hughes, Thomas P. Rescuing Prometheus. New York: Pantheon Books, 1998. 

Kammen, Michael. A Season of Youth: The American Revolution and the Historical 

Imagination. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978. 

Kars, Marjoleine. Breaking Loose Together: The Regulator Rebellion in PreRevolutionary North Carolina. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2002. 

Lilenthal, Edward Tabor. Sacred Ground: Americans and Their Battlefields. Urbana: 

University of Illinois Press, 1991. 

Lister, Jeremy. Concord Fight: Being so Much of the narrative of Ensign Jeremy Lister. 

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1931. 

Lynes, Russell. The Art-Makers: An Informal History of Painting, Sculpture, and 

Architecture in Nineteenth-Century America. New York: Dover Publications, 1970. 

Mackintosh, Barry. Interpretation in the National Park Service. Washington, DC: 

NPS, 1986. 

-----. The National Parks: Shaping the System. Rev. ed. Washington, DC: NPS 

Division of Publications, 2005. 
404

MacLean, John C. A Rich Harvest: The History, Buildings, and People of Lincoln, 

Massachusetts. Lincoln, MA: Lincoln Historical Society, 1987. 

Mattes, Merrill J. Landmarks of Liberty: A Report on the American Revolution 

Bicentennial Development Program of the National Park Service. Washington, DC: NPS, 

1989. 

Murtagh, William J. Keeping Time: The History and Theory of Preservation in 

America. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1997. 

Nash, Gary B. The Unknown American Revolution: The Unruly Birth of Democracy 

and the Struggle to Create America. New York: Viking, 2005. 

Page, William Gilman. “Interior Decoration of School Houses,” Proceedings, 66th

Annual Meeting of the American Institute of Instruction. Bethlehem, NH: 1896. 

People’s Bicentennial Commission. Voices of the American Revolution. New York: 

Bantam Books, 1975. 

Purcell, Sarah J. Sealed with Blood: War, Sacrifice, and Memory in Revolutionary 

America. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002. 

Raphael, Ray. The First American Revolution: Before Lexington and Concord. New 

York: New Press, 2003. 

-----. Founding Myths: Stories that Hide Our Patriotic Past. New York: New Press, 

2004. 

Richman, Michael. Daniel Chester French: An American Sculptor. New York: The 

Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1976. Rpt. Washington, DC: Preservation Press, 1983. 

Robbins, Roland Wells. The Story of the Minute Man. New London, NH: The 

Country Press, Inc., 1945. 

Scudder, Townsend. Concord: American Town. Boston: Little, Brown and 

Company, 1947. 

Sears, John. Sacred Places: American Tourist Attractions in the Nineteenth Century. 

New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. 

Sellars, Richard West. Preserving Nature in the National Parks: A History. New 

Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997. 

Shattuck, Lemuel. A History of the Town of Concord. Boston: Russell, Odiorne, and 

Company, 1835. 

Shurcliff, Arthur Asahel. New England Journal. Boston: Houghton Mifflin 

Company, 1931. 

Sohi, Seema. “The People’s Bicentennial Commission and the Construction of Public 

Memory,” The UVM [University of Vermont] History Review, 10 (December 1999): 1-10. 

Stanton, Cathy. The Lowell Experiment: Public History in a Postindustrial City. 

Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006. 

Stein, Roger B. “Gilded Age Pilgrims,” in William H. Truettner and Roger B. Stein, 

eds. Picturing Old New England: Image and Memory. New Haven, CT: Yale University 

Press, 1999. 
405

Wheeler, Ruth R. Concord: Climate for Freedom. Concord, MA: Concord 

Antiquarian Society, 1967. 

-----. Our American Mile: Concord’s Battle Road. Concord, MA: Concord 

Antiquarian Society, 1957. 

Young, Alfred P. The Shoemaker and the Tea Party: Memory and the American 

Revolution. Boston: Beacon Press, 1999. 

LIST OF INTERVIEWEES AND DATES

Interviews done by the author. 

Tapes and transcripts are kept in the MIMA Archives. 

Chet Atkins 28 June 2005 

Stedman Buttrick 23 November 2005 

Orville W. Carroll 22 October 2004 

Dan Dattilio 23 November 2005 

John Finigan 20 January 2005 

Warren Flint, Jr. 28 April 2005 

Larry Gall 21 January 2005 

Margie Hicks 21 January 2005 

Cynthia Kryston 27 January 2005 

Betty Levin 26 April 2005 

David Moffitt 23 April 2005 

Robert Nash 17 May 2005 

Nancy Nelson 26 January 2005 

David St. Louis 14 November 2006 

Larry Smith 1 December 2005 

John Tauscher 5 December 2006 

 Benjamin Zerbey 13 April 2005